Slashdot Log In
How Do You Fix Education?
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Jul 28, 2008 04:48 PM
from the wtb-better-schooling-pst dept.
from the wtb-better-schooling-pst dept.
TaeKwonDood writes "Carl Wieman is the 2001 Nobel Prize winner in Physics but what he cares most about is fixing science education. The real issue is, can someone who went through 20 years of science education as a student, lived his life in academia since then and even got a Nobel prize get a fair shake from bureaucrats who like education the way it is — flawed and therefore always needing more money?"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Fix it at home (Score:4, Insightful)
Get the parents more involved. For kids, school should be akin to their 9-5 job. In order to excel they need to put the time in at home, and the only people that can help instill that discipline are the parents.
Re:Fix it at home (Score:5, Interesting)
If it's a 9 to 5 job, then why do they need to do anything at home? There was a recent article in the Wall Street Journal about how Finland's education system is remarkably efficient considering that kids have a much smaller homework burden than in the U.S. Do things right at school, and perhaps there won't be any need to get the parents involved.
Parent
Re:Fix it at home (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Fix it at home (Score:5, Insightful)
>Finish kids are not treated like babies as to why they can do so
>well. Most have to get to school themselves
Letting kids walk to school in the US would be cruel. Most US communities are so badly laid out that it simply is not possible to walk anywhere. It is not unusual for schools to be isolated on the wrong side of major highways, with no means for people to cross them. Until we start laying out our communities sensibly kids are going to need to be bussed (or driven) to school. It simple would not be safe to let them walk. The really scary thing is that a lot of people here think that this is a good thing
Parent
Re:Fix it at home (Score:5, Insightful)
To a first approximation, kidnapping child molesters don't exist. To a second approximation, every single person who might kidnap your child is a friend or family member - you and your child trust them, they won't need a net.
Remember: News is "something that almost never happens". Otherwise it wouldn't be news. If you see it on TV, you don't need to worry about it.
Parent
Re:Fix it at home (Score:5, Insightful)
The world would be a better place if people grokked this.
They worry about terrorists -- but ignore the risk of diabetes. (the latter is 1000 times more likely to hurt or kill you)
They worry about abduction by unknown pedos -- but ignore traffic. (the latter is 1000 times more likely to hurt or kill your child)
They worry about the "radiation" from a cellphone-tower 50 meters from their house -- but pay good money to lie down near-nude in the strongest uv-radiation they are able to find. (the former is very likely completely harmless, the latter is KNOWN to cause premature aging of skin and increase the risk of skin-cancer)
They protest that the LHC will produce black holes that swallow the earth, but don't care if their car uses 5l/100km or 12l/100km. (the former is unphysical plainly impossible, the latter contributes to increased global warming with a very high probability (i.e. basically a certanity))
Violent death, to a first aproximation, is equal to traffic-death plus suicide. To a first aproximation, if you are killed, it will be because you kill yourself.
To a first aproximation, if you live in the modern west, accidents don't kill; disease do. ELIMINATING *ALL* accidents and *all* murders would only reduce deaths by 5% or thereabouts.
In short, the most dangerous things you and your children do are:
1) Getting too little physical activity, 2) Having unhealthy eating-habits and 3) Participating in traffic. (for those who smoke or have a high drug-consumption (including alcohol) that is one too.
Parent
Re:Fix it at home (Score:5, Insightful)
A generation ago, a paper route was the responsibility of the carrier (the 12 year old kid).
You made sure your subscriptions were paid and you kept track of your own money.
It seems that responsibility isn't required for anything anymore.
Look at the recent mortgage fiasco.
Parent
Re:Fix it at home (Score:5, Insightful)
This system has drawbacks for late-bloomers and others who are mis-tracked, but it makes schools look a hell of a lot better than the U.S. approach. The problem with comparing educational systems is that one first has to establish what you're comparing. If there were a panacea like your post implies ("Finish kids are not treated like babies"), it would've already been implemented, and the battles would be over.
We discuss some of the issues around education in Grant Writing Confidential [seliger.com], though the top posts are about other things at the moment.
Parent
Re:Fix it at home (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll knock it, in the sense that the grandparent is using it.
Let's say you're 18, on the vocational track of your high school, and suddenly you decide that you're actually pretty smart and you want a white-collar job and you want to go to university. Guess what? You are screwed! Forget about it. You already made that choice back when you were 16. There is no mind-changing!
