posted
I'm an upcoming senior at my high school. Now because I scored in the top 15% of my state tests in middle school I got to come to my county's first magnet school.
When I was a freshman the school was 5-9, my sophomore year is was K-10, this coming year it will be K-12. When people ask what's it a magnet school for- that is many (if not most) are for the sciences or the arts. Mine is more like- public school masquerading as a prep school. The difference in the curriculum is that of the "Padeia philosophy".
This in its practical use in my school means that we are required to take many advanced general education classes along with required foregin language classes- (we get to choose but just have to take one a year) And also the use of the Padeia seminar which is an "itellectual conversation about a text facilitated by open-ended questions" in other words- teachers give us the text, ask us the question and then watch as the students come to conclusions via conversations and logical processes (or in most cases- illogical processes). One of the rules is that the teacher is not supposed to butt in during the dialogue unless to stay clear of trouble or help stay on task or to help clarify what a question means or what a specific phrasing or context placement about the text.
This past summer I had to read "The Paideia Proposal" the book which started this whole program. And before I read it- I thought this program was a good idea, now I'm not so sure. His introduction starts like this: We have half of the problem for perfect education solved- that is, most peoplke spend the same quantity of education in school- the next step is so that every one gets equal quality schooling and education. He's of the pedogogic crowd that is firmly against vocational training (something which I think does society a great deal of good)
The part that has me worried the most though is this: the thesis of the idea is actually a quote from Dewey saying "The best education for the best is the best education for all." I just have never believed that. I go to a magnet school where you're exprected to have taken P calculus and Physics (or comparable classes), you have to take college level English classes (either via dual enrollment or AP classes). However my best friend in the world- has a great deal struggling with school- he's about to be a senior and has only recently completed Algebra 1. The best education for me to keep going into college and then probably into a graduate program. Does that mean that he is the exact same way- can he not contribute to scoiety if he doesn't go to college, if he's just trained vocationally (in this case being 3D modeling and animation)?
People also learn in different ways- I myself have to see something written down before I can understand it. (Unless it's history) But in grammar, math, the sciences, I have to see it before I can comprehend it. Others don't need to see it- seeing itdoesn't help them- but rather they need to ehar it and understand the concept.
So here'y my question- what do you guys think of that thesis- that idea? And if you've read the book (I have a feeling some of you have) what did you think about it?
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"The best education for the best is the best education for all."
I translate this statement as "everyone should have the quality of education that the best students recieve," not necessarily that "everyone should have the same education that the best students recieve."
So Dewey is saying that if the best students became sucessful by having the best edcuational oppurtunites, then everyone should have those same oppurtunies. In your friend's case, that would mean recieving the training that the best animators in the business recieved.
You also mentioned that your friend only recently completed Algerbra I -- since you were one of the best students, one assumes that the best curriculum for him was the same Algerbra I curriculum you had, even if he doesn't go on to take Calculus.
Simply put, all the classes taught on a given skill or subject should be taught the same way as the highest-performing classes taught on that particular skill or subject.
--j_k, who edited this post.
[ August 08, 2006, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously there are issues: If everyone gets the same *quantity* of education, at an quality level, then how can you persue your advanced degrees while others wish to leave school and work towards their own tastes?
Also this magnate school business bothers me. Does it basically turn public education into a heirarchy where the smarter or more motivated kids recieve more funding and and a better education? How could a public school system justify that, if you see it as an abandonment of the struggling students?
On the other hand, you are right; it may be a waste of money to give a bunch of educational opportunities and resources to people who really don't want them, or need them to have a sucessful career in a trade.
And yet even this reasoning is suspect, because a well rounded education will lead to a better more productive worker in any field. For example, your friend may learn 3d modeling as a trade, but if he learns about art history, animation and film history and theory, then he may become a great animator. If he doesn't get that education, there may be a potential being wasted.
Tough questions for a society that worries endlessly over how to educate its children, and yet when faced with the ultimate solution: "GIVE THE G_D SCHOOLS MORE MONEY!!!" balks at that. I am of the opinion that 9/10ths of the social and economic problems of the US could be solved by an advance, long term investment in lower and higher education, across the board. Educate more people, and educate them more. Edit: A large investment in the education system right now could and would save this society from having to pay as much in welfare, public healthcare, and the countless other ways in which the undereducated, the disadvantaged end up costing the economy. The underadvantaged are likely to do great things I think, just like individuals from any "group" can be great, but its obvious that a lack of education can be a major setback in life, even for motivated, good hearted and intelligent people.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does it basically turn public education into a heirarchy where the smarter or more motivated kids recieve more funding and and a better education?
