SAS CEO Blasts Old-School Schooling

theodp writes "What does SAS CEO Dr. Jim Goodnight have in common with 47% of high school dropouts? A belief that school is boring. Marking the 50th anniversary of Sputnik with a call for renewed emphasis on science and technology in America's schools, Goodnight finds today's kids ill-served by old-school schooling: 'Today's generation of kids is the most technology savvy group that this country has ever produced. They are born with an iPod in one hand and a cell phone in another. They're text messaging, e-mailing, instant messaging. They're on MySpace, YouTube & Google. They've got Nintendo Wiis, Game Boys, PlayStations. Their world is one of total interactivity. They're in constant communication with each other, but when they go to school, they are told to leave those 'toys' at home. They're not to be used in school. Instead, the system continues teaching as if these kids belong to the last century, by standing in front of a blackboard.'"

Comments

Tired of this goddamn label

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because some kid has an ipod and a cellphone doesn't mean they're a genius when it comes to technology. An ipod is easy enough for an idiot to use, it's not a badge of honor to be able to use one.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[JonathanR]

Exactly. They can figure out the interface, but most really don't understand the underlying technology.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Gideon Fubar]

That's peripheral to the argument.. and anyway, it probably seems like that to most teachers... perhaps an analogy like 'what if you were taught addition on an abacus when there was a perfectly good blackboard available?' would help in that respect.

I can't speak for everyone, but i think i personally learn much better when i'm enjoying myself... now all we need are a couple of fun educational games.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Actually, I do RTFA]

An ipod is easy enough for an idiot to use, it's not a badge of honor to be able to use one.

Right. Apple spent millions of dollars with very smart people so that idiots could use an iPod. iPod's dominate the MP3 market because of their ease-of-use. And most people's text messaging is a detriment to both learning proper English and being tech-savy. A tech-savy person can type well enough that typing out the full words is easier than learning a new acronym, for example.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[scoot80]

That is because most really don't care about how it works as long as it does what it is supposed to do.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Hal_Porter]

And most people's text messaging is a detriment to both learning proper English and being tech-savy. stfu grmmr nuub

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[garompeta]

And even in that case many idiots still don't get it.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Architect_sasyr]

Well considering how much I enjoyed Sex-Ed I'm sort of surprised that I never passed Physical Education...

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[innerweb]

Right on!

Please forgive any grammar, spelling or other snafus, it is very late, I am very tired, but I think this needs to be said.

This is one of my BIG soap boxes. My parents were teachers (now retired after 30+ years teaching each), I have taught, my brother has taught, we have all coached, taught extra-curricular classes and my parents have received numerous awards for what they have achieved with their students. My father at one time had over half of the high school he taught at (2500+ students) taking physics. My mother, father and I worked with Young Astronauts, Destination Imagination, Flight Club, Math League, Lego Robotics (as an extra-curricular), Athletics, 3rd through 6th grade science and math (my father helped with this while he taught the high school level), and much more. Amongst us, we have Physics Teacher of the year for our state (my father), Teacher of the year multiple times, parental awards for excellence in education (these come from the parents of the students, not other teachers) and plenty of politicians and business leaders who are sick and tired of us and our names. Those are some of our credentials.

Now, the real problem. Parents and our societal emphasis on lack of responsibility and over-emphasis on instant gratification. Nothing about classroom technologies, nothing about administrators, and nothing politicians in general. Though some of them are definite proof of some serious failings in their education from their parents - morality.

Students do not *normally* come to school to learn anymore. They expect to be entertained. They expect to be catered to. They expect to do nothing other than what they want. And honestly, how many kids know what they need? Some, but most do not. There is a pattern to all of this. Not absolute, nor 100% accurate, but routinely, you see this pattern over and over. If the parents of the children emphasize discipline, responsibility, morality, effort and honesty (at least self-honesty), the kids almost always outperform the other children they go to school with. The other kids, well lets just say they do not get as much out of school, and normally (but not always) out of life.

See, the problem starts at home for the vast majority of children. Parents do not spend enough quality time (working, playing, reading, building, cleaning, ...) together. Not an hour or two a day, but 3 to 5 hours per day. That may sound like a lot, but, they had this child. Children learn the most by observing. Not listening to your instructions, but observing you carry out (or not) your promises, your rules, your ethics, your respect, your honesty, your ...

Then, these kids go to school. Now, they have either learned to respect adults, work, responsibility and such at home, or they have not. Guess which kids do better at first (and normally for the rest of the time as well). Are they doomed then? No. They can learn how to live right. I have seen it. Sometimes by a divorce where one parent suddenly is seen by the child for what that parent really is and the other parent is finally able to provide that good home. Sometimes, the parents go away, through jail or Child Protective Services (I know they are not perfect either) and they wind up in a good home. They learn good habits, just takes them longer and they have to relearn many things. They are still disadvantaged in some ways, but can keep up with and compete in the real world.

Believe it or not, these are the things that most impact a child's education. And the education of the children around that child. Why? Because that child's behavior in class will either impede or propel the education of the children around them. Put one bratty attitude in a classroom, and you can loose a half day of education everyday, and never have a good quality day of education. One Child can ruin the class. You may say the teacher can do something about it. No, they can not in most cases. We the people, as a whole, either through

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[timeOday]

Just because some kid has an ipod and a cellphone doesn't mean they're a genius when it comes to technology.

I think you're missing the point. Using a web browser is easy. Consistently writing concise, persuasive comments (like this one) on slashdot is another matter. I've learned more about writing by practicing on usenet and slashdot than in any writing class. Here, you get unvarnished feedback from a vast audience. I never got that type of feedback in a formal setting until I started publishing papers -- and most students never reach that point.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Gideon Fubar]

congratulations.. i lol'd :P

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Anonymous Coward]

I've met Goodnight several times and he's a complete and utter asshole, frankly -- worse than Steve Jobs, if you can believe that. Rude to customers, full of himself. He prides himself on being a blunt SOB. This is just a stupid statement on his part. How many of us see the idiocy that pages and cell phones and PDAs and laptops wreak in meetings at work? Do we really think that kids, many of whom don't want to be there no matter what, will behave BETTER than our work colleagues? Sheesh.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Anonymous Coward]

The dude must be 60 years old.
Tech-savy to him is being able to program the VCR without spilling piping hot gravy all over myself.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[dwater]

So, your point is that it shouldn't do what it is supposed to so that they can learn? ..or was there something else you wanted to point out?

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[dwater]

Who's Ed? Is he related to Bill we keep hearing about?

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Captain Splendid]

Whoah! You're missing the point. Yes, having an iPod doesn't make you any smarter than the last generation, but it does make you faster, and that seems to be what he's talking about. Today's kids are still to a large extent being educated in an infrastructure and curriculum that predates nuclear power, let alone the internet. It's silly to think that education shouldn't progress either.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Desipis]

And how many kids (or teachers for that matter) understand the chemistry behind chalk and why it behaves the way it does? The point isn't that their use of technology makes them smarter but that the improvements in efficiency it enables in other aspects of life means it should be more common in the educational environment.

The problem lies in the fact that the current generation of teachers are not up to scratch in their ability to use this new technology so it may take a generation for new systems of teaching to filter through.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[hitmark]

ok, i just scared myself silly. i fully understand the message in that line of text!

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are some of our credentials.

Since felt you had to enumerate them, I shall assume that you feel your argument would not stand on its own without you doing so.

iow. tl;dr

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Safiire Arrowny]

I feel that in that 12 year period that kids go to public school, and perhaps beyond, students should instead partake in something akin to a apprenticeship. An apprenticeship that can change according to their growing interests at some sort of interval (yearly or maybe every 3 years or something). Even if they change their minds a lot, the amount of transferable skills would make a really well rounded person, in my opinion.

Young minds can learn how to program a computer but maybe my mom or dad can't, young minds are sponges, whatever you throw at them they will learn. If a young ready to learn mind was subjected to an apprenticeship for an actual job, with enough attention, to something they were interested in at the time, everything might be less boring for everyone involved.

To think that we can get a university degree in 4 years when we are older, but not soak up something just as great when our minds are more malleable and ready to learn, is stupid. I understand that kids don't have as great of abstract thinking as adults, but there has to be some middle ground between apprenticeship and this stupid general schooling that goes on now.

The details of designing an education system in this way isn't simple but if you think people got to the moon, or planned out any other elaborate system, you might think we could do it.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[hitmark]

i would say that text messages often show that people have better understanding of the language then first impressions can lead to.

hell, didnt some tests show that as long as the first and last letter of the word was in the right place, the other letters could be all over the place and not affect readability?

often what text message "shorthand" does is produce the sound of the word, not the letters of the word. or maybe enough of the sound so that it can be distinguished from a different, but similar word.

also, some languages (with english being one of them) have a lot of silent letters. letters that show up when one is to write the word, but isnt vocalized in speech.

then there is the difference between person to person communication and formal writings. much internet shorthand shows up where time, space and similar is limited. irc and now fps acronyms are one example where often a long sentence is turned into 3-4 letters so that one does not waste time typing them out. sms, where one is often priced by the message, and each message is some 160 characters long (including whitespace), the need (for a kid using a pay as you go or other limited plan) to write very compact messages shows up. and if one can get away with hitting those number keys less times, that may aid as well.

yes, there is a sad thing when they bring this kind of writing over into the world of formal letters, email and CV's. but i see nothing bad in the use of these techniques, within their proper context. the languages we know today have all evolved from more elaborate ones, that have been cut down over the ages for ease of use in the day to day world. if thats a good or bad thing have probably been debated as long as speech have been around, and kids have used slang in front of their parents.

and that may be another thing to think about. language is culture. its the basis for songs and stories. and via those culture and religion (often two sides of the same coin) is spread. the kids using their way of writing creates their own sub-culture. something kids of all generations have done, in writing, music and similar. there is no single generation x, thats always the newest one, the one whos culture the adults of the world find at the same time similar and alien to their own.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, having an iPod doesn't make you any smarter than the last generation, but it does make you faster,

We should train these kids as athletes!

Today's kids are still to a large extent being educated in an infrastructure and curriculum that predates nuclear power, let alone the internet. It's silly to think that education shouldn't progress either.

Money?

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're thinking of "Special" Ed.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[rts008]

No, his point was exactly what he stated.

Actually, he just made an observation. I have also noted the same.
Most people outside of your mom's basement just want their stuff to work. They don't care what makes it work, how it works, what technology it came from, etc.- just that they can make it work without a hassle...nothing more.

Crawl back in your mom's basement unless you have something useful to add to the discussion.

BEGONE TROLL!!!!

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Yvanhoe]

I thinkg M. Goodnight has a point : kids are put into a century-old universe when put into school. It really is frustrating. I finished my high school 10 years ago, but already I didn't understand why I couldn't have a "find" function in a course, why we didn't use any of the software tools so convenient for drawing geometrical figures, why, again, the teaching world was so reluctant to see computers and calculator as tools and only saw them as toys. I knew that I wanted to walk the engineering path and I saw school as a largely obsolete universe.

Students do not *normally* come to school to learn anymore. They expect to be entertained. They expect to be catered to. Kids never did. Kids went to school because it is mandatory. Expecting them to be genuinely interested in school because you were isn't going to work. Kids who happen to have a good science education will usually talk to you about this particular teacher who managed to make them love math, or biology, or physics. Interest can be given by parents, but teachers also have that role. And school environment definitely has a role, that is negative as of now. If you think about it, where do you still find chalkboards outside school ? We are in the powerpoint era. It may have its drawbacks, but chalkboard is so limited and time-consuming to use...

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

An ipod is easy enough for an idiot to use, it's not a badge of honor to be able to use one.

An iPod, not so much, but knowing how to use a cellphone is impressive. I can't count the number of times I've had to help others with using their tech. Not troubleshooting, but using. As soon as I show them, or figure it out, I'm instantly a tech genius.

This guy isn't "clueless" or an "idiot" (as the tags suggest he is). He's tapping into a problem with the schooling system. There needs to be an emphasis on interactivity, but interactivity does not have to come from electronics. You only need a teacher who's willing to engage the class, speak to them, and encourage discourse in the classroom. Mobile phones and IM are just ways of satisfying the social needs. Make the classroom a social event, and kids will pay attention.

As for the non-social tech (like iPods), why not allow them in the classroom while the kids do quiet, individual work?

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Daimanta]

mr liek grmmr nzi

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[pantherace]

Yet, the general idiot rejects nuclear power. So, were is your problem?

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[bitserf]

As it happens, both of my parents are teachers as well, and I am of much the same opinion (if not as articulate).

It saddens me to see the little respect that is given to teachers nowadays, because they don't pull the huge pay packets that they could easily get were they to switch professions. My father is a headmaster, and the best manager and enabler of people that I have ever encountered. Problem students come in to the school hating him because he is pretty strict and doesn't back down if they bring their parents in to come bat for their precious little jewel. They graduate calling him the best teacher they have ever had. Over and over, I see this.

Yet, parents treat him as they would someone working retail. It boggles my mind.

If he did not love what he did, he would be running a corporation somewhere, and the world would be the poorer.

This is a problem endemic to the West, and we will wake up one day, when its too late, with a lost generation. It all comes down to parental responsibility.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Bloke down the pub]

tl;dr

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[DerekLyons]

There are so many outright errors and so much wishful thinking in this post I don't even know where to begin. Let's just pick two:
 
 

See, the problem starts at home for the vast majority of children. Parents do not spend enough quality time (working, playing, reading, building, cleaning, ...) together. Not an hour or two a day, but 3 to 5 hours per day.

 
So, explain to me how in years past children did so well in school? (I.E. when 'quality time' was unheard of and parents weren't expected to sacrifice themselves utterly for their children.)
 
 

You get the parents back into the school.

 
You can't get someone 'back to' where they never were in the first place.
 
Etc... Etc...
 
I don't care what your credentials are - you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Desipis]

(I.E. when 'quality time' was unheard of and parents weren't expected to sacrifice themselves utterly for their children.)

You do realise it used to be 'normal' to only have one working parent (usually father) with the mother at home doing parenting things such as disciplining children for misbehaviour, showing them how to be productive (chores) and educating by reading them stories right? Or were you born yesterday?

You can't get someone 'back to' where they never were in the first place.

During my early school years, my parents and others quite often volunteered to help at school by taking kids our of class and reading to them or helping them with basic arithmetic. It used to be common, but these days mothers are earning that second income.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[zig007]

Eeh.. You're the one who's clueless.
In the old days, only one parent worked, meaning LOT'S of quality time.

n the old days, parents(at least the mother) were expected to TOTALLY sacrifice themselves.

Either, you are extremely young, or you have grown up in some former soviet state or similar.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[edittard]

Well said. You can teach a monkey to press buttons but it doesn't mean it understands the machine. It's like saying that because the first iron age kids could wave a sword around they were all metallurgists.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Desipis]

As someone who has two family members who are teachers I'd have to agree with most of what you've said. I do think there's an issue with your third point.

You get rid of the business mentality infesting schools that kids are like widgets. Drop tests, drop standardized curriculum and you drop grade levels. Test scores and grade levels are a joke. They are a means to make believe that all students fit into nice neat little boxes. They don't! They are individual *mashups* of personality traits, learning skills, abilities, beliefs, biologicals (hormones, vision, hearing, sensory ability, ...), lifestyles, desires, etc.

