Why the concept of a "good student" is just silly and wrong

[GAHD]

I find this kind of funny, and have my own little anecdote to add to the pile:

 

Back in high school I was in french immersion. THe school needed to teach all 'core' classes in french to be considered 'immersion'.

 

Lo and behold less than half their teachers speak french! Over half the populous is immersion! What do they do? They double up the french teachers and expand class sizes. 28-32 per class is obviously an effective way to teach high school!

 

Also, for math class, let's get the french major* teacher to teach that, she speaks french, she can do french math! Well as my class was proof, she could not do math. She could copy from the textbook(and could speak french like crazy while doing it!) but could not answer any questions like "why do exponents behave that way?"

 

So, after half the class has failed every test up to the midterm exam, I go to the principal, explain to him that everyone in my class is failing because the teacher doesn't know math. He tells me to just listen, I don't know what I'm talking about. (here is where I could have stopped, but being an *** like krim when it comes to "things being right, DAMNIT!")

 

I go to the school board, tell them my entire class will fail this exam due to bad teaching, and that the admin wouldn't listen to me. They will "look into it", but said in a pat the kid on the head and send him away kinda way.

 

Exams come. Everyone but me and the one I was tutoring fail.

 

Our class gets a notice there will be a new teacher inside of a week.

 

*I* get notice that I'm being kicked out of the school.

 

 

People don't like it when you rock their little boat.

[lawcat]

Principal problem of education is two-part. First, schools do not teach you how to think but what to think. Second, schools do not teach you how to study but what to study. The result of the system is the stratification of students. You are given the material and told what it is, then you are tested on the "how" of the material, all the way through the baccalaureate degree. Only in the graduate levels do they teach the cream of the crop how to do it--graduate students merely sharpen their natural skills.

 

In essence, there is very little teaching, which is why many feel that they are not learning much in schools that they would not learn outside of schools.

 

Schools are basically a competition in which your GPA, calss rank, etc., represent you natural capacity compared to the sample. There is no effective teaching.

[freeztar]

Principal problem of education is two-part. First, schools do not teach you how to think but what to think. Second, schools do not teach you how to study but what to study. The result of the system is the stratification of students. You are given the material and told what it is, then you are tested on the "how" of the material, all the way through the baccalaureate degree. Only in the graduate levels do they teach the cream of the crop how to do it--graduate students merely sharpen their natural skills.

 

In essence, there is very little teaching, which is why many feel that they are not learning much in schools that they would not learn outside of schools.

 

Schools are basically a competition in which your GPA, calss rank, etc., represent you natural capacity compared to the sample. There is no effective teaching.

 

This sounds exactly like something I would have written after my first year at college. It disgusted me. We actually had a discussion in class one day where 50 of us (that was the sub-class taught by a Teacher's Assistant - the full class was a whopping 460 students!!!) were asked what we planned on accomplishing in college and why we had come in the first place (this was a public state school in the US). I thought it was going to be an interesting discussion. Wrong. I didn't count, but I would say that about 85% of the people stated that they came to college to get the diploma. Once they had their peice of paper, they were done. Education was merely a means to an end for a lot of my peers.

 

I grew even more cynical and finally decided to denounce the system and quit college. I worked my butt off for a couple years and realized that I was going to be a bottom of the barrel, struggling low class person if I didn't change. I went back to school to persue my passion, but I did it better this time. I chose a school that was unconcerned with grades and more concerned with teaching you *how to learn*. The difference was night and day and I feel like a much better person from having my experiences there.

 

Why am I ranting on and on about this? Good question...:hihi:

It comes back to some other points made in this thread. Sometimes it is the teacher's fault, sometimes it's the student's fault, and sometimes it is the system's fault. Yet, as Turtle wisely put it, "suck it up". All you can do is to discern what is best for you and appease those that hold different (or no) values.

 

I think there is some truth to the statement that the best student is a teacher (or a similar manifestation that says something like "the disciple can become the teacher's teacher"...can't recall the exact wording right now). Nonetheless, the heirarchy is set. A student is subservient to a teacher and a teacher holds dominion over a student. It seems silly when presented in such a candid fashion, but it's just the way it is. It makes sense logically, or at least it should.

