The "Education" Thread

[unknown]

I haven't seen any significant difference between the general population and any elementary/middle school teacher I ever met. I don't know if I've met any high school teachers so I can't say anything about that. It's clear that most people aren't qualified to teach post-secondary level information, at least outside of their area of major maybe. OTOH, there are a lot of online resources these days for educating at nearly any level. Khan Academy is obviously the sexy one, but it isn't the only one.

I'm not saying primary level educators are ignorant, merely that anecdotally they appear no more or less competent in general, than the general population. That's not really a knock so much as just a response to the "but parents aren't qualified!" concern. There's little to no evidence that a teaching degree or certificate provides any advantage to potential students when compared to involved parents.

Have you met the general population? Just to illustrate what most teachers in California have to go through...

First, You have to decide whether to teach K-5 or 6-12. If you're doing elementary school, you're going to go for a "multi subject" credential. If you're doing middle or high school, you get a "single subject credential". The "multi subject" credential is actually impacted at CSULB, meaning that in order just to get into that program, you have to have at least a 3.0 GPA just to be considered. So not just anyone can get into the program, least of all demonstrably/objectively "dumb" people. In addition to fulfilling the curriculum, you have to do 120 hours of service learning plus TWO semesters of student teaching

Once you've decided which path to go down, if you go down the multi subject level, you actually take a completely different set of courses from the general college student population. Your GE's and everything are different. At CSULB, this was called "Liberal Studies". Even though you don't teach calculus to third graders, you still had to take calculus (if not more) to understand the broader mathematical systems. Even though you don't teach the students Linguistics, you still take an upper division Linguistics class on Language Acquisition just in case you have any English Language Learner's (which is pretty much guaranteed in California), and you'll know how to develop methods to ensure their academic success.

If you're going down the single-subject credential route, you still get your BA or BS in whatever major (English, Math, History, etc.), and then after you graduate, you apply to the credential program. This is a two-year process on top of your BA/BS and it involves many of the methods and pedagogy classes that the Liberal Studies majors take in their program.

So for elementary school teacher, they need to have a broad set of knowledge with a certain amount of depth. Middle and high school teachers have a less broad range of multiple subjects, but study more in depth the particular subject they wish to teach. I'm obviously cutting out A LOT in the interest of time, but then there's also taking accrediting tests like the CSET/CBEST and actually being judged by faculty as to whether or not you're a good candidate for teaching...

Wanna be a college instructor? Depending on where you want to teach, you need AT LEAST a Master's Degree. If you want to be at the University level, you need a PhD. You are NOT required to take any methods or pedagogy classes. This also probably explains why so many professors are ineffective teachers because they were never trained how to be a teacher.

Can anybody teach? Sure. Can anybody be a good teacher? Doubtful. Could a parent be a good teacher? I don't see why not. If they're qualified to teach and are able to, go for it.

Quality one on one or one on two time between a parent and a child, with shared genetics and environment, with the most invested adult in the child's life tailoring a custom learning plan vs a random stranger trying to pass a class of 20-30+ random kids on to the next grade, utilizing a mostly cookiecutter approach because there is neither the time, resources, bureaucracy, nor in many cases interest in doing more.

There's no doubt that class size effects student learning. Absolutely. When I tutored students one-on-one, I saw the greatest growth. Parental involvement, as @HamburgerBoy mentioned, is absolutely crucial. But this is tough to do when the majority of parents these days BOTH have to work. So schools can offer parent/teacher conference nights, but what if that doesn't work with the parent's schedule? Or what if the parent's speak a different language? Please don't characterize teachers as "random strangers". They're not. They've gone through college. They studied their appropriate subjects and have been approved/vetted by other members of that community they're trying to enter into. It's also environmental. What happens if you grow up in an area where you can make more money slinging dope than working at an actual job, which is going to be replaced by a robot because minimum wage is going up? Why go to school when you could go to work?