Let's take France as an example, since I'm most familiar with it. If you're starting your third year of university and you decide that math is not for you and you'd rather go into engineering, guess what? Back to the end of the line! You get to start over from freshman year. Never mind that 90% of your courses would still apply. Never mind that you already know calculus backwards and forwards; take it again! You've just wasted two years of your life?
Let's say you're now 24, finished with your Master's degree and thinking about a Ph.D. You decide that it's not for you, you'd rather work. A few months later you change your mind; a professorship sounds really good! Not to worry, just apply for the Ph.D. next year, right? Wrong! You gave up your one chance, now you are screwed!
The American system is vastly better in this respect, and as a result I think it works a lot better at teaching creativity and free thinking, as well as adapting to each person's individual needs.
Parent
Re:Fix it at home (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems to me that "parents need to take responsibility" is all to easy to use as an excuse for the flaws in the system. At least, easier than actually trying to fix the flaws. Further more it seems to me that the reforms the do try to push through are often based upon a perception of reality not fully bases in fact and research. There are brilliant people studying the ups and downs of various educational methods; but politicians and bureaucrats seem more interested in enforcing their party's, or their own, agenda.
Friend of mine is a teacher, 10-15ish age group; and he is very into reading up on the latest articles, papers, research, studies, etc, regarding all aspects of education. One of his greatest frustrations is the institutionalized stupidity of the system. Methods that have been proven to work are showed aside because they are in conflict with current dogma.
Parent
Re:Fix it at home (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me that "parents need to take responsibility" is all to easy to use as an excuse for the flaws in the system. At least, easier than actually trying to fix the flaws.
On the contrary, it seems to me that it's arguing that parents not being part of the system is itself a flaw of the system.
Parent
Re:Fix it at home (Score:4, Insightful)
And there are children without parents, or with bad parents, and it's no reason that their education should suffer because their parents are irresponsible.
In the end I reckon, and this is just an idea, that the educational system have to be able to comprehend that children, like people, are different. These differences means that some learn best from one method and others learn best from another; the goal should be to give each student (or group of students) the best education possible suited for their abilities, personality, genetic variation, or whatever factors are proven to have impact. Though it seems to me that if you speak of different needs many automatically assume that you somehow mean that some children have higher value than others. What I write about is simply trying to maximize effect by accepting the variations that exists in society. Forcing one model, and a flawed one at that, upon all students simply means that some will not be able to utilize their full potential. Which, in the end, is societies loss.
Parent
Re:Fix it at home (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a public school teacher like your friend. I tend to agree. I've recently been promoted to department chair and get to see even more of the stubbornness he's feeling. Part of the problem though is the schools of education at Universities are just as flawed as the schools themselves. Many of the new methods are simply reworking of old ones that justify a PhD's dissertation.
I was (un)fortunate enough to have someone study my class for a book, because many of the things I was doing were similar to the concept she was putting forth in her book. Well, I finally got a copy of it, with the chapter marked that focused on my classroom. I'm glad she marked it because I wouldn't have recognized it if she hadn't.
She blatantly manipulated the situations in the classroom to justify her own ideas. After speaking with some professors that I trust, and to other older colleagues, I found this behavior to be rampant in educational schools.
The result, a system that doesn't trust itself. Higher learning scoffs at what is going on in the classrooms, and classroom teachers scoff at professors of education, because they are only trying to justify their own existence.
But overall your friend is right. The systems are too entrenched. Really most teachers need to learn to be reflective. If something works, keep doing it. If it doesn't, try something else, and repeat.
My favorite was when a professor taught a class on innovative teaching techniques at my grad school. He used an overhead projector and talked at us for two and a half hours...Yikes.
Parent
Impossible. (Score:5, Insightful)
>Do things right at school, and perhaps there won't be any need to get the parents involved.
This simply is not possible.
I used to be a huge proponent of "teacher accountability" until I shared a 7 hour plane ride with a teacher friend of mine.
She explained the obvious to me.
All students require motivation to learn. Most students are not self-motivated. Teachers lack the authority to instill motivation in their students through punitive means, and there are very few inspirational teachers. Thus for most students, their primary motivator is their parents.
You can have the most intelligent teacher on the planet combined with the most patient, compassionate teacher on the planet - Albert Einstein crossed with Mother Theresa - and it won't matter a whit if the student is not motivated to learn.
Some very few students are self-motivated. But by and large students require external motivation, and the only people with the authority to do that are parents. The days of teachers beating students into their studies are long gone. But not so for Mom and Dad.
