US Education

[ydoaPs]

What's wrong with it? How can we make it better?

 

[acr=In My Opinion]IMO[/acr], it needs some radical overhaul. We aren't teaching the kids the right things and we aren't teaching them effectively. We're teaching them general "facts"(some of which, like in the History department, are untrue) when we should be teaching them how to think and how to effectively communicate that thought.

 

I remember sitting through my math classes and physics classes bored stiff. Is the subject matter inherently boring? No. I think it is the way that the subjects are taught. Take physics, for example, we were spoon fed equations for specific problems. We memorized dozens of equations per subject rather than just 2 or 3. Each situation required its own equation when we could have just been taught the general equations(and how they were derived) AND problem solving skills! The "dumb" kids were so used to being spoonfed the equations and memorizing specific scenarios, that they were completely unprepared for novel situations. IMO, there should be a few different examples during the lecture, and the homework should be where the novel situations are introduced, not the exams.

 

The same with calculus, it was stretched out WAY too much. We had separate lectures on how to find the area under a curve and how to find the area between two curves. That is a logical leap that should be able to be made during homework.

 

We need to be teaching critical thinking, problem solving, and rhetoric, imo.

 

It's become too much about test grades and not enough about preparing children for the real world. Often times the whine of "when are we ever going to use this" is now deserved.

 

/rant

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Me, a year and a half ago:

I may not be able to see into their minds, but the problem I see is this: rather than learning the concepts and forming a mental model of how something works, students are learning (and are being taught) how to do certain problems. If a problem is outside the scope of what they’ve been taught, it’s considered impossible — even when it actually could be solved with their current knowledge. When a teacher tries to make students think outside the box, she’s accused of testing students on “stuff she never taught us.”

 

I'm now taking my very first college math class (vector calculus) and learning just how tricky it can end up being when novel concepts are launched at you in homework. However, that problem would be readily minimized if our professor were more capable of explaining mathematics... novel concepts in homework do not work well if the regular concepts aren't explained well in the lecture.

 

But anyway.

 

Trying to force students to think critically is hugely important. For example, I'm currently enrolled in US History, where I am asked to read passages out of various primary sources every week for class. I read the documents and go to class on Thursdays armed with whatever knowledge I gleaned from the readings.

 

Then the professor grabs a wireless microphone and poses a discussion question about the readings. It's a big lecture hall, so he has to run around to anyone who raises their hand frantically, but when it's over, I end up knowing far more about the reading than when I started. It's not that I'm incapable of reading and remembering facts, it's that when responding to other people's thoughts about a text I'm forced to think about what it actually means. Suddenly I have a whole new level of understanding of the readings.

 

I'd love to see what studies have been done on discussion-based learning and other ways of better understanding subjects. For example, in my introductory physics course our professor uses the "iClicker" system, which allows him to present a multiple-choice question to the class, let students answer on their little remote controls, and then see just how many students chose each answer choice. It's a live way of knowing how well students understand a subject, and I think it works well.

 

I should look through and see if there's any good research on the field. We all know how something that seems to make perfect sense ("this should help students learn far better!") can end up screwing up horribly. Perhaps the research could shed some light on this...

[ydoaPs]

I'd love to see what studies have been done on discussion-based learning and other ways of better understanding subjects. For example, in my introductory physics course our professor uses the "iClicker" system, which allows him to present a multiple-choice question to the class, let students answer on their little remote controls, and then see just how many students chose each answer choice. It's a live way of knowing how well students understand a subject, and I think it works well.

 

That's a great idea, imo.

 

 

I recently read Thank You For Arguing and I think he might be right about teaching rhetoric leading to politics(and society in general) being more civil eventually.

[CharonY]

What, btw. are the required qualifications before one is allowed to teach in highschool? I have one or two things to say regarding uni education sometime later, too.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Usually a degree in education with additional "certification" exams for various subjects. I think some states may require science and math teachers to have bachelor's degrees in science or math as well. (Texas, for example, does not have education degrees at its public universities, but instead wants any other major and certification exams.)

[ydoaPs]

I'm surprised this isn't a MAJOR political issue in the elections. FFS, less than half of Americans "believe in"(I hate that phrasing, btw, as it implies faith) evolutionary theory.