Now, once they enter the classroom, that's a different subject. The "cookiecutter" approach you've mentioned is nothing new. Paulo Freire wrote about this in Pedagogy of the Oppressed and described it as the "banking concept of education" back in the 70's. This is now pretty much mandatory reading in most teaching programs. But then they get to the school and are handed curriculum binders that were developed by a national corporation and were purchased by the district. LAUSD used to have them (and @crimsonfloyd can say whether or not they're still around), and it was a program called Open Court. You'd open the binder and, no joke, it would say "8:00a.m. assign this work 8:30a.m. ask these questions 9:00a.m. assign this project". Total robot cookiecutter approach. The teacher didn't want it, but they're forced to teach it by the administration and district. All the administration and district care about is student success because student success is tied to funding and good PR, so teachers, especially new and not tenured teachers, are pressured to "teach to the test". And the curriculum companies promote their products as the sure fire way to ensure student success.(And we won't even get into the topic of public school funding being tied to property taxes. Live in a poor area? Shitty school. Live in a rich area? Rock climbing wall!)

LAUSD wanted to implement a program where EVERY student received an iPad. This was a ONE BILLION dollar deal. The iPads came preloaded with Pearson software, which mostly did not work, and the program was axed after the district had already spent $356 million (somewhere around there). Imagine what could have been done with A BILLION dollars. Vocational/tech classes could have been funded. New teachers could have been hired. Shit, you could've built a couple of new schools to ease that classroom crowding discussed earlier which is so detrimental to student learning.

So it's not always the teacher's fault. Are there shitty K-12 teachers? Absolutely. But many of them are protected under a system that was designed to protect the integrity of the education. It's the system. Education is a business. Want teachers to be better? Then let them teach and promote good teaching. I've seen so many good teachers get burned out because they don't want to deal with the bullshit. They can get paid more to do less work at a private sector job. Students don't care because they're not taught to value learning and aren't encouraged, so if "C"s get degrees, then fuck it let's settle for mediocrity


...now you know why I got so jaded by the K-12 field that I went into teaching at the college level

 

[HamburgerBoy]

For most of my school career I have been an absolute failure due to me not doing any work because Im fucking lazy. The problem isn't the school, the teacher or parents, its me the fucking student.

Often it's the parents that raise a lazy student, but yeah. I think parents and teachers alike have a tendency to over-attribute their influence on the child (until they hit 18 and magically they're independent and self-sufficient), neglecting how young it is that children begin to develop their own opinions, the influence that same-aged peers have, and the genetic contribution to a person's development.

 

[Einherjar86]

If the labor pool suddenly shrunk by half, this wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue (ceteris paribus, of course).

I assume you're suggesting that the remaining half of the work force would suddenly earn twice as much; but if ceteris paribus holds, then that actually wouldn't be true. Math might work that way, but the economy doesn't. A LOT would have to happen before anything even close to the same income begins entering the average working household after such a radical and drastic shift. Furthermore, plenty of people would simply lose jobs as companies went under, in which case many households would have (temporarily at least) no income at all.

I'm not saying primary level educators are ignorant, merely that anecdotally they appear no more or less competent in general, than the general population. That's not really a knock so much as just a response to the "but parents aren't qualified!" concern. There's little to no evidence that a teaching degree or certificate provides any advantage to potential students when compared to involved parents.

As far as the average parent being as smart as the average teacher goes... there's no metric that affords us the opportunity to make that claim (the problem here being how we identify "smartness"). But it is definitely true that teachers are, on average, better than parents at challenging their kids to think outside their comfort zone, especially when you take into consideration the large portion of religious households.

 

[Dak]

I appreciate unknown's detailed response.

I am well acquainted with the general public, maybe I haven't been around enough primary level teachers. When I say the GP of course I'm leaving off the tails of the IQ curve. Unless you are in academia, or high up in finance or political power centers, you aren't in much contact with the right tail, and unless living in the prison system or very impoverished areas, probably not much around the left tail either. The cluster around the mean is the "general public". I haven't seen anything to suggest (again, maybe not enough exposure), to suggest that primary teachers are generally +1SD on a general distribution. Obviously that could be different for secondary, and definitely would be for post secondary. As I stated, my comparison shouldn't be construed as negative on the teachers.

