quote: I spell-check my posts because I consider conversations here to be "[some]thing that is important." In this medium my words ARE me. So I polish them.
OK, I'm sure that this will sound ignorant, but that is only because I AM ignorant. How do you spell check your posts prior to posting them? I just keep a dictionary handy to look up tricky words. Is everyone else using a better (or more modern) method?
quote:I had an English teacher I hated until one day we had a pun fest in the middle of class. Today (for better or worse) I enjoy punning in the middle of the most serious occassions
So now we know whom to thank. Or blame.
quote:Interesting contrast here with the Norwegian system. Our high schools are divided into two parts : There's the academic line, which gives you 'study-competence' (I don't like the word in Norwegian either) that you need to enter a university. Then there's a bunch of vocational lines : Carpentry, pre-nursing, electrical, etc.
Not to argue with the Norwegians ('cause where would THAT get me?), but I object to the idea that Nursing is a vocational field. While true that certain specific skills are necessary, critical thinking and a firm grip on pertinent knowledge are a good nurse's greatest assets. After high school, I went on to college and earned my baccalaureate degree with a dual major of English and Psychology. I later decided to pursue a different career, and went back to college to earn my baccalaureate degree in Nursing. The Nursing program did involve vocational skills, but the program was more academically challenging than my earlier degree. Philosophy, logic, math, statistics, biological sciences, chemistry, and an ability to read critically, write competently, and participate in and analyze scientific research are all important to the education of a nurse. And I think that this goes beyond what is called "vocational training".
I'm just a little touchy on the status that folk accord nurses.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: OK, I'm sure that this will sound ignorant, but that is only because I AM ignorant. How do you spell check your posts prior to posting them? I just keep a dictionary handy to look up tricky words. Is everyone else using a better (or more modern) method?
posted
Sopwith, your original post was brilliant. In England, there's a big problem with under-education. People leave school at sixteen, especially if there's no tradition of education in their family. They simply don't understand that having that extra knowledge can not only make it easier for you to get a job, but also for the world and people around you. Your wider knowledge can make the world more interesting, if, as Sopwith said, you proactively apply it. If you are interested and engaged with the world, then you will be happier and busier.
I agree that many high schools teach boredom. However, I do not agree that because they teach boredom students should leave with only technically useful bits of information they will use every second of their waking lives. The "irrelevant" knowledge is very important. What you learn in High School and above is not just "tools" (which is basically the reading, riting and rithmatic idea) but also how to, if you are attending any school but the most abysmal, use your brain and think.
Stone_Wolf_, I believe education is important. Everyone who can should finish high school, however much it bores them. It is all fine and good to say you'd have been happier ignorant until you get a nation full of ignorant people in a world that is steadily requiring people to know more and more about the science of their world, the technology of their countless devices, and the history and geography that shapes the way people interact with each other and the earth. If you are not using or enjoying what you have learnt at any and all stages of your schooling, it is unlikely you are really taking part in being part of the local, national or global community.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:(money -I- get removed from every paycheck although I have no children, let alone children in public school)
So you shouldn't have to pay taxes on it? If everything worked that way, I wouldn't have to pay Medicare taxes, Social Security taxes, and I could pick and choose which taxes I think I should contribute to.
It's sort of a dead end argument.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meh. Everyone else was doing a good enough job refuting your position, I didn't want to clutter the thread any more than it is. In a broader sense though, the money spent on school is directly related to the usefulness of school, which, being the title of the thread, I'd think funding would be part of the discussion.
But I'll let you get back to your regularly scheduled arguing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I spell-check my posts because I consider conversations here to be "[some]thing that is important." In this medium my words ARE me. So I polish them.
OK, I'm sure that this will sound ignorant, but that is only because I AM ignorant. How do you spell check your posts prior to posting them? I just keep a dictionary handy to look up tricky words. Is everyone else using a better (or more modern) method?
Woe is me! I have clearly been falling down on my job as Official Hatrack Promoter of Spellcheck!
No, wait. I had a thread on the topic just the other day. Here it is.
posted
Thanks, rivka. The toolbar is up. I'll probably still keep the dictionary nearby, though. For years and years, since I was a girl, I've loved browsing through the dictionary. It's done wonders for my vocabulary, but, unfortunately, hasn't helped my spelling all that much.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, as to the preparation for high school comment, it is deeply ingrained in our educational system.
Constantly, as teachers, we are told that all students can succeed. All students can be A students and go on to higher education. All students should be expected to perform at a high level.
If students are not performing, it is the teacher's job to find what style of teaching best suits the student and modify instruction to make sure that student succeeds. It is not acceptable for a student to fall behind or fail.
At the middle school level where I teach, this is in constant preparation for high school - so much so that the concern is "how well will they be prepared for the higher level material next year".