I do think there is a need for standardised curriculum and testing across at least some subjects. Core subjects such as English, maths and science that directly lead into further education do need to be standardised so that educators further down the line can work from some assumed knowledge and skill base. There is certainly room for significant leeway in other subjects such as history where there's a small set of basic skills (research, understanding) that should be common, but a variation in content and approach could prove benefitial. Additionally, grading is important in multiple ways; primarily in that it provides guidance to the student as an individual and evidence of their ability that they can use for job application or college entry. Secondly it provides feedback to the teachers and education system as to how effective their teaching has been and identifies possible areas where they could improve. Thirdly it teaches the greatly important lesson that at the end of the day, the real world doesn't give a damn about their individuality but instead cares about what they are capable of producing. It seems that you've been indoctrinated into the school of caring more about the child's feelings than their education. Yes, there's more to a person than simply their raw skills and knowledge, and yes, there's the risk that they might be mis-assessed, however these negatives don't negate the overall benefit of assessing students.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[DerekLyons]

You do realise it used to be 'normal' to only have one working parent (usually father) with the mother at home doing parenting things such as disciplining children for misbehaviour, showing them how to be productive (chores) and educating by reading them stories right? Or were you born yesterday?

You do realize that what you state is largely a myth, not a fact? back in the day when only one working parent was common (actually a briefer era than many realize), Mom was busy with cooking and cleaning and other chores. I wasn't born yesterday, but I did spend part of yesterday (and many part of many days before it) reading actual books and research on what life used to be like (a sideline into my research on cooking in America) - rather than parroting myths.
 
 

During my early school years, my parents and others quite often volunteered to help at school by taking kids our of class and reading to them or helping them with basic arithmetic. It used to be common, but these days mothers are earning that second income.

It many have been common at your school - but it wasn't any thing resembling common anywhere at anytime. Mother, or fathers, with that much spare time were very much the exception.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[DerekLyons]

In the old days, only one parent worked, meaning LOT'S of quality time.

Back in the day when only one parent worked out of the home, the other parent generally spent an equal amount of hours working in the home. (Cooking, cleaning, etc...) They had no, or very little, time for 'quality time'.
 
 

n the old days, parents(at least the mother) were expected to TOTALLY sacrifice themselves.

At no time prior to the present was this ever true. Period.
 
If the wife was expected to sacrifice herself for anyone - it was the husband. Look at old cookbooks for example, they aren't filled with foods for children and childrens parties. They are filled with food for entertaining and impressing - with the distinct subtext that it was social and/or business superiors who were the targets, with friends a distant second target. It was all about status, and children were supposed to be seen and not heard.
 
 

Either, you are extremely young, or you have grown up in some former soviet state or similar.

You missed an option. 'Or you are someone who has actually read on and studied the issue and is aware of the truth and prefers it spouting myths'.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Nullav]

Money?

Since when did public schools know where to spend money? It seems like more goes to paint than good (enthusiastic) teachers and new textbooks.
As for TFA, MySpace and trendy phones don't educate people, they just help to usher in a generation of hopeless mediawhores. Before we start giving kids free reign in the class, how about we focus on making being a teacher look like a good career? A cellphone won't get people interested in school, but people actually interested in their jobs will.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[umghhh]

what morals?
what ethics?
why do you bother us with this shit?

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[BU5T4]

Hi InnerWeb,
I really enjoyed reading your comments and I agree with what you have to say about current teaching techniques.

I would like to be a teacher but i'm not willing to go into the current teaching enviroment. It sounds a little like a cliche but the children really are this country's future and we need to make sure that they are taught science and technology properly.

If you look at China as an example they teach their kids robotics and electronics from an early age and they produce most of the worlds new gadgets.

I believe it's time we started instilling a sense of pride in our children about learning and being inteligent and not making them feel scared to raise their hands in class and ask questions.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Anonymous Coward]

My mother, father and I worked with Young Astronauts, Destination Imagination, Flight Club,...

The first rule of Flight Club is that we don't talk about Flight Club!

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Desipis]

It was all about status, and children were supposed to be seen and not heard.

So wait, children were taught discipline and respect?

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Desipis]

...Mom was busy with cooking and cleaning and other chores.

Not to discredit the work done by housewives, but housework doesn't consume a full days work. It's most likely why women are/were culturally notorious for chatting, fussing over petting things such as immaculate appearance and hobbies such knitting. It's not that they would have been 100% devoted to supervising children, but would have provided for a continuous meaningful influence. Something that is not present today and something that teachers or child care workers cannot hope to emulate.

...reading actual books and research

If you're going to claim research it might pay to quote or reference books, rather than accuse the rest of us as being ignoramuses.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Woy]

The reason you become a tech genius is their own insecurities. You figured it out, they didn't. So if you are a genius, they can be normal folks. But if you are a normal person, that means they are (at best) the lazy bastards who couldn't be bothered to think a bit about it.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[pubjames]

Great post innerweb.

My mother was a teacher of younger children and told me that it was fairly easy to guess what the parents of children were going to be like just by observing the child.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[CastrTroy]

It's hard to make the job of teacher look like a good one. Other than upping the pay scale, there isn't much you can do. And even then, the job won't be better, it will just pay more. There are many, not all, but many kids who are messed up before any teacher sees them, before the step foot in their first kindergarten class. My brother thought he wanted to become a teacher, until he took a class in high school that let him be a teacher's assistant instead of going to a regular class. That was the first exposure he had to a classroom outside the "advanced" tier. He said that these kids are impossible to teach, and that they don't want to be there. I believe this to be true for a lot of students. Throwing more computers at the problem won't solve anything. These students won't be interested unless they are allowed to talk to friends the whole time, about hair, hockey, cars, movies, and just about anything that isn't related to actual learning. Granted there are some kids who really want to learn, but lets face it, there are a lot of kids who don't want to be there, and no good teacher, or amount of technology can change that.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[zig007]

Back in the day when only one parent worked out of the home, the other parent generally spent an equal amount of hours working in the home. (Cooking, cleaning, etc...) They had no, or very little, time for 'quality time'. Except that the grandparent meant that just being around the parent, working or not, IS quality time.

If the wife was expected to sacrifice herself for anyone - it was the husband Yep, the husband and his wishes. But also by the society as a whole to care for the children.
Obviously, the husband expected his wife to care for them.
The business part only applies to a quite small, and upper class, part of the society.

You missed an option. 'Or you are someone who has actually read on and studied the issue and is aware of the truth and prefers it spouting myths'. Maybe you've read and studied, but I'd still say that you have missed the point.

For example:
My mother, born in the early thirties, was at home during my upbringing. I KNOW that she sacrificed her own career to be home with me and cater hes husband.
Why? Because when she was brought up, that was what she was taught to do. I know for a fact most of her friends did the same.

So I have actually experienced this. I promise you that I haven't read that in a cookbook. And it is not a "myth".

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up! The only thing as inevitable as language change is people bemoaning language change.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Jeff DeMaagd]

the languages we know today have all evolved from more elaborate ones, that have been cut down over the ages for ease of use in the day to day world.

That doesn't help much. Isn't English still one of the most complicated languages, because it has the biggest vocabulary and the largest number of irregular conjugations and irregular plural forms?

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[bmj]

Linguists have been on to this for a long time. In university, I studied Grammers, not Grammer. As you said, language will change, and we should be okay with that. The problem is, as you rightly note, what do we do with the practice of "proper" writing?

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[donkeyb]

See, I am really conflicted by this state of affairs, one one hand I too hate the way that text speak is becoming more commonplace in normal language, but at the same time, I realise that language is a dynamic phenomenon, one that has has gone through massive change in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Look at Old English as an example of how things used to be written. Perhaps things like text speak will become more prevelant as the people who mostly use it (young people) mature and enter the world of professional communication. Will I be the grumbling old codger in 20 years time muttering quietly to myself???

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[OldHawk777]

Our ed-sys dates back more than 100 years, with little to no paradigm/pedagogical change.

The USA ed-sys model is a failure.
It was always designed to produce functional labor.
It was not designed to produce Citizen equality, or a meritocracy democracy.

Rich/religious private schools are seldom any better, but a few do provide status-quo social contacts/relationships.
Most in Academia/school management are oppressive, structure fixated, and blind to modern learning innovations/technologies.

Education was always a failure for me, I did drop out of HS at 16yo in 1969. Learning (>160SemHrs) was always a success for me.
I learned what I want, when I wanted/needed, and have done far better than most with a BA/BS. My learning ranged from mechanics in the late "60s", Cobol and Fortran in the early "70s" to Art History, Anthropology, Mathematics, Philosophy, Psychology, Electronics, Telecommunications, Business, and fr the past decade I have been using the internet for learning. I am currently studying ISE, Web-SOA, WS-I ... and my favorite self-paced learning websites are the W3C courses/schools.

I tell you the above, because I have no doubt, no BS/BA ... PhD, but I have considerable learning and experience. I know the Ed-sys in the USA is a pitiable failure (no ROI) converting very little knowledge into practical application and nothing theoretical (that depends on individual professors). My young work colleagues learn that I have vast knowledge and experience, which I apply to troubleshooting, quick resolving, a/o detailed well documented potential solutions to problems, I am highly entertained and disappointed (by some, most in management) when colleagues are told; I have no degree.

Yep, I know politician and school administrators don't want to fix education in the USA. I dropped out in 1969 ... now it is 2007 and every year education lost value/ROI; However, LEARNING will always be the best self-improvement path for all folks globally.

So, THANKS MIT, UC, CalTec ... (so many others) for OSS, OKI, OCW, OLPC ....

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[hitmark]

and is a combo of french, various germanic languages, welsh and latin?

and is added to, modified and played around with by entertainers, marketing, kids and others every day.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[hitmark]

given the speed of development these days, we both already are.
hell, thats what we are doing right now? grumbling about "old times"?

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[BKX]

I seriously doubt you studied either, ever. You probably studied grammars (whereas I learned grammar a couple of times in English and then actually studied it only in Latin class.).

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

So if you are a genius, they can be normal folks. But if you are a normal person, that means they are (at best) the lazy bastards who couldn't be bothered to think a bit about it.

What exactly does that mean? Why this dichotomy between "normal" (whatever that means) and "genius"? The story is: they are tech-illiterate while I'm not. The fact that they can't comprehend the interface doesn't make them lazy bastards, and it certainly doesn't mean they don't think about it. Sometimes, while I'm explaining certain devices to certain people, they'll make a comment or ask a question along the lines of "Why didn't they..." and I'm hard pressed to find an answer other than "because that's how all other modern gadgets do it". They're certainly thinking about it, it's just that they have little point of reference to use in figuring out how to use the device. You really have to imagine what it's like never being exposed to complicated electronics before you start criticising them.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[innerweb]

lol... Let see, IANAL, IANAP, IANAAP, IANAD, IANA, ... Are you new here? yeah, people tend to not read the article. People tend to come up with all kinds of wacko ideas. Yeah, credentials are important, and if you haven't noticed, posting some credentials on a post like my mine is relevant.

It is not whether it would stand or fall on its own. You could tell people here that drinking large quanatities of alcohol will impair their ability to drive. They will not all believe you.

InnerWeb

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Anonymous Coward]

didnt some tests show that as long as the first and last letter of the word was in the right place, the other letters could be all over the place and not affect readability?

Only as long as it's not a word with several repeating characters, like Mississippi, or a different words with the same letters but in different arrangements. I call bullshit on that one.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[BroadbandBradley]

my wife got an IPOD and last night we hooked it up to her EMAC, it told us it wasn't going to work on OSX 10.3.9, that we'd need 10.4.3.....
$129.00 upgrade sure to just fly with 256 M of outdated SDRAM.

I guess we should have bought an EPOD.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[innerweb]

I do think there is a need for standardised curriculum and testing across at least some subjects.

I think there is a need for standardized requirements in certain subjects, as in you need to learn to use English/Math/... in this manner. I think a standardized methodology for teaching it is a huge problem. Children quite simply have different learning styles, challenges and motivations. By using the one way works for all approach, you hit a certain middle half to just over half, if you are lucky. The rest either are bored as they are ahead of the class waiting for them to catch up, or they are behind the class struggling, getting frustrated with even being there. Instead of approaching the teaching of children as assembling widgets on an assembly line, children need to approached as unique project builds for custom orders.

Testing is a big hairy mess. The problem with testing is it encourages all teachers to teach for the tests. Teaching for the test is does not provide students with a solid learning base. It teaches regurgitation of facts, not interaction with knowledge. Think of learning as being a set skills. Knowledge recital is definitely one skill (test taking covers this). It is an easily measured skill and one which people have been able to easily point to and segregate others based on. Hell, I missed one point on my PSAT and 10 points on my SAT. My IQ was/is (who knows, who cares) over 150. I ought to be a highly successful business/computer/(fill in the blank) genius. I have been told plenty of times by bosses and coworkers, thats great, but no one here understands what you just said. Theres another skill, communications, and nobody has developed a test for that that truly tests the ability to communicate, only to speak and recognize grammar components. The truth is those only measure a small percent of overall intelligence. Their are also social interaction skills, creativity skills and many more. How do you test for those? How do you structure a standardized anything for skills that are inherently about being non-standard?

Standardized testing is very dangerous. It give you easy false data and a false sense of achievement. You took a test you scored well. That does not mean you are intelligent or that you are at well rounded or anything more than you knew those facts and were able to write something that day that the reviewer liked. Now, if we make testing a small portion of the education, that is okay. The problem is people tend to take the path of least resistance and run with it. With testing, that has proven to be very detrimental to the educational system. The way it works, it is better for a teachers/school admins career to cause the kids to do poorly one year and better the next. It shows improvement in the students in the required time frame. Never mind that you have now started a *lottery* for some kids to do better based on which year in the cycle you are while the other kids get less. This I have gotten from actual teachers and administrators who are trying to figure out how to keep their jobs while teaching students who are preoccupied with the latest fads, drugs and who is having sex with who. All this because the parents are not there in their lives.

Think back many decades to the one room school house. From the people I know and have talked to, that environment had no testing like we are used to today. They did on the other hand learn at their own pace, interact with the children of other ages in the classroom, usually by helping them (thus showing the other children that it was *good* to be *learned*). I myself attended a Montessori school. I accomplished three years of science, two years of math and over a year of the other subjects. 30 years later I remember more about that education than I do of the standard grade school I went to the previous and following years. It was individualized, with nothing more than interactive unit testing to make sure the knowledge was grasped.

I have to go to work. I hope I have communicated effectively my experience and observations on testing and standards. Please respond with any feedback.

InnerWeb

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[hauntingthunder]

quite

"renewed emphasis on science and technology" that aint gona happen if there flirting with / bullying there clasmates via text messages.

I wonder what his PhDs in marketing probaly Sputnik caused schools to emphsise hard stuff read rocket boys by homer hickam and he had dificulty geting the advanced calculs classes he wanted

You could of course drop competative high school sports and do more science but what about those that are stupid/not interested.

One way would be to increase Lawyers Doctors uni tuition fees by say 50% and subsidise science and technology degrees.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[StormReaver]

"...didnt some tests show that as long as the first and last letter of the word was in the right place, the other letters could be all over the place and not affect readability?"

The tests showed that the words were still intelligible. Readability suffered greatly, but the words were not incomprehensible.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Crayon Kid]

Our ed-sys dates back more than 100 years, with little to no paradigm/pedagogical change.