The single-most important thing to "Fix Education" is to increase parental involvement and stop the mentality that school is a place where you "send" your kids "to be educated". Too many people have come to view the educational system as a "service" - a place where you pay your taxes and then send your kids to be educated, with the whole burden of the process on the system. In fact, the system is merely the water - they can't force the kids to drink it. Only Mom and Dad have that power.
Unless you are extremely lucky and find the rare self-motivated student you simply cannot remove parents from a successful edcuation.
Parent
Re:Impossible. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most students are not self-motivated
All children ask many "why" questions to their parents, showing evidence of curiosity. Science and scholarship begin from curiosity, and curiosity is the fuel of self-motivation. I think most if not all children have curiosity as a natural instinct, but something in our society destroys their curiosity and they cease to be self-motivated.
The problem is not in the children's brains, but rather in our societies, our schools, our families, and how we treat our children. Something in our society kills the natural curiosity that all children have.
Next time your child asks why the sky is blue or why GNU/Linux is cool, don't say "I have no time to tell you".
Parent
Re:Impossible. (Score:5, Interesting)
The single-most important thing to "Fix Education" is to increase parental involvement and stop the mentality that school is a place where you "send" your kids "to be educated"
The school has a curriculum and it will present its content to your children whether you like it or not (unless you home school them.) You can send them to a really and truly private (thus expensive) school and perhaps avoid it, and get them a good education.
The school is a place where your children are sent to be indoctrinated. Some good teachers exist, and will try to give you information that you need rather than simply what is in the standardized test. Unfortunately, there are only so many hours in the day. One teacher I know would need something like 45 more minutes in the school day in order to spend the amount of time required to be allocated for each task if everything went perfectly throughout the course of the day. Heh heh.
Unless you are extremely lucky and find the rare self-motivated student you simply cannot remove parents from a successful edcuation.
Unless you are extremely lucky and can either home school or send your children to a private school you simply cannot avoid having your children damaged by public education.
There is no single most important thing to do to fix education; I agree wholeheartedly that parents need to be involved in the process, whatever it is, beyond shipping their children off to school like so many cattle.
Parent
Re:Impossible. (Score:5, Insightful)
One other interesting idea that I've seen repeatedly, at least coming from good teachers, is the idea of using the education system as a practicum for methods of learning. Teaching students how to learn is the single most important thing teachers can do in the 21st century, especially considering how fast the quantity of information neccessary to get good and interesting jobs is increasing. There's a good chance that those historical anecdotes won't serve much of a purpose beyond making one sound well informed, but if those anecdotes also came with an improved ability to reflect on and integrate lessons learned, than the students who studied those anecdotes are better equipped to reflect on things that happened to them in the past.
It's not neccessarily the curriculum that needs to change, but rather our concept of what's important.
Parent
Re:Impossible. (Score:5, Insightful)
School in the US is hampered by a few things:
1) The entrenched educational system itself.
2) A deep seated fear of lawsuits leading to coddling and oversensitivity.
3) The students themselves.
4) The teacher education and certifications programs in the US.
The entrenchment of the US educational system is so deep that we are very unlikely to overturn it for anything short of a complete meltdown. The culture of traditional schooling is deep seated through three generations of Americans, and the vast majority of them feel that this is the "proper" way to educate students. These individuals include the administration, teachers, school board members, and, most unfortunately, the voters.
Our culture off litigation is such that our schools are now paralyzed by it. Schools run with 0 overhead. They have no savings, investments, or major assets. If they are sued, that money comes DIRECTLY from the pockets of the communities that fund them through taxes. With this threat over their heads, schools will do ANYTHING to avoid even the hint of a lawsuit. They will graduate students who haven't met the requirements, let convicted criminals come back and mingle with the rest of their classmates, avoid pressing charges against students, waive ineligibility for sports due to grades, felonies, or substance abuse, etc.
This fear of lawsuits drives our schooling today. Corporal punishment is out, due to a fear of a lawsuit. Public humiliation is out due to a fear of a lawsuit. Suspensions are limited, due to fears of lawsuits. Expulsions are rare, due to fears of a lawsuit. Discipline is lax at best, due to the fear of a lawsuit. On top of this, we continue to force the same curriculum on every student, once again, due to the fear of a lawsuit. And to make matters even worse, our ability to reward achievement and differentiate excellence is rapidly diminishing....want to guess why? LAWSUITS!!! It's the word of the decade.
The combination of lax discipline, untargeted and generic curricula, and less and less rewards for performances means that few students can really be engaged with the curriculum. Most of the students themselves do not see a major value in school. While some are curious, and view the educational system as a doorway to the universe, most see as it as an opportunity to climb some social ladder. Due to my other three reasons, we as teachers are not able to motivate students well at all.