The part about the credentialism and extra lengths for various types of teachers and stuff could probably have it's own lengthy discussion. In short, while it sounds good, I'm dubious about the necessity of it all, and off the cuff it seems like another side of that same system that is described later on that dictates down to the minute detail how things must be taught, what materials to use, etc.

The handcuffing of even good/well qualified teachers, plus classroom size, is a point for an overhaul that prods and allows for parents, even of lesser capabilities to be more involved rather than new gadgets/gizmos/curriculums/pedagogue trends/etc.

The "student success" thing is such crap (which you alluded to). Success is passing the test, and enabling success is teaching to it. This is system success, not student success.

I assume you're suggesting that the remaining half of the work force would suddenly earn twice as much; but if ceteris paribus holds, then that actually wouldn't be true. Math might work that way, but the economy doesn't. A LOT would have to happen before anything even close to the same income begins entering the average working household after such a radical and drastic shift. Furthermore, plenty of people would simply lose jobs as companies went under, in which case many households would have (temporarily at least) no income at all.

I was thinking more along the lines of no increase in immigration to keep wages suppressed. Maybe immediately wasn't the most concise word choice, I didn't mean every parent walking out in an unannounced "Day Zero".

As far as the average parent being as smart as the average teacher goes... there's no metric that affords us the opportunity to make that claim (the problem here being how we identify "smartness"). But it is definitely true that teachers are, on average, better than parents at challenging their kids to think outside their comfort zone, especially when you take into consideration the large portion of religious households.

g is much less problematic than deconstructionists or poststructuralists or whatever like to pretend. But that aside, why would challenging ideology (that's what you meant) have any place in primary education? That's not even the cart before the horse. That's the cart running over the horse that is still learning how to walk.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

And my younger daughter is already working on reading more than what we've prompted. Everyone has different developmental paths/timing. I was a late bloomer in regards to interest in learning. Boys usually are more interested in more kinetic/engaged learning than sitting still, especially at earlier ages). Hasn't held me back. But your response is case in point of that cookie-cutter mentality I was referring to.

Classic Dak circular reasoning. In this case whatever your kids do affirms how awesome your homeschooling. If they're behind, it's because you're giving them time to learn at their own pace. If they're ahead, it's because of your awesome homeschooling.

Of course, if schools are behind it's because highly credentialed, heavily assessed teachers don't know more than the dude walking down the street. Typical double standard to affirm what you already believe.

And what do you mean by "cookie-cutter" mentality? If you mean a one-size fits all approach to education, then that is just laughable. I literally have students ranging from a 2nd grade reading level to a junior in college reading level in the same class, as well as everything in betweeen, and have a high functioning, highly engaged and rigorous classroom. That wouldn't be possible with a cookie-cutter mentality.

 

[Dak]

Classic Dak circular reasoning. In this case whatever your kids do affirms how awesome your homeschooling. If they're behind, it's because you're giving them time to learn at their own pace. If they're ahead, it's because of your awesome homeschooling.

Of course, if schools are behind it's because highly credentialed, heavily assessed teachers don't know more than the dude walking down the street. Typical double standard to affirm what you already believe.

And what do you mean by "cookie-cutter" mentality? If you mean a one-size fits all approach to education, then that is just laughable. I literally have students ranging from a 2nd grade reading level to a junior in college reading level in the same class, as well as everything in betweeen, and have a high functioning, highly engaged and rigorous classroom. That wouldn't be possible with a cookie-cutter mentality.

Your response indicates poor reading comprehension of anything I've said and a denial of the cookie-cutter nature of the public education system which unknown just expounded upon. I guess you should tell him specifically he's quite wrong about all that (edit: guess you are...but you teach high school. So wow, yeah, didn't read and/or understand what I have written).