That, I believe, is the main fault, not lack of instruction in the technology of the day.

As a counter example, take Japan. One of the most gadget-filled societies. Yet they don't fill their classes with iPod's and whatnot. They don't use laptops and electronic interactive blackboards and so on. Good old paper and pen and an ordinary blackboard still works.

The key to a good basic education and a prepared individual is to train the mind, to recognize the skills and hone them, so it will cope with any challenge. Learning fixed sets of data by heart will not help in the real world. Being taught about today's technology will be no good tomorrow.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[stove]

To start with, I agree with you completely. I do think there's some expectations children have about schools, some expectations that parents have about schools and some expectations that "society" has about schools that are completely wrong. I have a very good friend who is a teacher, and I know it's not the pay and fabulous benefits drawing him in. I've heard his stories about parents' complaints, and they sound like they're from another world.

But... you're not a parent, are you?

At least in the Northern Virginia area (near where I live), a 1 hour -1 1/2 hour commute each way isn't uncommon. And since both parents work (otherwise it'd be a 2 hour commute each way and a crummy house), you've got parents leaving their house around 5-6AM and returning about the same time in the PM. When they return, they've got housecleaning, laundry, food preparation (you are making healthy meals for your family, right? That means "not from scratch."), and anything else they'd like to do that night. (You are getting your 20-30 minutes of exercise daily, right? And you're keeping up with technology and new advances in your field, since you're not doing it during work time. As well as keeping abreast of current events as a good citizen, right?)

Getting tired yet? Keeping in mind "fun time" hasn't showed up in the schedule yet. You might get that on the weekend, assuming you don't have any work projects, house projects, children activities...

I personally work out of my house and since I don't have to commute, my family can afford to live on my salary (in the middle of nowhere.) So given that my wife doesn't work... it's still 9:00 some days before we've finished doing our "parental duties." After a half hour of exercise, it's usually time for bed. (You are getting the doctor recommended 8 hours of sleep, right?)That's with only one small child, too.

I say all of this not because I disagree with what you've said, but because I disagree with the idea that anything as complicated as children's education can be fixed by one of the parties involved. Like other complicated problems, the solution involves all the parties involved moving around and adjusting. I personally think one of the adjustments "society" should make is higher pay for teachers. Teachers can adjust to the idea that there are well meaning parents out there overwhelmed by general life. Parents can take more responsibility for their children and understand schools will not replace them.

Education is important for civic duties, economic ability and general well being. It's a shame it's being treated as an unsolvable political football by our leaders instead of being dealt with seriously.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[nilbud]

Live boot xubuntu off the CD and use amarok.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[shadow349]

i would say that text messages often show that people have better understanding of the language then first impressions can lead to.

Just like being able to use a calculator often shows that people have a better understanding of the underlying mathematical principles, right?

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[PyrotekNX]

The same argument has been made time and time again. When I was in high school, it was the difference between someone knowing how to use IM and someone who could program; there was no correlation. Most of these gadgets are nothing but toys. An ipod and cellphone do not serve any academic purposes. They are banned from schools for a reason, simply because they are distracting; especially when half the kids in class are either texting or listening to ipod. Unfortunately, most high schoolers are not responsible enough to keep these devices turned off during class, so they are banned. In college, its another story. College students are usually much more responsible for their actions and can use these devices responsibly. College professors also have the power to fail you for the course for using these "toys" during class, where high school teachers do not.

Goodnight is just plain wrong about his assumptions. Being plugged in all the time is harmful for children. There is a reason why kindergarteners are not allowed to use calculators. If they are using a calculator to compute 2 + 2, then just imagine how dependent they will be when they are in high school.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

The issue, and I have mentioned this many times when people bring up how kids today are so good with technology, is that the kids know Youtube is for videos, MySpace is for.. whatever MySpace does, and that iPods hold music. That's it.

When I was in 5th grade I was learning how interbutts work. Instead of playing sports I was reading some "for dummies" books and learning the basics. I was designing basic websites for myself and my pets. I was exploring and learning about the technology that was springing up. I wanted to know how my first PC (Only an IBM with Win95, I'm too young for anything much older) I took it apart and figured out how it went together. When I got into High School I took a computer repair class and on the first day I was the first (and only) person who took his computer apart and put it back together in the time allowed. Now I build and troubleshoot computers for friends and family members on the side and make pretty good money doing that on top of my regular job (where I'm not a member of the IS department but I get asked to fix more problems than they do).

I still talk to my old Computer Repair teacher and he tells me that the new kids taking the class don't want to learn, they just browse the internet and update their MySpaces. They don't want to know how to install Windows or replace hardware. They don't even know what "a linux" is, and why would they? It doesn't help them add tacky background images to their myspace pages. In their defense, back before MySpace we all had a GeoCities account with an animated flaming skull .gif.

There's a big difference between USING technology and UNDERSTANDING it, and the kids today just don't care.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Anonymous Coward]

my wife got an IPOD and last night we hooked it up to her EMAC

Well, there's your problem right there. The iPod was designed to work with viPod - a much more tech saavy version than the eMacs.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[BroadbandBradley]

it's a Gen 6 Ipod, rythmbox didn't work, I'll try Amarok, who would've thought your Itunes/Mac/Ipod wouldn't work though, at least the copyright people, well it must be working for them!

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[zrobotics]

Back in the day when only one parent worked out of the home, the other parent generally spent an equal amount of hours working in the home. (Cooking, cleaning, etc...) They had no, or very little, time for 'quality time'.

I call bullshit. Yes, housework does take up time, but not that much time. Even in a household where both parents work, cooking, cleaning, etc. still need to be done. If both adults are working, there is invariably less time for these tasks, but they still need to be done. So while people spend less time cooking, they still need to eat. Additionally, single-parent families, with the attendant reduced income, won't have enough excess money for cleaning services, restaurant food, etc. These tasks still need to be done, which means the parent(s) have significantly less time available to spend with their kids.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had used proper capitalization and punctuation, I could have made sense out of your message at least twice as fast. (Thank God your period key isn't broken.)

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[hitmark]

for anything more complicated then wanting to add thing together i would say so, yes...

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Etyenne]

... says the guy who cannot be bothered to use uppercase properly.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[E 99]

If you think about it, where do you still find chalkboards outside school ? We are in the powerpoint era. It may have its drawbacks, but chalkboard is so limited and time-consuming to use...

I disagree. Where ever in the business world groups of people are thinking together, you will find whiteboards. Blackboards are the same. For math, these are far superior to powerpoint. For reading and writing, you don't really need either. That should be 90% of high school right there.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[E 99]

In the old days, parents(at least the mother) were expected to TOTALLY sacrifice themselves.

You mean the Aztec days? Most of the sacrificial victims were men.

Why do people STILL characterize running a home and raising children as "totally sacrificing" one's self, as opposed to, say, driving a bus all day to pay the rent and put food on the table? The latter is what, then? Self-fulfillment? Put out that bra. It's a fire hazard. More power to anyone who truly loves their job. But by far the majority of people I know who actually and truly fit the description of loving their job, are women who are raising their children and keeping a home.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[CastrTroy]

This is very true. My wife stays home with the kid (second one on the way soon). We don't live as lavishly as we could if she worked, but we get by, and I think that my kids are going to end up better because of it. The one we have is pretty young, so it's hard to tell, but it seems like things are working out pretty well. I think that if most people (not all, but most) people just adjusted their budget a bit, that one person could stay home with the kids, at least until they are in school full time, and them go back to work. Having kids is a big responsibility. A little anecdote. My wife works in daycare. They would be closed on holidays (thanksgiving, christmas, victoria day), and some of the parents would actually complain, because they'd rather just drop their kid off at daycare for the day, then spend the day with their kid. That's pretty sad. Some people have kids because they think it's cool, or it's just the next step, but don't stop to think about whether raising a child is something they really want to do.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Steauengeglase]

"You vote. You vote hard. Vote out the politicians who create laws or allow laws that allow the classrooms to be disrupted. You really want to make this country great again. It starts in our schools. That is the real investment in our future. Anything else is short sighted and not enough effort."

Sorry, I had to stop and laugh about this one.

No, not if it means voting against the guy who I agreed with on the issue of abortion.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Woy]

I disagree. First, the dichotomy is created by them and their attitude, not by me. Even the label "genius" you so rail against does not come from me.

In fact, i think real life offers much harder (non) interfaces that people navigate because they have to. Some people just find it easier to ask others rather than trying it themselves or look in the manual of the item they bought.

The mind is powerful, but it needs prodding sometimes.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[zig007]

Aztec? Chalchiuhtlicue, Is that you?
It sure sounds like your 2000 year-old values.

Yep, I agree, they really love their lives them housewives nowadays.
I mean, when one is 45 years old and the children are out of the house, that's when all that staying home for all those years pays off.
One can get really nice jobs at convenience stores everywhere. Which, contrary to popular beliefs, does NOT lead to bitterness or the feeling of sacrifice.
And it's not like the risk of divorce looms anywhere.

Face it, Billy Bob. A modern woman of any ambition will not be prepared to become a full time housewife.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[maxume]

This book:

http://www.amazon.com/Nurture-Assumption-Children-Turn-They/dp/0684857073

will make you really angry.

Not that I disagree with what you say about current institutions being horribly broken.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[zevans]

There's a big difference between USING technology and UNDERSTANDING it, and the kids today just don't care.

Some would say that's the difference between a member of (technological) society, or a, what's that other word... oh yeah... geek. :-)

There is also a difference between understanding enough to make most efficient use of the tech, and understanding too much and arsing about with it until it breaks and/or you're well past diminishing returns - and the "too much detail" problem is pretty prevalent in our industry, I have to say!

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[hey!]

It's also a bit insulting: it implies that kids (a) aren't interested in something unless it has flashing lights and ringing bells and (b) can't tolerate boredom as well as their parents did.

Of course boredom per se is not (despite what many seem to believe) good for you. It's bad.

Having done a little athletic coaching, there is a principle that applies to any form of education: mental stimulation and repetition reinforce each other. No athlete doing nothing but the same drills over and over again makes much progress. At the same time no athlete makes progress without going over the basics over and over again. Bringing in new or stimulating activities brings a higher intensity to drilling; mastery of the drills brings quicker mastery of new material.

Students are in effect mental athletes. Boredom is not the fundamental problem; it would be relatively easy to rid schools of boredom, if there were no other criteria we judged them by. The problem is to take each student and find the right balance of stimulation and drill that will produce optimal results. The very fact that these students are familiar with technology means that technology is not the right place to look to find stimulus.

There is also an overload principle in physical training that I think applies to mental training. Studies show that one set of twelve reps done to the point of volitional failure result in greater gains than multiple sets without volitional failure. It is the stimulation of approaching failure that causes muscles to adapt most quickly. I believe that studying is the same: the most progress would come by locating the exact edge of failure for each student in any area then regularly approaching that edge, followed by periods of rest. Just like a weight training program.

The problem then is not that school is boring; the problem is that the school has a factory model in which it turns out students as if they were different grades of sausages. Students are academically tracked in large groups for all the same subjects, as if they were all the same, and the result is that education is inefficient. Students who are above the course material at a particular point waste time with problems that don't stimulate progress; students who are below waste time working on problems they can't hope to gain insight from. We track students as if a student who is ahead in algebra is automatically ahead in English composition; there is a correlation of course, but it is weak.

The simplest way to correct this would be to have a personal scholatic trainer for each student. However that is too expensive; technology might be a useful tool helping teachers to assess and plan each student's activities in a more personalized way.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[mikael]

I heard a story about that too. Some teaching school graduates got their first job in an inner-city school working with hard-to-teach kids. Realizing that the kids were missing out on all the other activities that the suburban schools had, and that having teachers leaving after one term due to the stress, they made an effort to stay and help bring the kids back up to speed with extra tuition and after school classes. The kids grades improve. What happens next? The education board sees the improvement in grades, and transfers a whole load of troubled kids from other schools. The teachers quit from the stress.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[plurgid]

HERE HERE! You should have moved your list higher up in your post so it'd have been "above the fold".
I can't agree more, at least with the things in your list.

However ... being involved, being a good parent, helping with the school work being involved, yeah, that helps, but it ain't a panacea, my friend. You'd be surprised how many of us parents are indeed, NOT ASSHOLES, and our kids STILL have problems in school ...

Mr. CEO has a point, but it's masked in a lot of bullcrap marketing-speak. Strip away all the pop-culture references about text messaging and iPods and the WII. Merely using technology does not make you smarter or dumber. However, using it ALL THE DAMN TIME since pretty much THE DAY YOU WERE BORN ... well ... that does CHANGE the WAY you learn.

Specifically, it changes the way your brain develops, the way your neurons form pathways or whatever. I'm not a doctor or a neuro-scientist or anything. I'm just a parent who had ADD when I was a kid, and whose kids now have ADD ... and yes me and my kids have used computers since we were old enough to move a mouse, and I have a hunch.

Among other things, it's my understanding that our minds are formed through learning to predict stimulus-response type scenarios. Like when you're a baby, you learn to cry because you know that someone's gonna feed you, or remove your feces or what have you.

When it comes to processing symbolic information (i.e. learning to read, learning math, or language .. anything abstract) our brains have become used to processing data differently ... at least those of us who have used information technology heavily from an early age (and possibly have a genetic predisposition as well).

What Mr. Techno-babble CEO is observing has not a damn thing to do with iPods and WIIs it has to do with the fact that we're bringing up a generation with a higher percentage of people whose minds have learned to process symbolic data differently. This will be a crisis, unless some real research gets in front of it, and we start learning how to effectively teach people who learn in these new ways.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Moderatbastard]

having an iPod doesn't make you any smarter than the last generation, but it does make you faster

This is the politest way of putting it: copulating bovine dung.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[GeckoX]

Yes, quite. Complicated rules to start, then thousands of exceptions to those rules. But it's the flexibility of the language that has made it so popular...it's just that defining it is particularly tricky.

My favorite 'exception':
Chive
Archive

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[TemporalBeing]

That's peripheral to the argument.. and anyway, it probably seems like that to most teachers... perhaps an analogy like 'what if you were taught addition on an abacus when there was a perfectly good blackboard available?' would help in that respect.

On the other hand, you have the analogy of the calculator. Students need to be trained how to do stuff without the tools too - e.g. writing by hand, no spelling or grammar check, no calculator, etc. - so that they learn how to actually do the work too.

That's not to say the technology doesn't have a place - it does - but wrt education, students have to learn how to do the work both with and without the technology. The prime example is the calculator as when people are trained how to do math with the calculator, they tend to be dumber about how to do it without one depending on how much the calculator was used in the training. (E.g. if it was solely used and students were not forced to do at least some stuff by hand vs. being forced to do everything by hand, vs. somewhere in between.) Don't get me wrong - you need to learn how to use a calculator too, but you should also be able to do the work without one; and the education should emphasize it as a tool to help with and not rely on. (Queue a 'dumb blonde' joke about having the answer 'E', 'Err', or 'Error' for everything on the math test.)

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[PinkPanther]

When I was in 5th grade [...] I was designing basic websites for myself

You must be new around here...or just plain new.

;-)

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[theReal-Hp_Sauce]

I have a friend who brings her Ipod and cell phone to class nearly everyday. She puts one ear bud in the ear that the teacher can't see, keeps her cell phone hidden below the table, and proceeds to send and receive text messages for the rest of class. How does this improve her learning? I'll tell you.. it doesn't! The only way she learns anything is when she realizes the day before the exam that she hasn't learned anything and we (her friends) get to teach her enough to get a mark greater than 50.

