posted
I feel as though I should apologize for starting another thread on education, but this is a question that has been plaguing me for some time...
I began attending a community college this summer (perhaps it would be relevant to mention that I’m 16) and I’m happier than I’ve been in years. I genuinely enjoy the classes I’m in and can’t wait for fall semester and a full courseload. I am learning new material every day- a sharp contrast to my education in previous schools.
I remember loving school when I was six or seven, but since second or third grade (coinciding with a move to Texas) I found school overly easy, tedious, and confining. My elementary did offer a gifted/talented program, and the one day per week when using my mind was encouraged made school bearable.
Middle school was an improvement; I was able to take pre-AP calsses and finally began to see material I had not previously covered. I had actual science classes, something that had been startlingly absent from elementary school.
I hoped high school would provide another step up, but the past two years have been, for hte most part, miserable. I was not alienated from my peers or lacking in social connections- only because it was perfectly acceptable for me to do well as long as I didn’t admit that I enjoyed it. The goal of far too many students was appearing entirely unconcerned with education. I heard countless kids ridicule suject material, say they didn’t care, and pronounce that they were bored.
Something is clearly going wrong in this system of education. The gifted kids are lost to apathy by high school and others seem to lose interest even earlier. An advanced curriculum is obviously not a universal answer, though in my case it has restored my eagerness to learn. However, I truly believe that nearly all indviduals do have an innate desire to expand their abilities and, given a chance, can find a subject (be it academic or entirely unrelated) that they want to pursue.
The trouble is, I can’t seem to pinpoint what is causing this apathy or when it begins to take root in kids’ minds. Is this is a national epidemic, or is it merely a byproduct of suburban boredom? How has it become fashionable to fail or at least display no interest? How can I change things it I don’t know what is causing the problem?
Posts: 60 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think the problem is we are trying to address everyone's needs, trying to be all things to all people, and in the effort we are failing many, if not most.
Some kids want to soak up knowledge. Some kids don't. Some kids did, but got it beaten out of them by the system or by other kids or whatever.
Some kids, given academic freedom, will explore and explore. Some kids will sneak off and have sex all day. (Sad experience there.) Some kids won't drink from the well unless you drag them there, and some won't drink even then.
And even if you think you know what caused the problem--and if you do, I disagree with you, even before hearing what you think, because no matter what, I don't think it's that simple--fixing the problem is not merely a matter of reversing its causes. If you think the root of the problem is not enough freedom, for instance, a dramatic increase in freedom won't fix it, because the culture is already as it is.
It's worth noting at this point that education didn't start off in some golden place and decline to this point. There have always been inequities and failures. The debate at this point, in the absence of a panacea, is simply which set of ills is best. (I think that's an important thing to keep pointing out, because some people aren't aware that there is an upside, or that other things are equally bad, if not worse. There are strengths in the US's educational system, when compared to any other system in history or in the present world. That doesn't mean we're the best ever but too many people can only see our faults.)
So um, in short . . . I dunno.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do believe things would be improved by allowing those who don't want to learn to remove themselves. You can't give people what they don't want to receive. Kids who don't want to learn make it harder for those who do.
I think desire ought to be more important, when we think of whom we should prioritize, than natural ability.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:something that had been startlingly absent from elementary school.
Yes. I think the science curriculums in elementary schools are badly done/designed and therefore they tend to be ignored and forgotten.
quote:The goal of far too many students was appearing entirely unconcerned with education.
This is the problem I would like to address with Middle School education, as I have written in Pelegius' thread. I think that education is too boring and that many people graduating from middle school do find the idea of school boring. Once this mindset is created/allowed, the unwillingness to learn sets in.
quote:It's worth noting at this point that education didn't start off in some golden place and decline to this point. There have always been inequities and failures.
I agree strongly with this.
quote: Is this is a national epidemic
I do not think it is an epidemic in the sense that every school everywhere suffers from it. The amount of openness to learning varies from school to school.
