Discussion: Education

[Franklin Richards]

And what about the kid who takes 4 years backpacking through the States and writes the Great American novel?

Isn't that a "thing to do"?

[SuBe]

It's his choice, yes.

[SuperT]

My friend took a year off an backpacked around South America and my another two did some backpacking in Europe, man I was jealous.

I'm planning a trip to Costa Rica for a couple weeks. I hope it goes through!

[Lockandload1]

I know I'm taking this a little off because I'm talking about K-12, but still.
It's incredibly unequal. My county's high schools don't offer much, and every county has its own standards of learning, which is very confusing.

For example, you take x amount of courses in one county, right? Then you move to another county and depending on the circumstances, the credits may or may not count, meaning that you'll have to take extra and unneeded courses (or extend it past senior year) if you want to get "back on track" with your county. Some counties are ridiculously ahead of mine, and they always tend to be the ones with more affluent residents.

And, of course, the better-off counties get higher stats, as well as less of this BS.

Now, I understand why the richer counties get better options, but it's ridiculous here. Besides, no one told the county that they had to get so behind on teaching the kids.

[WompuM]

How about getting a teacher's license or certificate? Make it easier for people to earn their teaching certificate, suddenly there will be a greater number of teachers.

Here are some exerts from an interesting article called the Quarterback Problem by Malcolm Gladwell.

Originally Posted by Malcom Gladwell

This is the quarterback problem. There are certain jobs where almost nothing you can learn about candidates before they start predicts how they’ll do once they’re hired. So how do we know whom to choose in cases like that? In recent years, a number of fields have begun to wrestle with this problem, but none with such profound social consequences as the profession of teaching.

This idea goes back to instances where rookie NFL quarterbacks, who for all purposes, should be a star, but end up flopping. If you want to get econometric,
Performance = B0 + B1*College stats + B2*College record + B3*Health + u

Where all of B1, B2, and B3 indicate success, and yet some unforseen element of u causes failure. Anyway, that's just me being bored in econometrics class. Back to education.

What the Quarterback problem shows is that no matter how accredited a prospect teacher may seem,with degrees, certificates, and what have you, nothing will prove he/she is a good teacher until she is actually in the classroom.

That is where alternative teaching certification comes in. Alternate methods, such as they are using in Denver, put the focus on classroom experience rather than test scores when determining certification. Some of these are gaining popularity, such as Teach for America.

Lowering barriers to certification will allow a greater number of teachers, thus creating competition among teachers, allowing more qualified, overall better teachers to receive higher pay. Of course, teachers union want no part in these alternative methods.

[WompuM]

Here's a link btw. An interesting read.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...?currentPage=1

[danielisthor]

Originally Posted by Franklin Richards

And what about the kid who takes 4 years backpacking through the States and writes the Great American novel?

Isn't that a "thing to do"?

Originally Posted by SuBe

It's his choice, yes.

As long as my tax dollars don't go to support his decision to be backpacking author/bum for 4 years. Have at it. Pelosi would probably sneak that into a stimulus package.

[danielisthor]

I remember being in 4th grade, when we moved back to Florida from Pennsylvania. We were using the same text books, but in Florida I was literally 5 weeks ahead of them in my spelling, math, english, etc. etc. etc.

I think we need to have some form of standards, but I'm fairly certain I don't want the Federal Government or the Teachers Union having anything to do it.

[WompuM]

Then who exactly will be in charge of standardization?

This seems to be an issue of school districts. In the US during WWII, there were over 100,000 school district, and each one was privately funded by local taxes. Well, privately being a relative term there. You know what I mean. Anyway, today there are less than 14,000 school districts in the U.S. Larger amounts of children in a school district means allocation of funds is going to be less efficient and overall education will decline.

It also increases the gap between poor schools and rich schools even further. Rich schools, where rich people pay high property taxes, can have low student to teacher ratios and high levels of technology. Poor schools though suffer because low property taxes in the area result in overcrowding. And rich people are damn well not going to pay higher property taxes if their money isnt going to their own children's education, and why should they. The fewer, smaller school districts group the smaller rich schools together, and also the smaller poor schools together, and the misallocation of funds can be incredible.

Now, one solution for this, of course, is school choice. But of course, the children will actually need parents who wish them to succeed in order for school choice to work. Levitt has a great chapter about this in Freakonomics, where he discusses how unmotivated parents can derail the education of even the brightest kids, just by allowing them to stay in crappy schools.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by WompuM

Then who exactly will be in charge of standardization?

This seems to be an issue of school districts. In the US during WWII, there were over 100,000 school district, and each one was privately funded by local taxes. Well, privately being a relative term there. You know what I mean. Anyway, today there are less than 14,000 school districts in the U.S. Larger amounts of children in a school district means allocation of funds is going to be less efficient and overall education will decline.