She's a 20 year old who isn't aware that there is a "k" at the beginning of the word "know"... yes sir, Ipods and cell phones are definitely the answer... gimme a break.

-hps

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[rcg40]

In the old days (pre-1973) when we went to apply for a mortgage, one income qualified us for a 15K house, whereas two incomes would get us that 40K house. The banker said, "the FHA/VA policy is that only one income can qualify, because pretty soon, the missus will be in a family way, and will have to stay home." "But no. We have the pill. Wahh Wahh wahh" So the FHA/VA changed and the banker allowed two incomes and guess what? The 15K house went to 40K and the 40K house went to 95K, and when we couldn't make it on one income, we divorced, and left the house and kids to the wife. The two income mortgage did more to destroy traditional family values and practices such as "parents being parents" than any amount of gay marriage or any other scapegoat. The TV watches your kids when they come home. Kids learn by example more than any other way and the big lesson of the past twenty-five years is "Get more. Gimme more." There is something to be said for that pre-1973 banker's wisdom. Also, that 15K house is still a 15K house, but it's listed price is 265K.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[TemporalBeing]

For the most part I agree 100% with your post. However,...

From both personal experience (I have had the teacher role on occasion) and from my mom (an elementary teacher with specialization in special education), a lot of disruptive students can be corrected by the teacher - not all, those that are truly ADD, ADHD, etc. do need special help. The big thing here is the students that don't learn discipline at home, who talk back to their parents, don't want to listen, etc - a good teacher can get them understand that there is no place for the in the classroom or at school. I've seen this - kids that don't behave elsewhere but behave wonderfully in the classroom; you wouldn't think they were the same kids. The difference is the discipline.

Unfortunately, you also have too many parents that are parenting through medication - e.g. getting their kids classified as ADD or ADHD, etc. so that the kids can either (a) take drugs that suppress them, or (b) get into the special ed classes so they don't have to do so much work and basically get a free pass through school, regardless of their actual academic performance.

But to get back to your point - this starts from long before they go to kindergarten. It starts with whether or not you leave the kid at day care, or send them to preschool, or if you instead ensure there is a parent at home (and save that day care and preschool money too!) to be with and raise the children during the day.

You may have noticed I did not say anything about teachers. There is a reason. Most are good and most do it because they love it. Most of them do not do it for the pay. They would make more in store management at WalMart. I know the salaries of each. There are those truly outstanding teachers who can reach across boundaries and perform miracles. We can not afford to hire all the people in the world like that to teach. We can afford to make the classrooms and the students more teachable. Those who are truly bad teachers (not disillusioned nor worn out - these are normally caused by the problems in the schools) can still be removed. But, parental involvement goes a long way to making that more productive - not the parents getting rid of teachers, but the parents supporting teachers to help prevent so much of the burn-out.

Very true. I have had teachers who had to work at a Wal-mart type job in addition to their teaching job just to make ends meat. I have also had at least one teacher who was a millionaire and didn't need the money at all - he just enjoyed what he did.

While a good - or excellent - teacher can do wonders in the class room, it really does start with the parents. If you teach your kid to behave, you have just helped out the teacher by reducing their stress and helping them keep order in the classroom. If the teacher had 29 students all misbehaving - imagine the impact of one parent on one student and what that could mean for (a) the class, and (b) the teacher. If they have 30 students with 29 misbehaving, then that is one less student they have to worry about as they know that student will behave. (Of course, it is usually the other way around - but even then, that one parent has a big impact.)

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[MightyYar]

I thought the same thing, but then realized that I'm just old! He would have been 10, and the world wide web was reasonably widespread by 1995, so he could be 22!

Gah, I'm old.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[bigdavex]

I would've read your comment if you had capitalized the first letter of your sentences. I suspect you're not all broken up about that, but there it is. If the writer can't be bothered to hold down the shift key, then I guess that conveying his message isn't all that important.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[jedidiah]

Then maybe we should stop trying to forcibly bore them with irrelevant shit and
actually teach them something useful or perhaps even something they might be
interesting. We could even go out on a limb and ask them what they would
be interested.

Maybe start by asking them what they want to do for a living after they get
paroled and then go from there.

You don't have to be a genius to realize that not everyone get a woody from AP Physics.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[apt142]

I'll add to this. The kids you described, those are the "good" kids. Those are the ones that have a bit of support from their families. Those are the ones that live in a stable home and have two parental figures around that make enough to keep food on the table and clothing on their backs without working 2 jobs each.

In the public school system, you're not guaranteed that. In some areas, kids that have the above are in a small minority. The school system can't handle every need that a child has, and these other needs really cause a problem. It becomes really difficult to teach a child that doesn't want to be there and nobody is holding them accountable. It's really difficult to teach a child that's distracted because (s)he hasn't eaten since the day before. Or how about teaching a child who lives in a group home with active gang members.

Let me know if anybody comes up with a good solution to those problems.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[ClobberedGuppy]

Perhaps they know how to spell "savvy," though.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Anonymous Coward]

You would, being free of the burden of capitalization customs.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Retric]

That's nice, but you forget that over time the tools change. My space users are also building websites. A few years ago they would have need HTML but that's not and issue anymore. A few years before that building a computer meant building a mother board using someone an off the shelf design but now soldering guns are a dieing skill. A few years before that you needed to design a CPU so someone could build a computer. Hmm, I guess the good old days where less than hot.

In time sites like http://www.clutterme.com/ is going to change how most people build websites. Hand crafting HTML is a dieing skill because off the self system make it useless unless your building that tool. I like having a car that can go 100k miles with little issue and I like using a good editor to build web pages.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[smellsofbikes]

>hell, didnt some tests show that as long as the first and last letter of the word was in the right place, the other letters could be all over the place and not affect readability?

That aoietrssn is cllptmeoey icrrcenot. (That assertion is ompletely incorrect, that is.) *some* sentences written with small words can be unscrambled using just the first and last letters as cues, but larger words and more complex sentences make it fail badly.

I'm not arguing with the *rest* of your discussion, but that particular argument annoys me since the original articles/research engaged in serious cherry-picking, and I can cherry-pick the other way and write whole paragraphs that are utterly indecipherable.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Anonymous Coward]

Not now - since there have been thingsinvented like electric/gas ovens and stoves, washer machines, driers, vacuum cleaners, cars (helps the chores a bit), pre-made mixes, pre-peeled/chopped/etc. foods, freeze dried foods, pre-canned foods (my grandparents used to do it themselves), electricity in general (as a good number of homes were not wired until a bit past the turn of the century). If any of you say that chores don't take an entire day - or almost an entire day, everyday, try living without any of those things for a week - or it you're very very adventurous go a year - you better can those veggies for the winter!

So yeah, if you're a house-wife in the 50s,after these inventions, maybe it was fine, but it's still sad when everything you've been told to live for leaves by the time you're 50 and now, your husband will leave you for some 20-30 year old after all is said and done - I doubt it's going back. So . . . try looking at some of the books looking at drug addictions and being a housewife.

Before then in the 19th and 19th c., the upper class life-style was basically supported by the work of a cook, a maid, a wet-nurse, a driver, stables, a nanny, a wash-maid (if not the same as a maid), etc. All who worked their fingers to the bone - but when one had kids, you'd just let her go . . . always new ones immigrating. But that style cannot be had by everyone - someone somewhere supports it with their labor.

In addition to that, until pretty recently the odds were almost 50/50 that a child would lose at least one of its parents before the age of 18.

It's like listening to people reminisce about "the good 'ole days" and "the world going down hill"- back then people did the same thing. I would make the argument that the baby-boomers are as demanding, selfish (as a group), and unwilling to spend time with their children is that they were coddled as children - never learning that sometimes they had to sacrifice - if their parents were busy, if they didn't have time, etc. So they got used to having their "needs" met often and immediately, with no sacrifice they didn't want to make. I mean, keep in mind that the same people everyone's complaining about were raised by the people it seems everyone want to be emulated - clearly something happened in between those years.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[tehcyder]

Consistently writing concise, persuasive comments (like this one) on slashdot is another matter

It must be wonderful to be so gifted, and yet so modest.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Ex-MislTech]

Most people outside of your mom's basement just want their stuff to work. They don't care what makes it work, how it works, what technology it came from

Without those that do care about tech, there will be no tech.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[phantomlord]

You do realise it used to be 'normal' to only have one working parent (usually father) with the mother at home doing parenting things such as disciplining children for misbehaviour, showing them how to be productive (chores) and educating by reading them stories right? Or were you born yesterday?

You do realize that what you state is largely a myth, not a fact? back in the day when only one working parent was common (actually a briefer era than many realize), Mom was busy with cooking and cleaning and other chores. I wasn't born yesterday, but I did spend part of yesterday (and many part of many days before it) reading actual books and research on what life used to be like (a sideline into my research on cooking in America) - rather than parroting myths.

From the time I was born until after I started school, my mom didn't work at all. She cooked everything from scratch at home (we're talking making sauce from tomatoes, not buying a jar of sauce and heating it up and calling that homemade), she was a neat freak (honestly, her constantly picking up after me is why I never got in the habit of doing it myself and while I'm neat at work, I have to force myself to pick up at home) and she still had a ton of time for me. She spent hours reading with me, practicing counting, taught me math up through long division and I could write in cursive before I started school, etc. She took me to go get my library card when I was about 3 so I could learn to answer my own questions rather than rely on someone else just telling me things were a certain way. My parents bought me this little desk with a chalk board and stuff on it and taught me that learning was fun. We weren't loaded, my dad made $3-5/hour (this was 1977-1980), but they made it work and I benefited from it.

Even after I went to school, they arranged it so my mom would usually be home when I was. Despite working, coming along on field trips with my school, taking me to baseball, etc, I'd still come home to fresh baked cookies and my mom would still make pizza (dough included) from scratch. My sister is 7 years younger than me and while she's as smart as me (though in different areas... I'm more science/math and she's more language/music), she dropped out of school, has a kid of her own that she refuses to spend any time with, etc. I think the main difference is my parents got divorced when my sister was 4 and in the process, it really cut down on quality time with the parents since both were busy doing everything to maintain a separate household (which means needing twice the old income to pay two mortgages, my dad spending time doing the domestic work at his house and my mom spending time doing yard work at her house, etc), both parents undermining the authority of the other and/or disparaging the other to the kids, them trying to buy my sister's affection with gifts, etc.

I turned out pretty smart but I've got a problem called avoidant personality disorder which really has its roots in that time frame for me. Basically, I'm compelled to avoid confrontation (especially rejection from women) rather than take risks (even minimal ones) because I'm predisposed to thinking things will end in certain failure. I tend to constantly test people for their acceptance before I even let them see the real me and when it comes to taking a risk (talking to a woman, applying for a new job, going back to college, etc), I have a default state of inferiority and I have to work really hard to overcome things people won't even think twice about. It is sometimes bad enough that if I find a waitress attractive, I'll completely clam up, stare straight forward and if I'm feeling particularly uncomfortable, my right hand might start twitching.

Compare that to my sister... she dropped out of high school with 2 months left to go. Hasn't ever worked for more than 3 months at a time. Uses and abuses every guy she comes across. Got knocked up and refuses to take care of her kid (16 months old), making our mom do it for h

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Fear the Clam]

When I was in 5th grade I was learning how interbutts work

And then the social workers came and took daddy away?

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[thermal_7]

Beautiful post.

I just wanted to mention that there also those children who have unreasonable standards asked of them by their parents and don't receive enough love or attention. I think such children typically turn into overachievers and do very well in school (not that this will make them happy). So I wouldn't say that poorly parented children always do worse.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[M. Baranczak]

Nonsense. The reason that English is so popular is not the "flexibility", it's the economic and scientific dominance of the US (and the British Empire before that). It's the same reason that Latin was so popular 2000 years ago. The qualities of the actual language have little to do with it.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[GeckoX]

Not so sure that's 100% the case. If it were, wouldn't we all be using Imperial measures?
Further, Europe was the growth point of 'western' economic and scientific dominance, and there are lots of languages in use there.

Is it possible that the US became dominant in these areas at least in part because of english?

You do have a point, but I just don't think it's quite as cut and dry as you make it out to be. And I do think the adaptive nature of english certainly doesn't hurt. I'd suggest that a lot of more structured languages are less inclined to evolve as quickly with all of the economic, technological and scientific change that have occurred in the past few hundred years.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[woozlewuzzle]

Clearly this is a troll.

Who the heck talks about hockey?? :-P

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[utopianfiat]

Uh, I designed my first website in 3rd grade, and I'm 21. :)

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[M. Baranczak]

Not so sure that's 100% the case. If it were, wouldn't we all be using Imperial measures? Oh, I didn't say 100%. There are definitely other factors. If the English language was as batshit crazy as the Imperial measure system, it wouldn't have gotten nearly as far.

Is it possible that the US became dominant in these areas at least in part because of english? Possible, sure, but I don't think it was a major factor. I think it's more to do with the fact that the US was the only industrial economy to make it through WWII intact.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Some people just find it easier to ask others rather than trying it themselves or look in the manual of the item they bought.

And others find it easier to tell 'em to RTFM than explain it to them.

Seriously though, I don't think you know the type. They're the kind who have avoided gadgets until mobile phones have become a necessity. They're busy people; they don't want to catch up on 10 years of gadgetry intuition, and they certainly don't want spend two hours figuring out an interface when I could feel it out over the phone in 5 minutes. Some call it lazy, others call it prioritising. It's like all the Slashdotters complaining that Joe Regular is just lazy when he doesn't learn Linux: some people have better things to do.

Anyway, they're a dying breed. As TFA says, kids these days are tech savvy, and that's going to continue for a long while to come. Call me impressed, but despite the ubiquitous nature of the skill, I'm still impressed that I, so many other people, and all these kids can nut out a variety of tech interfaces quickly and without too much effort.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[BlackSnake112]

If that is the case I am learning Chinese ASAP.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[sgholt]

If kids are so smart and in touch these days...why can't they make change in their heads. I personally witnessed and young person struggling to give me change after a error in the electronic cash register. I already knew what my change should be after I saw the total purchase. Why didn't they?
Old School learning is what you need to know when you don't have a calculator or computer to do the work for you.
Kids these days equate using a computer to knowing how a computer works, which is laughable.
Kids these days think everything is a gimmick ...and think that if they say the right thing, look the right way or have gone to the right school that they are set for life regardless of your actual knowledge or ability to learn.

Get off my lawn! and get a real education you little brats!

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Heian-794]

Yep, the husband and his wishes. But also by the society as a whole to care for the children.

...

For example: My mother, born in the early thirties, was at home during my upbringing. I KNOW that she sacrificed her own career to be home with me and cater hes husband. Why? Because when she was brought up, that was what she was taught to do. I know for a fact most of her friends did the same.

What about the husbands sacrificing all their time and energy to go out and work far from their beloved families every day?

If one person's "work" consists of being around the people s/he loves and cares for and the other person has to go out to an office or construction site or coal mine or whatever and take orders from a boss, who is really sacrificing for the other?

Fathers in past generations were hardworking men who had even less choice in their lives than their wives did. Please don't disregard the sacrifices they made.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[heelrod]

Why is it that "technology" means computers. Web pages, PC's, blah blah blah.