However, I would say it is an epidemic in the sense that rather too many schools suffer from a "poor image" in the minds of its students.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, perhaps a part of it lies in the arms of the parents and students, neh?
We tend to treat education as a right or a privilege that does not have any concurrent responsibilities.
On the other side, speaking as a parent who regards education as very important, I very rarely meet a teacher that -- despite all they "say" -- really want a working partnership with the parents and students to ensure the student's full participation.
And at a policy level, we've neatly snipped the creative wings of the teachers we do have by mandating ridiculous amounts of paperwork related to small federal sums of dollars, required testing and scores to get the piddly sums of funding, and hosts of other policies that just add to the top-heavy administration and unhappy teachers.
*shrugs*
We also go about this bass-ackward, if you ask me. Kids are soaking up the learning in elementary school. Those early pre-teen and teen years with the hormones and flip-flop of emotions really deserve something different. A very physically active curriculum, very hands-on . . . something that instills a sense of respect and delight in self and others in healthy, meaningful ways.
We tend to forget that this age-group is experiencing the fastest growth they have experienced since their toddler years, or that they will experience again, and it wreaks havoc with them.
*ponders continuing*
*steps off soap box*
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always blamed the push to get kids ready for an arbitrary goal with no relevance to anything I actually wanted to do. In middle school, everything was about getting ready for high school. In high school, everything was about getting in to college. There was no fun. No learning for its own sake. No integrating the material so you saw how one discipline lends itself to another.
One of the first things we covered in Intro to Archaeology was how advances in science made modern archaeology possible. My Oceanography class combined physics, chemistry, and biology to understand to cycles of the ocean.
I've been building a fantasy city for the RPGA. I can't tell you how much I've loved combining my knowledge of economics, transportation, and politics to figure out how the city would run. For me at least, knowledge is only fun when it's building on other knowledge to give me a better picture of how the world works.
I mean seriously, what good are the parts of speech and rules of grammer if we never build a sentance? They have to make something greater than themselves to be worthwhile. I think all knowledge is that way, and the schools fail miserably to impart that. We had to take a certain number of courses and pass some standardized tests, but nothing was ever done to ensure we knew what any of it meant. How can you not be apathetic about a bunch of useless data?
Bradbury said it best: Cram them full of non-combustible data, chock them so damned full of 'facts' they feel stuffed, but absolutely 'brilliant' with information. Then they'll feel they're thinking, they'll get a sense of motion without moving. And they'll be happy, because facts of that sort don't change. Don't give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shan: On the other side, speaking as a parent who regards education as very important, I very rarely meet a teacher that -- despite all they "say" -- really want a working partnership with the parents and students to ensure the student's full participation.
Not to be argumentative, but just to explore the issue: I'm often happy to not have such a partnership, because many parents don't have the best interests of their children in mind. They think they do, but what they think their children need is As. If getting a quality education means it's more challenging and their children get Cs, then many parents don't want that. Of course not all parents are like that, and I'm thrilled to work with those parents that aren't. But involved parents who aren't simply involved in order to advocate for their childrens' grades have been a vanishingly small minority in my experience, and I have worked mainly in very good schools.
-o-
You make an interesting point about the physical development of teenagers, but then, on the other hand, this is the age where they are becoming capable of abstract thought, and abstract concepts are what we are trying to teach them. I don't know to what extent abstract learning lends itself to the kind of activity you want. (Unless the activity is used as a diversion, like in a magic show, to get the kids to feel better about what they're doing so they're more receptive to other types of learning.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: because many parents don't have the best interests of their children in mind. They think they do, but what they think their children need is As
I think this can be a problem even if the child produces work to deserve an A. Even the smart kids I know merely put forth the effort required to earn an A, not to genuinely learn the material. As AvidReader said, there is a lack of learning for its own sake.
Of course, that makes the whole situation seem even more impossible. Is it the kids that don't want to learn, their parents that don't foster a love of learning, or teachers that don't provide an environment for them to grow? (There are many, many exceptions to all of these statements, as one can see in the population of this board.)
