Of course. I think that good teachers do this already.
I would say though (to continue with my theme) that there is a certain core of material that should be taught to everyone (and should be LEARNED by everyone). The ability to read is one such thing (and I think that it is obvious to everyone that the inability to read hurts the ability to learn most other things). The ability to read is a tool that EVERYONE needs. The same is true (though it may be less obvious why) of the ability to write (and speak and otherwise communicate effectively), the ability to do certain mathematics, the ability to understand scientific principles, the ability to reason, the ability to use logic (and to recognize logical errors), the ability to understand the lessons of history, etc. THIS core .. this set of tools .. lets people shine when they find that resonant subject area.
Daniel Miessler
· 2 years ago
The same is true (though it may be less obvious why) of the ability to write (and speak and otherwise communicate effectively), the ability to do certain mathematics, the ability to understand scientific principles, the ability to reason, the ability to use logic (and to recognize logical errors), the ability to understand the lessons of history, etc. THIS core .. this set of tools .. lets people shine when they find that resonant subject area.
I agree. But I do think there are MANY who look at teaching as just the conveying of information. Once again, Carl, I think that because YOU are high quality and your colleagues are high quality, you're making assumptions about teaching in general.
I'm mostly talking about elementary and high school here, too. By the time college comes the lights are often already dimmed.
CarlM
· 2 years ago
"By the time college comes the lights are often already dimmed."
Yep. Precisely why it is so important to do EVERYTHING we can to ensure quality early education!
Jason Powell
· 2 years ago
With enough altitude, I think it'd look like a school produces exactly the kind of intellects needed in its community. If Americus suddenly had a glut of well-paid knowledge jobs, you'd soon see a new private school built to educate the children of the people who'd move here to take those jobs.
I could have this backwards, I'm sure. It's just what I think of when I ask myself what incentives would create a better education in my city.
CarlM
· 2 years ago
"It’s just what I think of when I ask myself what incentives would create a better education in my city."
I often wonder the same thing. But, I don't think that private schools are the solution (not that they aren't sometimes quite good). I fear that when parents send their children to a private school (whether THAT school is good or bad), they quit being concerned about the public school. We ALL need to be concerned about the public schools.
My idea? Well, I believe that if schools quit promoting students who are not really ready for the next grade, there would be pressure from parents. That pressure might (at first) be "HEY, why isn't my kid being sent on to the next grade? I'm gonna sue!" (Unfortunately, this IS a real attitude.) But, IF the schools hang tough and don't bend under the pressure to throw away REAL standards, then the pressure will come to do what is necessary to help the kids REACH those standards. Among other things, it's going to take the courage to tell parents something like the following. "Your child is not being promoted to the next grade because they are not ready for that grade. If we promote your child before he or she is ready to move forward, we are setting your child up for failure and doing you, your child, and the community a great disservice. We will continue to do everything we can to help your child succeed, but we need your help."
Jason Powell
· 2 years ago
It's not demand but competition that starts real change. Public schools here have no real competition--the one private school exists for social reasons. If there were demand, someone would see a potential for profit and invest in creating a private school to fill that demand.
I agree. That is the major hurdle to progress -- the fear that schools have of parents' ability to sue. Fix that and we open the door to improvement.
Hell, that's a post in and of itself. Hey, why don't YOU write it up and I'll post it here with you as the author?
Steven G. Harms
· 2 years ago
I'm reminded of Paul Graham's essays on "Why Nerds are Unpopular" where he asserts the reason public schooling exists is mainly out of an optimization of the GDP problem: by liberating parents from kid management duty 40 hours a week * 2, they can grow the GDP.
CarlM
· 2 years ago
"I’m interested in thoughts on this speech:... (John Gatto speech)"
Well, it raises a lot of important issues, but I think that it is a little off the mark in a few things. He blames school for taking time away from self-discovery. As he asserts, school should be a place where children are given the opportunity to discover who they are. It is also true (as he asserts) that we learn best what we discover ourselves (this is why labs are so important in science classes). BUT, he seems to not see a place for a CORE of knowledge and understanding. On this point I have to disagree. For example, in 1800, it may not have been so important that the general public understood the basics of science. We live in a new world. If the general public is ignorant of BASIC science, they have no basis for deciding which political candidate will make the most appropriate decisions (in those cases that such decisions rely on science). If the general public is ignorant of science, then when a candidate who (following the science) understands that spending tax money might be necessary to combat a problem (which would require even MORE tax money later if we do nothing), this candidate might have difficulty helping the public understand why the right action is to spend the money now. Science is just one example ... my point is that a CORE of basic knowledge and understanding IS important .. and that what this core should include is dictated by the CURRENT world (not the world of yesteryear -- however blissful things may have been then).
I'm also a little discouraged that (though he makes an assertion about the number of hours a child typically watches television) he seems to blame SCHOOL from taking valuable time from the students -- essentially accepting that there's nothing we can do about the time that TV is taking from them.