For some dumbass reason people associate smart/technology/techsavy with computers.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[The One and Only]

Some things progress faster than others. The pencil-to-paper algorithms for addition, subtraction, multiplication, long division, algebra, and probably even calculus predate the nuclear era too. And there's really no better way to teach them than to demonstrate on a large board (optionally) and to make people do them over and over again. Whiteboards work better than chalkboards these days, that's an innovation. Honestly, in terms of math the only good use of technology I can see is visualizing three-dimensional graphs, and that's a rare case. Languages? You learn them by reading them and writing them. Maybe you can read them off a screen. Maybe you can type in addition to writing longhand. And already you have most of primary and secondary education. The main problems in education won't be solved by technology, as much as technology may help.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[hondo77]

You do realize that what you state is largely a myth, not a fact? back in the day when only one working parent was common (actually a briefer era than many realize), Mom was busy with cooking and cleaning and other chores. I wasn't born yesterday, but I did spend part of yesterday (and many part of many days before it) reading actual books and research on what life used to be like (a sideline into my research on cooking in America) - rather than parroting myths.

Fortunately I grew up in that mythical time instead of merely reading about it in books. It does not take that long to take care of a house. If a homemaker's time was 100% occupied by chores, there would be no game shows or soap operas (that may sound sexist but think about it before flaming). Part of being a homemaker is being there for the children. Between chores, cooking, and children (and Oprah, in my wife's case), it is definitely a full-time job (one that I wish I had instead of being a rat).

It many have been common at your school - but it wasn't any thing resembling common anywhere at anytime. Mother, or fathers, with that much spare time were very much the exception.

It's not a matter of spare time. You make time for things that are important to you. We're fortunate that my wife can stay at home and she does plenty of volunteering at school. Sure, there are tradeoffs (like not having a clean kitchen when I go to cook dinner at night) but life is full of them.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[The One and Only]

In university, I studied Grammers, not Grammer.

So instead of classes in Kelsey Grammer Studies, you studied his entire family?

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[rtechie]

Though some of them are definite proof of some serious failings in their education from their parents - morality. Translation: It it all the fault of the parents, not the schools.

You get rid of the business mentality infesting schools that kids are like widgets. Drop tests, drop standardized curriculum and you drop grade levels. Test scores and grade levels are a joke. They are a means to make believe that all students fit into nice neat little boxes. They don't! They are individual *mashups* of personality traits, learning skills, abilities, beliefs, biologicals (hormones, vision, hearing, sensory ability, ...), lifestyles, desires, etc. What do you propose as alternative metrics? Should we just take the teacher's word for it?

You may have noticed I did not say anything about teachers. There is a reason. Most are good and most do it because they love it. Most of them do not do it for the pay. They would make more in store management at WalMart. I know the salaries of each. There are those truly outstanding teachers who can reach across boundaries and perform miracles. We can not afford to hire all the people in the world like that to teach. We can afford to make the classrooms and the students more teachable. Those who are truly bad teachers (not disillusioned nor worn out - these are normally caused by the problems in the schools) can still be removed. But, parental involvement goes a long way to making that more productive - not the parents getting rid of teachers, but the parents supporting teachers to help prevent so much of the burn-out. You didn't say anything about teachers because you have a vested interest in the system since you and your parents teach. Yes, teachers could make more money as a Wal-Mart manager. Some people value health insurance, pension benefits, and job security more than pay. Some people don't like the corporate world and are more comfortable in an academic setting.

Explain to me how it's a GOOD thing that you can't fire teachers for bad performance. And I don't want this "you can" nonsense. I've seen teachers not show up for half their classes. The reality is that I've only ever seen teachers getting FIRED for beating or sleeping with students. That's it. I've seen a few teachers "forced out" because they were crazy, as in "threatening and scaring the students" crazy, but they weren't actually fired. They retired with their lifetime pension.

Explain to me how it's a GOOD thing that working professionals can't teach classes because they didn't waste 4 years in college to get a teaching credential. So any working scientist, historian, etc. can't teach any classes. They have to be academics who don't really know shit about the material and are insulated from the real world. Many professionals would VOLUNTEER their time to teach classes if they were allowed to.

Explain to me why you need 10 years of college to teach a pottery class, or to run kids around a track, or basic carpentry.

Explain to me why teachers shouldn't have performance metrics. i.e. If a majority of a teacher's class fails to graduate, should he be fired?

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[GPL Apostate]

If you look at China as an example they teach their kids robotics and electronics from an early age and they produce most of the worlds new gadgets.

I don't know where you get that idea. I work with production facilities in China on a day to day basis, and my experience has been that the Chinese culture teaches submission to authority. The people in production facilities are more inclined to fake that they know what they're doing and/or cover up problems than they are to step forward with creative ways to solve them. I see very little innovative energy from most of the Chinese people I have worked with. I suspect most of the bright and ambitious Chinese leave the country, as the expatriate Chinese technical people I see in the U.S. are really bright creative people.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[The One and Only]

You make it known how you feel about behavior that does not belong in the schools. I do not mean prayer and God and such. I mean drugs, sex, violence and such. Belief in God may help or not. Those things definitely cause many problems. And, while you are at it. Keep those things out of your home as well. Make sure what your kids watch and experience is good mind food. Just like computers, Garbage in, Garbage out.

How exactly are we supposed to have kids if we keep sex out of the home? Do we have to go on vacation?

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[chad.koehler]

Oh, come on. Haven't you seen Dangerous Minds?

http://imdb.com/title/tt0112792/

;)

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[chad.koehler]

equine would work equally as well as bovine.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[hb253]

I was born in 1964. Both my parents worked. I knew kids with two working parents, one working parent, and single parents. In all cases, their social and academic achievement was correlated more with parental attitude and effectiveness rather than how many parents were st home.

My parents never volunteered one second of their time to school. What they did, however, was set high expectations (academic, behavioral, moral, etc). Amazingly, they also trusted me. I never showed them a report card after I entered high school. Yet, I was in the Honor Society, advanced classes, etc.

Having one parent stay home really doesn't make a diffference if that parent is ineffective. I've seen plenty of families with stay at home mothers where the kids are pure undisciplined evil.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you can tell you're a teacher...

1. Troublemakers generally make trouble to get attention. Give them what they want. Lump them in small classes (2-4 kids) based on ability. If you take away 30 kids laughing at their antics, they'll have to find some other way to get attention, like impressing the teacher. Also, if they ever hope to return to the land of normal kids, they'll behave.
2. Smaller classes are not a panacea. Slower kids need smaller classes. Brilliant self starters will survive just fine in a class of 500 kids. More competition makes excelling that much more satisfying. Little geniuses love to show off their big brains for the same reason slower kids are clowns: Attention.
3. What do you plan to replace standardized testing with exactly??
4. Parents have jobs. Your job is teaching. Maybe you'd like to go do roadwork, put in a few hours at the sewage plant, or some other task that the state is charged with doing in your downtime. You have to accept that school is free daycare to most families with two working parents. They're tired after working all day.
5. You vote, and then the politician does the opposite of what he said he'd do. Next gripe please.
6. Drugs, sex, and violence are all illegal in the case of minors. Have the parents pick them up and suspend them.
7. You raise your kids, let them raise theirs. If their behavior doesn't change, neither does yours. You keep suspending kids who break the law. It's your duty to protect the other children.
8. Again, parents have jobs. They work all day long, and then they have to wash clothes, cook, clean... when do you think they'll find time to do several hours of homework every night??? How about this: YOU DO YOUR JOB and teach them at school instead of sending it home for the parents to do. Parents went to school once already, they now have jobs. You have your job. Do it.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[nuzak]

Don't schools transfer in a whole new load of kids every year anyway? Anyone who wants to be a teacher has to get used to the idea of fighting the same battles year after year.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[jimlintott]

It's sad that this extraordinary little nugget of truth will likely be overlooked.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a problem called avoidant personality disorder which really has its roots in that time frame for me. Basically, I'm compelled to avoid confrontation (especially rejection from women) rather than take risks (even minimal ones) because I'm predisposed to thinking things will end in certain failure.

You know, I've probably got the same thing, but from how you describe it, it ain't a goddam pathology. You are you, you are probably scared to death of all kinds of intangible things like rejection, failure, or just plain not knowing what to say, but calling it a "disorder" diminishes yourself. Your new prescription is to stop using the term.

(and no, IANAMD)

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Anonymous Coward]

My kid was born with closed fists and will eventually leave with open palms. No cell phone, no ipod, just plain nothing.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[GeckoX]

Ah, but the english language is as batshit crazy as the imperial measure system, if not more ;)

Other than that, I'd have to agree with you :)

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[jp10558]

Indeed. I'm 26 and I'm grumbling about stuff to my younger cousin who's 21... It seems once you're no longer a teenager, you're just an old codger now. Or... maybe you always were. I certainly don't understand myspace for instance.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

I am 22, I was born in 1985 and got my first PC when I was about 9 or 10.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[phantomlord]

It's much more complicated than just what I noted and is in the same family as social anxiety, though is only recently being recognized as a separate disorder (it has it's own entry in the DSM-IV). It often has traits of several different disorders and is usually co-morbid with OCD, agoraphobia, bi-polar disorder and/or panic attacks.

It goes beyond that discomfort most people feel when approaching someone new and wanting their approval (ie, approaching a woman to try to get a date)... it can outright cripple you with fear in much the same way someone who's afraid to fly won't want to get on a plane. Yeah, they can force themselves to do it but they're certainly not going to be their normal selves in the process and it will be a very emotionally consuming experience for them. I'm fine with groups of friends, I was fine for 10 years in a restaurant management setting but I'm awkward in large groups of people and completely pathetic when it comes to women that I'm attracted to. I quit my job a year ago (after years of the owner treating me like shit) and, in combination with the problems that come with me being a full time care giver to my dad, I've had a hard time even applying for a job feeling that I'm not good enough for pretty much anything I want to do (despite being "one of the smartest people" that most of my friends know).

Some people are so crippled by it that they feel everyone in the world is looking at them critically. They won't leave the house to go to the grocery store because the clerk might eye them over one of their purchases, they can't hold a job because they think the entire office thinks they're a complete idiot because they didn't put a cover sheet on their TPS report once, etc. Basically, most avoidants have a critically low self-esteem (or at least think other people hold them in extreme disregard) and seek the slightest praise to validate themselves, are extremely shy and fear the slightest detraction because it will shatter their fragile ego, have a hard time becoming close to someone (because that person may hurt them), overanalyze their environment constantly to seek out those hypersensitive signs that something must be going wrong, etc.. and all of that results in a tendency to do nothing since pushing the status quo could jeopardize their fragility. Studies of MRI analysis often show an overactive limbic system (in particular, the amygdala and cingulate gyrus IIRC. See Dr. Amen's work on anxiety and depression if you're interested) which triggers that fight or flight response

There are things I've done to try to overcome it... some things work better than others. Some things work in cycles (keeping notes of when I feel avoidant to later rationalize why I shouldn't worry about those things which eventually becomes a log of all the negativity in my life that only seems to increase in quantity as time goes on (because if you write 5 things a week, after a month, you have 20 things and after 6 months, you have 120 things (or maybe only 80) and that seems like you'll never get over it)), some things are hard to cognitively minimize (someone afraid of heights can eventually work their way to the edge at a low height and gradually work their way up to greater heights realizing that it's not much different than standing on the ground... personal encounters with new people are far too dynamic to methodically challenge yourself with exact repeatable steps beyond "smile and say hi"), etc. Anxiety drugs work for some people, not so much for others. The more time I have leading into something, the more I need to work myself up to overcome the avoidance. If it's something that happens and I can instantly react, I don't suffer from the anxiety. Lots of people go through something similar when approaching someone they're interested in. If you just go for it, you don't have time to think so you never end up getting nervous.

Anyway... I probably wasted too much time typing that in reply to an AC and it doesn't feel as coherent as I'd like but I'm going to post it rather than waste more time on someone who probably isn't interested.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Gilmoure]

When I was in 5th grade I was... designing basic websites for myself and my pets.

When I was in fifth grade, I was really jonesing to see Star Wars again (had left theaters earlier that year). Damn you Lucas! Damn you to HELL!

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[macduffman]

As someone else whose family (and own history) is chock full of education, I agree with you, but I think you may be missing the point.

Discipline, respect, and hard work are all very good things for a working society, and thus they made their way into classical education, which is there not only for education but for social conditioning. (How many times have you said that home-school kids need to go to public school for social learning, if nothing else?) So, naturally, if discipline and respect are instilled at home, that child will do well in our education system, which demands discipline and respect...

...and coloring inside the lines. I think that's partly what this (CEO of a tech company who says schools need to buy more tech / successful, passionate person who thinks we need School v2.0) guy is saying, or if it's not, it's what he should be saying. One of my favorite quotes (here paraphrased) is from Einstein: It is a miracle that creativity survives public education.

So, yes, you're right, disciplined, respectful kids will do better in our system of education, but I don't think that necessarily means they're better learners. I was one of those disciplined and respectful kids, and I am intelligent, but some things I just can't learn, because I think inside the box, as a product of these environments that reward conformity. My wife, on the other hand, was a hellion child, broke all kinds of rules, and is just as intelligent as I am, and she can pick up new things and think creatively, which, unfortunately, is not as favorable in a school environment.

Seriously, be honest with yourself: why do schools have rules? Dress codes? Set hours? A (terribly set up) grading system? I predict that with your strong background in education, you will be staunchly opposed to any change in this, and you will point to "hippie teachers" as a good example of why it doesn't work, but like I said, it just depends on what the system itself rewards.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[hb253]

You don't have to be a genius to realize that not everyone get a woody from AP Physics.

You've touched on an important point here. There seems to be a streak of anti-intellectualism in the US population. Being smart was uncool even way back in the late 70's and early 80's when I attended high school.

I've also noticed that bias against academic achievement seems to correlate inversely with economic class.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[zig007]

Please don't disregard the sacrifices they made. What are you talking about? Nobody is disregarding anything. You're missing the point. They were not sacrificing a possible career. They took it.
You have obviously not stayed home with children for any longer duration.
No matter how much you love them, If you are an educated and ambitious person, towards the end IT WILL DRIVE YOU NUTS to only say "dada" all day long and not have any normal interaction with grown-ups.
Actually, it feels so damn good to go back to work that you feel guilty about it.

I really feel for the many, many women that had so much capacity left unappreciated.
It must have felt enormously frustrating.

I won't respond to any more replies in this thread now. Please have the last word if you wish.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[flappinbooger]

A month ago I had to explain to my boss what an MP3 was, how they are used, what you would use it on, the whole deal.

The thing is, he's an electrical engineer from Purdue so he fully understands A-D conversion, bitrate, compression algorithms, how CD's work, etc.

It's a cultural thing at this point.