Posts: 60 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just an off the cuff idea, I wonder how effective a program that showed kids firsthand what kind of job they can look forward to without an education would be.
Like two or three days at the beginning of 5-8th grades spent apprenticing, as it were, with different careers. Let them wake up early, work with their hands, pick up trash, do some heavy lifting, and see if that persuades them of the value of an education.
Of course, the groups that you shadowed would probably strongly object to the association that their profession was the result of a poor education.
I just think it's important for kids to know why education is important.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the difference in income levels is stark, and we do have graphs on things like that posted. It's not quite the same, but I think by high schools kids can make the association between income and quality of life.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
If a kid has an innate desire to learn, you can't stop them. But if it isn't in them naturally, why bother? What's the reward?
My parents took me to museums all the time as a kid. My toys and books were educational. On the other hand, my sister inlaw parks her kids in front of the tv and forgets about them while she plays WoW. I don't think my neices would know what learning was if it jumped up and bit them. The younger might figure it out on her own, but I don't think the older one will. But mom's already decided she's going to be a cheerleader, so I suppose it won't matter.
For the schools, see above.
I'm with El JT on the vocational stuff, but not in a sermon kind of way. Why scare kids with jobs? Why not let them try some out and see what they like when they're 11 and have plenty of time to plan for their careers? I always thought sitting in an office filing would be mind-numbingly boring, but it's actually one of my favorite parts of my job. I never knew until I tried it.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Icky, I think they can by high school as well. Except by that time, nothing is more important than being cool. And being apathetic about learning is a prereq for cool in most high schools, sadly.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I'm trying to remember my own elementary school curriculum, and I think we had a lot of science. Because when I was in elementary school, we had two classes per grade. So you would have either teacher A or teacher B by default, but teachers A and B specialized in different things. Like one would teach reading and writing, and the other would teach science and math. So our classes would always trade at some point during the day (I remember in second grade, I had the English teacher) to go to the math/science teacher's class, where we would focus on those subjects. In particular, I remember a class in which we learned about animals (the environment and how pesticides can hurt it - we played a game where all of us were given an animal and a situation to roleplay). And then this same teacher let us work at our own pace in math.
I don't know if other teachers do this, but it was an awesome approach for math. She would have different colored folders, and each folder represented a different subject. So you would go to red, then orange, yellow, and so forth, on to black. Each folder had instructions on the subject, along with worksheets. When you had finished the worksheets and thought you understood them, you took a quiz (or maybe there were several quizzes). If you passed the quiz, you moved on to the next folder. And of course, she would teach you individually. I think she might've generally tried to instruct students as soon as they moved to a new folder; I don't entirely remember. I do remember that we got a lot of individual attention.
We also had a class of twenty, though. So that probably isn't practical in schools with larger classes.
I think the sciences and math generally do get short shrift in elementary school. I'm glad yours was an exception.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We also had the Science Olympics every March, where each grade had a different challenge, and prizes were awarded. Like one year, you had to see who could build something to make a glass of water heat up the most, an earlier year involved building a boat out of clay that could hold the most marbles...it was really fun, and they would use the challenges to teach us.
posted
When I worked in a middle school, one of our science teachers had an egg dropping contest every year. Kids had to come up with ways to drop the egg without it breaking, either by cushioning it or with parachutes or whatever. Whoever's egg could withstand the highest drop, I think, won.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
People don't like to hear this, but ultimately, it is about parents. From every teacher I have talked to (and I know a lot of teachers), you pretty much know what the kid's parent is going to be like before you meet them. It shows in the kids.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, as an aspiring teacher I really value your experience, so I'm going to ask you a question. I've noticed in the teens I'm exposed to (mostly by working with them at church) that relevance is a big deal to them - they don't like algebra, or English lit because it's not going to make a difference in their life. They can't see themselves ever using the knowledge so they have no desire to learn it. Not a new feeling, I know, I remember being frustrated in high school because I was certain I would study English and thought math was a waste of my time. With maturity has come the realization of the value of learning math and science even if I don't work with polynomials or need to do chemistry experiments in my daily life.