It also increases the gap between poor schools and rich schools even further. Rich schools, where rich people pay high property taxes, can have low student to teacher ratios and high levels of technology. Poor schools though suffer because low property taxes in the area result in overcrowding. And rich people are damn well not going to pay higher property taxes if their money isnt going to their own children's education, and why should they. The fewer, smaller school districts group the smaller rich schools together, and also the smaller poor schools together, and the misallocation of funds can be incredible.

Now, one solution for this, of course, is school choice. But of course, the children will actually need parents who wish them to succeed in order for school choice to work. Levitt has a great chapter about this in Freakonomics, where he discusses how unmotivated parents can derail the education of even the brightest kids, just by allowing them to stay in crappy schools.

There are already National Standards for every subject, its just that right now, each state has their own version of them (but all are related to these standards). The problem is some states use a watered down version of the standards, along with an easier test to pump their statistics up to keep getting federal funding, while other states tests like New Yorks an Texas have harder tests, and stick closer to the National Standards and get penalized when their students don't perform as well on their state's tests.

[WompuM]

National standards. The thorn in our sides. Should there be basic standards, for basic literacy and math skills? Yes. But the majority of standards should be set by local municipalities.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by WompuM

National standards. The thorn in our sides. Should there be basic standards, for basic literacy and math skills? Yes. But the majority of standards should be set by local municipalities.

Have you ever read the National Standards for each of the subjects?

That's a rhetorical question, I'm sure you haven't, because if you had you would understand that they do a very good job of giving schools a strong basic understanding of what ALL U.S. students should know about Math, Science, History and ELA....AND it does give leeway to each state's own state history etc.

It is each state's interpretation of those standards that are the problem....Some have come up with their own, the statistics show it.....

[WompuM]

What's your solution? More national control?

[Carcharodon]

Originally Posted by WompuM

Now, one solution for this, of course, is school choice. But of course, the children will actually need parents who wish them to succeed in order for school choice to work. Levitt has a great chapter about this in Freakonomics, where he discusses how unmotivated parents can derail the education of even the brightest kids, just by allowing them to stay in crappy schools.

...so what happens when the better schools become overcrowded? Ultimately the quality of education there will be affected. Students will become displaced into the crappy schools, and the problem isn't actually solved. Instead, you're really just making the better schools worse.

It's a non-solution.

[WompuM]

So bright children should get stuck in bad schools because their parents happen to live in a lower-class area? I'm not saying bus all the poor kids to the rich neighborhoods, but have the option for choice available.

[Carcharodon]

Originally Posted by WompuM

So bright children should get stuck in bad schools because their parents happen to live in a lower-class area? I'm not saying bus all the poor kids to the rich neighborhoods, but have the option for choice available.

What the hell option do you think they're going to choose? If there's honestly a way to make it feasible for a choice to be made in the matter, do you really think they'll vote to have their kid stay in the crappy school?

Don't give me that, "So bright children should get stuck in bad schools because their parents happen to live in a lower-class area?" crap, I'm not saying it's right that it happens. It's terrible.

I AM saying that I don't think the solution you mentioned can actually work. It underestimates the desire of parents for their kids to get an education, to be frank.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by WompuM

What's your solution? More national control?

If the government is going to allocate federal money according to test scores, attendance, etc....then those tests need to be the same, teaching the same standards. It is extremely unfair to states like New York and Texas that hold their students to a higher standard, than California, and California ends up getting as much or more Federal Funding than the states that hold their students to a higher standard.

1. Honestly, you want to make school better. Then the school districts need to grow some balls, and when a parent screams UNFAIR, UNFAIR, because their child has been held to high standards....stand behind and support the teacher that is doing his/her job and let the parent sue if they want to go that far.....but nooooooooo, the district caves, the grade is changed, or the discipline is thrown out, and you now have a stupid delinquent graduating, looks like another great citizen coming out of our public schools...

2. Colleges need to teaching stupid classes in curriculum (since all school are different) get those students into the classrooms helping real teachers and seeing what they do, getting hands on training, and learning if education is REALLY what they want to do. 14 weeks of student teaching doesn't give you a good enough idea...

3. Pay teachers what they are worth, instead of system that looks more like communism than free market competition in the job place.

4. Go back to tracking. If a student wants to go to college then begin their high school career on that track. If they plan on going into the business world at an entry level, or to a Junior College/tech college, etc for a 2 year associate degree...then move them in that direction.

5. Stop moving bad teachers from district to district. Allow principals to let other principals know that the reason he teacher is no longer with his/her district is because they are not good teachers, they are unprofessional, they have absolutely no classroom management, etc.

[WompuM]

If you do something as simple as have a few forms to fill out for the parents, a lot of parents wont bother. There are a ton of lazy as **** parents out there who don't want to life a damn finger.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by WompuM

If you do something as simple as have a few forms to fill out for the parents, a lot of parents wont bother. There are a ton of lazy as **** parents out there who don't want to life a damn finger.

[WompuM]

Originally Posted by Kel

If the government is going to allocate federal money according to test scores, attendance, etc....then those tests need to be the same, teaching the same standards. It is extremely unfair to states like New York and Texas that hold their students to a higher standard, than California, and California ends up getting as much or more Federal Funding than the states that hold their students to a higher standard.