But I'm sure you have a rigorous classroom. You probably just didn't catch everything in the thread because you were too busy rigorously preparing your rigorous lesson.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

H
There's no doubt that class size effects student learning. Absolutely. When I tutored students one-on-one, I saw the greatest growth. Parental involvement, as @HamburgerBoy mentioned, is absolutely crucial. But this is tough to do when the majority of parents these days BOTH have to work. So schools can offer parent/teacher conference nights, but what if that doesn't work with the parent's schedule? Or what if the parent's speak a different language?

Parents will come if the school and students emphasize the importance of the event and if the parents get something out of it. At our school we do "student led conferences" where students sit down with their parents and go through their notebooks for each of their classes and explain various subjects they are studying. The teachers just make the forms, which are interactive and engage the parents. Upwards of 90% of our students show up with a parent, guardian, or older sibling, and this is in a low income, high immigrant neighborhood, you know the exact type that so many one these boards are always demonizing. We have other events to inform our parents about A-G college requirements and about the different type of love-languages so they can better understand how their students communicate their care. The VAST majority of parents care and want to be engaged in their child's education and when given the opportunities, they embrace it. I should reiterate that I teach high school, so a number like 90% is unheard of. But then again, usually these sorts of events are just opportunities for teachers to give a parent a report card and tell them about their kid's behavior.

What happens if you grow up in an area where you can make more money slinging dope than working at an actual job, which is going to be replaced by a robot because minimum wage is going up? Why go to school when you could go to work?

Because the most powerful and sustainable way to increase one's social capital is through education. Communicate that to them, and you'll see a transformation.

Now, once they enter the classroom, that's a different subject. The "cookiecutter" approach you've mentioned is nothing new. Paulo Freire wrote about this in Pedagogy of the Oppressed and described it as the "banking concept of education" back in the 70's. This is now pretty much mandatory reading in most teaching programs. But then they get to the school and are handed curriculum binders that were developed by a national corporation and were purchased by the district. LAUSD used to have them (and @crimsonfloyd can say whether or not they're still around), and it was a program called Open Court. You'd open the binder and, no joke, it would say "8:00a.m. assign this work 8:30a.m. ask these questions 9:00a.m. assign this project". Total robot cookiecutter approach. The teacher didn't want it, but they're forced to teach it by the administration and district. All the administration and district care about is student success because student success is tied to funding and good PR, so teachers, especially new and not tenured teachers, are pressured to "teach to the test". And the curriculum companies promote their products as the sure fire way to ensure student success.(And we won't even get into the topic of public school funding being tied to property taxes. Live in a poor area? Shitty school. Live in a rich area? Rock climbing wall!)

There were some charters I interviewed who had that, but from what I've seen and heard of in LAUSD that's not too common. The two areas where you regularly see that is Read 180 and LTEL classes. At my school none of our classes are like that at all, except the ELD classes and that's because that teacher (who is excellent) chooses that curriculum.

 

[Dak]

High school.......So you have a guy 7-10 grades behind on a fundamental learning ability passed along without correction so he's in a class with a guy 2-5 grades ahead in same said ability who has probably been held back in some ways. Public education is great.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

High school.......So you have a guy 7-10 grades behind on a fundamental learning ability passed along without correction so he's in a class with a guy 2-5 grades ahead in same said ability who has probably been held back in some ways. Public education is great.

The difference is more extreme than you are making out to be. I have students reading at junior in college level and others that are at the 2nd grade level. So that's more like a 12 year difference in reading ability. However, what you need to understand is that I teach at a full inclusion school, meaning we don't "track" students (save AP classes, ELD classes [which are supplementary to a regular English class], and mathematics). This means ELD students, students with IEPs (special ed.), honors students, and "regular" students are all in the same classroom. The rationale for full inclusion is that tracking students actually exasperates the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots." The low kids remain stagnant while the high kids remain high. For example, when I was student teaching, I was at a tracked high school in one of the low-level tracks. The teacher didn't want to teach these 10th grades to write an analytical essay because she thought it was too hard for them.

