Author Topic: The Education System  (Read 2876 times)

ZombieBucky

  • Springtime of Youth
  • Squaretable Knight (+400)
  • *
  • Posts: 409
  • <insert witty phrase to match above avatar>
    • View Profile
Re: The Education System
« Reply #30 on: December 11, 2009, 09:41:26 pm »
ive heard tales of the mcas system. didnt they like add bio or something to it?

i fondly remember my years of high school. i think it was sophomore year that i had only the greatest teacher ever, ms. carmen. ms. carmen was a mathematics teacher. she taught in that year honors geometry, honors algebra 2, and advanced placement calculus. she would explain the topic in detail, then wed have a test on it. we could retake it for the first half, but then after the second half we went cumulative. my math grades (not my strong point) were the highest i had ever seen them. instead of c- or even a d, i was getting a b+. aside from her methods, she seemed to connect with the students quite well. she knew the deal with my folks and my siblings. she knew the deal with one of my friends and her interesting desire (thats too personal to talk about). this one time someone was staying at home for no good reason, so she took three of us (me included) in her car to his house to teach there. i actually learned from ms. carmen.
only issue: every other teacher in the school hated her.
they said that she got too close. that she graded too easily. that she weighed the grades. that she was way too easy. we didnt walk all over her, but we kind of viewed each other as equals, like a best friend who has knowledge you dont have. unfortunately, she left my senior year when i felt confident enough for ap calculus. leading me to my next teacher:
i hated mr. royce.
mr. royce was ms. carmen's antithesis. instead of having desks in pairs that got seperated during test time, he had the desks in rows. military. no one could even whisper during his class. he gave us these huge books (ms. carmen didnt make us take the book) and had us do the stuff from them. we learned one topic, then moved on to the next until the final, which we didnt really review in class.
i nearly failed that course.

if every teacher and all education systems were like ms. carmen, i think we would be better off. but more likely than not, i find more of mr. royce in all my teachers.

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: The Education System
« Reply #31 on: December 14, 2009, 04:40:43 pm »
The time has come! To talk of carpenters, of ceiling wax, and KINGS!

Or in this case, that afore mentioned study. Before I do, however, let me note that I will address J’s question after my analysis of the analysis of the literature in the field.

Now, Genesis, when critically approaching a study one should ask three questions first, above all others:

1) Who wrote it?
2) Is the individual capable of telling the truth (that is, do they know it)?
2) Is the individual willing to tell the truth?

The article, “A Win-Win Solution: The Empirical Evidence on How Vouchers Affect Public Schools,” was written by Dr. Greg Forster and sponsored by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. Notably, Forster had written in support of school vouchers previously, and the Friedman Foundation is pro-school voucher as well. If you’ll look at the endnotes of the article, you will also notice that Forster and his colleague Jay Greene make up 10 of the 25 citations. About a third of the material that he is reviewing is his own or that of his collaborator.

Do you see anything suspicious about that? He might know the truth, but he is also heavily invested in presenting his prior stance, rather than critically examining the evidence in this meta-analysis if such an analysis would undermine that stance. This doesn’t mean his analysis is bunk (after all, lead researchers in a field will often cite themselves, because anyone writing a similar article would cite them), but it does mean that one must approach it carefully.

Let us look at the article itself. On page 10, paragraph 2, Forster states that “defenders of the government monopoly on education” make various claims (the claims are not here important), but he fails to provide a citation to back this claim up. Citations are necessary to verify his summary of the opposition’s claim. Without it, the reader cannot determine if his summary is a strawman fallacy. Now, his claims in this regard are fairly benign, and so lacking proper citation here isn’t particularly a sticking point. However, this displays very bad form on the author’s part (and, indeed, on the organization that would let that slide). One MUST support one’s claims with arguments and citations if one is writing an academic paper. Citations, however, are scant (but the research done on the topic is also a bit scant).

In his defense, one might balk at the information contained in paragraph 3 of the same page. At the time the study was performed there were 24 programs in 14 states plus D.C., but on page 5, in the Executive Overview, right hand column, first full point, it is stated that only 6 states have been studied plus D.C. An analysis of less than half of the states involved might seem dubious, but 6+1 is actually a fairly good sized cohort, assuming the statistical analysis is sound; many scientific studies make do with small samples… though in turn, the more variables there are, the larger the sample size needs to be and the more impressive the results need to be before they are notable.

