Are we missing real education issues?

[angus]

This is a tough issue.  I worked as a high school teacher for two years.  I worked in a very expensive private school where almost all the faculty had advanced degrees, and where nearly 100% of the carefully selected filthy-rich students got into the university of their first choice.  This school, like most private schools, did not require any teacher certification.  And, as you might imagine, its students outperformed public school students.  My own AP calculus students almost all scored a 5.  compare that to any public schools where the teachers are certified.  

Does that mean uncertified teachers are better than certified teachers?  of course not.  Does that mean rich children have social advantages over poor children?  of course they do (though you'd need more data than what I've presented to come to that conclusion, we all know it is true.)

I don't know if you want to turn this thread into a debate over school vouchers (school 'choice'  anytime you want to sell an idea, whether it's abortion, vouchers, or anything else, call it 'choice'  ever notice that?).  So I won't go there just yet.  But if you want that debate, this is a great place to have it.  

But your point is certainly taken.  And I agree that we should rethink our carrot-and-stick approach to teaching.

[angus]

when all is said and done, more things will have been said, than done  

[angus]

I second that.  Having worked with quite a few gifted and enthusiastic high-school summer interns in my current research, and then having received feedback from their teachers, I can say that exposure to new techniques and new ideas is valuable.  

Nevertheless, removing the requisite educational psychology gives me a bad feeling.  (there's that damn pathos again, sorry republicans.)  It is possible to be an excellent physicist, for example, but not be able to teach physics to students.  Maybe that comes from within, and I suspect it does, but the disciplines of psychology and sociology have proven helpful to many teachers.  

The problem manifests itself in overtesting, and overrewarding.  This leads to teachers teaching to a test, rather than teaching a subject.  It also leads to grade inflation and greater concern for making good marks rather than truly mastering material.  But what is the problem?  I think it's societal.  Do we view education as a means to an end, or an end in itself?  If it is the former, then we have found the root of the problem.

[angus]

when all is said and done, more things will have been said, than done  

That's exactly right, no one is going to do anything about it, and that's actually why I support vouchers. There may be a million good reasons opposing them, but I support vouchers because no one will do anything about it. Unions won't give an inch (I suspect for PC reasons - they're more worried about Mr. Teacher offending Johnny than educating him) and kids carry on because they're bored and no one is allowed to correct them. So it's a catch-22. Maybe if they could be entertained while they're being taught, that would be a start. And people can be trained to entertain.

Now the emphasis, I hear from ed people (at least at the college level, don't know about high school), is on group work. Put them in groups and don't teach: let them work together, teach each other. Yeah, about baseball or something.  

You and I share the same the same fundamental philosophy.  (1) The traditional approach works.  (2) Enforced values cause more harm than good.  (3) Enthusiasm can be engendered if done carefully.  But we diverge in our conclusions:  Vouchers potentially take money out of the schools that need it most, and give money to the schools that need it least.  Sure, that handful of students whose parents can afford, and who care enough, to pay the extra bit over the voucher amount will have ten thousand dollars worth of opportunity for only three thousand dollars, but that will take away seven thousand from an already struggling school.  I suppose that's my main argument against vouchers.

[angus]

Realistically all vouchers will do is increase the quality of education for the wealthy and decrease it for the poor.

Personally I'd like to see some kind of compensation plan wherein teachers retirement plan is directly linked to the economic performance of their students.

I agree with your first paragraph.  The second paragraph contains a good idea, but might lead to some of the same problems we have now, like teaching to tests.  Also, teachers would potentially surrender more of their dignity.  It is hard enough as it is to attract good teachers.

[angus]

oddly, one of the most 'liberal' elements of your party and one of the most 'conservative' elements of mine support vouchers.  Many in the middle too.  In the long run, you and I will find ourselves in loosing battles within both our parties if we do not speak out now.  

Voucher have this effect, we believe.  But can we demonstrate that what we believe is actually true?

[angus]

Public schools need to teach things a little more USEFUL I believe -- not that anyone would sign up for these classes. Stuff like Modern Logic or Criminal Justice.

I've seen the horrible state of Baltimore public schools, and I've seen the close to 70% dropout rate, and I've seen Mayor O'Malley do next to nothing.

Clearly, the first step in improving inner city public schools is not raising academic standards and getting star teachers in the classroom -- it's finding a way to keep students from dropping out, cos the studies don't lie -- more education, less likely chance for crime.

I've decided schools for everyone and anyone who wants it.  It can be the means to an end, or an end in itself.  One of these silly tests had a question about whether I thought people between certain ages should be required to be in school.  I voted yes.  I think if I'm going to force them to be there, which, if I have any say in the matter, I will, then we ought to take it seriously.  

you mention what sociologists call a latent (as opposed to a manifest) function of schools, which is to help keep 'em off the streets and out of trouble.  and you're exactly right.  another latent function of schooling is a slight reduction in official (and practical) unemployment.

[angus]

Public schools need to teach things a little more USEFUL I believe -- not that anyone would sign up for these classes. Stuff like Modern Logic or Criminal Justice.


I've seen the horrible state of Baltimore public schools, and I've seen the close to 70% dropout rate, and I've seen Mayor O'Malley do next to nothing.

Clearly, the first step in improving inner city public schools is not raising academic standards and getting star teachers in the classroom -- it's finding a way to keep students from dropping out, cos the studies don't lie -- more education, less likely chance for crime.

Relevance in subject matter is very important to keep a teenager's interest. However, a course that describes itself as "Modern Logic" by itself allows itself to miss teaching the basics. This happen all to frequently in high svcholls that put out contemporary metrial but provide no basic training.

The most successful mechanism is to take a required core subject such mathematics, and place the content within a context such as "Modern Logic". The students can gain a basic skill while putting it in a contemporary framework.

nicely said.  are you teaching?

[angus]

 undergrad chair and in curriculum development and bureaucrat.  that's an impressive resume, sir.  no wonder the alacrity.  yes, its a challenge to find interesting applications.  a fun one, no doubt, but apparently elusive at times.  your ideas about undergraduate internship in this thread is a great one.  it costs money.