On the other hand, with a full inclusion model, I'm seeing some of my low-skilled kids performances sky-rocket. The reason this is occurring is because they are consistently exposed to rigorous, college prep materials that they would normally be deprived of because they'd be in a class where the teachers didn't believe in them or set low expectations. Of course, I'm scaffolding for them but I'm not changing the standards. So if we're writing an analytical essay connecting a piece of literature to a psychological theory, they will be doing it too, but I might give them a graphic organizer with sentence starters, which obviously I'm not gonna give to even my mid-level students. For other students, I might ask for one less body paragraph.

At the same time, full inclusion also benefits the high-skilled students because they get to take leadership positions in the class or engage in higher-level, metacognitive tasks such as peer mentoring. For example, at this point in the year, I rarely even need to facilitate group discussions, because my honors students do that for me. They love getting to come up with questions and making connections between other students ideas. So in short, yes, public education can be great.

 

[Dak]

There's sort of a multi-pronged response I have to this.

To begin with, this inclusion model, if it looks as wonderful across the board as you paint it, is most likely an improvement on the standard formula, at least in terms of student experience in the moment. Particularly in terms of learning non-"3Rs" material, this is a boon to those lagging behind. As you stated, there's definitely some outside-the-material benefit in gaining peer mentoring, for those ahead. But that's where my positivity ends.

Why do you have someone passed along who can't read (I consider 2nd grade level "can't read" for all intents and purposes)? Why can't a student be "slow-tracked" until they get that and then fast-tracked as they consume material? Rather than either held back across the board or passed along across the board? (Cookie cutter)

I also have an issue with "scaffolding", as it ultimately doesn't do the student any favors in terms of real world expectations/efforts. It's counter-productive hand-holding as far as I'm concerned. Sure, the student might be able to muddle through or even contribute in your class, but then without such a crutch (which they have at least some experiential reason to expect), they fall on their face, which is (at least potentially) even more disheartening than their initial predicament.

Scaffolding, AA, etc is one way you get students at supposedly elite institutions (or post secondary institutions in general) who simply cannot handle even baseline university level "rigor" and wind up acting out in all sorts of destructive ways, either externally or internally.

 

[Einherjar86]

g is much less problematic than deconstructionists or poststructuralists or whatever like to pretend. But that aside, why would challenging ideology (that's what you meant) have any place in primary education? That's not even the cart before the horse. That's the cart running over the horse that is still learning how to walk.

No, that isn't what I meant actually - I'm not suggesting that fifth-graders should be well-versed in ideology critique. All I meant was that homeschooling generally revolves around religion. The educations of children who are homeschooled are going to reflect heavy religious exposure. Since these kids will likely grow up religious anyway, a public education would force them to grapple with issues they wouldn't face in a homeschooling situation.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

There's sort of a multi-pronged response I have to this.

To begin with, this inclusion model, if it looks as wonderful across the board as you paint it, is most likely an improvement on the standard formula, at least in terms of student experience in the moment. Particularly in terms of learning non-"3Rs" material, this is a boon to those lagging behind. As you stated, there's definitely some outside-the-material benefit in gaining peer mentoring, for those ahead. But that's where my positivity ends.

I don't think its a utopia and there are definitely days where I realize the lesson was too high for some or too low for others, but on the whole I think that, in conjunction with teaching through multiple modalities results in a much stronger and much more engaged classroom.