---
As for Paul Graham’s essay “Why Nerds are Unpopular” .. interesting stuff (though I mostly skimmed it). It includes some stuff that might be worthwhile reading for the teenage nerds of the world. I didn't see the assertion about GDP (though as I said .. I only skimmed it), but (though the assertion makes a certain amount of sense) it seems a rather overly cynical view of things. EVEN if that was the reason for public schools (clearly it isn't why they were created .. since women didn't leave the home in large numbers until relatively recently) .. but EVEN if that was the reason for public schools, it doesn't follow that the schools can't do some GOOD while they've got the children for the day.
---
Perhaps in full disclosure I should state for the record that (1) I am a teacher (university mathematics) and (2) I had the extraordinary good fortune of attending some INCREDIBLY good public schools in the Chicago area when I grew up. So, I KNOW that good public schools are possible. I also know that MOST public schools are lacking (some SEVERELY lacking) .. I am not under the illusion that we're anywhere near where we need to be. It's just that I've SEEN it work .. and I know that it CAN work .. so I refuse to accept that it can't work or that there's something inherently wrong with the basic idea of public education.
ex-teacher
· 2 years ago
Daniel, there are many teachers who try to transfer passion and enthusiasm, and not just raw information. I don't think the problem is with the teachers. I've been in a classroom for a short time. What I experienced was this: you've got 2 or 3 out of 25 who resonate. Those are A students. You can probably get these 3 (I'm rounding up) to do homework. Then you've got a whole bunch of students who are just there, and who expect to be passed, and who will only barely do any work. Then you've got a handful of pain in the ass students who only want to try and mess you up and ruin the class. And they do. You can't throw them out though. If you send them to the principal's office, you're accused of "not being able to handle your kids", and they get sent back anyway. Calls home do not work with them. Detentions don't work either.
Add to that, when the ones expecting to coast through get an F on something, now you've got parents accusing you of picking on their kid, and asking why they can't just squeak through "just this one time".
The worst part is that the 2 or 3 good kids -- the ones who need you -- don't get what they deserve. They look at you as if to say, "WTF? Why can't we study this cool stuff without all the crap going on in here?".
I've seen some master teachers succeed, but it takes lots of experience, and it takes lots of time of working closely with the trouble-makers, and lots of psychology figure out what their individual issues are and how you can try to solve them while they're trying F with you.
So, it's hard to transfer passion and enthusiasm when you're spending most of your time playing stupid psychological games trying to get the trouble-makers to behave so you can conduct your class.
Dustin
· 2 years ago
Back around 1950 (I think thats the year) schools were changed dramatically. Before that, particularly in the 19th century a school was a place were every child in your area spent time in the same single room together listening to just one teacher.
It might seem simplistic, but travelers to our country back then were amazed that children that would grow up to be farmers and shop keepers were speaking Latin and reading the Classics.
The key to this success story might be that children are aided greatly by following along with other (older) children. This opportunity is absent in the modern school system.
The 1950s shift in schools also added the following: obedience based on authority, regimenting your actions and the places that you can be according to a clock and mindlessly memorizing data that has no future purpose other than to be graded on how well you could memorize that data.
Were these changes made for the betterment of education or to create future generations of factory workers?
In spite of all this rambling I think you are spot on Dan. I had two great teachers in grade school and the best teacher on earth in college. After the first year of college I could afford it no longer, but the spark of curiosity was present, and I spent 3 years walking to the library every single day and picking up a book and reading as much of it as I wanted before I moved on. Consequently my current level of education isn't half bad.
All Comments
I would say though (to continue with my theme) that there is a certain core of material that should be taught to everyone (and should be LEARNED by everyone). The ability to read is one such thing (and I think that it is obvious to everyone that the inability to read hurts the ability to learn most other things). The ability to read is a tool that EVERYONE needs. The same is true (though it may be less obvious why) of the ability to write (and speak and otherwise communicate effectively), the ability to do certain mathematics, the ability to understand scientific principles, the ability to reason, the ability to use logic (and to recognize logical errors), the ability to understand the lessons of history, etc. THIS core .. this set of tools .. lets people shine when they find that resonant subject area.
I agree. But I do think there are MANY who look at teaching as just the conveying of information. Once again, Carl, I think that because YOU are high quality and your colleagues are high quality, you're making assumptions about teaching in general.
I'm mostly talking about elementary and high school here, too. By the time college comes the lights are often already dimmed.
Yep. Precisely why it is so important to do EVERYTHING we can to ensure quality early education!
I could have this backwards, I'm sure. It's just what I think of when I ask myself what incentives would create a better education in my city.
I often wonder the same thing. But, I don't think that private schools are the solution (not that they aren't sometimes quite good). I fear that when parents send their children to a private school (whether THAT school is good or bad), they quit being concerned about the public school. We ALL need to be concerned about the public schools.