Last week I sent him an email about something and put LOL at the end, so he would know the last line was a joke. Another thing I had to explain... Seriously, he's a genius, intelligence has nothing to do with today's gadgets and the gadget culture.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[COMON$]

Yes, you hit the nail on the head, hard. What need to be worked on is consequence, thanks to recent political changes kids have no fear of failing, and if they do fail no one cares. Change that mentality and you can use any material you want to teach :)

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[COMON$]

Since when did kids actually care about the curriculum, heck even go to a college/university. How many of the students there actually care about what they are studying. Sure they might hit 3 classes that actually interest them, there are a few of us that enjoyed most of them. But the mentality is, it is a right of passage, not a learning process.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[EdelFactor19]

tremedously amazing post! its sorta like a black box that has some rules to translate from english to chinese.. does it really know anything about chinese? no...

the bulk of these kids and their myspace pages are miserable monstrosities. You cant read anything, its like the whole look at my dancing jesus webpage phenomenon all over again.. but worse.. look and listen to my 20 different music videos at once

its not webpage design by a longshot. mostly its copy pasting stuff from other peoples pages. if it was intelligent webpage design even remotely theyd have some decent documentation and standards as to how to do it..

you dont want to learn C fine. but learn enough about your computer to be reasonbly competent with it. like say how to install and remove a piece of software. how to navigate a harddrive and not store every file you ever thought of on the desktop

the sad thing is a lot of those myspace pages are likely being done by people who should probably be studying or doing their homework first godforbid. I got through a rigourous course load in high school and then a top tier college doing a dual major (CS and Psych) and I have never gotten a C or a B-. Frankly anyone who did the work semi paid attention and tried got B's. A's vary in ease class to class, but to get C's you really have to slack off and not turn in most of your work.

as someone with ADD as well i can say that probably the last thing you need in the classroom is the large distraction of hundreds of more gizmos and gadgets. put a laptop in front of someone during class and 9 times out of 10 theyll be too busy doing everything other than paying attention to use it to take notes or follow along with slides

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[arminw]

....there are a lot of kids who don't want to be there.......

I don't blame them. Most schools today are more like a prison than anything else. The kids, especially the younger ones, are confined there, like so may rats in a cage. Kids are meant to run free, explore, and satisfy their inborn curiosity.

Education as it is today in our society is a modern and unnatural institution that began with the industrial age about 200-250 years ago. Until then, for millennia, it was the job of the parents to bring up their children. That included educating them. In "primitive" societies it still is. In the animal kingdom, this principle is also seen. The little eaglet learns how to fly and hunt from its parents, not in some Eagle Flock Flying and Survival school where the little birds are crammed together for hours, to learn these skills from an uninterested stranger.

Kids deserve a complete home, which includes a mother and a FATHER, especially for boys. Sheer selfishness on the part of adults, is the cause for many, if not most maladjusted "problem kids". Kids will forgive adults poverty and lack of opportunity. An uncaring, selfish attitude is much less readily forgiven.

Many concerned parents are now teaching their kids at home. We also did not want to herd our kids like so many sheep into public school, where they learn more from the other sheep that the teachers. This was a considerable economic sacrifice for us, but well worth it. It was not until their basic learning, and more importantly, character development was mostly complete, that we sent them off to public high school.

By that time they had learned to study independently and were affected little by the sometimes foolish attitudes of their peers. One of them was the valedictorian of her high school. All graduated with top honors.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[notoriou5]

It's savvy, not savy. Did you text in that comment?

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Snocrash23]

The parenting I had at home was excellent, we were going on family trips all the time, they played street sports with us whenever we wanted, encourage friends to come over, and they helped us understand - not do - our homework. Yet, I still did horrible in a lot of courses, and those courses all had teachers that didn't engage the students. They were the teachers that just stood in front of a class for hours at a time and just talked, you're were expected to take notes and that was that. How is that teaching!? The classes I did good in were ones that involved hands-on projects, let the students debate their ideas, presented the ideas in a novel way or related them to current events. Good parenting is definitely needed, but so are good teachers!

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[mikael]

I think it was after one term. But I guess bthe point was that if anyone did have the enthusiasm to raise educational attainment levels, the inertia of the system would just hit them with more work without the corresponding resources thus reducing the system back to equilibrium.
If this were the private sector, if there was this demand for their services, the extra amount of work would bring in extra revenue that would allow them to expand.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[thrillseeker]

Uh, I designed my first website in 3rd grade, and I'm 21. :)

Around here, we socially promote our 21 year olds on up to 4th grade.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[innerweb]

Actually, we do make everything from scratch. We hand wash everything except the laundry. It takes about 20 to 25 hours per week on our own, tops. Between all of us, it takes about 1 hour per day. I still spend 3 to 5 hours per day with my kids, work 9 to 10 hours and get the house chores done. My wife handles some of them while I handle others. The children do their part as well. It is called quality time work. My mother did it, her mother did it, our grandparents did it. I have seen it and live it. Not only is it possible, but unless you are lazy and/or seriously disorganized, it is trivial to spend much less time on these chores. A good part of it is habits. Don't make a mess and you don't have on to clean up.

Oh, yeah, I still have two whole days a week off. That is another 18 hours to be parent every week.

InnerWeb

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Damvan]

"...and the kids today just don't care"

What the hell are you talking about, you are a kid!

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[lordSaurontheGreat]

I'm not comfortable with the idea of the Federal Government teaching ANYONE about morality and civil conduct.

Hell, I'm not even comfortable with the State Government doing that.

The place to oversee this is the county and city level. Uncle Sam isn't exactly the one with the credentials to make this happen.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[DerekLyons]

One anecdote versus another anecdote doesn't prove anything either way...

That's very amusing - because you keep placing anecdotes into evidence, while I'm reporting from years of studying actual research.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Anonymous Coward]

Sources or it never happened.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[neomunk]

The trifecta! Offtopic, troll and flamebait all in one post. Your mommy should be proud.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[DerekLyons]

So I have actually experienced this. I promise you that I haven't read that in a cookbook. And it is not a "myth".

It doesn't matter one tiny bit what your mother did to/with you. She's one individual among millions.
 
 

The business part only applies to a quite small, and upper class, part of the society.

Actually, no. It applies to explosively expanding middle class from the early 20th century onwards. (Hint: why do you think 'dinner with the boss' was a staple of sitcoms from very early on?)
 
 

Except that the grandparent meant that just being around the parent, working or not, IS quality time.

The grandparent is welcome to misuse standard terms in whatever manner he desires. I prefer to to use their standard meanings.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[DerekLyons]

It does not take that long to take care of a house.

Actually, yes it does. (Or did back in day before todays appliances, cleaners, etc... etc...)
 
 

If a homemaker's time was 100% occupied by chores, there would be no game shows or soap operas (that may sound sexist but think about it before flaming).

 
I've done more than just thought about it. I've actually studied it. Those shows were aimed at a very wide demographic, includes housewives who would take a brief break, houswives who did very little housework, housewives who could afford to pay someone else to do their housework, etc... etc...
 
 

Part of being a homemaker is being there for the children.

That's taken as a given today, that was not the case in years past. One interesting data point: In my collection of such materials I have a series of newsletters from a cake decorating club in the 1950's. The vast majority of them (over 75%) describe cakes for holidays, entertaining, and impressing the boss when he comes over for dinner. (Really - they describe it exactly like that!) The balance are mostly on doing cakes for charity sales and church suppers. Children's birthday cakes make up less than 5% of the content. You see the same pattern when you examine women's magazines, etiquette books, etc... etc...
 
Then comes the 80's and the pattern (very abrubtly) shifts to what is essentially a complete reversal of the earlier one. (And the stereotype of the 'soccer mom' and the parents too frazzled from taking their kids to multiple activities emerge nearly overnight.) Shortly after, minivans appear on the market with advertising stressing how many kids they can carry....
 
Seriously, I'm not making this stuff up. Once you study the primary source materials you can see the slow shift in societal attitudes and expectations towards a more 'child centric' one starting in the thirties, and a sudden explosion in the 80's when 'quality time' became a buzzword solution to societies ills in general and 'latchkey kids' in specific.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[sailor2864]

You're on the rght track for the most part. Now for full disclosure. Let it be known that I am a public school teacher wth 21 years experience in the public sector. (Pause for laughter from the "geek" community"). Plus, years in "private" education, as well as higher education. As well well as substantial experience in the private sector outside of the education field. (There was no Microsoft or Apple when I first began using computers. Yes, I'm that old!) The public school system is a reactionary institution. It simply "must" reflect the demands of the current society, for good or ill. There is no other choice. While the US educational system has tried, from its beginnings, to "solve" societal problem through education, it has always been (and must be by definition) be "behind the curve". Society simply changes faster than any bureaucracy can keep up. And, education (the system), is still trying to relfect the the ideals of the 60's and 70's! Why? The leaders of the current eduactiional establishment "cut their teeth" on the ideals of the times they experienced in their formative years. Just as military generals are always (often) "fighting the last war", educatonal burearocrats are likewise "fighting" the last percieved battle in education. Does this mean US public education (K-12) is doomed to faiure? Maybe, but it's up to the "people" to decide. As society changes, so must education. Are the "ideals" of the 60s and 70s relavent to the 21 century? I have my opinion. The "people"must decide.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I had a class like that. Oh and maybe show them why "a linux" is cool and useful and free and they might care.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[protohiro1]

This is much more complicated than you think. Some students don't want to be there, fine. It isn't most. And a good teacher can engage a large portion of a bad class. But a good teacher has to be a smart, well trained person. And smart, well educated people basically won't want to work at a job that pays half of what they could make in another career. Its not "kids these days" that are the problem. Its "good people don't want to teach"

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[innerweb]

OMG. I almost fell over laughing when I read your post. I am a father and have been for a long time. I used to do the 1.5 hour one way commute. Six days a week. My wife stayed home. My son entered Kindergarten reading on a fourth grade level, his math was late third grade and his social skills were rather advanced.

Lets see, since you are so interested in my itinerary, I will give to you. I did this for years and then quit to be a better father.

• 04:00 Awake
• 04:30 at the gym to work out and swim
• 06:00 on the road to work
• 07:30 to 08:00 depending on traffic and how bad the daily bridge accident was, at my desk at work.
• 17:00 to 19:00 leave work depending on how much work needed to be done that day.
• 19:00 to 20:30 arrive home for the evening, eat dinner.
• 20:00 to 22:00 in bed for the next day.

On my days off I did nothing but play and work with our son (one at first, then two). That job was almost a decade ago when I left it. My wife spent 8 to 10 hours per day with our sons. After I left my job, we moved to a much less expensive area, with good schools and I started working for myself and stayed home, took care of the house and the kids while my wife went back to work. I did this for 8 years. I raised our other son. Both have turned out pretty good so far, though our youngest one hates wearing his glasses. 8-)

It is all about choices and priorities. My priority is my family, and most importantly, my children. More important than my career. I make half as much oney now, but I have 5 hours almost every night with my children. I have never seen a check big enough to make me give that up, and I have seen some big 6 digit checks in my life. I have been fortunate to know many wealthy and unhappy families, as well as many relatively poor and happy families. Guess which one is better to live in? I miss making 6 digits. But not enough to forsake my children for it.

A child's education is complicated and its not. Like most things in life, it is easy to let other things get in the way. I have too much experience there. But, in the end, you define what you truly care about by the things you make time for.

InnerWeb

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[innerweb]

Ahh, bad AC. No doggy biscuit for you. I am not a teacher. I am a software designer who has taught in the past. i love what I do (writing software), and I like (but not love) teaching. I volunteer to help out now, but no longer teach or develop curricula. BTW, since you are obviously literate enough to post here, thank a teacher. You may not realize it, but you them that.

There are many kind of trouble makers. You ever-generalize. Some do it for attention, and those are the ones that normally wind up behaving in class. There are many others for many other reasons. I dare you to go teach for a year.

YOU DO YOUR JOB

Jeez. I do my job, and other peoples as well, and I work with my kids every night and every weekend, and I even help their friends whose parents are not around. Hmmm. Sit back down AC boy.

InnerWeb

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[innerweb]

Good comment, Good points.

Dress codes I am for to eliminate certain dress (or lack thereof) issues. Grade levels I am against. The current grade (A-F) system I am against. Set hours I am against, but this is a very expensive change to fix.

My experience teaches me that kids have many different levels of achievement. Science, math, reading, writing, creativity, social, physical, organizational, etc.. are all aspects that different kids advance and understand in different ways. I prefer a kind of Montessori system. As far as kids being disciplined and respectful, those have nothing to do with thinking inside or outside the box. They merely have to do with well, being organized and respectful. I have worked with people whose organizational system was 1 foot over and two inches deep. Et voile, it was there. I never would have found it, but they could. I also have worked with people who had everything in neurotically neat rows and stacks. And if you moved anything, even a quarter inch, they would freak. Most of us are somewhere in between. Of those two traits though, the respectful part is far more important.

I think the current school setup encourages those who think different to act out. There is a good movie out about a young lady who wants to play varsity soccer that shows this kind of behavior in a glaringly obvious way.

InnerWeb

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[innerweb]

Your experience is where parents need to take an active role in the school system. But, you will be hard pressed to find that many dynamic individuals with strong people and communication skills willing to step that far down to teach. but, I know what you are talking about. I have experienced it, my kids have experienced it and that is one reason I take so much interest in the schools still. I know most of the people on the school board, the principals and the administration as well as the teachers. All of the teachers know us by name and all of them know of our expectations. The really neat thing is most of them allow us (the parents) to come in and help make the class more dynamic. But, this is all about pushing back to make the primary mission of the school to be educating students and paying the real price, not trying to mass produce diplomas for the lowest bid.

InnerWeb

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[innerweb]

Ohh, what fun. Here I go...

Translation: It it all the fault of the parents, not the schools.

Correct. You may not understand this, but you and I hire the public school system teachers. We vote for the school boars, the legislature and either demand answer or not for the issues at stake. It is our responsibility to put pressure where it is needed to cause fundamental change, or to overlook it and blame those we put in a bad position with our laws and rules.

What do you propose as alternative metrics? Should we just take the teacher's word for it?

I said in another post that standards testing ought to be a small part of the puzzle, not the rudder. Merely a piece of many pieces to be used as input. One of the problems with demanding metrics is the sheer lack of availability of these metrics in this environment. There have been many different IQ tests, personality profile tests, cognitive awareness tests, etc. (ad nausea). They have all failed. For one reason. You can no more measure the sum of a child's progress, book smarts, social smarts and street smarts with a battery of *standardized* test than you can measure the Earth's atmosphere by taking temperatures in Kansas.

You do not need to take the teacher's word for it. Successful kids have things in common, from the way they carry on conversations to the way they pursue their own interests. They may not do these things the same way, but they do things to achieve what they want to achieve. Prolonged observation of students while in classes at school (not a testing snapshot of one to a few days) gives much better insight into the development of the child. And, if you use testing, you are more testing the success of the parents much more than you are testing the success of the teacher. Why don't you hold the parents to the same standard, after all, they are the primary educators of their children. Teachers might get 4 hours per day useful time, parents have the opportunity in most cases for far more per day. The parents are the ones responsible for teaching the ethics, morality, priorities and such that make children successful students.

You didn't say anything about teachers because you have a vested interest in the system since you and your parents teach.

Hmm. Where have I heard that before? lol. How about, I leave the teachers out because they matter very little when the parents are not parenting. Ahh. Do you understand that? Most people don't.

Some people value health insurance, pension benefits, and job security more than pay.

Most teachers make less money per year and have worse benefits and less retirement than people in the non-academic world. That argument of yours is misinformed. I have been on the state wide negotiating committees and I have seen what different counties get in pay and benefits. If you are teaching because you think any of those are better on the teaching side, you are completely unaware of the commercial side. My wife as an assistant store manager makes much more money and much better benefits than any of the teachers in our state or the states around us (Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky).