Why do you have someone passed along who can't read (I consider 2nd grade level "can't read" for all intents and purposes)? Why can't a student be "slow-tracked" until they get that and then fast-tracked as they consume material? Rather than either held back across the board or passed along across the board? (Cookie cutter)

The cookie-cutter model is the tracking model and basically the slow-track is a track that leads to dropping out. It's clear that the kids in the "slow track" start to perceive themselves as "dumb" and "bad" and often this is affirmed by teachers who are bitter that they got the "bad" class. Often the subject matter is too low level for kids of that age (just because you're reading at a second grade level it doesn't mean you're interested in second grave level topics) which further causes disengagement. The research is pretty clear on this, tracking leads to a culture of failure on the low tracks.

As far as the social promotion issue, I'm not disputing it and something needs to be done about it. It messes kids up and totally throws them off when they get to high school where social promotion doesn't exist (you either graduate or you don't). I'm not gonna pretend to have a clear answer to what should be done about it, as I have very little experience in K-5 classrooms. However, as a secondary teacher it is my responsibility to do what's best for students when they come into my classroom. When a school tracks a higher percentage of low students sink; when a school doesn't track, a higher percentage of low students grow.

I also have an issue with "scaffolding", as it ultimately doesn't do the student any favors in terms of real world expectations/efforts. It's counter-productive hand-holding as far as I'm concerned. Sure, the student might be able to muddle through or even contribute in your class, but then without such a crutch (which they have at least some experiential reason to expect), they fall on their face, which is (at least potentially) even more disheartening than their initial predicament.

Scaffolding, AA, etc is one way you get students at supposedly elite institutions (or post secondary institutions in general) who simply cannot handle even baseline university level "rigor" and wind up acting out in all sorts of destructive ways, either externally or internally.

This is a perfect example of why just any parent is not as qualified to teach as a credentialed teacher. Scaffolding is a basic concept of education. "Scaffolding" does not contradict what one experiences in "the real world" and it's only a crutch if the students don't need it. A good teacher takes away (or decreases) the scaffolds as the student grows. I'll give you some examples:
At the beginning of the year, I give all my students a general graphic organizer for our first essay so they all understand how to structure intro, body paragraph, counterargument/rebuttal, conclusion, etc. By the end of the first semester about 1/3 of my students had internalized the writing process, so I stopped giving it to them. Of course, some of them still wanted it, but I told them no, because they didn't need it. Now, if I kept giving those students the scaffold, THAT would be a crutch. However, the other students still needed the scaffold to excel at the task. Now at the end of the year, it's closer to 3/4 of the students who don't need the graphic organizer, so only a minority of the classroom still gets it. A few of my lowest ability students (a few of my special ed or emerging ELD students) get a more detailed graphic organizer that has sentence frames. Quite simply, that's where they're at right now.

A second example: I have a student who is only in his second year speaking English. However, he had a very strong education in El Salvador and has a high reading level in Spanish. At the beginning of the year, I allowed him to write assignments in Spanish and then translate them into English. I also would give him articles at lower reading lexile than the ones the rest of the class were reading, but that were on the same or similar topics. As the year went on, I was him take away the scaffold for himself; he stopped writing first in Spanish and started with English. However, if he didn't get that initial scaffold to start writing more academic English, he wouldn't have got there as quickly. At the same time, I gradually increased his the reading level for him.

Now for my seniors in my philosophy class (who have all been accepted into four year universities) I'm not gonna scaffold in the same way. At that point, I'm not gonna give them graphic organizers, even if they're struggling, but I will require an outline from the students who are struggling while the students who are getting As and Bs may be allowed to skip submitting an outline. Obviously, as time goes on you need to decrease the scaffolds to prepare them for college. That said, the notion that scaffolds are in themselves crutches is utter nonsense. They are aids, and they only become crutches if teachers allow students to use them when they no longer need them.

Now I want to address this nonsense that scaffolding doesn't happen in the real world. When you start a new job, a good manager is going to scaffold for you. For example, they might give you a cheat sheet for multi-step processes, or they might give you a peer mentor to guide you through the process, or they might chunk the work when you initially start. Then, when you've internalized the process they're gonna take those scaffolds away. This is just how people learn and suggesting that when good teachers scaffold for their students they're doing a disservice simply demonstrates that you don't understand how people learn.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

One more point I want to add: it's contradictory to say you're opposed to "cookie cutter education" and to also say you're opposed to scaffolding/differentiation. Differentiation is the antithesis of "cookie cutter education." It's a way to hold students to high, grade-level stanards while also meeting them where they're at, rather than where they "should be at" per some ideal and abstract measure.

