Support NeoGAF

[TacticalFox88]

Yes



nuke it entirely and start over. there's not enough space on Evilore's server for all the specific points.

I've got three daughters in public school. Aside from one phenomenal teacher, we've had nothing but crap. These people shouldn't even be allowed to make Kid's Meals.

You mind going into detail? Why are they so horrible?

 

[GoutPatrol]

No.

Make pay based on merit and not seniority, for starters. Of course the unions will be having none of that, as we all know.

Of course, if you make it all merit pay, and have the best teachers making the most money, what will happen when the budget gets slashed? I assure you, they won't give a fuck how good the teacher is if they can get rid of their salary.

 

[Zhengi]

Of course, if you make it all merit pay, and have the best teachers making the most money, what will happen when the budget gets slashed? I assure you, they won't give a fuck how good the teacher is if they can get rid of their salary.

If you slash the good teachers off from the school, student performance goes down. If student performance goes down, the school gets scrutinized by the state or the Feds. There should be an incentive given to schools who keep student performance up like they get extra funding if that happens.

 

[Shouta]

Ghaleon, Bill Gates has been making media rounds in the past couple of weeks recommending exactly what you stated. Give the best teachers more students (and increase their pay). Here's the AP article about his suggestions: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134144292 (Note that I don't support spending cuts for education as the subject of that article might imply)

That's a terrible idea though. Increasing class size of the best teachers will only lead to more burnout even if the pay is increased. As good as any teacher is, they can only hand so much. The stress will get to them in that situation and you'll eventually lose another teacher.

As I pointed out in my previous post, the better solution is change/improve the teaching methods in the schools. Rather than have the best teachers take more students have the best teachers teach their fellow staff. Spreading effective methods of teaching to more teachers will hopefully create a more able-bodied set of folks equipped to deal with the classroom.

Whether or not people want to do that is a problem though as a lot of teachers don't realize or want to acknowledge that they could improve their methods. There's the issue of what constitutes an effective method and then how to disseminate that information out as well. It saddens me that the people that are there to help people learn aren't trying to learn themselves a lot of the time.

 

[JGS]

If you slash the good teachers off from the school, student performance goes down. If student performance goes down, the school gets scrutinized by the state or the Feds. There should be an incentive given to schools who keep student performance up like they get extra funding if that happens.

My problem with this is that is effectively cuts the budget of schools not doing as well. Personally the only way to target the poor performing schools is to fund all schools equally and then see which ones get extra funding/help from other sources and which ones can't even use the resources they get wisely.

Schools should not be rewarded for doing their job and bad schools shouldn't be allowed to survive if they fail at it. There's too much at stake.

As an aside, teachers are paid fine considering that not one teacher signed on to be paid the equivalent of attorneys. It's one of the few professions you come into eyes wide open. It's the union's job to say they need more, but that desn't mean it's going to happen. Of course it should happen, but a teacher has to find satisfaction beyond a high paying job (They get paid to middle class standards easy) or else they ignored all the information out there that suggest the road to riches is not the teaching profession and never will be.

 

[GhaleonQ]

Ghaleon: you're one of the few people "within the system" that I've ever seen say that the balance of power should be shifted more toward the administrators. Indeed, research that I've done indicates that administrators tend to be even more of a problem in terms of creating inefficiency; speaking anecdotally, I can say that the administration at my high school shuffled around nearly every year, with the school having 3 different principals in a five-year period and the office staff getting shuffled around pretty consistently as well, while the teachers tended to remain pretty constant, with the most intelligent, clear-headed, and most critically-minded teacher in the school actually serving as the rep. to the local teacher's union. Anecdotal, yes, but it does seem to corroborate what I've read, statistically.

I'm all for teachers being judged according to qualitative standards, but the problem with this is that teachers inherit "problems" from teachers at lower grade levels. How do you evaluate a 9th grade teacher who teaches a class where only a fifth or so of the students actually read at grade level? I'm not saying that it's impossible, but I have to doubt that standardized testing could account for such a massive problem and disparity. There is no easy solution; concessions will likely have to come from all sides, but I'm mightily suspicious of attempts that seek to minimize the role and power of unions, as though that were the obvious choice.

MORE NUMBERED LISTS BECAUSE I LOVE THEM

1. There are certainly enough incompetent administrators. This is the bureaucracy versus authority problem. There's a difference between having more authority and having more power in life. Administrators deal with school boards, mayors, governors, teachers, and parents. Basically, when things change, it'll start with "hostile takeovers." A strong governor with guts comes in with little enough legislature or mayoral resistance (if any, and laws vary GREATLY). They install a Michelle Rhee or Joel Klein-like power. They install their own underlings by 1 or 2 levels. You go from there. I don't deny the problem, but you also can't really gauge administrators hamstrung by the system. Teachers produce relatively dumb kids in this country; that doesn't mean the teachers are bad overall. I don't deny your point, but it seems like that criticism works for both sides and, thus, isn't helpful.

