Are we missing real education issues?

[Giant Saguaro]

It seems that debate in education often revolves around vouchers, No Child Left Behind, etc. and it seems to me that maybe a more fundamental issue is being overlooked. I'm not sure, though, so feel free to disagree as what I'm about to say might be too simplistic.

Everything in teacher training these days seems to be centered on certification and how to teach, and knowledge of the subject area itself seems to have been assigned less importance. Don't you frequently hear stories about kids not knowing this and that, scores are low, in some states teachers flunk tests on subjects they are supposed to teach, and so on. I think this is a real problem, and instead of just pumping more money into the system and instead of just mandating more tests, why don't we evaluate teacher training? It doesn't make any sense that you spend as much, if not more time, in teacher training on how to teach than on your subject area. So what if you don't know the subject? Someone asks a question, just tell them you don't know and where to go to look it up? They're not going to go look it up, the kids want someone to capture their interest. They're bored. How about math? There are people teaching math who don't even know it. They'll give practically anybody a certificate to teach math in a lot of states and then that person goes and sits in a few how-to-teach courses. Then they're qualified. What? Now how can you be of help to someone if you don't know what you're talking about? One of the best math professors I had was very entertaining, he told stories, acted stuff out, had props, was very creative. It was effective. He never had any teacher training. He loved the subject and he had knowledge.

From personal experience, a friend of mine who is a professor of medieval British history and literature recently went into a high school classroom as a teacher's guest to give a presentation. He had prepared himself for the absolute worst, but he later told me he was shocked to see the kids literally on the edge of their seats listening to every word he said. And he never sat in one teacher training course. I also know from experience that when I was in grad school, I participated in a seminar on college teaching, which went on for hours and hours over several days, and there wasn't one single useful thing said. "This is a book," and a book was held up was one of the first discussions. Everything else was in theory only.

I don't know what the answer is, but I would recommend someone look at teacher training.

[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.

[ShapeShifter]

When all things are said and done and debated to the fullest, it is always about the green - $$$.

[angus]

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

[muon2]

Teacher training is a significant issue. One important change here in the last couple of years is to move away from a set of required courses to a a required portfolio for students seeking certification. The idea is to demonstrate competency in a number of standards, some of which are on technique and some are on subject matter.

For students seeking certification in sciences there is an intrinsic problem. Those students cannot take the same number of hours in the subject  as other majors. THe combination of teaching technique courses, and one less semester for student teching make the full course load impossible.

Nonetheless, I find that most of these students are enthusiastic about their subject material.  I do sometimes see enthusiasm flag over the years. I think this is because high-school teachers often have little contact with active research to spur new enthusiasm. Programs that provide summer reserch internships are an excellent way to provide that additional research experience.

[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.

[Giant Saguaro]

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.  

[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.

[Giant Saguaro]

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.

And I certainly accept that. But again, money is the issue and maybe vouchers will provide an incentive for someone to look at the public school problem. Of course, I don't think that charter or private schools are the perfect answer either. There are certainly good ones, but sometimes a view persists wherein students are seen as customers and not students, and that's also a problem. When I was a grad student I declined an offer at a private school to teach because I felt that was the case.

[Wakie]

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.

[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.

[ilikeverin]

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.

That's exactly what I believe

[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?

[Nation]

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.

[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.

[muon2]

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.

[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?

[muon2]

I spend the next two days at the Illinois Section of the American Association of Physics Teachers (ISAAPT). I chair undergraduate advising in my department and co-chair the program that develops standards for transferability of physics courses within the state.

[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.

[muon2]

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.

Actually there is a surprising amount of money available for undergraduate internship - it's one of the easiest sources today. I'm equally interested in summer internships for current teachers so that they can continue to remin excited by their subject material. This is also easier to find than traditional summer grad, post-doc, and faculty money.

[StevenNick]

Education in America is one of the great tragedies of our time.  I think we've just tried too hard to provide everything for everyone that we don't provide anything for anyone.  

The problems with schools has little to do with money.  We, as a nation, spend more on education than any other nation in the world and we have almost nothing to show for it.  We have producing an entire generation of children without a fact in their head, without a three-plus syllable word in their vocabulary and without the means or the motivation to pursue either on their own.  This is also why vouchers are the best solution to some of the problems that face our schools.  They will open up competition between public and private schools ensuring that the money spent on education ends up at the schools that are best educating children.

I don't accept the premise that vouchers will only increase the quality of education for the rich and leave the poor to rot.  The rich already have the capability to leave failing public schools in favor of better private schools.  Vouchers will give poor students the same opportunity.  

The quality of teaching is another large problem facing our education system.  The concerns about ditching some of the teacher certification requirements are understandable.  Any measure to liberalize the teacher certification process would have to be coupled with measures to give schools and districts more power to fire teachers who are ineffective in the classroom.  One of the biggest problems with our current system is that it is a monopoly twice-over.  First, it is a government monopoly that exists with funding from tax dollars and without competition from any other significant educational organizations.  Second, the teacher's unions hold a monopoly over the quality of education within the walls of the school.  Teachers are insulated from discipline, even evaluation.  The impenetrable system of teacher seniority has to be the first thing to go in any kind of serious education reform.

But I think the most serious problem our public education system faces is the one-size-fits-all mentality.  We tried to establish a system in which all students would be educated in the same basic subjects.  All of our citizens would share the same basic intellectual and moral foundation.  Unfortunately, one size does not fit all.  I don't think that just because other countries do things a certain way we should too, but in the case of out education policy I think we should pay closer attention to the way in which nearly every other industrialized country in the world educates their children.  We should increase access to vocational education.  We should let kids with an intense interest in mathematics and sciences take courses of math and science.  Students interested in history and english should be allowed to take more courses in history and english.  If we want to improve education in America, we need to make our high schools look more like our colleges.  Students should be able to "major" in subjects that best reflect their interests and abilities.  Rather than one basic high school diploma, we should have different categories of diplomas for students pursuing different academic courses.

Another thing we need to do is get rid of some of the burdensome federal regulations on education and let local schools and districts manage their own business.  I've always thought that organizations work better the more localized the decision making.  Schools are no exception.  We should let each school decide what courses it's going to require for graduation.  States should set whatever basic standards they want their schools and students to meet without interference from the federal government.  (As you can probably tell, I'm no great fan of the No Child Left Behind Act).

There are a host of other measures that need to be taken to improve the quality of education in America.  Some are more desperately needed than others.  But basically I would sum up my philosophy regarding government administered education this way--think free market, think local.

[Phony Moderate]

Children should be taught about the dangers of Islam.

[Deldem]

I think one of the largest problems I've seen during my time in high school is enthusiasm. What divided my great teachers from my poor ones? The great ones were excited about what they were doing, and this carried over to the students. The bad ones kinda shuffled along and went through the motion, causing students to learn nothing.

Another thing that should be fixed is difficulty. I'm not one of those who thinks school is too much work. In fact, it is far too easy. The class I have learned the most in in the entirety of high school is my AP English III class. Why? Because we took 2-3 quizzes, 1 timed writing, and a test nearly every week. If students are challenged more, they learn more.