Actually my school gets less funding than the rest of the schools in my district because this myth is so prevalent in our community. It might be true in some cases- certainly not in mine. We also have less community involvmenet since we're smaller and more self-contained. We didn't even get a new school building the just renovated an old middle school (and my old- I mean that there is a black mold in the ceiling and asbestos in various places) and so the community we live in- that is, my town, doesn't support us.
And JTK the author makes it clear that he is so absolutely against vocational training of any kind. He doesn't ever specify the best for one field should be for everyone but he does say "At the very heart of a multitrack system of public schooling lies an abominable discrimination" Which to me sounds like the idea that you suggest (which makes sense to me) is what this guy finds to be so terrible.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[And, a sidenote on magnet programs. In MoCo we have 2 high schools with magnet programs that are populated with students from other parts of the county. They don't get any more funding, but as a result there are a disproportionate number of students who take AP classes and joined teams for academic competions in those schools. Obviously this would help their teams (and their Newsweek ranking). Those of us on the Academic Team for our school would (half-jokingly) complain that it was as if one school's football program entered all the middle schools and got first pick of some of the best players. You can probably guess who wins the championship every year. ]
quote:I translate this statement as "everyone should have the quality of education that the best students recieve," not necessarily that "everyone should have the same education that the best students recieve."
You don't get to make that shift. That's like translating the golden rule: Do onto others before they do onto you.
Dewey means what he says.
I am a little worried about this:
quote:And also the use of the Padeia seminar which is an "itellectual conversation about a text facilitated by open-ended questions" in other words- teachers give us the text, ask us the question and then watch as the students come to conclusions via conversations and logical processes (or in most cases- illogical processes). One of the rules is that the teacher is not supposed to butt in during the dialogue unless to stay clear of trouble or help stay on task or to help clarify what a question means or what a specific phrasing or context placement about the text.
I believe in teacher authority, with respect to guiding a discussion. The teacher shouldn't have a heavy hand, and tangents should be duly explored, but I haven't yet experienced the virtues of an unguided high school discussion of a great work.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And JTK the author makes it clear that he is so absolutely against vocational training of any kind. He doesn't ever specify the best for one field should be for everyone but he does say "At the very heart of a multitrack system of public schooling lies an abominable discrimination" Which to me sounds like the idea that you suggest (which makes sense to me) is what this guy finds to be so terrible.
That puzzles me, because it implies that every student is the same. As many others will say after this post, they're not.
I suspect I agree with the author on at least one point: that there are students out there who will rise to the challenge of harder classes, if placed in those classes. I know (knew?) classmates who would only do as much as was required to pass the class. If the class became harder -- say, a B was required on the next test, so that they would average a D -- they would work that much harder to get the grade. But there are students who genuinly struggle with the work presented to them, or quite simply, don't need them. The best student I knew claimed he was was taking these APs during his senior year: Bio, Stat, Calc, Psych and some other AP classes I can't remember. He wanted to be a biochemist (he took Chemistry and some others the year before), and intened to enter college with several credits under his belt. That's probably not the best courseload for someone who wants to study Greek History.
And honestly, I think one of the biggest problems we'd have implementing a standard system might be balancing the various sciences versus the various humanities. As the classes get harder, they get more specific, and more time needs to be devoted to indivdiual subjects. My classmate was leaned heavily toward the sciences; there just aren't enough hours in the day for him to study as many humanites as the best humanites students did -- on top of all that science, which the many of the best science students took -- without simplifying or removing some of those classes.
Of course, it's late at night and all of the above could be complete and utter nonsense.
--j_k
Another edit: I wondered what he meant by "abominable discrimination" -- if he means that students might end up in a "higher" or "lower" track in a given subject for reasons other than their abilities (i.e.; lack of parental pressure/various socioeconomic disadvantages) then I think I see his point. Two identical students: if one can hire a tutor to push her through a harder track, then she clearly has an advantage over a student who can't. One ends up in the higher track because she has more money than the other student, not necessarily because she's any more intelligent than her peer. This kinda goes along with what I said in this post's second paragraph.
[ August 08, 2006, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: "GIVE THE G_D SCHOOLS MORE MONEY!!!"