So how do you convince them they need to learn this material? Can you even do it? And if you do have success would you share some of your ideas and methods?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is an area where I am out of sync with a lot of modern pedagogy. I agree entirely with your post, but the solution of it seems, for many in education, to be to insist that kids will (all) really use this precise knowledge in their daily lives. We have examples in our books of bakers using systems of quadratic equations to figure out how much of each ingredient to put in a mixture, and farmers graphing systems of inequalities in three variables to figure out how much of their land to devote to soy and how much to corn. And I've had a girl whose parents owned a bakery stand up and say, "My parents do this for a living, and they don't do anything like that."
I believe that if you lie to kids, they will know, and they will not trust you. So I believe the current push to convince kids that they will be doing precisely this in their jobs is misguided. When I am asked, then, when they will use this, I try to answer with humble honesty: You might not. Some of you might become engineers or physicians or actuaries and see a lot of this in your life. Most of you won't. But it's valuable anyway, and here's why. (I'm a bit of a storyteller in my classes. Remember that I'm a frustrated almost-preacher.) I point out to the kids that, while there are many examples of people without high school diplomas who are nevertheless brilliant, much of the time you can tell the difference. How? Are you chatting about history, or British Literature, or Soviet expansion, or conjugating verbs, or graphing rational expressions? You're not doing any of those things, and yet you can tell. And employers can tell too that there is value in this inapplicable knowledge. I point out to kids that the football team does jumping jacks and all sorts of silly-looking drills before practice and before they play a game. Why? When the game starts, are they going to go out and compete at doing jumping jacks? What possible relevance can there be in practicing a skill they're not going to use in the game? How come, when I was in high school, I spent so many hot hours just hitting dummies, when there's so much more to being a defensive lineman than just the initial hit? How come we ran through tires, when there were no tires in the game? And yet, do you believe that a team that didn't do all these things would be as successful? They're practicing general skills, so that when the time comes to scrimmage or to play, they already have the explosion out of the stance part down, and they already have the part about keeping their feet moving set in their instincts. They are stretching and building their muscles.
Similarly, you need to stretch and build your "brain muscles." And I believe you could probably do it by learning just about anything. It doesn't have to be Algebra or World History, actually, but we've chosen these classes because right now we think they provide useful base skills. Maybe in the future, different classes entirely will be taught. But when you're a lawyer, convincing a jury of something through a clear chain of deductive reasoning, you won't think about Geometry class, but the connection will be there. Where did you learn that you had to prove things deductively, and that this often involved several steps in a chain? When you're a football coach trying to motivate your team, you might not think about your history classes, but what is history but large group psychology and motivation? What is literature but taking lives out of the messy world where we can't possibly account for all motivations and events, and putting them on a slide where we can study them up close and without other messy factors. What is biology but learning that the world around you can be classified and organized?
Why math, in particular, when most people have so little need for it? I happen to believe that teaching math has value because in order to be successful at the higher level math classes, you have to balance your logical and creative sides in a way that just about no other discipline requires. I have students who work so neatly and always do what you say. They use rulers to draw dividing lines for the columns on their answers, and have handwriting so beautiful that you could make it a font on your computer. Their desktops are tidy too, and they always have a protractor in their backpack even though I have never, in twelve years, asked a student to have a protractor. But I could, and they want to be ready. But they always want someone to give them a series of steps to memorize, and I just can't, because not every problem is the same. (Surprise! The real world is the same way!) I also have students who have breath-taking insights. They get from point A to point B and can't for the life of them explain to you how they got the answer, but damned if it isn't right. They'll raise their hands and say something, and I have to stop and think just to catch up with them. But they'll end up with the wrong answer as often as not, because they can't follow their own work. Their work turns sideways and upside down on the sheet, crammed into every available nook and cranny. It's never numbered, and sometimes it mysteriously begins on one side of the sheet and finishes on the other. When they change their minds, they don't have time to erase, they just scratch everything out, including possibly some stuff they didn't mean to. These are the kids who drop minuses, or put the decimal in the wrong place. Have you seen these people in grown-up form? The brilliant employees who can't hold a job because they can't get to work on time? Or the people who are constantly forgetting to do what their boss said, beause their head is in the clouds? Again, in the real world, having flashes of insight isn't enough if you can't organize your thought. To succeed in higher level math, you have to be organized and creative, insightful and meticulous. These are useful skills for the real world.