First full paragraph on page 11 is an appeal to emotion fallacy. The second, third, and fourth full paragraphs, on the other hand, are quite interesting and informative (though one might wonder if money gets left behind when school vouchers are used, saving schools money… where are those extra funds coming from? The school where the student is going to? Or is there just more money in the system, in which case one would need to divorce vouchers from simple increased funding). You’ll note that he cites his sources there. How lovely of him not to expect us to take his word for it. Unfortunately right on the next page, full paragraph 2, he is right back at making claims that he doesn’t support: do American’s know that monopolies provide poor quality? Do all monopolies provide poor quality? The government monopoly on Fire Protection seems to be a good bit better than private competition, for example, so his statements do not seem to be on par with saying that water is wet (a statement that one could reasonably get away without citing). He thus needs citation and arguments if he is going to bother saying this at all.

As a bit of an aside, maybe I am just not perceiving things correctly, but I am fairly sure all science is empirical, and I can guarantee you that random assignment is not the “gold standard” for the entire shebang. It is very important, don’t get me wrong, but that isn’t what “gold standard” refers to. The gold standard, in science, is that which everything else can be measured to in order to approximate worth. If you want to know if a particular type of neuron is absent from a particular section of a brain, you will use whatever the field considers to be the “gold standard” (laser-capture microscopy, for example, though I don’t believe that is actually the gold standard in that field, but one of the many standards used). Randomization is a necessary part of science, but it is more along the lines of the wood standard. As in, don’t take any wooden nickels.

Simple randomization is great, but randomized double-blind studies (in which both the researchers and the patients aren’t sure who is in the variable group and who is in the control) are where it’s at. It is a little hard to do in this situation, mind you (presumably there is no way for a student not to realize they are not at a different school), but without it, observer bias is something that one has to take into account. Forster brings up randomization but doesn’t address observer bias; that is something that has to be addressed. While the studies he is reviewing might address the concern, such information should be echoed in the reviews as well.

Unfortunately, the first study of Milwaukee schools (page 16, 4th paragraph) is of limited value. The study compared different levels of involvement, not if involvement is beneficial. Simply put, as Forster presents it, the study had no controls (later it sounds like they did have controls, just not positive and negative controls, which is nearly the same thing). However, Hoxby’s study seems essentially to have served as a pilot study, setting the foundation for later research. Pilot studies generally aren’t as useful as other studies, but they can get away with things like poor controls. They’re just supposed to show that something is worth studying more into. And people did, so it served a fine scientific purpose.

Forster’s analysis of Carnoy study in Milwaukee is, unfortunately, flawed. Carnoy argued that the voucher programs did produce benefit but that this benefit was in doubt since the benefits did not continue to increase. Forster discards that objection because the benefits didn’t go away, either. Now I haven’t read Carnoy’s study, but for Forster to be correct in his rejection of the former’s objection, Forster must essentially claim that total market saturation was achieved in two years. Assuming that the program was K-12, total market saturation couldn’t be achieved until 13 years had passed (though significant saturation would be reached at the 4 year mark, with diminishing returns until 13 years). Not only must individuals become aware of the program, they must be convinced of its merits, and they must have no reasons for remaining at a school that a voucher would not address. One should expect the benefits to have increased (albeit slowly) after 2000. That they did not indicates that the vouchers themselves were not producing the benefits but that some unidentified side effect, which was independent of student participation, was the cause.

The second objection that Carnoy raised is also more significant than Forster estimated. Areas with fewer private schools did not see different benefits than areas with more private schools. The problem there is that the vouchers are supposed to improve schools by increasing choice. It is a greater expression of choice to move from a public school to a private school, or vice versa, than to move from a public to public school. I would also like to see an analysis based on institutional density in an area (more schools in the area should have increased the benefit, fewer schools should have decreased it), but I probably need to look into Carnoy’s study directly for that one.

Greene’s Florida analysis (pg 18, starting with paragraph 4) is very interesting, but I question his methodology. The focus of the analysis is on schools that received D and F grades (F’s being necessary for vouchers to come into effect). That is good, but it needs to be put into a larger context. Did the grading system influence all schools? Did C schools on average increase their scores, even though they were in no particular threat from vouchers (Chakrabarti’s analysis on pg 19 indicates yes)? If so, then it indicates that the threat of vouchers was not the only thing motivating schools. While F schools increased their grades more than D schools, was this a predictable trend? If F schools increased by X amount, did D schools increase by 1/2 X, and C by 1/4 X, and B by 1/8 X? Again, if so, this would indicate that the grading system, not the threat of vouchers, was a useful tool for encouraging improvement. This generally gets at the problem of only using positive controls; a negative control (ideally a school not involved in vouchers at all, but alternately schools not subject to the threat of vouchers could also work) is needed to properly frame the information.