You mean like seminaries and what not? Or Catholic schools? Midrashes?
When I was in high school we had a state representative who, when asked if he thought computers were a good investment for our high school, replied, "I don't need a computer to milk my cows." His idea for impoving the quality of education was to pipe classical music over the PA system; it wasn't that he thought it would really do anything, but at least it wouldn't cost any money.
That said, I don't think throwing money at the problem is the answer. I think current funding in most public schools is sufficient for every student to get a world class education (whatever that means). What you're saying is the equivalent of, "If we just put more and more processing capability into a computer, eventually it'll become intelligent." While the processing power is necessary, it isn't sufficient; while spending money on schools is necessary for a quality education, it isn't enough. I think education will improve more dramatically with increased expectations and options (including vocational training programs) than it will if we simply fund schools at a higher level. I also think students should have a greater responsibility for their own education.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That said, I don't think throwing money at the problem is the answer
I agree. The schools get a lot of money now, and throwing money at the problem won't help matters. What the problem is, is that the money isn't well distributed. Schools are top-heavy with many highly paid administrative employees and money goes to support that huge beauracracy rather than into the classrooms where it's really needed.
My friends who are teachers all start griping around this time of year, because they have to spend so much of their own money on supplies for their classrooms. They also are expected to ask each parent to pay $35 in "supply donations" (the amount varies by school, it's 35 in my kid's schools). I'm a parent of four. I already spent $158 on school supplies I'm expected to take up there tonight at "Meet the teacher" night. Now, I will have to write a $35 to each teacher tonight as well. That's a total of $298 I will spend on supplies for my kids.
And what's sad, is that by talking to my teacher friends, it's not enough. The teachers will still spend out of pocket money. Most of them feel terrible about having to ask parents to spend so much. One told me about being given an allowance on copies, she can only make so many each week and it's not enough to run off all the handouts and tests for her six classes a day so she goes to Office Depot and pays to have her tests run off. Not only that, but one of the supplies the school asks parents to send is reams of copy paper! The school isn't even buying it's own paper, and still limits how many she can have per week, so even though the parents have bought the paper, she still has to pay for her own tests to be copies.
Sorry, looks like this thread is the victim of my school supply rant.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand what you're saying Belle- I now have a job at Staples and am trying to help these poor, frustrated parents coming in and looking for supplies for the classroom for their children.
I've seen parents asked to bring in reams of copy paper or 5/16" staples and any number of things.
quote:
quote:And also the use of the Padeia seminar which is an "itellectual conversation about a text facilitated by open-ended questions" in other words- teachers give us the text, ask us the question and then watch as the students come to conclusions via conversations and logical processes (or in most cases- illogical processes). One of the rules is that the teacher is not supposed to butt in during the dialogue unless to stay clear of trouble or help stay on task or to help clarify what a question means or what a specific phrasing or context placement about the text.
I believe in teacher authority, with respect to guiding a discussion. The teacher shouldn't have a heavy hand, and tangents should be duly explored, but I haven't yet experienced the virtues of an unguided high school discussion of a great work.
There are certain guidelines that are very specific- no hand raising, refer to others by names, and some tangents can be explored (I tend to think the best seminars is fully exploring an adjacent tangent as best as possible) and it is guided. It actually can be quite an experience- it also helps to build unity in the school for it teaches respect for others and their opinions and thoughts.
And on a purely educational resource can be great as a tool for developing one's rational discourse.
posted
I think I've read somewhere that D.C. has the highest amount of capital per pupil anywhere in the Union and yet is almost at the bottom of the list in terms of academic excellence.
Does anyone know if this is true?
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Padeia concept, as you realize, is not new. It is just one of many attempts to make education less teacher centered and more student centered. Exeter's Harkness Table is another such effort. I personally like the concept, but it's quite difficult to do well. Sometimes the Socratic method, again if done well (it can be very intimidating), can provide enough guidance to transition into a more open-ended, student directed discussion. The real secret to thoughtful discussion is to teach effective communication skills, including story-telling, and good listening skills-again, not easy. Most teacher's are hopelessly type A personalities, and listening, really listening without that competitive voice in the background of your mind formulating a response is quite difficult.