You know people who can't program the clock on their VCR? I've never found it hard to do. You know people who can't balance their checkbook? I can. Did I have a class in VCR clock programming? Wouldn't that have been useful, since that's something I really do have to do, often, in my real-world life? Why don't we have that class?! But then, I believe what education gives you is not a bucket-full of knowledge, but the educational tools to find the answers you need, when you figure out what the questions are. (Wouldn't it be silly to teach you how to program the clock on a Sony VCR, and then you go and buy a Panasonic?) The skills you develop in school are critical thinking, asking good questions, looking for answers, holding arbitrary facts in your head long enough to perform basic tasks, understanding how people work as individuals, understanding how people work in large groups, and communicating. I think these are very useful skills.
Something else to keep in mind, in today's world, is that any concrete knowledge I give to kids to prepare them for their jobs will be obsolete as soon as the words are out of my mouth. I personally don't agree with a "life skills" class. (One reason is because we have had them for the last three years, and I have seen how generally useless they have been at my school.*) How will learning to fill out a balance book help you use Quicken? How will learning Quicken help you with whatever the Next Big Thing is? When the time comes, you will have to figure it out for yourself. The best I can do is teach kids how to figure stuff out.
*I find it ironic that, even as kids demand to know why they are made to learn stuff, the class that is the most applicable and concrete is the class they despise and disrespect the most.
quote:you pretty much know what the kid's parent is going to be like before you meet them. It shows in the kids.
I teach summer camp.
In general, I have found this is true. Occaisionally, you can be surprised, but usually, you can see what parents kids have in their ability to play with others, compassion, communication skills and ability to focus on the task at hand (barring ADD or whatever). (It is not neatly divided into "good" kids = "good" parents, "bad" kids = "bad" parents. There's a lot more layers to a child than being bad and good. Same with parents.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to believe that, until I became a parent.
Go to Sakeriver and read Olivet's struggles and how she has been harshly and unfairly judged. I've posted about my own experiences in that vein as well.
(But that's really fodder for a whole 'nuther thread.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shan: On the other side, speaking as a parent who regards education as very important, I very rarely meet a teacher that -- despite all they "say" -- really want a working partnership with the parents and students to ensure the student's full participation.
Not to be argumentative, but just to explore the issue: I'm often happy to not have such a partnership, because many parents don't have the best interests of their children in mind. They think they do, but what they think their children need is As. If getting a quality education means it's more challenging and their children get Cs, then many parents don't want that. Of course not all parents are like that, and I'm thrilled to work with those parents that aren't. But involved parents who aren't simply involved in order to advocate for their childrens' grades have been a vanishingly small minority in my experience, and I have worked mainly in very good schools.
-o-
You make an interesting point about the physical development of teenagers, but then, on the other hand, this is the age where they are becoming capable of abstract thought, and abstract concepts are what we are trying to teach them. I don't know to what extent abstract learning lends itself to the kind of activity you want. (Unless the activity is used as a diversion, like in a magic show, to get the kids to feel better about what they're doing so they're more receptive to other types of learning.)
Hey Ic!
I think policy and funding decisions affects many parents in their approach to children and education. If you KNOW that the only way your child will get a decent higher ed is by GPA which links to scholarships, grants, etc., then I can see where they'd push for that.