 

There are those few exceptions where the student should be the teacher and the teacher should submit to the dominance (of knowledge). This can be very frustrating for a student, particularly if that student is made subservient by the teacher for whatever reason (finds the student threatening, dislikes them for whatever reason, etc.). I've been there and it is not fun. :(

 

What has worked for me (not saying it will work for everyone) is to acquiesce. It's a strong hit to the pride (at least initially), but it has worked out well for me. I've had professors apologize to me (well, three to be exact). I'm quite sure that had I put up a fight, they would not have come to the same conclusion. It's like the difference between saying "I told you so" and a quaint smile of acknowledgment. In the end, I am quite pleased with how everything worked out. :)

[lemit]

Hey lemit, what do you think the cons would be of simply privatizing secondary education?

 

Possibly denying education to those who don't do well but want to learn anyway?

 

I'm not sure. It seems that education (to be informed participants in Jeffersonian democracy) has always been defined as an inalienable right, and the best way to guarantee that it isn't alienated is to provide the funding for it. Guaranteeing fairness, as fairness is guaranteed in voting (failure is not the same as not trying), implies a certain level of control.

 

Can you see a form of privatized education that would provide that guarantee?

 

Thanks for the question. It made me think in an uncomfortable way, which I should be required to do more often.

 

--lemit

[Kriminal99]

some side notes: i was in my 30's at the time, unlike most of the students who were kids, and the teacher was in his 50's. he was a drama teacher, extremely effeminate and clearly had some issues with having his authority taken seriously. having been through a similar bruhaha with a high school drama teacher, i had some idea how things might develop. :) :hihi:

 

I see... If I really had to fight that hard and long I wouldn't bother over something that small either I guess. After all that one was just so obvious that he probably looked and felt stupid enough just for saying it. It's the more subtle ones that really get to me. I have gotten better about being persuasive regarding things like that though, such that I usually just convince the person directly. Something about being completely calm and nonreactive while outlining while I disagree with their behavior... I am not really sure.

[Kriminal99]

Possibly denying education to those who don't do well but want to learn anyway?

 

I'm not sure. It seems that education (to be informed participants in Jeffersonian democracy) has always been defined as an inalienable right, and the best way to guarantee that it isn't alienated is to provide the funding for it. Guaranteeing fairness, as fairness is guaranteed in voting (failure is not the same as not trying), implies a certain level of control.

 

Can you see a form of privatized education that would provide that guarantee?

 

Thanks for the question. It made me think in an uncomfortable way, which I should be required to do more often.

 

--lemit

 

Perhaps a per person scholarship to the school of their choice. My state already has a comprehensive scholarship funded by the lottery - I believe it can be used on private schools to some degree.

 

One idea behind our economic model is that the government doesn't really have the ability or intelligence (because it's impossible for one group of people to track all the factors) to directly guarantee it. By funding it, they create a sort of education welfare organization that doesn't care about efficiency or just does what it always has done and then spends any extra money on better cafeterias to attract brighter students...

 

Also, being the information age and all, It seems it would be impossible for a person to be as uneducated as people may have been in the past. Between TV, the internet, and advanced learning materials (which would only get better with more economic motive driving them) a person can basically learn anything they want to... to a pretty advanced level too. Then there is still the plain old library.

 

I remember training for a bank teller position when I was younger. The training consisted of a flashing a bunch of scenarios with other people that involved understanding all these rules about what kinds of things could be done with bank accounts and checks and bonds etc. If you answered wrong the person in the scenario became huffy or expressed that you let them get away with things that no one else did. The program lasted a few hours and taught everyone all these complex rules they needed to know about their new job. I remember wondering how come university wasn't this efficient at training people.

 

If the market drives it to become more efficient, that means cheaper, which means relatively speaking the government is paying more money to give people less knowledge.

 

The other issue is research and access to near state of the art technology and reasoning. However research is a monkey that secondary education may not be capable of carrying on it's back any more. I don't think it would turn into a situation where knowledge would be hoarded by private entities. The government could simply outlaw or nullify nondisclosure agreements with respect to education companies. A company could still sue for use of patented technology, but they wouldn't be able to stop their ex-employees from receiving offers to share information by the education companies.

[lemit]

Perhaps a per person scholarship to the school of their choice. My state already has a comprehensive scholarship funded by the lottery - I believe it can be used on private schools to some degree.

 

One idea behind our economic model is that the government doesn't really have the ability or intelligence (because it's impossible for one group of people to track all the factors) to directly guarantee it. By funding it, they create a sort of education welfare organization that doesn't care about efficiency or just does what it always has done and then spends any extra money on better cafeterias to attract brighter students...

 

Also, being the information age and all, It seems it would be impossible for a person to be as uneducated as people may have been in the past. Between TV, the internet, and advanced learning materials (which would only get better with more economic motive driving them) a person can basically learn anything they want to... to a pretty advanced level too. Then there is still the plain old library.