And ...FYI...most charter schools must accept the students who ask to be enrolled in that particular school. They are not exempt from the national requirement to provide "a free and appropriate education" to all students, regardless of disability. They cannot discriminate by taking only talented students because all people who pay property tax are considered equal under the law, and thus qualified to attend a public school. Ever so often, a special science magnet, or arts school can ask that their students be gifted and talented in those areas, but most newly developed magnet schools cannot place such limits on their student body. That said, some approaches have more appeal to some populations than others.
I hope you like your school. Keep us posted.
Posts: 42 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: I think I've read somewhere that D.C. has the highest amount of capital per pupil anywhere in the Union and yet is almost at the bottom of the list in terms of academic excellence.
Does anyone know if this is true?
Yeah, No one gives a crap about DC schools now. They're all trashed up and stuff. I saw video someone made about their school and there were holes in the walls and stuff, and the bathrooms smelled like weed and cigarettes apparently. They were all trashed up too. I'm assuming that this didn't motivate the students to succeed at all...
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I believe in teacher authority, with respect to guiding a discussion. The teacher shouldn't have a heavy hand, and tangents should be duly explored, but I haven't yet experienced the virtues of an unguided high school discussion of a great work.
We tried this in my AP lit class with pretty good success. WHat I think it really is, is what has the APPEARANCE of an unguided discussion. Properly prepped and motivated, a class can discuss a text without direct teacher intervention fairly effectively. Not every class, and not all the time, but some classes, sometimes.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: That said, I don't think throwing money at the problem is the answer. I think current funding in most public schools is sufficient for every student to get a world class education (whatever that means). What you're saying is the equivalent of, "If we just put more and more processing capability into a computer, eventually it'll become intelligent." While the processing power is necessary, it isn't sufficient; while spending money on schools is necessary for a quality education, it isn't enough. I think education will improve more dramatically with increased expectations and options (including vocational training programs) than it will if we simply fund schools at a higher level. I also think students should have a greater responsibility for their own education.
I came from a school district where the teachers couldn't afford to live in the community. How does that make any sense at all? If you work in a community where it is expensive to live, then your school is supposed to be funded by that (we had a parcel tax), and the teachers are supposed to be paid enough to live on.
I agree if you react to my solution as if it is a meaningless ten-fold increase in spending. It isn't meaningless though, that increase would have to go to new programs, new experts, better paid teachers and better facilities. Throwing money at a stupid system, I agree, creates a wealthy and stupid system, but increasing funding where it is not even sufficient to run current programs is necessary.
How many schools still have music programs? Ours was shut down when I was going to middle school. We didn't have a P.E. teacher, we didn't have a science room, we couldn't afford a sports program, so that teams had to be run by city rec. and they did a terrible job; we were coached by junior college students with no experience. Our drama program couldn't even afford a pianist to accompany the plays, so students SANG OVER THE RECORD during performances!
Don't throw ALL your money at it. But throw a lot, ALOT more into the budget, for heaven's sake. I spent a year taking Spanish and music classes in a portable building that had been placed there 25 years before, and had never been meant to be permanent. Who can learn in what is basically an academic dumpster? It was pathetic.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I feel for you, but I'm gonna take up this issue for one counterpoint.
quote:Schools are top-heavy with many highly paid administrative employees and money goes to support that huge beauracracy rather than into the classrooms where it's really needed.
Tell me how schools should handle all the Bureaucratic oversight, with fewer, or lower-paid, administrators. The people can't demand NCLB, and all the numerous administrative requirements I hear about, without some kind of administrative staff.
What incentive should the public schools provide to teachers, or low-paid administrators, to continue working in education? No possibilities of a significant raise, no higher-paid position to aspire to, and inevitably-increasing loads of bureaucracy...doesn't sound like an interesting career to me.
(Personal thought: You know those news reports about 'failing' schools, and about corruption among administrators? I'd like to see the news service follow up with a story about all the administrators who persevered in the face of budget shortfalls, or who achieved 'passing' grades in the face of idiotic bureaucratic requirements.)
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Runtime: 104 min Country: USA Language: English Color: Color (Technicolor) Sound Mix: Dolby Certification: Iceland:12 / Singapore:NC-16 / Iceland:L (video rating) / Norway:15 / USA:PG-13 / Australia:PG
Trivia: In real life, there was never any threat of a state takeover of Eastside High. (more)
Goofs: Continuity: Maria's hair between shots when Clark is somewhat berating Mrs. Powers over the way she taught the school song to the "song birds". (more)
Quotes: Joe Clark: Mr. Major, on behalf of myself and on behalf the students of Eastside High, you can tell the State to go to hell! (more)
Awards: 3 wins & 3 nominations (more)
As a child of a teacher/administrator, I can appreciate that quote. Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tstorm, how much do you think a superintendent of a county school system should make, in relation to the teachers that work for him/her? Should he make twice as much as a teacher? Three times as much? Four times as much?