At the high school level where my roommate and friends teach, the focus is on college preparation. Algebra II is stressed more now - because it is a part of the SAT. Other subjects are modified and adjusted so that students can pass the HSPA and SAT with high scores.
If you asked them, I think very few high school teachers would say that they are teaching toward a terminal high school degree - that's not the goal. They are teaching to prepare students for the next level - certainly if you are talking about junior and senior year teachers.
Students who don't go on to college, or who drop out at age 18, are considered to have "fallen through the cracks" - somehow the system failed them.
Schools brag about the percentage of their students that attend 4 year universities, and that attend 2 year colleges. High school guidance counselors can quote you those stats from the tops of their heads, while sitting in their offices lined with college pennants and scholarship information.
It is clear that the expectation is that all students go on to college - though that is not reasonable. In fact, the expectation that all students need this college preparatory high school experience is a bit unreasonable, as well.
There should be an option for students who are more technically or vocationally minded - those who would benefit far more from classes woodworking and carpentry, or heating and cooling systems, or any other professional prep track.
Unfortunately, many of these programs have been removed from public schools because the insurance costs are too high, or because budgets call for more computers and lab equipment at the expense of these "lesser" "elective" programs.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regular, old-fashioned, paper-and-binding dictionaries are what I love. I have the compact OED -- the kind that comes with a little magnifying glass to read the microprint. But I don't use the magnifying glass. I don't even know where it is. I suspect that the kid took it to school one day and never brought it back. I've got super-reading vision. I read the compact OED bare-eyed. (as for distance vision, well, my glasses are pretty thick).
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I almost bought one in England when we were there, but they spelled a lot of the words wrong.
I was shocked.
And, I think they must've stopped including the geek cachet with it. At least the ones I saw just came with the dictionary itself and no other add ons.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have one too, Shvester! Let's be friends. I have to use the magnifying glass, though. It hurts my eyes to read text that small.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A friend and I were talking about the state of education in the U.S. a few days ago. He is from a different country and said, "You people get to vote for the leader of the most powerful country in the world. You have the largest nuclear arsenal. The rest of the world wants you to care. The rest of the world wants you to vote. The rest of the world wants you as educated as humanly possible"
You need history to understand where other countries are coming from. You need some appreciation/understanding of scientific method to understand what the ramifications of laws are. In this world you are no longer an effective citizen if you can't understand what lawmakers are having to decide. It used to be that understanding where a bridge needed build or where the new road would go was enough. That day is gone. And I know that high school sucks, and I know that it can be boring. But think of it as a duty in some ways. Think of it as helping the children that will come after us.
Okay this thread just really frustrates me and I could rant for hours. But I'll try to refrain.
Posts: 872 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Education benefits all of society. Think of tax money going to education as an investment--those kids will be paying more tax in the future if they all have good jobs.
Refusing to fund public education because you don't have children in a public school is extremely short-sighted, in my opinion.
The problem with education reform is that there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what education is for. Is it to produce better people? Better workers? Better citizens of a free country? Is it to baby-sit children to keep them out of trouble? Is it primarily to find and educate the best and brightest? Is it to teach people to think? To fill their heads with facts? To teach them skills?
As a motivated student, I'm sure that I would have benefitted from an opt-in system of education. Class sizes would be smaller. The pace would be quick. There would probably be more opportunities for special projects and more engaging means of learning material.
However, as a member of a democratic society, I want everyone around me to be as educated as possible, whether they want it or not. I want people to be able to support themselves and their families, for their own good, and for the general good.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was actually a really interesting letter in the Times today about this. Basically, the writer made the point that there has been a generational change in education in the UK such that many students now undertake vocational education and less emphasis is placed on general education and learning for its own sake. He quoted his younger brother as saying "you got a real breadth of knowledge out of your secondary education, all I got was a career." I think it's really important that we don't just give students a career. I don't know what it's like in the States, but in the UK there has recently been a shift of emphasis in education. The focus is now a lot less on "are we covering the National Curriculum?" and more on "is every child achieving their full potential? Is every child enjoying their school life?" To that end, chalk-and-talk lessons have almost entirely gone out the window, and a much wider variety of teaching and learning styles are used. It doesn't work all the time, but every now and then you do teach a really exciting lesson, and the students learn something of value and enjoy themselves at the same time. It just needs to happen more often, for more students. I think as we learn more about how the brain works and how people actually learn, as we are able to match our teaching to students' individual needs more, and as teachers are trusted as professionals and interfered with less, things will get better. There are systemic issues, of course, and the preoccupation with exams is definitely one of them, but I am on the whole optimistic about the future of education.
Posts: 1550 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I have clearly been falling down on my job as Official Hatrack Promoter of Spellcheck! ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