Forster’s 2008 study (pg 20, starting paragraph 3) is interesting since it implies that both were important factors. Merely getting a grade helped, while the threat of vouchers helped more. Of course, if vouchers ever became normal (and not something to fear, as Forster noted in his introduction), one might wonder if the threat would retain its significance. But that is admittedly outside of the scope of his investigation.

Forster’s study of Texas, on the other hand, (pg 21, full paragraphs 2and 3) is dubious since more money was being pumped into the school system via a private voucher program. Were the gains the result of vouchers or simply more money? The study should have compared it to a publically funded, similar voucher program elsewhere.

The alternate theory section is interesting, but underdeveloped. Forster didn’t consider (page 24, starting paragraph 2) the possibility that merely moving individuals to a new setting could result in increased test scores (I believe in another thread I had even suggested that moving students around could break up undesirable social clichés and promote a desirable learning atmosphere). The analysis he did provide was relatively good (minus the snide remarks), just incomplete. The problems with it are the same problems I noted in the individual analysis sections.

His analysis of the stigma effect, however, (pg 25, 2nd column, 3rd paragraph) is shoddy. That dissimilar programs produced benefits without the stigma effect does not comment on the stigma effect in the program where it might be present. It is enough, by itself, to argue that the gains in Florida are not due entirely to stigma, but it doesn’t discount it. He also discounts the stigma effect because there was a single-year backslide for schools that moved out of the threatened range. A single year does not a trend make. One would need to analysis the schools themselves to see what they did differently between their years threatened and this one year non-threatened. Did any policies or practices change? If not, a backslide could be due to random fluctuations. Changes in data need to be investigated and explained. To note, if these were high schools, then that last year also represented a full changing of the guard; no student there had ever been stigmatized. The stigma effect would have been removed, then.

Chakrabarti’s response to the stigma effect (pg 26, first full paragraph) is interesting, but needs more analysis before it can be properly interpreted. One would need to go to her report, it would seem. Florida had a ranking system prior to the A+ program, but was it a similarly structured program with publically recognized indicators of failing? An F is far more visible score to the public than a score of Purple, for example. Forster again overlooked the influence of stigma, however. If vouchers become socially acceptable, will the gains of the A+ program be lost? Indeed, is it even a prudent course of action to make vouchers a punishment?

Forster then goes on to note that another study, Figlio & Rouse’s, had results that contradict Chakrabarti’s. She said the old program had no affect on bottom ranking schools (it appears she did not look at higher level schools), Figlio and Rouse say that there was an affect but that it was smaller. A third study, then, is needed to identify which study is correct.

To note, Forster’s comment on page 26, third full paragraph, that private schools boosted voucher improvements is at odds with his dismissal of Carnoy’s similar but opposite arguments regarding his own Milwaukee study. In that study, the location and density of private schools did not influence voucher success, but in this study it did. Why is there this difference? What factors explain it? Why is that one the outlier and this one the accepted.

His conclusion to the discussion on the Stigma effect is poor in itself. He concludes that either the stigma effect doesn’t exist or it exists but has a small impact. That is an unacceptable and (almost) entirely un-useful conclusion. Either something exists or it does not. If the data is not in agreeance, then more data is necessary to establish what is real and what is the result of confounding factors. Outliers need to be accounted for.

Forster’s discussion on the regression of the mean was interesting.

The author does make a reasonably convincing argument that voucher programs are beneficial, but the quality of his analysis is far from ideal or commendable. His own objectivity is questionable, his style contains fallacious rhetoric, and his itself is hasty. The article needs a section on methods specifically (it is one of the more boring parts of a paper to read, but also one of the most important), and it needs the help of a statistician to frame the math in a significant manner, rather than having it as almost an after-thought (and even then, not much of one).

As I originally said, it isn’t that a close examination of the article should make one discount it, but it should lead one to be careful of the author’s claims and analysis. In a fledgling field, such as voucher-research appears to be, this isn’t a disgraceful review of the literature, but neither is it a paradigm establishing one. It is really more of a systematic review of the literature, rather than a critical review, which subtracts from its potential use.



I see a lot of antipathy toward the school of thinking which emphasizes memorization and rote as an educational vehicle. Given that our decline in global literacy and numeracy rankings is due largely to our de-emphasis on memorization while other nations have continued to emphasize it, would anyone like to explain in greater detail why they are opposed to this system, and explain what they think a viable alternative would include?