 

/drunken rant

[Dudde]

I think we need to find a way to get the quality of teachers up a bit too. My teachers growing up were fabulous, they're the entire reason I love learning and teaching. I have a brother however, who's known for being late and absent from school - completely known to his family and with reason - who they pretty much gave up on. I see the way they treat a lot of their kids in the classroom vastly different from others, it kinda makes me want to challenge them to a duel... but that's illegal or some absurdity.

 

Of course you're going to have examples of this in the school system, but I've seen the same thing in 4 cities in three states. It concerns me for the students, no wonder some kids hate going to school.

[iNow]

...in my introductory physics course our professor uses the "iClicker" system, which allows him to present a multiple-choice question to the class, let students answer on their little remote controls, and then see just how many students chose each answer choice. It's a live way of knowing how well students understand a subject, and I think it works well.

That's a great idea, imo.

 

Just as an FYI, the more general term for this is an "Audience Response System." We use them often in our training events at my work. It is very engaging, makes sure people are paying attention, and further allows the instructor to better identify which topics aren't sinking in or getting across to students, and hence spend more time exploring those topics to ensure clarity.

 

 

As per the OP, I don't think that all of the blame can successfully be laid at the feet of the Education system itself. A pretty HUGE problem is how many children are brought up being taught that their own beliefs or faith is superior to facts, evidence, and reality. In short, many childrens minds are poisoned, and sometimes the "medicine" of schooling and education simply isn't enough to cure it.

[dr.syntax]

I'm surprised this isn't a MAJOR political issue in the elections. FFS, less than half of Americans "believe in"(I hate that phrasing, btw, as it implies faith) evolutionary theory.

 

/drunken rant

 

So that means 61% of Americans embrace prepostorous notions of one type or another of how life came to be what it is today in favor of the so very well substantiated facts regarding evolution. And from what else I read in that thread the trend both here and Worldwide is toward religiousity. I find all this not only disturbing but dangerous. The believers are gaining in political strength and becoming more violent in thier insistance that others believe as they do. The current wars the US and it`s allies are engaged in are based on religeous beliefs. There was no talk of CREATIONISM in school when I attended back in the 1950s and 1960s. It was not an issue. Now it`s a big issue and required to be taught in various states. The atheists,agnostics,etc.,amongst us had best start standing up for what we believe in. ...Dr.Syntax

[CharonY]

Usually a degree in education with additional "certification" exams for various subjects. I think some states may require science and math teachers to have bachelor's degrees in science or math as well.

 

OK, so in summary different states have different prerequisites and even in the "hardest" case it does not go above a bachelor's degree? That is... surprising.

(Unless I misunderstood something).

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's what I understand it as. Our high school had one teacher with a PhD and a few with master's degrees. You just need the certifications.

[Mr Skeptic]

FFS, less than half of Americans "believe in"(I hate that phrasing, btw, as it implies faith) evolutionary theory.

 

I think it is largely because they were not given good enough reason to believe it. The same actually applies to various other important things in science like the laws of physics, but they are more likely to accept these because they don't have their own theory.

[Severian]

If you increased the amount that teachers and professors were paid by a factor of 4, you would not see too much cost to society, but the gain to society (in the quality of its educators) would be huge.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Is there an acceptable way of getting rid of the teachers and professors that don't deserve such a pay increase to make way for those who do?

 

I see part of the problem as being rabid teaching unions that don't let schools fire incompetent teachers.

[Severian]

Is there an acceptable way of getting rid of the teachers and professors that don't deserve such a pay increase to make way for those who do?

 

Why not just fire them? It works for other jobs.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The unions make that almost impossible.

[Severian]

Then get rid of them, or legislate this power away from them. Incompetent people (especially teachers) should always be fired.

[The Bear's Key]

Is there an acceptable way of getting rid of the teachers and professors that don't deserve such a pay increase to make way for those who do?

 

I see part of the problem as being rabid teaching unions that don't let schools fire incompetent teachers.

 

Why not just fire them? It works for other jobs.

 

The unions make that almost impossible.

 

Then get rid of them, or legislate this power away from them. Incompetent people (especially teachers) should always be fired.

No.

 

The propaganda about teachers' unions might just come from the same politicians who claim death squads about the healthcare bill or that for government to keep an eye on industry wrongdoings is bad.