My idea? Well, I believe that if schools quit promoting students who are not really ready for the next grade, there would be pressure from parents. That pressure might (at first) be "HEY, why isn't my kid being sent on to the next grade? I'm gonna sue!" (Unfortunately, this IS a real attitude.) But, IF the schools hang tough and don't bend under the pressure to throw away REAL standards, then the pressure will come to do what is necessary to help the kids REACH those standards. Among other things, it's going to take the courage to tell parents something like the following. "Your child is not being promoted to the next grade because they are not ready for that grade. If we promote your child before he or she is ready to move forward, we are setting your child up for failure and doing you, your child, and the community a great disservice. We will continue to do everything we can to help your child succeed, but we need your help."
I'm interested in thoughts on this speech:
http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/john_gatto.html
I agree. That is the major hurdle to progress -- the fear that schools have of parents' ability to sue. Fix that and we open the door to improvement.
Hell, that's a post in and of itself. Hey, why don't YOU write it up and I'll post it here with you as the author?
Well, it raises a lot of important issues, but I think that it is a little off the mark in a few things. He blames school for taking time away from self-discovery. As he asserts, school should be a place where children are given the opportunity to discover who they are. It is also true (as he asserts) that we learn best what we discover ourselves (this is why labs are so important in science classes). BUT, he seems to not see a place for a CORE of knowledge and understanding. On this point I have to disagree. For example, in 1800, it may not have been so important that the general public understood the basics of science. We live in a new world. If the general public is ignorant of BASIC science, they have no basis for deciding which political candidate will make the most appropriate decisions (in those cases that such decisions rely on science). If the general public is ignorant of science, then when a candidate who (following the science) understands that spending tax money might be necessary to combat a problem (which would require even MORE tax money later if we do nothing), this candidate might have difficulty helping the public understand why the right action is to spend the money now. Science is just one example ... my point is that a CORE of basic knowledge and understanding IS important .. and that what this core should include is dictated by the CURRENT world (not the world of yesteryear -- however blissful things may have been then).
I'm also a little discouraged that (though he makes an assertion about the number of hours a child typically watches television) he seems to blame SCHOOL from taking valuable time from the students -- essentially accepting that there's nothing we can do about the time that TV is taking from them.
---
As for Paul Graham’s essay “Why Nerds are Unpopular” .. interesting stuff (though I mostly skimmed it). It includes some stuff that might be worthwhile reading for the teenage nerds of the world. I didn't see the assertion about GDP (though as I said .. I only skimmed it), but (though the assertion makes a certain amount of sense) it seems a rather overly cynical view of things. EVEN if that was the reason for public schools (clearly it isn't why they were created .. since women didn't leave the home in large numbers until relatively recently) .. but EVEN if that was the reason for public schools, it doesn't follow that the schools can't do some GOOD while they've got the children for the day.
---
Perhaps in full disclosure I should state for the record that (1) I am a teacher (university
mathematics) and (2) I had the extraordinary good fortune of attending some INCREDIBLY good public schools in the Chicago area when I grew up. So, I KNOW that good public schools are possible. I also know that MOST public schools are lacking (some SEVERELY lacking) .. I am not under the illusion that we're anywhere near where we need to be. It's just that I've SEEN it work .. and I know that it CAN work .. so I refuse to accept that it can't work or that there's something inherently wrong with the basic idea of public education.
Add to that, when the ones expecting to coast through get an F on something, now you've got parents accusing you of picking on their kid, and asking why they can't just squeak through "just this one time".
The worst part is that the 2 or 3 good kids -- the ones who need you -- don't get what they deserve. They look at you as if to say, "WTF? Why can't we study this cool stuff without all the crap going on in here?".
I've seen some master teachers succeed, but it takes lots of experience, and it takes lots of time of working closely with the trouble-makers, and lots of psychology figure out what their individual issues are and how you can try to solve them while they're trying F with you.
So, it's hard to transfer passion and enthusiasm when you're spending most of your time playing stupid psychological games trying to get the trouble-makers to behave so you can conduct your class.
It might seem simplistic, but travelers to our country back then were amazed that children that would grow up to be farmers and shop keepers were speaking Latin and reading the Classics.
The key to this success story might be that children are aided greatly by following along with other (older) children. This opportunity is absent in the modern school system.
The 1950s shift in schools also added the following: obedience based on authority, regimenting your actions and the places that you can be according to a clock and mindlessly memorizing data that has no future purpose other than to be graded on how well you could memorize that data.
Were these changes made for the betterment of education or to create future generations of factory workers?
In spite of all this rambling I think you are spot on Dan. I had two great teachers in grade school and the best teacher on earth in college. After the first year of college I could afford it no longer, but the spark of curiosity was present, and I spent 3 years walking to the library every single day and picking up a book and reading as much of it as I wanted before I moved on. Consequently my current level of education isn't half bad.