First, I call your basic supposition into question: has memorization, in general, been de-emphasized?

Second, I call your basic conditional supposition into question: has a de-emphasize in memorization resulted in a sliding of the U.S. (for I assume you are participating in the standard Amerocenterism of these sorts of discussions) rank as compared to other nations which have emphasized it, as opposed to other unrelated factors?

Memorization is a very useful tool when information is not easily accessible. Pre-modern educational structures focused on it, since reference sources were nearly impossible for the average elite-individual to access. Memorization, then, allowed an individual to see the book, commit it to memory, and pass it along. In an age, however, where information is freely flowing and easy to access, memorization loses its value. The more omnipresent access to information is, the less important it is to memorize it (though the more important it becomes for us to be aware that the information exists).

It may be that though memorization is not as wide spread, it hasn’t been de-emphasized. Rather, it may have been refocused onto those points were technology has not made it obsolete.

That doesn’t seem to be the case, but it is a worthwhile consideration.

May I be anecdotal for a moment? A friend of mine was recently (as in, the last two years) diagnosed with diabetes. Doctors insisted that she was type II despite the fact that she was insulin sensitive (which alone indicates type I or a variation). The reason for this is that she did not fit into the mold of the memorized information of the M.D.s. Type II is X, Type I is Y. Memorization failed this friend as she was misdiagnosed for about 6 or 8 months. Critical thinking skills, however, finally revealed that she had Type I (well, latent autoimmune diabetes in adults, or LADA, actually). Memorization works well enough when nothing unusual happens.

Of course, then there is the opposite; Ph.D.s with critical thinking skills overlooking the obvious because they don’t have the raw knowledge base necessary to connect to important points of information. No matter how good you are at thinking, you can’t solve a problem you don’t even know that the information you need exists.

If you want the best doctor around, you want an M.D./Ph.D. You want memorization and critical thinking.

Thus I argue against memorization because, currently, it takes the place of thinking. Not that we enforce memorization much, either; really busywork is where our education spends most of its time, though it is busywork intended to aid memorization, not comprehension. We memorize names and dates in History, books and themes in English, equations in Math, random disconnected facts in Science, and rules in P.E. None of these teach individuals how to approach something, they all teach individuals to accept what other people have already said. It is a means of indoctrinating the population into preconceived notions without needing to justify them.

History is the perfect example. At least with science, people can’t (usually) leave High School without at least hearing about the Scientific Method. Most people will need to get to the graduate level before they’ll hear about the Historical Method. This makes history a dead thing; it is sort of like someone who has been fed beef all their life but never having known that beef comes from cows. Beef is tasty, but the individual gains a greater appreciation for it by knowing its origin. Likewise with history, if individuals understand the process of conducting history (since history really is more of a verb than a noun), history becomes more meaningful. Because we keep it at the level of memorizing facts, history is dying out in the United States (well, ancient history; modern history is alive and well).

Does this mean that historical facts shouldn’t be memorized? Not at all, but rather that thinking is important too and needs to be included.

I would propose, briefly here, that the reason other nations are doing better than the United States in global education rankings is actually two. One, other nations have a more efficient educational system. Certain individuals of pre-specified educational merit automatically get college paid for, others go onto other sorts of education and career options (in some places with Trade Schools even being respectable options). This creates an environment in which individuals can excel to their capabilities, and it also adds much needed bite to educational drive. If you ever hope of being ambitious, that ambition needs to be realized at young age. Good or bad, this is a motivation that Americans lack.  Two, other nations have increased their educational systems over past years while the American system has not been significantly altered (especially not in desirable ways). It is little surprise that a 2006 Toyota Camry could out perform a 1986 Toyota Camry. Some slippage from wear and tear occurs, but a lot of it also has to do with improvements over the intervening years. The American educational system is getting to be outdated. Indeed, if we do not seriously address the issue, the entire thing is likely to collapse in the next few generations due to educational inflation (HS diplomas aren’t worth anything now-a-days, and Bachelor degrees are starting to become the same).

A viable alternative to the current system, J, is one that emphasizes both thinking and memorization. Along with having 1st graders memorize the spelling of various words, we should be teaching them why those words are spelled the way they are spelled and mean what they mean (yes, we should be teaching linguistics in English classes). We should make Jr. Highers memorize geometrical equations by forcing them to discover at least a few of them on their own; by helping them discover why some of these equations are such wonderful things and how they can be useful in our daily lives.

I hope to become an educator myself one day, but unless I can teach historical processes and well as historical facts, I won’t make a difference.