The differences between Title 1 schools and schools in high income bracket neighborhoods is pretty stark.
On the other hand, as a concerned parent who just wants her child to have good learning opportunities, I am REALLY turned off by the school's insistence that they know better than me. Frankly, they don't. And I don't measure by "grades" -- I measure by "how hard did he try" and "what did he learn" and "how did he learn it and if that approach worked, let's try it again." I offer my time and talents as a volunteer, and an ECE professional . . . mostly it's not wanted. My input around my child (except where required by IEP and the law) or as a volunteer. *shrugs*
And you know me -- I have tried mainstream and private. Neither have been very satisfactory in the over-all scope of things.
RE: physical development and cognitive development. Yes, they are beginning abstract thought -- but at 12-15, they can be challenged in theor thinking for short time periods, but they also need a great deal of hands-on and physical activity -- concrete lessons.
Whether they are learning to build something, cook, clean, figure out the "best buy", perform, play music, care for people or animals . . . all those things lend themselves to deeper thinking, but it makes so much more sense when it ties into something immediate.
posted
Icarus, exactly why I want to teach grad school, where the students know that they will use what they learn everyday, unless they suddenly change their mind and go into an unrelated field....
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My ultimate reason for not going that route was that I wanted to spend more time in the classroom, and professors in most universities spend the smallest percentage of their time there. I'm not saying that will bother you, I'm just pointing it out, for your consumption.
Also, my memory may be faulty, but I don't think any of my professors taught solely grad school. They might have one graduate level course and a couple undergraduate courses. Granted, at a large enough university you will have TAs and adjuncts to teach the freshman courses(been there!) so at least when you teach undergrads you will likely be teaching students within their major.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just wanted to jump in and say that that was a phenomenal post, Ic (the big one).
When I invent a tiny electronic widget that no one, myself included, understands but that every piece of equipment needs and sell it to <insert corporation here> for $XX million, I'm hiring you to privately tutor my kids.
Don't worry, Cor can come, too. And I offer dental .
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was indeed an awesome post. It takes everything I have ever said, or tried to say, on the topic, adds a dozen points I never even thought of, and ties it up in a neat red bow. *applauds*
That goes in the save file. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
(Actually, I do wish there was a "save post" button, similar to the blog world's memory button, so we could neatly and conveniently bring up a kind of "best of hatrack" list.)
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have fun with that. Cuz if you think I'm volunteering, you're nuts. Especially since a great deal would require contextual translations.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I remember loving school when I was six or seven, but since second or third grade (coinciding with a move to Texas) I found school overly easy, tedious, and confining. My elementary did offer a gifted/talented program, and the one day per week when using my mind was encouraged made school bearable.
I don't know if its a sign of the state's handling of education, but I grew up in Texas and while I'm mostly happy with my education (it was better than the alternative which was in Louisiana where I was born) I had similar experiences.
I remember being very smart as a child. My parents have dozen of stories about calls from teachers who were concerned with my attitude and behavior. I found my classmates boring and even after being assigned a seat amongst the most outgoing girls in my class, I dove for a book and tuned them out. I did my homework as soon as it was passed out, usually finishing in the 5 minutes before we went to the next class. In class, I didn't learn but rather had teachers repeat things that I already knew about from reading the encyclopedia set my parents had bought me.
We had a gifted program but my parents had never heard about it and no teacher had proposed that I be tested for it. Finally in fifth grade one teacher recommended it to my parents and I was tested and placed to begin when I started junior high the next year.
I had some good teachers and some bad teachers in junior high. I remember a history teacher who assigned creative writing assignments to help us learn facts about various places and ages.
However, for the most part the damage was done. Having not learned how to do homework or study and easily frustrated by new information, my grades dropped and I lost interest in school. I was still an avid reader through my freshman year in college but with our heavy liberal arts courseload, I'm now mostly burnt out on the written word.