The final issue is our teacher preparation programs. I attended a state meeting about our low standardized test scores. I was brave enough to ask all the assembled elementary school teachers (some 200 or so) how many had a minor or major in math. Out of the 200, there were four hands. It's no WONDER our math scores are low, and that we struggle to teach science.
To teach elementary school, teachers need a BA in something, and an education degree. That's it. There is no requirement for some basic math and science classes, much less basic math and science EDUCATION classes. Why is this? Because most of the Education Professors at our colleges....don't have math or science degrees. They have Education degrees. Why? Because it makes no sense to hire someone to teach Education classes who doesn't have a degree in Education. And who makes those decisions? The Education Department in each school, which is made up of people with degrees....in Education.
During one of our many pointless staff meetings a year or two ago I "solved" our education problems. Here's the itemized list as compiled by two science teachers:
1) Elementary teachers need to have a minor in every subject they are to teach. No more monoculture of a million English teachers teaching elementary schol.
2) Elementary school education remains largely the same. But by 9th grade we begin to organize students by trade. By "trade" I mean: College bound, military bound, trade school/certification bound, unsk
Parent
Motivation (Score:5, Insightful)
Rewards work also, no doubt.
But there is only one thing that kept me in line academically as a kid, and that was fear of my father's foot in my ass.
See for me, I could blow off rewards. Oh yes, it would be nice to get $5 for A's on my report card, but I don't really /need/ the $5 for anything. Oh it might be nice to watch a movie, but I could just as easily watch it on the internet. Leaving class might be nice, but where would I go? The only consistent motivator for me was FEAR of PUNISHMENT.
But that is merely a personal anecdote. I readily admit that motivation can be both positive and negative. But either way, I still beleive the most motivating influence on students is usually their parents. In my experience, teachers are usually either non-empowered or un-inspired to motivate.
Parent
I'm skeptical (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole "engaging the kids" meme avoids the fact that there is only one acceptable outcome--study, learn, don't take the easy way out, etc. We are trying to SELL them on the idea, not involve them in the process of decision-making. That's inherently dishonest, because we're only pretending to give their preferences (which consist of sleeping, video games, and manga) equal weight in deciding what their priorities should be.
Basically I think we're too nice to our kids. I'm not saying we should beat them (much), but I remember a conversation I had with a doctor I worked with (parents were Chinese) whose siblings also all had professional degrees. On a basic level, the kids all had the feeling that if they didn't do well in school their parents wouldn't love them anymore. It was never stated, but the feeling was there. Could I do that? No. But that inability translates into, if not academic mediocrity, then definitely a mentality that makes excellence a hypothetical option for my kids. They do well enough to get by, but there is no drive. I basically feel that I've let them down by being too nice.
Parent
Re:Fix it at home (Score:5, Insightful)
"Get the parents involved" is nice, but it's also passing the buck. Plenty of parents saw no value in education in their own lives, and discourage their kids from wasting their time. That's going to take generations to fix.
Meanwhile, we can still do a better job of teaching science (mostly in making kids interested in science). Perhaps the only way to get the parents involved is to teach this generation that science isn't jsut a waste of time, so that they encourage thier kids in turn.
The simple fact is, our school system was designed originally to produce good manufacturing workers, but there's no future in manufacturing. While people have long been whining about manufacturing jobs going overseas, the truth is more jobs are lost to automation than to cheap labor pools.
We need to be training designers and engineers with the talent to compete in the world market, but our pre-college (and increasingly our undergraduate) school system still de-emphasises critical thinking and abstract problem solving. We need to recognize that these abstract skills are quite practical: they are the jobs that will exist when everything else is automated!
Parent
Re:Fix it at home (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, we can still do a better job of teaching science (mostly in making kids interested in science). Perhaps the only way to get the parents involved is to teach this generation that science isn't jsut a waste of time, so that they encourage thier kids in turn.
Replace science with english/history/math/social studies/foreign languages/etc etc etc and you still have the same problem.
If you don't take a holistic approach to 'fixing' education, you're just going to end up with more failure all around. To make a car analogy: you can upgrade a part (science) but when the whole car (the public education system) is beat up, you're just going to have some other part fail you.