Oh, as an aside, I suspect (though have not studied) that the decline of the quality of education may coincide with the rise of educaters who are trained in education instead of their subject matter. Back in 2002-2004 I worked in a Teacher Credentialling office in California. You could get a liscense to teach a Math Class having never taken a math class yourself (dramatically speaking, since a college degree was required and math was part of the GE requirements). But, you could not get a liscense to teach a math class if you had never taken a class on teaching practices. Some of the credentially program made sense, but other parts of it were bunk. Maybe if we spent more time ensuring that we were teaching the subjects and less time worrying about how we were teaching, then we might do better.

neo-fusion

  • Fan Project Leader
  • Mystical Knight (+700)
  • *
  • Posts: 782
  • Creator of Chrono Trigger Apocalypse... FEAR ME
    • View Profile
    • Neo-Fusion
Re: The Education System
« Reply #32 on: December 16, 2009, 11:56:10 pm »
Upon seeing that title, the first and only thing to pop into my mind was, "math classes SUCK." Currently, most math classes revolve around the memorization of a pre-constructed formula, handed to you by a book, without any reason or explanation for it's mechanics. I have only had one math class that actually taught the reasoning behind the numbers, and I have learned more from it than all the rest of my mathematical schooling, and this class isn't even transferable! The class worked so well that I found myself pondering truth tables and trigonometric applications while editing someone's essay in English tutoring.
When will schools ever deviate from the classic method of memorization and canned speeches? When will teachers actually teach those who want to learn? During my brief spell in this class I found math to be quite an interesting field of study. Unfortunately, the knowledge that every other class I need will be nothing like this and teach me nothing of value seriously stunts my enthusiasm.

This same complaint applies to history classes. History is taught by making students memorize dates, names, and dry descriptions of events. All history is written by whoever wins a war, or whoever has the most money to fling around. Students only get slight overviews of world events, a vague idea at best. A very wise man once told me that history is, in fact, just as awesome as the video games I so love. The only difference lies in the presentation. History is a mass collection of memories and stories, and should be viewed thus. If history classes were taught as stories, giving insight to the spirit and feel of events rather than the blatant facts, students would learn a whole lot more. And why do teachers not adopt this stance? Perhaps because it would take too long, or perhaps they have lost the art of story altogether.

I know there are a lot of deeper issues, not just with the way classes are structured, but with the framework that makes them possible. I, however, am ignorant to this subject. My main and current concern is the way knowledge is presented.

Damn, that hits it right on the head for me. During my 8th grade year the high school Algebra 1,2, and Calculus teacher was one HELL of a teacher from what I hear. I guess he had many different methods of teaching to make you truly understand how, why, and where the numbers come from. Then he retired before I got to experience that. Now the current teacher of those classes is the same as the other math teacher. They both just lecture the whole time and when you ask a question, they explain it, and then you still don’t get it… they get mad at you and get frustrated. It’s annoying for me when I am decent at match and my damn pre-calculus teacher can’t answer my damn question. I hate teachers like that.

The whole elementary-high school system is broken… and it’s for this reason that I can’t wait to get into college… although it is just lecturing and such, it will be a different experience and I will have student aids.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: The Education System
« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2010, 12:44:52 am »
I think it was the Compendium where I was talking with somebody about memorization-based learning. My contention was that non-memorization-based learning has produced poor results. If I'm mixing up my memories, don't worry, as you don't need that background to be able to appreciate this item. But it is on-topic. My favorite weather blogger, Cliff Mass, has made the state of the state's math education one of his pet peeves. This entry is a good read:

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-good-are-uw-students-in-math.html

Before scrolling down the entry to see the answers to the test he administered, you might be interested to click on the link to take the blank test for yourself and see how well you do--especially if you're in college now or will be very soon, which is the kind of person for whom the test was written. (The trigonometric diagram seems to be missing from the blank copy; don't worry about that question.)

I have to admit, it's been so long since I've seen a negative exponent that it took me a long moment to remember what it means and how to calculate it. But, that's beside the point: I did actually get taught about negative exponents once. Apparently, many of our K-12 students (statewide, but presumably nationally) are done a real disservice on this and other mathematical topics.

I saw a commercial earlier today in which a kid used the Internet to ask a tutor what the equation for the area of a triangle is. The tutor gave her the answer without any explanation whatsoever. Whomever designed that commercial apparently gave no real thought to the substance of education.

I haven't abandoned this topic; promise! I just want to see how far it can go without me muddying it up by introducing contentious viewpoints and long posts.