2. This is something you should know, actually. http://www.cgp.upenn.edu/ope_value.html That appears to be a quick explanation of "value-added assessment." People recognized your concern early on. Again, though, this calls for standardization across grades, districts, and (a little bit) states. You can't force kids who move to retake tests in the district they enter so that scores can be accurate instead of translated.

That's a terrible idea though. Increasing class size of the best teachers will only lead to more burnout even if the pay is increased. As good as any teacher is, they can only hand so much. The stress will get to them in that situation and you'll eventually lose another teacher.

Well, yeah. I think you misunderstand. They're not required to take more on. They can even take less. Teachers get to choose. That's why it's good. Instead of the current system (only pay/workload increases, based on seniority and not success), you can go up or down year-to-year. Plus, you'll naturally get senior teachers getting paid more thanks to experience, comfort, and getting their own children out of their house.

I'd suggest that they look ahead at the end of the school year, report to administrators, and then they can decide hiring.

 

[Telosfortelos]

That's a terrible idea though. Increasing class size of the best teachers will only lead to more burnout even if the pay is increased. As good as any teacher is, they can only hand so much. The stress will get to them in that situation and you'll eventually lose another teacher.

As I pointed out in my previous post, the better solution is change/improve the teaching methods in the schools. Rather than have the best teachers take more students have the best teachers teach their fellow staff. Spreading effective methods of teaching to more teachers will hopefully create a more able-bodied set of folks equipped to deal with the classroom.

Whether or not people want to do that is a problem though as a lot of teachers don't realize or want to acknowledge that they could improve their methods. There's the issue of what constitutes an effective method and then how to disseminate that information out as well. It saddens me that the people that are there to help people learn aren't trying to learn themselves a lot of the time.

I agree that a large part of the focus should be on educating educators, which is more than teaching rote methods. It's part developmental psychology, part lesson design (or adjusting successful lesson plans to fit students), part classroom control and student management, etc.

The argument Gates presents uses a survey a teachers that indicates good teachers would be willing to teach more students for more pay. The more pay part is essential. Is it enough to prevent burn out? I don't know. I suppose it depends on the teacher. We're not talking about classes 35-40 student classes, btw, just larger.

Use technology. What's sad is videogame tutorials are often more helpful in 'teaching the game' than the school system is at teaching concepts. For example, there should be a math program that allows students to attempt the problem, but the problem is broken down and shows exactly where the student made the error and why. With technology, there can be more instantaneous feedback. It doesn't help if the student has to wait a day for the teacher to grade the paper he just did and has no real way of knowing if they did the problem correctly. There needs to be a better 'practice environment' before official graded assessments are given.

I can't add anymore to this other than why isn't this being done?

Absolutely! I strongly believe elearning will play a major role in educating students 10 years from now. It's a new field, and we dont' have enough people researching and developing elearning programs.

 

[GhaleonQ]

By the way, all, thanks for the practice. This is not how I would come across professionally and I'm dashing off some of the responses, but this is still good training. I can judge what people know and don't, get used to rehearsing talking points in my head, and figure out where I should tread lightly.

Thanks, even to those to whom I haven't responded, for being mature.

 

[Shouta]

I agree that a large part of the focus should be on educating educators, which is more than teaching rote methods. It's part developmental psychology, part lesson design (or adjusting successful lesson plans to fit students), part classroom control and student management, etc.

The argument Gates presents uses a survey a teachers that indicates good teachers would be willing to teach more students for more pay. The more pay part is essential. Is it enough to prevent burn out? I don't know. I suppose it depends on the teacher. We're not talking about classes 35-40 student classes, btw, just larger.

The option could go on the table but I don't think it's a particularly good idea at any rate. Most teachers in larger schools (like 3A or higher) handle what, 90-100 students per quarter overall? That's quite a lot even now and increasing it would not be possible for most folks.

Class size isn't really as big of an issue if you ask me though. It's number of students that a single teacher handles overall.

 

[Mrs. Manky]

I think the biggest problem with public high school in the US is that a lot of kids view it as a daily social event instead of a place where they go to learn. A solution would be having seperate schools for boys and girls be the norm like it is in many other countries. It's too late to do that now though.

Uniforms would help too. Fewer cliques that way.

I attended an all girls private high school. Uniforms were required, but only the skirts and blazers came from a single source. So you had the rich kids wearing the expensive blouses, sweaters, socks, and shoes, and the scholarship/financial aid kids wearing the cheap versions. And it was obvious who wore what. "Civvie" days, when the students were allowed to wear non-uniform clothes, were also an example of economic class, as the rich kids dressed down, and the poor kids dressed up.