Parent
Re:Fix it at home (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. IMHO, the biggest problem with schools is that students are assumed to be incapable of making decisions on their own, and thus, the schools treat everyone identically as though they were all of median intelligence, all had identical interests, etc. Among other things, this means that people below the median intelligence can't keep up, fall behind, and are unable to get the extra help they need, while people above the median get bored out of their minds as they have their time wasted with ten times as much homework as the other students (but always more of the same crap) just to keep them busy.
A real approach to education reform starts by recognizing that every child is different, every child has different needs, different motivating forces operating on him/her, different interests in different areas, etc., then tailoring the educational program in such a way that children of similar levels of ability and interests are grouped together. You then take it one step further and have teacher-student conferences with each student at the end of the year to find out what things the student liked and didn't like. By late elementary school, students should be helping plan their own curriculum, with core classes plus a range of optional classes that they can choose from. And so on.
It drove me nuts throughout school that I had to waste time learning the same things over and over again. I took a test and got out of U.S. history in college. It covered pretty much the same thing that we covered in U.S. history in high school, which in turn pretty much covered the same thing as U.S. history in junior high. Mindlessly repeating the same content over and over does not promote learning except for people who have trouble learning. For the rest of us, the high school class was a colossal waste of about 200 hours of my life that could have been spent learning something we hadn't already learned but for the fact that taking it was required to attend the universities.
As for choosing our curriculum, that really didn't happen until college. In high school, our choices were basically whether we took French or Spanish, whether we took an AP version of a couple of classes or not, and which science we took. To a large extent, the math curriculum was dictated by whether you took algebra in junior high or not, though there was the option of taking a year off. Not much choice, in any case---the sequence was pretty much planned out in strict order in spite of the fact that none of the higher level math courses really depended on each other beyond requiring an understanding of basic algebra. Everything else was pretty much nailed down ahead of time. You could choose which year you took the classes, but you still had a very fixed list of classes that very nearly added up to a full four years without giving you much choice in what you took. That just plain sucks.
Give students the option to be an active participant in the education process---from choosing the curriculum to leading discussions---and you will find that they are more involved, more attentive, more interested, and more capable of learning efficiently---far more so than the passive participants that today's students are forced to be.
Parent
Re:Fix it at home (Score:5, Insightful)
No, anything other than "get the parents involved" is passing the buck.
Parent
Re:Fix it at home (Score:5, Insightful)
> Opps we find out that we can really get by with less than
> a junior high education.
For sure. If you think making shift manager at Burger King is a career goal instead of just a waystation on a longer path..... that you achieved at 20 putting yourself through college. And I really wish we could stop the people who think a junior high education makes them ready to vote from getting near a voting booth.
In the post industrial world we are now transitioning into it is all about having a clue and being able to reason. That means you need to know things, and unless you are one of the few who can self teach themselves it means an education. Unskilled labor is just people we are keeping around because a) we haven't quite got the robots perfected yet to take over your job and b) even after the robots we will be too squemish to put 'yall down so we will give you a welfare check until you die of natural causes, which will probably be pretty early with your tendencies to unhealthy habits.
[Yes this post is borderline flamebait. But it also has some painful truth in it that will hopefully get some arguiments going.]
Parent
Insightfull, and besides the point ... (Score:5, Informative)
The fucking article is about college level education.
Parent
Re:kolidge (Score:4, Informative)
There's the big misconception. Understanding art, literature, design, history, communications and yes interpretive dance IS in itself a core skill set. Unless you rigorously train all aspects of your mind, you will be deficient. Science and engineering start with ideas...hell the word Eureka was coined from a scientific discovery...ideas start in the creative center of your brain.
You cheat yourself and disrespect science when you treat the liberal arts as nothing more than a hobby.
Some of the most exciting science and math discoveries were made because people had trained themselves to think outside the box. That's what studying the liberal arts does for you.
Too late? Most people do not really form their identities until their mid-20s. University is the PERFECT time to hone social skills (or learn the basics...either way).
Bonus: Understanding liberal arts will help you get laid. That alone should be enough for the /. crowd to line up for art appreciation classes.
Parent
Re:Free market competition? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hopefully we can keep this from devolving into a flame war, but if you're interested do search for John Stossel's "Stupid in America". Private schools in the heart of Chicago catering to poor black students spend about a third per student compared to private schools and produce standardized test scores that compare favorably with white suburban schools. Being cheap and producing results, even poor families are willing to sacrifice that second tv and fast food meals to send their kids there. Charity will also go a lot further and be better funded with the knowledge that government isn't taking care of it. Gates by himself is already giving nearly enough to k-12 to provide free education at 1/3 current costs to every family below the poverty line, and that's just one guy.