Edited for clarity.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 12:47:39 am by Lord J Esq »

MsBlack

  • Squaretable Knight (+400)
  • *
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Re: The Education System
« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2010, 02:09:34 am »
Urgh. Don't even get me started about how they teach The Math. Maybe you saw it when Kebrel linked it a while back, but if not, check out "Lockhart's Lament". It's quite long-winded but it makes some good points.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: The Education System
« Reply #35 on: January 05, 2010, 02:39:26 am »
Let me perhaps begin my first assertions and provocations into this subject by asking you all a short question: What kind of person should be responsible for the act of educating another person in a formal manner? To put it another way, how would you describe the role of a teacher?

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: The Education System
« Reply #36 on: January 05, 2010, 01:44:34 pm »
To be fair, one can memorize different things to get the same result. It used to be that people would figure out math problems by writing it all out. A Pencil and Paper was a necessary part of the solution. Now, in place of pencils and paper, we teach students to use calculators. By disallowing calculators, the instructor was stacking the odds in favor of him getting annoyed. It would be analogous to asking the same age-range of students to do the same problems 50 years ago but without the help of a pencil and paper. If you take away the tools that students have been taught to use to solve a problem, of course they're going to do poorly. That doesn't mean that they haven't been taught

Mr. (Dr.?) Mass isn't upset that students don't know how to do math; he didn't test for that. He is upset that students don't know how to do math his way.

Okay, I am over-exaggerating. A good number of the questions wouldn't be helped by a calculator (everything after section 1), so Cliff’s ire is well earned. But he has a bias that shouldn’t be ignored. He is upset by students having poor math skills and he is upset that times have changed. Give him a lawn and I'm sure he'll be yelling at kids to get off it.

To get to the meat of things, however, it is well agreed that current teaching practices are not producing the results we desire. Cliff has some good suggestions (I hesitate to call them "ideas" since each suggestion he makes has been brought up so often as to almost be cliché), but his underlying desire seems to be a return to "the good ol' days," when numerators were numerators, denominators were denominators, and the height of mathematical technology was the slide ruler. Getting rid of aspects of the "New Math" that don't work is good. Bringing back parts of the "Old Math" that did work is also good. But we can’t solve everything by bringing back Old Math. This is simply because Old Math wasn't perfect and it has become less perfect over time. Why?

One of the great complaints students have against math is how useless it feels. "When will I every use this?!" I know those words came out of my mouth when I was a student and I was lucky enough to actually be good at it. But if I disliked what I was good at, imagine how someone would feel if they were bad at it and it felt pointless? We know that humans tend to avoid pain, so why should we expect students to embrace a painful subject just because it is math?

In a world without computers actual mathematical calculations were more of a part of our everyday lives and so math didn't feel so useless. When children asked when they would use what they were learning, a parent could give a good answer that could help alleviate the suffering of the child. People used to remember various elements of mathematics because they were useful. Could a cashier give you exact change because he was taught well in a school room or because she had to actually perform the action repeatedly and excessively every single day? Take away computerized cash registers and watch how quickly people become masters at that sort of math.

Does this mean that drills are the answer (as Cliff briefly implies)? Nope, there is a difference between drills and real life experience. Drills are beneficial but with diminishing returns. Our current education system (at least as of 5 years ago) would benefit from fewer, not more, drills (as illustrated by Alfie Kohn's book, The Homework Myth). What we need is, ironically, better integration (integration being one of those New Math concepts that Cliff didn't seem fond of). I learned long-division in 4th grade... and I never used it again until 2008. I don't care how many drills one does, 16 years is way too long to go between uses. Good teacher, bad teacher, it didn’t matter. We don't need a lot of integration in the classroom, but enough so that long division, factoring, and other math skills get brought up year after year. Why? Because as our lifestyles change we become less and less likely to need various math skills outside of the classroom, so the classroom must become our practical experience if we want to keep the information. That way when we grow up and have a real practical use for them, we won’t have forgotten them due to disuse.

I am biased, but something else that would help math is History. Our entire education system is in need of help; you can't perfect one area while ignoring the rest. But why history? Because math is history. Humans didn't always know how to find the area of a circle, or the hypotenuse of a triangle, or any other concept covered in math classes. Pi itself is a terribly fascinating, human topic. The struggle to define it is no less amazing than the struggle of the suffragettes! I'm not saying that math class should turn into a history class, but if students understand how utterly amazing πr2 is, then they can better appreciate its value. As it is, we present equations as worthless things, something given without a thought and to be discarded the same way. At the start of every year a teacher should give the students the sort of problems they will learn to solve and demand that they give the correct answers without first teaching them how. Let the students become frustrated over being given an impossible task. Then, give them the history of how the impossible became possible and teach them how to do the same. If we help students realize the value of the knowledge, we will help them keep that knowledge.