 

I remember training for a bank teller position when I was younger. The training consisted of a flashing a bunch of scenarios with other people that involved understanding all these rules about what kinds of things could be done with bank accounts and checks and bonds etc. If you answered wrong the person in the scenario became huffy or expressed that you let them get away with things that no one else did. The program lasted a few hours and taught everyone all these complex rules they needed to know about their new job. I remember wondering how come university wasn't this efficient at training people.

 

If the market drives it to become more efficient, that means cheaper, which means relatively speaking the government is paying more money to give people less knowledge.

 

The other issue is research and access to near state of the art technology and reasoning. However research is a monkey that secondary education may not be capable of carrying on it's back any more. I don't think it would turn into a situation where knowledge would be hoarded by private entities. The government could simply outlaw or nullify nondisclosure agreements with respect to education companies. A company could still sue for use of patented technology, but they wouldn't be able to stop their ex-employees from receiving offers to share information by the education companies.

 

I am really impressed. You've taken the much hated voucher system in the direction it should go and stated very well some of the problems education seems to have grappled with for centuries. I don't necessarily agree with all of your suggestions, but they would definitely be workable.

 

Unfortunately, it looks like educational leadership right now is divided between those who think and those who do. I don't know if it's going to find direction, like your suggestions, or if it's just going to flail around like it's become accustomed to.

 

But you've done good work. Congratulations.

 

--lemit

[Kriminal99]

People are so afraid of change when things already are not in a state of total chaos. Change will always be something that only certain kinds of people will favor... the people who do things that are the right or intelligent thing to do not because they are the most clearly popular thing to do.

 

 

This whole line of thinking needs to be closely studied. How expensive is change and how effective historically. How often do things not turn out the way they are supposed to, when the plan has been reviewed by which people. Etc. Right now people who just always say "If it isn't broke don't fix it" even when it's really close to being completely broke and "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" are on equal ground with the people who actually can see what is going on and why.

 

We need to alter the social structure so these people can no longer have equal say... by making some sort of "change" specialists to override the claim that change is always bad.

[lemit]

I've given inadequate suggestions on this thread. I'm sorry. I'm going to try again. If I repeat myself, that's part of education.

 

So, some new old rules:

 

1. Parents: you are the most important educators any child will ever have. You should think of all your time with your children as education. If parents aren't available, responsibility should go to whatever authority figures there are at home. When I say "parents" here, I mean the most responsible adult at home.

 

2. Parents: you should be involved in schools. My father was always on the school board and my mother organized fund raisers. That was in a rural community. Parents from urban areas might not be able to achieve that level of involvement, but they should never behave as if they couldn't be as involved as my parents were.

 

3. Schools: try to help the child in front of you, not a statistical model. There's something out there for any student. Educators have applied the explosion of educational reforms that started in the fifties as if they were meant for all students, the way the traditiional models were. They've failed and abandoned the reforms because they don't fit all students. That's not how they were written. That's the lazy way. Parents should hold your feet to the fire.

 

4. Parents: educate yourself. The books on alternative education are good reads. I'd recommend any of the education books by Nat Hentoff to start. I'll add more as I can remember them. I know there are more tightly focused educators out there, but I can't remember their names, can't find their books in my house, and can't find them by searching. So if your kid is having trouble, try going to an actual bookstore and asking for allternative education books. Anybody want to help build a bibliography?

 

5. Everybody: stop treating children like adults. Start treating parents like adults, the responsible adults in students' lives. Children need some support, some time to gain information on how the world works, and a chance to screw up a few times without being jailed. Whatever happened to Principal/parent conversations when problems are beginning? (If anybody goes to jail, it should be the parents--the legally responsible parties. A few applications of that principle might make parents want to be involved.)

 

6. Parents: slow down. Your jobs are probably not what you'll be remembered for. Make your children what you will want to be remembered for. Try spending some time with your kids. You'll be uncomfortable. They'll be uncomfortable. That's normal.

 

7. Above all, think of education as psychology, particularly behavior modification. Remember that behavior modification requires some analysis first.

 

Now that I've said all that, I feel kind of stupid--a single man in his sixties telling parents how to behave. That might belong in the jokes section. I'll let the rest of you decide that.

 

--lemit

 

p.s. I wish I could have "Teach Your Children" playing in the background for this.

[Michaelangelica]

Has anyone looked at the work of Rosentall on techers expectations (And Scientists' expectaions?)

He talks about the 'Pygmalion' or 'Cinderella' effect ; some very interesting Social Psych. experiments.