And if you think the telecom industry is an example of the free market, I can understand your confusion. Telecom more closely resembles mercantilism than capitalism.
Parent
War on science (Score:5, Insightful)
How can education be fixed when their is a war on critical thinking? Its better for those in power to rule by sound bites, innuendos, and accusations that appear credible enough to be believed.
Re:War on science (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:War on science (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:War on science (Score:4, Funny)
And such.
Parent
Re:War on science (Score:4, Funny)
And Such.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww [youtube.com]
(Note: this post is not redundant if you get it.)
Parent
Re:War on science (Score:4, Informative)
The parent's reference is pretty funny. For those of you who didn't get the reference, check out Miss South Carolina's response [youtube.com] during the Miss USA pageant last year.
I can't decide if I want to fall over laughing or punch myself in the face from her response.
Parent
No, you can't fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, you can't fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
And it begins with throwing out the blood sucking administrators and unions.
Not everyone will succeed in this paradigm, but at least the reasonably disciplined and intelligent will have a real learning environment to report to and foster, rather than the publicly funded babysitting operation they have to endure today.
Parent
Vouchers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Vouchers (Score:5, Interesting)
On the flip side, I don't think it will help near as much in more rural communities. Also, many students don't work well in online/homeschool environments. I think having the option is a good thing overall though.
My son was home-schooled last year via an online charter school, and did very well, much better than the local school district (in a fairly rural community). However of my friends/family with children of school age, I don't think most of the children would respond nearly as well to that environment.
I think the biggest problem is too much funding is lost in bureaucracy instead of higher salaries for teachers... to be honest, I think a lot of teachers today probably don't deserve more pay, but more money needs to be offered to bring in those that may not have otherwise considered teaching. As a senior programmer, I make about 3-4x what the average the average teacher in my state makes. I honestly don't think that this is right. I feel that probably 1/5 of our teachers should be rotated out annually... have "teaching" programs for professionals, you spend 2 years as a T/A (all classes should have two instructors, one main, one TA, and a parent in daily, imho). After that year, the TA would take primary on a class, then after a couple years as the main instructor, go back into the private sector. There are some good instances of lifetime teachers... but imho these are too far and few between, and I'd rather see "fresh" teachers come in, and out in a relatively short period. And it should be an honor, to have served as an instructor for said 4 year engagement.
The problem seems to be, that the various educational systems seem to be dedicated to hiring trained "teachers" who don't have much, if any specialty, instead of people who are good at their professions who want to spend a few years teaching.
Parent
How can a culture that celebrates ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How can a culture that celebrates ignorance (Score:5, Interesting)
This is about as worthy of a "+5: Insightful" as a post can be.
In the 1960s, we used to have parades that celebrated astronauts. Let me say this again - we had PARADES... for... ROCKET SCIENTISTS... To become one was something that was considered the height of a child's aspirations. No wonder we were sending people to the moon with a pocket calculator and a roll of duct tape.
And what are we left with now - an utter disdain for anyone and anything that displays the traits of having even a shade of reason. Even more importantly, we've managed to "democratize" science. The "intelligent design", "vaccines and autism", and "global warming is a myth" campaigns are only the tip of the iceberg of targeted ignorance, that aims to teach the public, and especially the younger generation, that on one hand science is a mysterious black art, to be feared and distrusted, and on the other, it's little more than a game of weak, impotent men and women, that can be played by anyone... a medium where all voices are equal.
As a result, we have a number of situations, where people's beliefs are shaped not by scientific fact, but by whoever screams the loudest. Add to that an overall atmosphere of distrust of "the system", and you have a society where scientific "rogues" that spout senile and frequently openly fallacious concepts, are treated as heroes by much of the population.
How can we hope to fix education in such circumstances?!
Not to rant further, but the other major problem we've run into, that must be resolved if our educational system is to be salvaged, is one of unrealistic expectations. When kids dreamed of being "rocket scientists" in the 60s, it was understood that not everyone was going to achieve this dream. Which was more of a reason to pursue it! Instead, we now say that everyone must go to college, and everyone must achieve an X level of educations, which is... let's face it... unrealistic. But what these expectations HAVE done, is devalue higher learning, by trying to push everyone into the same bracket. And since you certainly can't raise the expectations for people who simply cannot meet them, we just lowered the bar for everyone, most likely leading many talented kids off the right path. In terms of primary education, there have probably been few policies as harmful as "no child left behind".