 

[Dak]

I don't think its a utopia and there are definitely days where I realize the lesson was too high for some or too low for others, but on the whole I think that, in conjunction with teaching through multiple modalities results in a much stronger and much more engaged classroom.



The cookie-cutter model is the tracking model and basically the slow-track is a track that leads to dropping out. It's clear that the kids in the "slow track" start to perceive themselves as "dumb" and "bad" and often this is affirmed by teachers who are bitter that they got the "bad" class. Often the subject matter is too low level for kids of that age (just because you're reading at a second grade level it doesn't mean you're interested in second grave level topics) which further causes disengagement. The research is pretty clear on this, tracking leads to a culture of failure on the low tracks.

As far as the social promotion issue, I'm not disputing it and something needs to be done about it. It messes kids up and totally throws them off when they get to high school where social promotion doesn't exist (you either graduate or you don't). I'm not gonna pretend to have a clear answer to what should be done about it, as I have very little experience in K-5 classrooms. However, as a secondary teacher it is my responsibility to do what's best for students when they come into my classroom. When a school tracks a higher percentage of low students sink; when a school doesn't track, a higher percentage of low students grow.

Obviously you can't rectify years of systemic educational mishandling in the amount of time a teen is in your class, and you're probably providing them with the best approach in a messed up system. But it boggles my mind how kids can't read and write but then "graduate", or that they even learned very much along the way.

They are aids, and they only become crutches if teachers allow students to use them when they no longer need them.

Now I want to address this nonsense that scaffolding doesn't happen in the real world. When you start a new job, a good manager is going to scaffold for you. For example, they might give you a cheat sheet for multi-step processes, or they might give you a peer mentor to guide you through the process, or they might chunk the work when you initially start. Then, when you've internalized the process they're gonna take those scaffolds away. This is just how people learn and suggesting that when good teachers scaffold for their students they're doing a disservice simply demonstrates that you don't understand how people learn.

Good managers are few and far between. OTOH, places with important multistep processes usually always have them around. But you need to be able to read. People learn at their own pace, but I reject the idea that one doesn't need the "3Rs" as a firm foundation prior to delving into other things. If you want to suggest this is "cookiecutter" also then whatever, but that's not the way I used it. My use of cookiecutter is that everyone learns all the same things at the same time/age. This is not how people learn and obviously a systemic issue, primarily in K-8 and not aimed at you. By the time the kids turn into teens (when you would see them), you shouldn't have massive skill gaps in the fundamental skills required for learning and inquiry.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Obviously you can't rectify years of systemic educational mishandling in the amount of time a teen is in your class, and you're probably providing them with the best approach in a messed up system. But it boggles my mind how kids can't read and write but then "graduate", or that they even learned very much along the way.

It depends on the school. At ours, save a few exceptions, the only kids that have below a high school reading level who are graduating are pretty much all students who recently reclassified (i.e. transitioned from being ELD) or who have an IEP (special ed.). That said, our school is structured that all students are meeting UC and CSU requirements and then some, so all the kids who are graduating are getting 4 years English, 4 years math, 3 years science, etc. So unless they were really far behind when they came in or if they have a learning disability, they are going to be at least within a few years of where they should be.

Now there are schools where you can graduate with a 4.0 taking shop, home econ, and some softball English and math classes, which is how you have valedictorians who are ineligible for college and also how you have students with diplomas who cannot read at a high school level. So yes, I agree that such schools are failing their students.

Good managers are few and far between. OTOH, places with important multistep processes usually always have them around. But you need to be able to read. People learn at their own pace, but I reject the idea that one doesn't need the "3Rs" as a firm foundation prior to delving into other things.