Some people don't like the corporate world and are more comfortable in an academic setting.

I think you have a collegiate setting confused with K-12 settings. K-12 has become rather corporate anymore. Not the same as working in a large office building out of a cubicle as far as space and layout go. Teachers are filling all kinds of information out now (like little administrators) and filing reports and following inane rules, aoh yeah, they even have tons of meetings to make sure they can not be as productive so they can fill out forms on how they are being productive. I have worked both sides. Maybe you might see it as different, but being professional is being professional, only kids have no interest in their job.

Explain to me how it's a GOOD thing that you can't fire teachers for b

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[zig007]

It doesn't matter one tiny bit what your mother did to/with you. She's one individual among millions. Well, she isn't a cookbook, that's for sure.

Actually, no. It applies to explosively expanding middle class from the early 20th century onwards. (Hint: why do you think 'dinner with the boss' was a staple of sitcoms from very early on?) Expanding, yes, but nothing like it is now. I am were talking the fifties and backwards here.
There was no TV, and even less, sitcoms by then. And how other would the boss come to dinner?

The grandparent is welcome to misuse standard terms in whatever manner he desires. I prefer to to use their standard meanings. He poses the question whether it can be expanded. I think so. Please state your opinion in an answer to THAT post instead of starting this dwindling thread because of something you obviously know is a misunderstanding.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Yvanhoe]

blackboards are not the same. They are far less convenient, yet, schools prefer these because they are used to. That says something about them.

In school blackboards are used 90% of the time in order to allow teachers to make their one-man show. We all had slow writing teachers or unreadable ones. Maths demonstrations would be greatly enhanced if animations were possible, some curves are very difficult to draw on a chalkboard also. Teachers have adapted to chalkboard for so long that they don't even realize how limited this is.

Assuming that blackboards and whiteboards are the same, however, it is right that they are useful when groups of people think together. On occasions when one must make presentations, usually a powerpoint is preferred. Now when was the last time when you have worked together with fellow students on a blackboard ? it must have happen once in all my studies.

I say change every blackboards in school for whiteboards and use these sometime as a projector screen. That will enrich presentations without changing too much teachers' habits.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[flyer150]

Dr. Goodnight's education is in the area of statistics. How quaint. Number one rule of statistics: Statistics have the bias of the 'facts gathered'. Number two rule of statistics: It is easy to tell a lie by postulating a statistic as a fact. SAS's business is based on this. The so called sophisticated solutions SAS touts are based on feeder systems such as an ERP and most of those lack a solid foundation. I believe his argument is based on method - mine is based on content. I'll let you decide what is true. I ask those of us involved with expert systems and AI to weigh in on this.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[jamesmrankinjr]

If you think about it, where do you still find chalkboards outside school ?

No, of course not. We're way beyond that now. We all have whiteboards.

I work in a very highly rated computer science department, and whiteboards are everywhere, and usually have a lot written on them. Meetings, hallway conversations, lectures, you name it.

We are in the powerpoint era.

Have you seen some of the dreck that is inflicted on captive audiences through PowerPoint? Again, at this same university, I've seen very good lecturers totally forgo PowerPoint and give very good reasons at the beginning of the semester why they think it does not facilitate good teaching. You can sit at a computer or print out and read a PowerPoint presentation on your own. What's the point in having someone read it to you out loud?

Yes, it is possible to use PowerPoint as part of a good lecture or presentation. But I don't think there is a positive correlation between use of PowerPoint and the quality of knowledge imparted.

Peace be with you,
-jimbo

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Rockin'Robert]

Public fool, er, school.
Implemented for over 100 years.
To make the 'perfect' slave/consumer 'society'.
Add FED offshore inflated paper money, forcing BOTH parents to work -
leaving latch-key kids without a family-based moral rudder.
Wards of, and programmed by, the CORPORATE (socialist) STATE slavers.
EOS.
RR
As ever ... truth has "BAD KARMA".
KMA

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "he's," not "they're." The latter is plural, not singular, you college newspeak-adopter-talking-of-education.

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[rtechie]

... you and I hire the public school system teachers. We vote for the school boars, the legislature and either demand answer or not

This is inconsistent with your earlier position. If it's ALL about parents teaching their kids proper "morality" as you claimed, from practical perspective it doesn't matter how they vote because a child that hasn't been properly trained by their parents will fail no matter how "good" the school is. Secondly, you're assuming individual parents have complete voting control over the school boards and legislature. They don't. There are these things called "lobbies". Pretending they don't control the voting process is an ignorant cop-out.

You can no more measure the sum of a child's progress, book smarts, social smarts and street smarts with a battery of *standardized* test than you can measure the Earth's atmosphere by taking temperatures in Kansas.

You CAN measure the content of the entire atmosphere just by sampling the air in Kansas because there isn't a wide variation of gasses across the entirety of the atmosphere (air in Kansas is pretty much the same as air everywhere else).

Prolonged observation of students while in classes at school (not a testing snapshot of one to a few days) gives much better insight into the development of the child.

So you favor third-party classroom auditing? An auditor goes in completely announced, watches the class for several days and interviews and tests the students. What is wrong with THAT metric?

Why don't you hold the parents to the same standard, after all, they are the primary educators of their children.

Because I'm not paying for them. Metrics for parents would serve no purpose. We are not going to start licensing parents or imposing metrics on them, and I would take up arms against the government if we did. Again this is a cop-out. Teachers don't want to take responsibility so they deflect it onto parents.

Most teachers make less money per year and have worse benefits and less retirement than people in the non-academic world.

This is simply not true in California, New York, Florida, or any of the other states that I've looked at. And you're wrong nationwide about retirement, because as far as I'm aware every K-12 teacher in the USA has access to a matching 401K plan equivalent to the Federal plan. It's a good as retirement gets in the USA in 2007, and far better than that offered by 95% of businesses. K-12 teachers have the best medical and dental plans available in California, better than anything offered by ANY business in California.

K-12 has become rather corporate anymore.

Corporate workers are expected to perform and can be fired arbitrarily. How often do schools have rounds of layoffs?

Maybe you might see it as different, but being professional is being professional, only kids have no interest in their job.

The expectation that kids are supposed to be "professional" is fucking batshit crazy. They're KIDS for God's sake. If they're not randomly setting fire to shit you're lucky.

You elect your school board, you have a direct influence on your schools policies in this regard. ... I am unaware of an issue here in getting rid of teachers for not being good teachers, as we do let them go.

Did you go to college? Have you not had people who were experts in their field but failed miserably communicating their knowledge? Teaching is not easy. ... Have you ever written a lesson plan to carry a classroom through a full year? Bullshit. As a freshman high school student *I* taught the Computer Literacy class at my high school because the assigned teacher was a complete dipshit. I TA'd for him and taught the whole class. I set up the lab, made the curriculum, designed assignments, graded the papers, everything. I trained two other TA's to teach the classes I wasn't in. One of the seni

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[innerweb]

This post is not being spell checked or proof-read, sorry, out of time

This is inconsistent with your earlier position. If it's ALL about parents teaching their kids proper "morality" as you claimed, from practical perspective it doesn't matter how they vote because a child that hasn't been properly trained by their parents will fail no matter how "good" the school is. Secondly, you're assuming individual parents have complete voting control over the school boards and legislature. They don't. There are these things called "lobbies". Pretending they don't control the voting process is an ignorant cop-out.

Whoa! I never said you would walk in and get your way. Now, it is not that easy. You actually have to work at it, you know, lobby - the word you used, convince others of the merits of your opinions. Sure, there are others out there who may be more experienced and definitely more aware of what is going on, but you still have to do the work to get the reward. This i snot some kind of lottery you can win with a five dollar ticket. I also said in my original post that a child was not ruined for life for starting off in a bad home, just that they were handicapped compared to others in good homes and were normally in trouble in school. I also said that I have seen children change when their environment at home changed.

You CAN measure the content of the entire atmosphere just by sampling the air in Kansas because there isn't a wide variation of gasses across the entirety of the atmosphere (air in Kansas is pretty much the same as air everywhere else). - You are joking, right?

So, in essence you are saying the air over Los Angeles is the same as the air over Kansas, no pollutants, no ocean wind, no influence from the vast water vapor producer right next door? And the air in China's major cities is the same as it is over Kansas, you can see for miles, no pollution,.. Get the idea yet? And, the air over Kansas is the same temperature as it is over the antarctic. In case you did not know, temperature of the air impacts what can stay aloft in the air, and how much. But even with all of those differences, the air in the most different parts of the world is vastly more similar than two children in a classroom.

So you favor third-party classroom auditing? An auditor goes in completely announced, watches the class for several days and interviews and tests the students. What is wrong with THAT metric?

Actually, over time is meant throughout the year, and the method is teacher observation, peer review, and management review. Testing is good to a limited (rather limited) extent, but has only assisted in dragging the real education down the drain. You may not get this, but the teachers *must* teach to the test. They must first get as many kids as possible ready to achieve a certain minimum score on the test. Their jobs are on the line, funding for the school is on the line, parental approval is on the line. The only thing that is not on the line with current testing is a real education. Testing in no way provides an encouragement for provide a better education. Only to make sure kids can burp up more facts, irregardless of whether or not they understand or can apply those facts.

Bullshit. As a freshman high school student *I* taught the Computer Literacy class at my high school because the assigned teacher was a complete dipshit. I TA'd for him and taught the whole class. I set up the lab, made the curriculum, designed assignments, graded the papers, everything. I trained two other TA's to teach the classes I wasn't in. One of the seniors taught the Music Theory class I was in. Another senior basically taught Auto Shop. AP Physics was essentially run by the students. I could go on. And I attended one of the top 3 public high schools in the state of California.

You were a late bloomer, I started teaching in 7th grade, science, and computers. I wrote the computer curriculum, and assisted on the science. I was teaching $100.00/ho

Re:Tired of this goddamn label

[rtechie]

Actually, over time is meant throughout the year, and the method is teacher observation, peer review, and management review.

So you don't think that a teacher's job should be tied to how his kids perform in class, AT ALL?

What about the students? When I was in high school all the students knew who was a good teacher and who wasn't. And contrary to the criticism I always hear about this the criteria wasn't who was "easiest". The criteria was based on which teachers were the most interesting and engaging for students because those are the teachers everyone actually learned from. Why shouldn't the students be involved in evaluating the job performance of the teachers since they're in the best position to do so?

You were a late bloomer, I started teaching in 7th grade, science, and computers.

I assisted, but did not teach, science classes in 8th grade. You're only reinforcing my point that the teaching credentials/degrees are nonsense.

No, you are not paying them directly, but you are paying for their daycare, and you are paying for their screw-ups as parents. Do you have a clue as to the number of parents who bitterly complain about assigning homework and expecting it to be turned in on time? Do you wonder why the kids don't care. Their idiot parents don't care.

Considering parents out there smoking crack and raping their kids, not bugging their kids about their homework is the least of my concerns. Or maybe they're just ticked off about all the busy work kids get in school nowadays "Write a 10 page essay on nothing". I remember a lot of busy work from high school.

In Cincinnati, in th school system we were in, parents were held accountable. If the parents were not providing the assistance the kids needed at home to help them learn the materials, the kids were given to a professional tutor and the parents were billed. Yep, some of them complained like mad about how unfair it was.

Because I'm sure the school board threatened to expel their kids if they didn't pay. People who really don't care would never even have considered paying for the tutor and would just let their kids get kicked out.

Passion. Kids pursue their passions, not their needs. Any kid whom I have met or taught who has a passion focuses on that passion

And adults can't be passionate about their profession? I think they can. And I think a working professionals far more likely to be passionate about his work than an academic who isn't doing anything hands on, meaning he's likely to be better at teaching the material. You continue to reinforce my point that teaching is neither particularly difficult, nor does it require a decade of training. Meaning that the union requirements for those credentials are hurting students by limiting their access to good teachers.

The REAL liability is lawsuits from parents who don't get their way, who want this religion taught or that one not, who want their child to be in a class that they can not keep up with or in a grade they are not emotionally ready for (though their book smarts are off the scale).

Don't give me that. Teachers CANNOT be sued for such things and ARE NOT. The lawsuits you describe are directed against the schools, district, etc. and are a completely separate issue. Fear of liability is a big problem for schools and school budgets, but giving teachers jobs for life certainly has little to do with it. If anything it makes the problem worse.

Schools court certain contraversy by their nature. Sex education, evolution, religious studies, drugs, and youth violence are all considered hot-button issues in the USA and because they intersect with K-12 education there is going to be trouble. ALL professions and businesses involve some level of legal wrangling. These have been issues for at least the past 150 years, so you know what you signed up for.

And it seems that you want parents involved only as long as they do EXACTLY what the teach

I happen to disagree.

[Black Parrot]

Standing in front of a blackboard and addressing the students orally is an excellent method of education.

And interactive, for that matter.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[plover]

Standing in front of a blackboard and addressing the students orally is an excellent method of education.

Actually, technology has made quite a leap forward from when my teachers used to stand in front of a blackboard and address us.

Today's teachers stand in front of a whiteboard.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[bluce]

I happen to disagree with you.

I think that all students should get hands on experience with technology. Get them interested in technology and science and most importantly, show them how it can apply to their everyday lives.

Teachers and College Professors should change their lecture styles to incorporate the technology. Rather than writing facts on a blackboard that students can look up instantly on the internet, show students how to use the information and the concepts behind it.

Technology shouldn't be left out because a teacher or professor can't figure out how to make use of it.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Standing in front of a blackboard and addressing the students orally is an excellent method of education

I agree as well. The problem isn't with the format, but of the teachers.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[michaelmalak]

Standing in front of a blackboard and addressing the students orally is an excellent method of education.

I agree it's an excellent method of education -- for the teacher.

The best way to learn something is to try to teach it. Seminar-style classes should start before graduate school.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[ResidntGeek]

Now how in the blue, bloody hell do you think technology helps teachers and professors explain concepts? Either they can teach concepts, in which case a blackboard is fine, or they can't, in which case using iPods and laptops won't do shit.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? +5 Insightful and a bunch of serious replies? Am I the only one who thought that was a dirty joke?

Re:I happen to disagree.

[Foobar of Borg]

Standing in front of a blackboard and addressing the students orally is an excellent method of education.

Actually, technology has made quite a leap forward from when my teachers used to stand in front of a blackboard and address us.

Today's teachers stand in front of a whiteboard.

And, given all the teacher-student sex going on, I imaging "addressing the students orally" has taken on a whole new meaning, too.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[KefabiMe]

I both disagree and agree.

This depends completely on the teacher.

My calculus-based physics teacher was a great example of how to teach a great interactive class by standing in front of a blackboard (or whiteboard in this case) and addressing the students orally. He probably did more to make me interested in Math, Science, and Engineering than anyone else other than my own father (who had a Ph.D. in Mathematics).

7 years later, after dropping out, working (for Microsoft!?!) for a few years, and re-starting college, I am currently taking calculus-based physics with a teacher who is a great example of how much standing in front of a blackboard and addressing the students orally can suck.

My only job is a school tutor and my study habits have much improved since 7 years ago, so I'm doing well in school. But I look around and I see many students who struggle because most of teachers are more like the latter example, rather than the former .

Re:I happen to disagree.

[Wildclaw]

I disagree with you completly. It is an incredibly inefficent way of teaching.