I couldn't find information on all the administrative salaries around here, but I did find a few and they make more than four times a classroom teacher's salary.
My kids teachers have to either beg supply money from parents or pay out of pocket to run off tests and the superintendent is making six figures.
I've been inside the board of ed building in the county and it's one of the nicest, poshest office buildings I've seen. Meanwhile my daughter attends class inside a trailer where the teacher has to decide whether to run the air conditioner or talk. She really can't do both, that air conditioning unit for the trailer is too loud for her to be comfortably heard above it, yet we start school in early August when it's high 90's.
quote:What incentive should the public schools provide to teachers, or low-paid administrators, to continue working in education? No possibilities of a significant raise, no higher-paid position to aspire to, and inevitably-increasing loads of bureaucracy...doesn't sound like an interesting career to me.
And every teacher I talk to says they don't do it for the money and each year the county has to turn away people who want to be in the profession but they have more applicants than they have jobs. (in the elementary grades, there is a shortage of secondary school teachers here, especially in the math and sciences.) I'm personally not going into education for the money, I could be a stay at home Mom forever, my husband makes a comfortable living, but I want to teach. I'm not saying teacher's salaries aren't too low, or that we shouldn't pay them more, I'm just saying that high administrative salaries aren't going to be the shot in the arm to keep good teachers teaching. If they really cared about high salaries, I think they'd be doing something else. And, I don't want to speak for all teachers, but from talking to my friends who teach most of them would rather have enough money to outfit their classrooms than have the comfort of knowing there are highly paid administrative positions for them to one day aspire to. Most of them have no intention of ever going into administration, they teach because they love the classroom environment and love what they do.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tstorm, how much do you think a superintendent of a county school system should make, in relation to the teachers that work for him/her? Should he make twice as much as a teacher? Three times as much? Four times as much?
How much should a manager of 20 people get paid? 100 people? 500 people? I'd say the pay should scale to the district size. Obviously, you're pointing out the same problem that exists in the corporate world...where CEOS get paid many times what entry-level employees receive.
quote:I've been inside the board of ed building in the county and it's one of the nicest, poshest office buildings I've seen. Meanwhile my daughter attends class inside a trailer where the teacher has to decide whether to run the air conditioner or talk. She really can't do both, that air conditioning unit for the trailer is too loud for her to be comfortably heard above it, yet we start school in early August when it's high 90's.
I hear you on this. But I'll relate my experience, in which most Board of Education offices I've visited seemed relatively spartan compared to corporate offices.
And my hometown suffered from some infrastructure difficulties, too. Because most buildings didn't have air conditioning, the district ran 'hot weather' schedules when the heat broke into the high 90s. Our situation improved when the district managed to pass a Local Option Budget (LOB) to pay for numerous improvements. Count ourselves luck the LOB passed, we did.
quote:in the elementary grades, there is a shortage of secondary school teachers here, especially in the math and sciences.
Yes, I should've been more specific. Elementary grades, almost inevitably, have more applicants than positions. Secondary grades usually struggle to fill open positions.
quote:And, I don't want to speak for all teachers, but from talking to my friends who teach most of them would rather have enough money to outfit their classrooms than have the comfort of knowing there are highly paid administrative positions for them to one day aspire to.
Let's hope they don't change their minds. My dad was a teacher, and he went into administration. (I'm trying to leave him out of this, but you might as well know from what position I'm gaining my perspective. )
quote:I'm just saying that high administrative salaries aren't going to be the shot in the arm to keep good teachers teaching.
No, you're right, both teachers and administrators make up a team, in the schools. I'm not saying that administrators should receive a pay increase, either. I'm pointing out the reason administrators exist. They're kind of invisible, unless something goes wrong in the classroom.
quote:they teach because they love the classroom environment and love what they do.
Good for them, I'm always glad to hear about people like this. It brightens my day, even just a little bit. Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
]![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You don't get to make that shift. That's like translating the golden rule: Do onto others before they do onto you.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