You're preaching to the choir. I'm in no way saying that students don't need the fundamentals. I am saying that the way that you deliver those fundamentals to a 14 year old needs to be much different than the way you would deliver it to a 8 year old and sitting them in a room with all the other "dumb" kids and a teacher who is resentful that s/he got the "bad" class and having them review elementary level material is not the solution.

If you want to suggest this is "cookiecutter" also then whatever, but that's not the way I used it. My use of cookiecutter is that everyone learns all the same things at the same time/age. This is not how people learn and obviously a systemic issue, primarily in K-8 and not aimed at you. By the time the kids turn into teens (when you would see them), you shouldn't have massive skill gaps in the fundamental skills required for learning and inquiry.

Again, I agree. Education is best when simultaneously multimodal and standards based, and I imagine this is even more true in elementary school. I've done a lot of studies of multi-modal learning and often give my students multiple ways to apply content for processing activities (i.e. "explain Nietzsche's idea of the Eternal Return through an academic paragraph, a comic with analysis, or through a short skit with analysis") so that kids can show me their intelligence in their own ways. At the same time, everyone will have to turn in a unit paper, so no one gets out of practicing the skill that is fundamental at the next level.

 

[Dak]

Now there are schools where you can graduate with a 4.0 taking shop, home econ, and some softball English and math classes, which is how you have valedictorians who are ineligible for college and also how you have students with diplomas who cannot read at a high school level. So yes, I agree that such schools are failing their students.


You're preaching to the choir. I'm in no way saying that students don't need the fundamentals. I am saying that the way that you deliver those fundamentals to a 14 year old needs to be much different than the way you would deliver it to a 8 year old and sitting them in a room with all the other "dumb" kids and a teacher who is resentful that s/he got the "bad" class and having them review elementary level material is not the solution.

You might work in an exceptional school, but I would stress the exceptional part. The latter I believe is the rule. I'm anti public education not because it couldn't theoretically be good (I mean seriously, if I thought I could just send my kids out the door and they would get a better educational experience than I could grant, and for no explicit charge, who wouldn't take that deal up?), but because there's no reasonable expectation that it would be (or in most cases, very empirical reasons why it isn't). Throw in "Lord of the Flies" parallels, the "bad apple" metaphor ("one spoils the bunch"), the prefrontal immaturity, etc, and you should see why I'm pretty down on public education, any concerns about economic redistribution aside.

Again, I agree. Education is best when simultaneously multimodal and standards based, and I imagine this is even more true in elementary school. I've done a lot of studies of multi-modal learning and often give my students multiple ways to apply content for processing activities (i.e. "explain Nietzsche's idea of the Eternal Return through an academic paragraph, a comic with analysis, or through a short skit with analysis") so that kids can show me their intelligence in their own ways. At the same time, everyone will have to turn in a unit paper, so no one gets out of practicing the skill that is fundamental at the next level.

I think different metaphors etc reach different people best, but I hope you aren't alluding to different "learning styles". The most recent science has disproven (or at least cast doubt on) that idea.

As a total aside to any of the topics here, psych research into tribes suggests that we give each other a harder time than we otherwise would because of our football fandom

 

[Master_Yoda77]

Dak's kids are going to grow up to be the type of person that gets politely mugged in the city by a homeless person.

 

[Dak]

Dak's kids are going to grow up to be the type of person that gets politely mugged in the city by a homeless person.

That doesn't even make sense. I do find it ironic that Mort is one of the few people if not only person on this board to have been mugged.

 

[The Ozzman]

Dak's kids are going to grow up to be the type of person that gets politely mugged in the city by a homeless person.

Pretty sure that's your children considering you don't like guns

 

[Master_Yoda77]

You guys never been in that situation where a dude walks up to you and starts to rap or something stupid and then asks for money and then he proceeds to demand you that you give him some money for his service?