If we didn't acquire this dream of equality of mental condition, and didn't fight so hard to accomplish it, perhaps we would have less problems with education, and less 2 (and even 4-) year colleges with a level of education that does not even meet high school requirements.
Parent
hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I'll be in the minority here on slashdot for saying this, but society isn't divided into us (virtuous, intelligent, benevolent, and wise) and them (stupid, malicious, dishonest, and greedy). I think there are very few bureaucrats twirling their moustaches and gleefully chortling over the failures of the modern educational system. One of the symptoms of the failure of education is lack of critical thinking and objective reasoning, and one of the hallmarks of that is the kneejerk reaction that every bureaucrat is by nature evil and dishonest.
The honorable Snidely Whiplash (R-Montana) (Score:5, Interesting)
one of the hallmarks of that is the kneejerk reaction that every bureaucrat is by nature evil and dishonest.
I had a conversation with an insurance lobbyist on a flight to Boston a couple years ago. She has a lot of dealings with state and federal senators and congresscritters, so I asked her what were the things she discovered in her interactions with them that came as a surprise. Three of them were:
The first one is relevant here, but the last one has been on my mind since then. Slashpac, anyone?
Parent
Successful troll is successful (Score:4, Funny)
Very nicely constructed post to show how no one reads the articles.
3 things to fix education (Score:5, Insightful)
1:Smaller class sizes!
2:Less memorization, more critical thinking and analysis.
3:Less passive listening and watching, more discussion and experiment (think Socarates).
None of these need tons of computers or facilities or whatever. What they do need are more teachers, and less burnout.
My experience as a student of Prof. Weiman (Score:5, Interesting)
I had the privilege of taking a quantum mechanics course from Carl Weiman 2 years ago while he was teaching at the University of Colorado. It was by far the best college course I've taken, he had the perfect mix of well versed lecturing with "clicker" quizzes throughout the class, homework that was appropriate for the material, and tests which rewarded understanding of the material and not memorization.
The best part really was that by the end of the course, he gave his lecture on Bose Einstein Condensate which he won the Nobel prize for, and all the students could understand what he was talking about from learning things throughout the semester, it was incredibly rewarding.
Compare that to my next physics courses which were basically applied calculus, except they left out the important part of what the **** any of it meant and how it applied to... anything really. His course overshadowed the rest of my physics courses and in the end, because of the huge disparity in teaching styles, made the rest of my studies quite grating and rather uninteresting.
Crazy idea, but focus on education? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the biggest thing that can be done to "fix" education would be to make it the primary focus of schools! I'm all for extra curricular activities, but it seems that in many places in the US, those are treated as far, far, more important that actual learning. Sports is a great example of how the focus in schools has been taken off of education.
Another thing would be to stop trying to make everyone equal, and allow faster students to excel instead of teaching to the lowest common denominator.
stop the silly competitions (Score:4, Insightful)
There is this silly competition mentality in higher ed--competing for being bigger and badder. Everything is becoming so "corporate" in culture.
There is an unhealthy arena of competition for grants and research funding that puts the focus on the research track instead of education. The competition manifests itself by the universities pushing a "brand name" and trying to become larger.
In the end, the university becomes an entity who doesn't care about the student but rather its reputation and rankings in magazines.
This is kind of a problem that stems from the new breed of philanthropy that really isn't philanthropy--it's advertising and marketing for the donors. The development departments are getting suckered into making these silly deals with donors (especially corporate donors) that places the focus on promotional consideration for the donor rather than the spirit of the cause.
Small schools with low ratios from teacher to student are probably the best way to go to maximize your exposure in the apprentice model.
Stop passing kids along (Score:4, Insightful)
I went to public schools with kids who had marginal skills at reading and math. Rather than passing them along and bogging down the education of kids doing well, don't pass them until they're actually meeting standards. Note, I am NOT talking about burning time on standardized testing. I'm talking about teachers being given more leverage to hold slow kids back. I think this is a big motivator for a kid to do better (as well as a confidence builder the second time around). This is based on my anecdotal knowledge, not science so I could be very wrong here.
If kids can't cut it after say 2 or 3 grades being held back, give them some some early out like a GED program say after the 10th grade. It's sad to see high school kids who can barely read because our education system isn't strict enough about standards.
I think by enforcing performance for passing, you'll also be able to increase the level of work being done at higher grades.