All this didn't stop the cliques, by the way.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

For the people saying: "It's because this generation is full of lazy deadbeat kids."

Do you have any proof?

Is the typical middle class American kid really that different than the typical middle class Australian, British, Canadian, New Zealand kid?

Just stopping everyone there. The myth that American schools have fallen behind the rest of the world recently is bullshit. Ever since they started doing these types of studies the United States has always been in the teens.

http://www.good.is/post/debunking-education-myths-america-s-never-been-number-one-in-math/

And? It's the fact that those then developing nations that didn't compete are now (or close to being fully) developed and have surpassed us.

 

[I_D]

For the people saying: "It's because this generation is full of lazy deadbeat kids."

Do you have any proof?

It's not a matter of being lazy, it's a matter of not caring.


Imagine if you've never been punished for not doing your homework. Sure, your grades slip, but if your parents don't care, there's no reason for you to care.
You're obviously not going to do it on your own, since homework sucks, and you develop a sense that homework really has no meaning, which often carries over to classwork.
This mindset remains prevalent until you're suddenly looking for jobs, and you're unable to get them. By now, of course, it's too late.




Everybody has some excellent ideas in this thread. I'm glad our future kids will be under the control of people who actually see the problems.

 

[GavinGT]

I blame the parents. Kids get out of school what they put into it, and parents need to do more to encourage their kids to try.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

For the people saying: "It's because this generation is full of lazy deadbeat kids."

Do you have any proof?

Like rates of obesity and activity amongst teens?

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

It's not a matter of being lazy, it's a matter of not caring.


Imagine if you've never been punished for not doing your homework. Sure, your grades slip, but if your parents don't care, there's no reason for you to care.
You're obviously not going to do it on your own, since homework sucks, and you develop a sense that homework really has no meaning, which often carries over to classwork.
This mindset remains prevalent until you're suddenly looking for jobs, and you're unable to get them. By now, of course, it's too late.




Everybody has some excellent ideas in this thread. I'm glad our future kids will be under the control of people who actually see the problems.

And this doesn't happen in those other countries? This isn't a Western thing but specifically a United States thing?

Like rates of obesity and activity amongst teens?

Which many of those countries have similar rates compared to America? Hell America only leads due to the fact that so many low income families are trapped in the system and are forced to buy subsidized food (which is all junk food).

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Which many of those countries have similar rates compared to America? Hell America only leads due to the fact that so many low income families are trapped in the system and are forced to buy subsidized food (which is all junk food).

Well thats an awful lot of tap dancing. You asked for evidence that modern kids were lazy deadbeats, I provided the fact they are obese and are inactive. So we compare US youth of today, to the US youth of yesteryear.

 

[unomas]

I redboxed "Waiting for Superman" last night and the movie was very good. From the viewpoint of the movie it came down to the quality of the school and it's teachers primarily. It was a great movie to watch, and definitely an eye opener. As someone who coaches kids and has for 12 years, I can also say that it really is up to the teacher to get the results at the end of the day. There are other factors like the parents of course and the student themselves, but if a teacher is good at what they do they will have students that do well. With unions there is zero incentive for teachers to actually be good at what they do. In the kind of teaching I do if I'm not good I don't get paid, and the teachers in our school systems have no worry of that at all. They could be amazing or they can be terrible and they'll have a job no matter what.

 

[MrFortyFive]

That John Taylor Gatto speech might be the best thing on education reform that I've ever read. (post 7 for those who haven't read it!!)I really can think of nothing else to say on the subject that would contribute in a more meaningful way than that.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

The kids are no lazier than any other generation of child. The parents, however, are significantly lazier, though I fully admit that that is an anecdotal assessment of the situation.

Ghaleon: thanks for the link. I figured that something like VAA existed or had been theroized. I still think that it doesn't and can't address the "parent problem," which it admits as much, but I feel like anything aside from that is a bit of a drop in the bucket.

It's a four-pronged problem: teachers, administrators, policy-makers, and parents. I don't deny that there are structural problems with teachers and their unions, but I think that stacked against the other three factors, it registers as relatively small, at least by comparison. I would guess that parents and policy-makers are the biggest problem; parents for the reasons previously mentioned, policy-makers for creating a system that basically FORCES the teachers and administrators to do whatever they can to fudge their numbers because their funding and pay is tied to the school's statistical performance. I'm wary of people focusing on unions with these two giant elephants still in the room.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

The kids are no lazier than any other generation of child. The parents, however, are significantly lazier, though I fully admit that that is an anecdotal assessment of the situation.

Think lazy parents might have been lazy children?

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Well thats an awful lot of tap dancing. You asked for evidence that modern kids were lazy deadbeats, I provided the fact they are obese and are inactive. So we compare US youth of today, to the US youth of yesteryear.