I no longer have the drive to make up for my lack of discipline and so I do just enough to keep my B-average (and my scholarships) so that I can one day get a piece of paper that means absolutely nothing to me. My boredom in school as a child is partly responsible for the anxiety that I battle now. I'm missing the life skill that allows me to cope with challenges.
I have alot of classmates who are like me. There's the occassional small glimmer of excitement towards something said in seminar, but the procrastination has flunked out or set back most of us in our plans for graduation. I'm amazed by other classmates who come from terrible school districts with disinterested, unqualifed teachers and yet are their happiest sitting in lecture or reading War and Peace for the fifth time. There are some people who can do it but it worries me that some students who actually like school are having that love beaten out of them. What hope do we have to help those who never enter school with that desire to learn?
And to Icarus, I loved this part:
quote:But when you're a lawyer, convincing a jury of something through a clear chain of deductive reasoning, you won't think about Geometry class, but the connection will be there.
When I first started doing "real" writing my freshman year in college, I began to notice the similarities between my personal style and subjects of math that I enjoy most. Then I took a Logic class and that opened so many windows for me. The way that I explain a philosophical concept is the same way that I approach a physics problem. My appreciation for math and physical science has grown alot and become so much easier.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
End the nanny-statist public school agenda and implement universal vouchers. If everyone could choose what sort of school they wanted, then more people would be able to choose a school that fit their own needs.
Posts: 338 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, this seems as good a thread as any to tell you about my experience at MSA.
The Missouri Scholars Academy is a government-funded 3-week camp for 330 gifted children selected from around the state.
Each student selects a 3-hour "major" and a 1-hour "minor" for their classes. During the evening, many optional activities are available from different subjects.
Here's the really relevant part: For my major, I chose a class called Education Renovation. I cannot explain how, but in three weeks my class of 16 people came up with an amazing curriculum, school design, philosophy, and rules that we believe apply to the needs of most students. There's the hang-up. MOST students is kind of misfitting for now. This would HAVE to be a system implemented slowly. Start out with gifted kids, gradually pull new students into the program and implement it in schools until the majority of the program is in place.
Perhaps in the future, I will be able to post the complete text of our document that we made, but it's not online right now.
Wrap-up: A program like MSA for (I hate to say:) the 'average' kids might perk up their interest in learning some. Maybe. I don't know. I'm just rambling now...
Posts: 206 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I used to believe that, until I became a parent.
Go to Sakeriver and read Olivet's struggles and how she has been harshly and unfairly judged. I've posted about my own experiences in that vein as well.
(But that's really fodder for a whole 'nuther thread.)
I was not meaning to imply good kids= good parents. But there are kids that struggle and kids that misbahave horribly and before you call the parents, you know that they are trying their hardest too and just hope a combined effort will help. Then there are kids who are doing similar things, but you dread calling the parents because you know they are going to blame you or never return your call or whatever. It is deeper than behavior. Of course, there probably are some teachers who do misjudge based entirely on good kid, bad kid grounds- which is unfortunate.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:But there are kids that struggle and kids that misbahave horribly and before you call the parents, you know that they are trying their hardest too and just hope a combined effort will help. Then there are kids who are doing similar things, but you dread calling the parents because you know they are going to blame you or never return your call or whatever.
But how would you know this before you have some interaction with the parents?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Things the kids say, tone of voice over certain issues, what they say when you talk about their parents- little indicators. If a kid dares you to call his mom, that is usually a bad sign. Types of misbehavior can matter and anger management and reason for misbehavior (are they throwing things at Bob because they hate Bob or because they are bored or because Bob is in the other gang). Probably matters the neighborhood as well- where my husband worked everyone was in a gang if only for protection (he worked in a violent neighborhood- I was glad when he quit, though he didn't until after a student gave him a concussion and even though his 30 students saw what happened, he couldn't get a single witness). Changes what is survival behavior and what is bad parenting.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Especially since a great deal would require contextual translations.