 

So I offer here my fashioned rule of thumb, as it's done wonders for getting to the root of whatever a politician or their media feeds us: simply view every political claim as highly suspect of being an outright lie,* or a context switcherooo* of reality with the benefits of drawing your misled anger upon their opposition.

*(but not automatically: reasearch it! -- keeping wary of the source)

 

And so...the extent of the "rabid teaching unions" might be as dramatized as Iraq's WMD and connection to 9/11.

 

Be informed not by trickery, but reality.

 

If you can't find material, go to the source: ask teachers (of reputable knoweldge/character), faculty staff, anyone who's not obviously biased. Maybe even look at the union rules themselves or ask for a copy of the job termination procedures from the local school board. All depends on what level of informed you need to be.

 

This PSA is now over

 

With the above in mind, use the below to start off and do more research. And a *kudos* prize if along the way you find us any reason why certain politicians need you to attack both public schools and teacher unions.

 

 

http://school-staff-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/teacher_tenure

Wherever teacher tenure protects a bad teacher, an incompetent administrator won't be far away.

.....

Sometimes, in fact, it may be very difficult to get rid of a bad teacher, but

there is nothing in the law that protects bad teaching

. In every state that gives its teachers the protection of tenure, teachers may be fired for incompetence.

........

Tenure prevents school districts from replacing well paid, experienced teachers with lower salaried beginning teachers. Tenured teachers dare to criticize ill-considered school policies...

........

Some shameless sycophants persuade building administrators to ignore their numerous faults.

 

Worst of all,

some building administrators may be incapable of telling good teaching from bad

. Some were inadequate teachers who went into administration to escape the classroom. Some never taught at all. They favor teachers who never question their authority, even when they are dead wrong.

........

Once teachers earn tenure, they only can be fired for

cause

. Administration must have a

valid reason

to fire a tenured teacher, and the tenure board or arbitrator hearing the case will expect to see evidence of poor performance. Teachers are observed and evaluated on a regular basis, so a bad teacher's personnel file ought to contain poor observation reports, letters of reprimand, and suggestions for improvement. If no such evidence is present – or if nearly all the negatives were added to the file shortly before the effort to fire the teacher began – the teacher can argue that his or her overall performance was satisfactory.

 

In brief, if the district cannot fire a bad teacher, it should also be working to fire the incompetent administrator who failed to document the teacher's poor performance.

 

How often does Tenure Protect Bad Teachers?

 

Only rarely are bad teachers protected. When inadequate teachers are shown the evidence that will be used against them at a tenure hearing, most voluntarily resign....

 

Read more:

http://school-staff-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/teacher_tenure

#ixzz0RWyB1bSM

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I have talked to teachers about the process. Generally I've been told that it's often easier to just reassign a teacher to something like "you are now in charge of instructing teachers on proper copy-machine usage" than to actually fire them. (That was an actual example given by an actual teacher.)

 

This past school year I had a teacher who turned out to be utterly incompetent to teach the subject he was assigned, and was taken off teaching all classes altogether -- they swapped in a teacher from another school in the district and pulled another teacher off of administrative duty to fill his role. But he was not fired... he stayed around doing meaningless tasks (I saw him in the teacher's lounge a lot) and was eventually told to help teach the kids who were in danger of failing the state's standardized test. (That job consisted of him showing multiple-choice questions and then explaining the correct answer.)

[The Bear's Key]

I have talked to teachers about the process.

At different schools? Because it might be the administrator (who'd need firing before anything happens).

 

If so, I wonder how difficult they are to fire? I plan to do some investigating around here as well.

 

But he was not fired... he stayed around doing meaningless tasks (I saw him in the teacher's lounge a lot) and was eventually told to help teach the kids who were in danger of failing the state's standardized test. (That job consisted of him showing multiple-choice questions and then explaining the correct answer.)

That sucks. Handled really poorly. The kind of system that definitely needs change, if the administrator's truly the main source of the problem. Guess we'll see.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think part of the issue, at least in my school district, was that teachers are on contracts. I don't know how flexible those contracts are to allow for dismissal partway through the year.

 

The teacher who provided the copy-machine story has taught at several different school districts, but of course I don't know how representative the comment was of each of them.

[A Tripolation]

The unions actually really do make it INCREDIBLY difficult to fire bad teachers. I can't imagine how much more I would know if all of my teachers had been as excellent as my really great ones. And the bad thing is, teachers here didn't teach us the material, instead, they prepared us for the standardized tests at teh end of the year. I can't tell you how many times I was taught the "proper" way to write out essays instead of learning about the content that would be the topic of the essays.