What are you talking about?

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Think lazy parents might have been lazy children?

You are banned, but I assume you might still be lurking.

I think that they might have been, but I think it's more likely that there was a graduated effect: standards for parenting and discipline became more lax over time (not necessarily a bad thing), from which the modern trend of parents trying to be their children's friend first, rather than parent first, arose. I think the lazy parents of now likely had parents that were good (or at least better) but that they have come to live in a society that tells them to parent differently, that childhood is a sort of noble savagery that must be protected and shielded.

 

[AndyD]

The option could go on the table but I don't think it's a particularly good idea at any rate. Most teachers in larger schools (like 3A or higher) handle what, 90-100 students per quarter overall? That's quite a lot even now and increasing it would not be possible for most folks.

Class size isn't really as big of an issue if you ask me though. It's number of students that a single teacher handles overall.

I think class size is as important as overall student numbers though. If you have a smaller class, more attention can be paid to individual students who are behind, or even regular students. And also there is less disorder as there is less anonymity. A class of 20 is hugely different from 40.

If you have kids doing math problems, with 20 a teacher can walk around and spend a minute with the few students who don't get it, whereas with 40, the number of weaker students will monopolize the teacher's entire time, also harming the good students who get bored as they are not stimulated.

Smaller classes, more periods and longer days are the way to go. Or half day Saturdays.

But ultimately I still think the worst part is the cultural disrespect for education and lackadaisical approaches at home. Fix that first and everyting else will fall into place.

 

[GoutPatrol]

F

And? It's the fact that those then developing nations that didn't compete are now (or close to being fully) developed and have surpassed us.

You mean China and India? Countries that aren't even tested?

An overarching theme of this year’s report is that events in the field of education are not always as they appear to be—and especially so with test scores. Whether commentators perpetrating myths of international testing, states winning races while evidencing only mediocre progress, or an eighthgrade test dominated by content below the eighth grade, the story is rarely as simple as it appears on first blush. This report tried to dig beneath the surface and uncover some of the complexities of these important issues.

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2011/0207_education_loveless.aspx

There are a billion people each in China and India, with most still living in poverty. If you sample correctly (which you can't really do in those countries because FUCK, how many of those poor kids just don't even have the opportunity for an education, period) you'll see there are alot of people being left behind there.

 

[AndyD]

You mean China and India? Countries that aren't even tested?



http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2011/0207_education_loveless.aspx

There are a billion people each in China and India, with most still living in poverty. If you sample correctly (which you can't really do in those countries because FUCK, how many of those poor kids just don't even have the opportunity for an education, period) you'll see there are alot of people being left behind there.

There is a big difference between some left behind and whether the best are better and more of them than in another country.

China and India still have giant agrarian sectors, whereas the US and most western countries do not. So just because say only a quarter of India's 1.2 billion is educated, that's about as many as there are in US. And if their cream of the crop is better than our cream of the crop, the jobs will go there because the numbers are about equal.

Its not just about the absolute average student. Its about being able to produce the best workforce from an economic standpoint, which in Western countries relies on higher end educationally jobs and not on grunt work agricultural sectors.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

You mean China and India? Countries that aren't even tested?

China and India? What are you talking about? There are many more countries on these tests now than a dozen or so.

There are thirty countries ahead of us alone in math for example. (from).

 

[ProfessorLobo]

That John Taylor Gatto speech might be the best thing on education reform that I've ever read. (post 7 for those who haven't read it!!)I really can think of nothing else to say on the subject that would contribute in a more meaningful way than that.

Just rented A New Kind of Teacher from the library because of this thread. I'm not sure his "family-centered" plan is the best for everyone, but I've never seen anyone put the truth about education so succinctly until reading John Taylor Gatto.

 

[GoutPatrol]

There is a big difference between some left behind and whether the best are better and more of them than in another country.

China and India still have giant agrarian sectors, whereas the US and most western countries do not. So just because say only a quarter of India's 1.2 billion is educated, that's about as many as there are in US. And if their cream of the crop is better than our cream of the crop, the jobs will go there because the numbers are about equal.

Its not just about the absolute average student. Its about being able to produce the best workforce from an economic standpoint, which in Western countries relies on higher end educationally jobs and not on grunt work agricultural sectors.

If we are talking cream of the crop, then we are arguing about highly skilled workers, who come from universities, where the United States is still comfortably #1.

China and India? What are you talking about? There are many more countries on these tests now than a dozen or so.

There are thirty countries ahead of us alone in math for example. (from).

PISA again has metrics that are different than what people think of when talking a test: they look for "literacy", which if you looked at my link, you would see that is...

“are defined not primarily in terms of a common denominator of national school curricula but in terms of what skills are deemed to be essential for future life.”

What does that even mean? Who knows.