1. Honestly, you want to make school better. Then the school districts need to grow some balls, and when a parent screams UNFAIR, UNFAIR, because their child has been held to high standards....stand behind and support the teacher that is doing his/her job and let the parent sue if they want to go that far.....but nooooooooo, the district caves, the grade is changed, or the discipline is thrown out, and you now have a stupid delinquent graduating, looks like another great citizen coming out of our public schools...

2. Colleges need to teaching stupid classes in curriculum (since all school are different) get those students into the classrooms helping real teachers and seeing what they do, getting hands on training, and learning if education is REALLY what they want to do. 14 weeks of student teaching doesn't give you a good enough idea...

3. Pay teachers what they are worth, instead of system that looks more like communism than free market competition in the job place.

4. Go back to tracking. If a student wants to go to college then begin their high school career on that track. If they plan on going into the business world at an entry level, or to a Junior College/tech college, etc for a 2 year associate degree...then move them in that direction.

5. Stop moving bad teachers from district to district. Allow principals to let other principals know that the reason he teacher is no longer with his/her district is because they are not good teachers, they are unprofessional, they have absolutely no classroom management, etc.

I'm assuming your talking about kids seeking education degrees here and I couldnt agree more. This is where alternative teaching certification comes in. It will create better teachers and more competition among teachers (assuming no drastic rebuttle from teaching unions, which there will be)

[WompuM]

Originally Posted by Kel

That was answering Carcharodon's question.
When dealing with school choice. Stick with the standard school disticts for starters, but then if you wish to move your child to another school, make it somewhat of a process so it will actually take ambition on the parent's part to move their child.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by WompuM

I'm assuming your talking about kids seeking education degrees here and I couldnt agree more. This is where alternative teaching certification comes in. It will create better teachers and more competition among teachers (assuming no drastic rebuttle from teaching unions, which there will be)

We have been a part of ACP programs for about 7 years now. Alternative certifications put them INTO a classroom with NOOOOO experience whatsoever, and they are payed as much as a first year teacher that has gone through an education program in college. Some of these people are straight out of the business world, have lost their job, have absolutely no experience with kids......but they do have a degree. NOT GOOD.......

What I'm talking about is college classes, that put their students into classrooms to get the experience they need with kids.....NOT someone straight out of the business world, with a degree, taking education classes on the weekend, or online.....and in a classroom to fend for themselves, and get paid for it.

Right now most of your college education programs require around 60+ hours of observation time in the classroom. Instead of having them just "observe" have them in with a teacher for those 60 hours, getting hands on training.

Those that are going into ACP programs, need to be put into a substitute teaching capacity, and allow them to get some experience.

Out of the 15 ACP teachers that have come through my department....6 of them are still teaching. Most of the others went back into the business world where they came from. 3 quit, WALKED OUT.....because they couldn't handle the classroom management part of their job. 2 never passed the TExES Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities Test for their full certification. One left because he was watching porn on his school computer........1 got pregnant and decided to stay at home. 1 ended up at another school after we fired him for cussing out a student in the classroom. I'm not sure about the rest.

Our school is typical of most urban schools with a diverse demographic. If the person has never worked with kids, and they are suddenly thrown into a classroom through an ACP program.....it is sink or swim, and thats not always the best way to learn.


What I mean from a different college experience as far as education, is to give them more opportunity to get "in the classroom, hands on" training.....not, give them all the responsibility of a classroom teacher and hope for the best. Most of your schools CANNOT, afford to pay 2 teachers in a classroom, for one of them to learn the art of teaching.

[Paradoxium]

Honestly, I get this feeling teaching - or the ability to do this - can't be certified or taught. It's the same thing as say teaching "leadership"... it's more of a personality thing. I am sure there are basic etiquette and guidelines to go by, but they are not like brain surgery or something.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Paradoxium

Honestly, I get this feeling teaching - or the ability to do this - can't be certified or taught. It's the same thing as say teaching "leadership"... it's more of a personality thing. I am sure there are basic etiquette and guidelines to go by, but they are not like brain surgery or something.

You're right, and any program that puts a person into a classroom with no experience, payed, and only a mentor (who has their own classes to teach) will have a large failure rate IMO. And many ACP programs do.....that is why, having something like what I described...(early on in their college career) can help them to

1. understand what they are truly getting into...
2. help realize that this IS NOT what they want to do...
3. help them realize that that is EXACTLY what they want to do, and hopefully make the rest of their college career something that helps them to work toward being the best teacher they can be....

[Carcharodon]

Originally Posted by WompuM

If you do something as simple as have a few forms to fill out for the parents, a lot of parents wont bother. There are a ton of lazy as **** parents out there who don't want to life a damn finger.

There are a lot of parents out there like that, sure. I think you're grossly underestimating the number of parents that would "lif[t] a damn finger," however, and I think that's why the plan will fail. Even at its most successful, it's self-defeating.