 

It's sad really...as standardized testing is one of the only means to gauge how effective a teacher is. But then, the test itself changes the teaching environment, so how could it help?? Such a complicated issue that is mired in Beauracracy.

[The Bear's Key]

The unions actually really do make it INCREDIBLY difficult to fire bad teachers.

What've you done to establish it's the unions' fault -- especially across the board?

 

Is the following inaccurate?

Only rarely are bad teachers protected. When inadequate teachers are shown the evidence that will be used against them at a tenure hearing, most voluntarily resign – often encouraged by union leaders who can see that the district's case is strong. Nevertheless,

unions are required by law to defend teachers who choose to fight dismissal

.

(bolded emphasis mine)

[JohnB]

TBK, that could be part of the problem. Even if the union is well aware the person is an idiot and incompetent, they are required to defend if the person chooses to fight. I'll bet there are many union officials who dearly wish that they could tell the person to go away.

 

Bearing in mind that such action can and will be used as ammunition in intraunion factional fights. "He let the ABC board dismiss 3 teachers without a fight! Vote for me and I'll defend your rights!"

 

Is it not also fair to ask how an incompetent teacher occurs in the first place? During their 3-4 years of training, did nobody notice that the teacher was incompetent? How did they get a pass from their teachers?

[The Bear's Key]

Unions, like any widespread institution, need sufficient oversight by us. But that's a real problem we can tackle....and especially because we can see it.

 

Is it not also fair to ask how an incompetent teacher occurs in the first place? During their 3-4 years of training, did nobody notice that the teacher was incompetent? How did they get a pass from their teachers?

According to the suite101 link those problems once more all seem traceable to the administrators of schools. (Now granted, it could be that page has it entirely wrong)

 

 

When new teachers are hired, they remain on probation for two to five years. Probationary teachers may be dismissed for any reason at all. Districts that demand only superior teachers can dismiss any who are merely satisfactory. Untenured teachers have no legal protection.

........

In brief, if the district cannot fire a bad teacher, it should also be working to fire the incompetent administrator who failed to document the teacher's poor performance.

 

 

Of course there's more to the problem which could ultimately make its source political (as usual). Thus it's fairly realistical to ask ourselves: when enough in government openly detest the idea of any kind of public system, how many in government power will consequently turn a blind eye to what the schools actually need? How many will (on purpose) indirectly sabotage it to ensure that private options look the more better?

 

It's very possible the answer is none. But it's not entirely inconceivable that dirty politics are in motion.

 

A good place to start is looking at why the outcome in the U.S differs from other nations. Below's an example...

 

http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf011210.htm

Across-the-board quality characterized the study's top-scoring nations. No. 1 performers Finland, Japan and Korea, for example, were also among the countries with the narrowest gap between the highest and lowest performers. Korea was the nation with the smallest variation, indicating that all its schools were doing well in educating their students.

.....

One factor the study did find: Students tended to do worse in nations in which there was a high degree of segregation along socioeconomic lines. In the United States, the study found a bigger difference among students from different schools and socioeconomic groups than in most other countries. Yet those same differences didn't affect some other nations' performances. "In Finland everyone does well and social background has little impact,"

From the above link...

 

Scientific Literacy

1. Korea

2. Japan

3. Finland

4. United Kingdom

........

14. United States

 

 

Mathematical Literacy

1. Japan

2. Korea

3. New Zealand

4. Finland

........

19. United States

 

 

Reading Literacy

1. Finland

2. Canada

3. New Zealand

4. Australia

........

15. United States

 

 

And now a bit about the magnitude of public schools in the Top 3 nations of each category.

 

Finland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#Education_and_science

Most pre-tertiary education is arranged at municipal level. Even though many or most schools were started as private schools, today only around 3 % students are enrolled in private schools (mostly Helsinki-based schools such as SYK), many times less than in Sweden and most other developed countries.[81]

Interesting that schools began as private and the change was made towards public. Maybe it happened a long time ago, however. More research is necessary.