Cliff is spot on the money regarding textbooks. This isn't merely a problem in math but throughout education as a whole. Get a history textbook from 60 years ago and you might actually enjoy reading it. Get a history textbook from 6 years ago and if you don't want to stab out your eyes by the end, I will be impressed. Textbook reform is a necessary element of improving our school systems. Ms Black, I will leave math up to you. Josh, get right on those engineering textbooks. And I'll form the head... I mean, write history ones. I’m only half joking… education reform the world over could start with the Chrono Compendium’s Textbook Series.

Regarding Teachers, I actually would argue that Cliff underestimates how poorly we train modern teachers. I used to work in a Teacher Credentialing Office, so I got to see the kind of people that are now teaching the children of California. To become a High School Teacher you had to either have a degree in the subject you wanted to teach (a B.As/B.S. only) or pass a subject specific test that indicated that you had the same knowledge. If you had a degree, you needed a 2.5 subject gpa. If you passed the test, it didn't matter how many times it took you to do so. These are poor standards to determining competency.

However, getting a credential was more than just knowing the subject itself. Potential teachers were required to also take course work in teaching. Some of it was understandable (there was a course on the basics of technology, to make sure that someone who knew how to teach math could also use a computer), but a lot of them were bunk (such as "Democracy in the Classroom"). And, notably, none of them were topic specific. A potential math teacher didn't learn how to teach math! All this was at one of the best Universities in the state for teacher training, too; I shudder to imagine what other programs were like.

It gets worse. Some teachers don’t even have to do that. You can get an Emergency Teaching Credential that allows you to teach at a public school for one year (if I am recalling the time period correctly). For those you didn’t even need to have a degree in the field or pass the subject test (though you did have to have the support of a school that needed/wanted you). I am also a certified substitute teacher. I became such after a single day attending a useless workshop on how to keep students busy and quiet. I realize that there is a limit to how effective a sub can be for one day, but communicating absolutely nothing is a horrible role for anyone in education.

Part of the problem is teacher shortages. Raise the bar for teachers and you'll reduce the number who get certified, resulting in fewer bodies to fill a growing number of slots. If we want to improve instructor quality we also need to improve instructor pay to encourage more (and ideally better) candidates to go into teaching. But I have ranted about this before, so I will not bore you with it again.

I would also argue that advanced degrees should probably be required for all teachers (Master's level, at the least), though integrated Masters/Credential programs would probably be the best way to go. In turn, advanced degrees (and even college degrees) should not be required for a lot of other positions. Trade schools and other educational pathways need to become respectable options so that degrees don’t become meaningless. But I’ve ranted about this before as well, so again I will refrain.

What kind of person should be responsible for the act of educating another person in a formal manner?

A polymath.

Arakial

  • Porrean (+50)
  • *
  • Posts: 61
    • View Profile
Re: The Education System
« Reply #37 on: January 05, 2010, 03:37:04 pm »
Upon seeing that title, the first and only thing to pop into my mind was, "math classes SUCK." Currently, most math classes revolve around the memorization of a pre-constructed formula, handed to you by a book, without any reason or explanation for it's mechanics. I have only had one math class that actually taught the reasoning behind the numbers, and I have learned more from it than all the rest of my mathematical schooling, and this class isn't even transferable!
Agreed. I had a class in my first year of college quizzically named "Foundations and Discrete Mathematics". The class itself covers logic (rules of inference, universal quantifiers, etc), proofs(everything from modus ponens to contraposition to math induction to well-ordered sets), set theory, group theory and the list goes on. Aside from a good teacher, the class essentially forces one to not assume mathematical truth but rather to be curious and explore the "murky and scary" realm of Mathematics. Point being, the class was truly profound when all math classes have required little proof or rote memorization, inclusively. Honestly, I believe the class, regardless of it's difficulty, actually belongs in middle schools; perhaps at a slower pace, though. It was verily the most enlightening math class, nay class, I've had since.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: The Education System
« Reply #38 on: January 05, 2010, 07:57:24 pm »
What kind of person should be responsible for the act of educating another person in a formal manner?

A polymath.

I should explicitly like us to avoid one-word answers here in this most deserving topic!