Make going to school non-compulsory... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Make going to school non-compulsory
Kids that don't want to be in school, who have parents that don't care if they are in school, do not need to go to school. They are nothing but a distraction for the kids who want to learn. Any teacher will tell you one disruptive student will ruin the class for everyone. Public schools in the U.S. force kids who have no discipline go to school, then they are surprised when they don't listen to the teachers. The kids know the teachers can nothing to discipline them, the kids know their parents will do nothing to discipline them. I fail to see the disincentive to goof off in class here, and so do the kids, so they will goof off. Schools do not need these children and in public schools, not only do they have to go, but the public schools want them to go so that make that ever important buck from the federal and state government, education be damned. I personally know more than one teacher who cannot kick a particular kid out of their class because the school administrators tell them they can't.
2. Privatize
There is a ratio of teachers to administrators in all schools, public or private. An administrator would be like a vice principal, guidance councilor, text book researcher, sensitivity director. In a private school, the ratio is about 1:7 in public schools it's almost 1:1 [ed.gov]. Meaning for every teacher there is an administrator. And every time someone says "there's something wrong with our schools" they just tac on more administrators in a blind attempt to "fix" the problem. Administrators fix nothing, ever. Which leads me to..
3. Do away with tenure and teachers unions
The idea that teachers unions somehow are for kids has got to be the biggest lie I've ever heard. Teachers unions are for, teachers. Some people didn't know this, but if you've worked in the LAUSD for more than 3 years you cannot be fired for anything short of molesting a child, it's called tenure. Tenure is for, teachers. There is no way you can argue that keeping poor teachers (tenure) or keeping teachers that have broken the rules (teachers unions) somehow helps the kids. With these two "protective" organization are in place it takes an act of god to get rid of poor teachers. There are no teacher's unions in private schools and the level of education you get in a private school by far exceeds that in a public school. Without tenure, without teacher's unions. So at the very least it's proof that excellence does not require tenure or unions. And there is a strong argument that they do more harm than good.
4. Allow parents to take their kids out of failing schools.
I think it's a travesty that the government is going to force parents to place kids into school that they know are going to be a bad influence on the child. Parents should be able to send their child to whatever school that is reasonably in their area. It's so bad that people actually buy houses in order to get their kids sent to a particular school, and I guess for those who can't afford to move or afford a private school... to bad? That's just wrong. If we are going to be forced to pay for schools we should at least be able to select which one we're going to send our kids too, or at least let us get our money back so we can send them to a private school. The only obstacle that stops this 'voucher' system is the teachers unions. I would love to hear how the lack of a voucher system helps kids, because I'm pretty sure it only helps teachers at failing schools.
I have no belief that any of these things will change, teachers unions are far to powerful. It a huge union with almost limitless money, but it's a self perpetuating bureaucracy with the honest belief that teachers should be paid more than any other profession in the world. More than doctors, lawyers etc.. no matter how much anyone else thinks teachers deserve.
Re:You dont. (Score:4, Interesting)
There was a period in American education, particularly after Sputnik kicked the US government into the realization that those crazy goddamn Commies could scoop them on a major technological advancement, where a good deal of effort was put into finding and training scientists, mathematicians, technicians and so forth. Kids wanted to be rocket scientists, astronauts and atom splitters. Home chemistry and rocket kits, as well as toys like Mechanos and Legos, were seen as important ways to produce what the US needed to get ahead of the curve and stay there. But, sadly, within a relatively short period of time, the educational edifice took over, with it's unions, bureaucracies, mindless testing, endless tinkering and the new "next big thing", and now the US is faced with the reality that while domestic talent may just as often be wasted, it has to import talent from abroad.
Part of it is, I think, a consequence of the rugged individualism of America. In places like Japan and Germany, there's a pretty fiercing weeding process going on to find the best and brightest, and to some extent that sort of defies the American Dream that anyone has a chance to be the next guy on the Moon or the next President or the next Bill Gates or whatever. But the fact is that the one-size-fits-all education system favored in North America has become nothing more than a recipe for mediocrity. Coupled with ludicrous laws like No Child Left Behind, which should be restated as No Child Ever Pulls Ahead, and it's a wonder that education isn't worse off than it is.
To my mind, education should be more focuesed. By thirteen or fourteen the kids, parents and teachers ought to have some idea where the kids' talents lie. From there it should be an encouragement to go where those talents lead. Rather than basically delaying all of this until the kid is going off to college and then saying "Okay, waddya when a be when you grow up, which is about 9am this morning" start that process earlier.
The reality is, no matter how optimistic laws like No Child Left Behind are, some children will be left behind, for any number of reasons; socio-economic status, health, intelligence, disability and so forth. No system is going to catch every would-be neurologist and physicist, but at least we can try to better the odds.
Parent