 

 

Korea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#Education_and_science

The modern Korean school system consists of 6 years in elementary school, 3 years in middle school, and 3 years in high school. Students are supposed to go to elementary and middle school, and do not have to pay for the education, except for a small fee called "School Operation Support Fee" that differs from school to school. (The teachers are paid from taxes) The Programme for International Student Assessment, coordinated by the OECD, currently ranks South Korea's science education as the 3rd best in the world, being significantly higher than the OECD average.[52]

 

Korea also ranks 2nd on Maths and literature and 1st in problem solving.

 

 

Japan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan#Education_and_health

Since 1947, compulsory education in Japan consists of elementary school and middle school, which lasts for nine years (from age 6 to age 15). Almost all children continue their education at a three-year senior high school, and, according to the MEXT, about 75.9% of high school graduates attend a university, junior college, trade school, or other post-secondary institution in 2005.[120] Japan's education is very competitive,[121] especially for entrance to institutions of higher education. The two top-ranking universities in Japan are the University of Tokyo and Keio University.[122] The Programme for International Student Assessment coordinated by the OECD, currently ranks Japanese knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds as the 6th best in the world.[123]

If accurate, the top-ranking universities are one public and one private.

 

 

New Zealand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_New_Zealand

Education in New Zealand follows the three-tier model which includes primary schools, followed by secondary schools (high schools) and tertiary education at universities and/or polytechs. The Programme for International Student Assessment ranks New Zealand's education as the 7th best in the world.[1]

 

Education is free and compulsory between the ages of 6 and 16; though typically, children start school on their 5th birthday, or the first School Day after it. Post-compulsory education is regulated within the New Zealand National Qualifications Framework, a unified system of national qualifications in schools, vocational education and training.

All its major universities seem to be public.

 

 

Canada

http://www.schoolsincanada.com/Canadian-Education-System.cfm

All provinces and territories provide universal, free elementary and secondary schooling for 12 years, with the exception of Quebec where it is for 11 years. Education is compulsory to the age of between 15 and 18, depending on the province.

 

http://www.schoolsincanada.com/About-Canadian-Universities-and-Colleges.cfm

Universities and colleges in Canada come in all types! In addition to more than 100 universities, Canada has over 130 community colleges and more than 1,000 career colleges across the country. These schools can be public or private, 4-year or 2-year, single-facility, multi-campus or online institutions...

 

 

Every nation shown above has teacher unions...

 

• New Zealand
  
  • Tertiary Education Union
    
  • New Zealand Post Primary Teachers' Association
    
  • New Zealand educational institute
    

 

 

• Korea
  
  • Korean Federation of Teachers Associations
    

 

 

• Finland
  
  • Opetusalan Ammattijärjestö
    
  • Finnish Union of University Researchers and Teachers
    

 

 

• Canada
  
  • Canadian Teachers' Federation
    
  • Centrale des syndicats du Québec
    
  • Fedéracion québecoise des professeures et professeurs d'Université
    
  • Canadian Association of University Teachers
    

 

 

• Japan
  
  • Japan Teachers' Union
    

 

 

And so do both the runner-ups...

 

• United Kingdom
  
  • National Unions of Teachers
    
  • National Association of Schoolmasters/ Union of Women Teachers
    
  • Educational Institute of Scotland
    
  • Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association
    
  • University and College Union
    
  • Association of Teachers and Lecturers
    

 

 

• Australia
  
  • Independent Education Union of Australia
    
  • National Tertiary Education Union
    
  • Australian Education Union
    

 

 

Maybe we can take lessons from healthcare costs in the U.S.

 

It's possible we're better able to notice when citizens get ripped off by healthcare that charges way more $$ here in the U.S. (than in other nations), for example on certain prescriptions, because we experience it up close and personal: our wallet's lighter.

 

Yet how often do we examine what government offices pay for their materials, goods, and services? Do politicians take care not be ripped off by contractors, or do they give special benefits to industry friends?

 

And do schools get ripped off for their purchases?

 

If so, it doesn't matter if the U.S. spends a lot on education, because much of the cost would go to paying for overpriced goods and services. Then it'd be very much like the U.S. healthcare system, paying the most cost for the least beneift.

 

And if so, politicians likely want us all to blame it on the educational system they're actually responsible for messing up (and to then hand over the system to industry friends).

 

Question is, do you believe them unquestioningly, or do you see that the picture doesn't quite fit and investigate accordingly?

Edited September 21, 2009 by The Bear's Key
grammatical and minor additions