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: The Education System
« Reply #39 on: February 19, 2010, 03:22:09 pm »
After having given it considerable thought, I must change my stance regarding memorization in the education system. While I maintain that imparting a working understanding of concepts is more important, the problem of course comes into applying that understanding (and remembering it). To offer an analogy; knowing the basic concepts behind cooking is good, but one needs to step up to the kitchen and practice in order to truly be able to implement that knowledge later in life as well.

neo-fusion

  • Fan Project Leader
  • Mystical Knight (+700)
  • *
  • Posts: 782
  • Creator of Chrono Trigger Apocalypse... FEAR ME
    • View Profile
    • Neo-Fusion
Re: The Education System
« Reply #40 on: February 19, 2010, 03:59:09 pm »
I agree with thought here, but when you just lecture for an entire class and give homework, I think it defeats the purpose.

I think I have come to realization though.

I recently was wondering hmm I don't HAVE to do my homework. One of my highschool math teachers looks to see if the homework is complete (THAT IS IT) and the other teacher doesn't even check.

I have come to realize that I slack a bit on my homework due to this and I think this may be the reason I am doing worse than I think I should be in these math classes.

These teachers need to quit being lazy asses and check a damn paper and GRADE IT.

Of course they can't just START doing that. They need to start a new lesson, FINISH the lesson and give us two days to complete the homework. It will more than likely force the kids to work to get the right answers and overall a better grade because the teachers can't teach it so why not just teach ourselves on the basics of the formulas they give us.


chi_z

  • Squaretable Knight (+400)
  • *
  • Posts: 483
  • And you thought the dalton idea was ludicrous!
    • View Profile
Re: The Education System
« Reply #41 on: February 20, 2010, 06:04:05 pm »
My math teacher does that too, just looks to see if you did it or not. The funny thing is, if you don't turn anything at all, he doesn't count it against you for some reason, making homework pointless. All I do at school is zone out for 8 hours waiting to get back home to continue my life and do relevant, meaningful things, such as learn and research topics of interest. school just seems like a big waste of time to me, the public system has failed. how it can be fixed I don't know, but europe seems to be doing swell so why not just copy them? in the US you are designated a school according to where you live, 'zones'. In europe you get to decide which school you want to go to, it all depends on how much of a challenge you want.

the students are allowed to curse like sailors and the teachers do it too. there's brawls and food fights everyday, and someone pulls the fire alarms at least once per week. it's the teacher's way or the highway, no creativity encouraged. All the students, teachers/faculty dread going there everyday. The school hired an outside company to come in and give us specially designed tests to bump up our low test scores. the aim is to get a 16 million dollar govt grant. so once per week we have to stop whatever we are doing and take a test that goes over nothing we've been talking about the past week. the whole thing is just a circus, a nightmare, a hell, that makes you stupider and lazier.

neo-fusion

  • Fan Project Leader
  • Mystical Knight (+700)
  • *
  • Posts: 782
  • Creator of Chrono Trigger Apocalypse... FEAR ME
    • View Profile
    • Neo-Fusion
Re: The Education System
« Reply #42 on: February 21, 2010, 03:37:02 am »
All I do at school is zone out for 8 hours waiting to get back home to continue my life and do relevant, meaningful things, such as learn and research topics of interest.

Ha! I zone out for 7 out of 8 hours (or however long we go to school, not really important here) and the one hour I am not zoning, I am talking to girls during lunch, one in particular...

School is pathetic. Of course our school is a ridiculously high scoring school. We are almost a private school because we are so small, but it is due to the ACTUAL GOOD TEACHERS we have in our elementary and middle school that we get such good test scores. I think there may be 5-7 teachers in my high school that are good compared to the say 30 teacher staff.

Basically put it this way, OUR SCHOOL's Pre-Calculus class is like college calculus. We also have a Calculus class for goodness sake.

I just believe how our school starts out the kids is GREAT. The teachers at our elementary/middle/jr school's levels are impressive at what they do. We only have 5-7 teachers in our high school with this ability... sad.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: The Education System
« Reply #43 on: February 21, 2010, 01:41:48 pm »
Sometimes it seems as though there is a race to see who can fail the other first: our schools, or the students in them.

Truthordeal

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1133
  • Dunno what's supposed to go here. Oh now I see.
    • View Profile
    • Youtube Account
Re: The Education System
« Reply #44 on: February 21, 2010, 02:29:49 pm »
Sometimes it seems as though there is a race to see who can fail the other first: our schools, or the students in them.

You forgot about the public at large(parents in particular) that expect the schools to do almost everything short of financially providing for the students, without giving them the assistance or the authority to, you know, actually do that.