First of all, it forces teachers all over the country to repeat the same material, instead of having a single recording. That decreases the time that teachers are availible to answer questions and do real teaching.

Secondly, the argument that it is interactive isn't really true. Yes, a person can ask a question while you are talking, and then the rest of class has to sit there and relisten to something they already understood. If several people have questions on a certain subject, it should most likely have been better explained in the original presentation.

Finally, the biggest disadvantage with black board teaching. It is based on the idea of "class" schooling, which is an incredibly terrible way of teaching. Different people learn different subjects at different rates. Class schooling assumes that everyone learns at the same rate. If someone learns to fast they will get bored, and if someone learns to slow they will fall behind and not learn anything, because the material builds on the old material that the person newer got to learn.

The class schooling system used to be a nescessary evil, but with todays technology it is finally possible to remove it. With the possibility to give each student his own screen and headset and have them advance at their own pace. The teacher must of course still be nearby to answer questions, but that kind of teaching would be much more interactive than the current black board style eduction.

To handle common questions, it could even be possible to include answers to those questions by using interactive videos where you can click on a button to get a more thorough explanation on a specific subject.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[tftp]

And why would a whiteboard be better than a blackboard? Chalk is harmless, unlike the solvent based pens, and it is far more environmentally friendly.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[MassEnergySpaceTime]

Because a teacher can't run her fingernails on a whiteboard to shut the class up.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[jlarocco]

Teachers and College Professors should change their lecture styles to incorporate the technology. Rather than writing facts on a blackboard that students can look up instantly on the internet, show students how to use the information and the concepts behind it.

That's what decent professors/teachers have been doing for decades. I don't really see how technology changes anything there. 30 years ago I could flip through a reference book or go to the library and look up a formula or fact. Yes, Google is a bit more convenient. But surely high school students already know how to use search engines, right? If they can make a ghastly abomination on MySpace, they can use Google.

Besides that, a great professor giving a lecture using a blackboard is a million times better than watching a crappy professor go through a powerpoint show. The one isn't using technology, but technology isn't going to make up for the other's incompetence.

If there's an obvious benefit from using technology, then by all means use it; but I don't think it should be used just for the sake of using it.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[QuantumG]

The best form on teaching is one-on-one teaching.

It's also the most expensive.

Developing a computer system that can simulate a good teacher is a holy freakin' grail of AI research, and yeah, guess we'll see that real soon now. :)

Re:I happen to disagree.

[soren100]

Standing in front of a blackboard and addressing the students orally is an excellent method of education.

And interactive, for that matter. Children love to learn and explore, are usually constantly asking "why", and they love to explore and practice -- that's what "play" is all about.

The singular achievement of schools has been to take all the fun out of learning, so that you have a teacher droning on in front of the class, and 30 fidgeting students stuck in chairs trying to stay awake in front of him and keep from being bored off their asses.

The routine of boring teachers, brain-dead fact recitals, and rigid schedules punctuated by bells tends to drive all desire to learn out of students through a clockwork-orange type of negative-association technique. The principal result of all this is a person who can carry out orders and follow routines without challenging the system -- the perfect office worker.

How else are we gonna fill all those cube farms?

Re:I happen to disagree.

[MMaestro]

And blackboards have been criticized for years about the chalk dust they create if air circulation isn't ample. Whiteboards are a step in the right direction, but projectors that displayed whatever the teacher wrote using a special digital pen (I've seen this kind of technology being prototyped by GE during a business tour, its expensive but easily done) would be even better. Throw in the ability to upload everything the teacher wrote on the "board" to the internet and you'd immediately do away with the "but I didn't get the notes yesterday" excuse.

I still agree addressing students orally and directly is still one of the best methods of education though.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Standing in front of a blackboard and addressing the students orally is an excellent method of education. ... for people that learn that way. What about the other 3 styles of learning that aren't catered for nearly as well?

Re:I happen to disagree.

[ealar dlanvuli]

I agree partially. The problem is in ugrad there are a lot of students I wouldn't trust within 10 feet of a blackboard.

The rest would make crappy powerpoints as they learned how to do in Speech 101.

And the end result is no one would learn anything of value.

Sean

Re:I happen to disagree.

[Fallingcow]

Haha, the first thing I always looked for/asked about when we were assigned to present a topic to the class was, "do I have to be here for the other people's presentations? how many points will I lose if I don't come?"

Maybe 1/4--and I'm being very generous--of the students at my university either 1) had the natural ability to do well in classes or 2) didn't have ability but made up for it with effort. The other 3/4 skated by with Cs in just about every class, just because the Uni couldn't possibly fail that many students. Ugh.

Somehow, I thought that the average intelligence of my peers would increase when I went from high school to university. I was wrong. If anything, I think it dropped a bit.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[DerekLyons]

Standing in front of a blackboard and addressing the students orally is an excellent method of education.

I agree it's an excellent method of education -- for the teacher.

Yet, somehow it worked for decades (centuries?).
 
 

The best way to learn something is to try to teach it. Seminar-style classes should start before graduate school.

And the best way to achieve negative teaching is to have someone with imperfect knowledge get up and try to 'teach'. There's a reason why seminar style classes aren't common.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[nbritton]

Standing in front of a blackboard and addressing the students orally is an excellent method of education.

And interactive, for that matter.

But what about pause, rewind, and 2x playback? You say your method is best, but then you've never had ADHD.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[digitig]

My daughter's teachers sit in front of an active whiteboard, hooked up to a laptop, so that, for example, she can see the effect of changing parameters in an equation graphed immediately. She then puts headphones on in the language lab, then uses Google Docs to do he creative writing (so she can easily finish it off at home). Where is it that teaching isn't using technology?

Re:I happen to disagree.

[cyxxon]

Thats what I think, exactly. And I had to write this "Me too!" comment because I accidently clicked the dropdown list for commenting and selected "Flamebait" because the browser was lagging (Old machine, Citrix, yadda yadda)... this comment will reverse that. I'd love for an "Undo moderation" or at least an "Are you sure?" checkbox next to the dropdown list...

Re:I happen to disagree.

[master_p]

How about making the blackboard more interactive by making it a touch screen? and have the students prepare their exercises at their home as presentations, instead of having to write them on paper? and then really exercise the imagination of students by letting them see a visual representation of the topic at hand, since we leave in an age where video dominates?

Watching a 10 minute documentary about a historical event is a much more interesting way to teach than have people read a white paper with black letters, for example.

How about watching animated physics presentations on the big screen instead of static presentations on paper?

How about interactive physics and chemistry demos where the children can touch the objects on the screen and experiment with them?

The possibilities with computers are endless, provided that they are used right.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[apposite]

I think usefully using computers for teaching is not straightforward. So for example:

How about making the blackboard more interactive by making it a touch screen? and have the students prepare their exercises at their home as presentations, instead of having to write them on paper? and then really exercise the imagination of students by letting them see a visual representation of the topic at hand, since we leave in an age where video dominates? Apparently you haven't been subjected to enough PowerPoint presentations to believe just how pointless presentations are. Everything that makes the student focus on the technology rather than the message is a distraction from the subject on hand. The home work a student does aren't usually for general consumption (e.g. presentation to other students) they are so that the student learns the material by being forced to absorb, understand and then display their understanding. Written language is one of the least obstructive tools we have for getting from understanding in the head to conveying that understanding- and still takes years of formal training to get past the basics. Adding powerpoint or flash is just another tool in the way.

Watching a 10 minute documentary about a historical event is a much more interesting way to teach than have people read a white paper with black letters, for example. Watching a documentary is often good, but visuals can easily distract from the message (as a visual analogy for a concept is presented rather than presenting the concept in straight language). And compared to reading speeds visual presentation can be very slow. Wikipedia would not be improved if it were converted to a narrated visual media. But some historical documentaries maybe good. Some visual stuff may be good in almost any discipline. Although I suspect that given our cultural exposure to visual media it is often easier now to evoke a visual analogy simply by referring to movies or TV (asteroids, tidal waves, space travel, space, the Victorian era, the Korean war, any sport, other cultures... all part of your average 9 year olds visual exposure).

How about watching animated physics presentations on the big screen instead of static presentations on paper?

How about interactive physics and chemistry demos where the children can touch the objects on the screen and experiment with them? Of course actually doing it tends to be better. And static presentations on paper may be a better bridge to the 'power tools' of physics: formula and mathematical manipulation. The ability to deal with the abstract rather than the specific and translate back and forth is the hallmark of many scientific disciplines. Visual presentation probably wouldn't help as much as one would hope.

The possibilities with computers are endless, provided that they are used right. Unfortunately working how to use them right is not straightforward. I don't mean to be dismissive, but I suspect many quite bright people have been working on this one and given the observed results, it probably isn't an easy problem.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[macshit]

A chalkboard is also much more readable from a distance, I think.

A whiteboard might be more suitable for very detailed drawings viewed up close (because the pens have a consistent point).

Still, for school usage, a chalkboard seems superior.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[MrAngryForNoReason]

Politicians and bureaucrats love to throw money at education, and technology, by virtue of being expensive, gives them an excellent outlet for this.

Part of the problem is also that, certainly in the UK, schools aren't allowed to 'horde' money from their budgets. They risk losing any funds that aren't spent in a defined period of time. This means that it is very difficult for a school to save up for somethign they actually need, like a new building, as it requires more money than is available in a single year.

The result of this is that schools who are desperately short on classroom space end up spending loads on expensive technology as otherwise the money would be taken away from them, while half the children are being taught in run down temporary classrooms.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[phiwum]

Besides that, a great professor giving a lecture using a blackboard is a million times better than watching a crappy professor go through a powerpoint show. The one isn't using technology, but technology isn't going to make up for the other's incompetence.

Powerpoint and other slides are terrible for lectures. If I write the main ideas of the lecture on the blackboard, then I am sure to go slow enough for my students to take notes. If I have a pre-made slide showing the main points, then I will tend to go as fast as normal talking speed, which is likely to fast for the students to write down what's on the slide.

Yes, of course, I could just make the slides available for download, but that still isn't as good as student notes. For one, I find that if I write something down, I recall it more easily. For another, a good note taker writes down a bit more than the prof put on the blackboard. He notes things that surprise him, or that he believes are important, and so the notes are more personal than the slides (and their contents easier to recall).

Blackboards are under-rated.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[Von Helmet]

Conversely, I used to work in the IT department in a school and we had shedloads of interactive whiteboards and computers everywhere. What happens? Interactive whiteboards are intermittently used to watch DVDs, and the kids expected to use computers in every lesson with the result that the teachers spend more time making sure the kids aren't playing games than they do actually teaching them.

There appears to be some sort of mandate that teachers must use IT for everything possible, so we end up with computers everywhere, but no one knows what to use them for! Training in this field seems to be woefully inadequate. Sure, there might be one or two teachers who can do all the proper interactive stuff, but in my experience for each of them there are 10 more teachers who have no idea why there is a board they can't write on (always good when they scribble on an interactive whiteboard with a boardmarker - that stuff doesn't come off too easily) in their room, and why they are expected to do everything from their laptop.

Don't even get me started on electronic registers... Yuck.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[afroborg]

I am told that many teachers developed chalk dust allergies in the days of blackboards. Whiteboards are also easier to clean.

However, I remember blackboards from my primary school days, and I don't seem to remember there being any problem with them.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[m0nstr42]

My daughter's teachers sit in front of an active whiteboard, hooked up to a laptop, so that, for example, she can see the effect of changing parameters in an equation graphed immediately. She then puts headphones on in the language lab, then uses Google Docs to do he creative writing (so she can easily finish it off at home).

That's fantastic. Though probably not at all the norm.

Where is it that teaching isn't using technology?

Outside of your affluent community. Inner cities. Rural areas. You know, where 75% of the people and 10% of the wealth are (numbers admittedly made up, but the sentiment is there). I'm not trying to say anything bad about your daughter's schooling - I think it's great - but don't think this is normal.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[digitig]

Where is it that teaching isn't using technology?

Outside of your affluent community. Inner cities. Rural areas. You know, where 75% of the people and 10% of the wealth are (numbers admittedly made up, but the sentiment is there). I'm not trying to say anything bad about your daughter's schooling - I think it's great - but don't think this is normal. Ok, but then the issue isn't that the teaching profession is locked into the past, it's that much of it is under-resourced. I don't disagree with that at all!

Re:I happen to disagree.

[gardyloo]

The class schooling system used to be a nescessary evil, but with todays technology it is finally possible to remove it. With the possibility to give each student his own screen and headset and have them advance at their own pace. Let me just say: Bleaghh. I have to read my manuals in .pdf (or worse!) form on screen, and now I have to learn with headphones on, from a screen? No thanks. Humans are adaptable and we can learn under an amazing range of conditions, but the headphones-and-screens way of teaching everyone strikes me as a little too Harry Harlow-esque.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[E 99]

Using the Berkeley lectures on youtube as examples, most teachers like to conduct interactive lectures with their students, where they can prompt the students for answers and get responses, so they have a sense of how well the students are keeping pace with them, and so they can clarify anything that needs clarifying. I think these teachers would tell you that a recording wouldn't work. In fact one of the teachers made the point to the class... staying home and watching the webcast is not an option, barring exceptional circumstances, as the lecture is intended to be interactive. For classes that are too large for questions (like Physics 10, which looks awesome), and with many remote learners, they do questions by email listserve after the lecture, which I think is a GOOD use of technology. And he also uses a lot of technology, like computer-based slides and movies, in the lecture, but the basic structure is talking in front of the blackboard.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[sgtrock]

Precisely! Computers, especially with the internet, are magnificent learning tools, but they are useless for formal education (except in computer-related fields, of course). The high school I went to mandated and budgeted that there would be at least three computers in every classroom. The result? Three perpetually dormant computers in every classroom.

That sounds more like a failure to develop a strategic plan than a failure of the technology. In my school district, we have one junior high with a better than 1:1 ratio PC/student. Every student is issued a Macbook at the beginning of the school year. The other junior high is using carts of laptops and is maintaining about a 3:1 ratio.

In both cases, the teachers were introduced to the technology slowly over a couple of years before the schools moved aggressively to their current configuration. The teachers had time to figure out how they could leverage the technology. Their lesson plans now incorporate desktop technology as a natural part of the toolset available to the kids. In the former case, kids turn in a majority of their homework electronically.

I've been a parent volunteer/observer for the senior high's tech committee for a couple of years now. The senior high staff (and the district staff, for that matter) has been watching the two junior highs to see what works and what doesn't. Based upon that experience, they have decided that their own staff is not quite ready to commit that heavily. However, they are eager to get them up to speed as quickly as possible.

Last year, they replaced some old teacher desktops with laptops so that all teachers would /finally/ be able to carry their computers with them from classroom to classroom. As part of the drive to get some of the more recalcitrant teachers learning new technology, the principal mandated that all assignments and grades would be updated online several times a week (if not daily).

The district technology office also expanded and cleaned up a website that had been written by a parent for the high school to cover all schools in the district. The website pulls info from the database that the teachers update so the kids (and more importantly, their parents) can track their daily progress. It's apparently a huge hit, as traffic to the website was up over 1,000% from the previous year. For example, I know my wife and I make our kids accountable to what's reported there.

Meanwhile, the tech committee is urging teachers to find new ways of leveraging the technology that they have. Some examples that I'm aware of:

1. The math department went out and bought a couple of smart boards and digital projectors last year for their AP classrooms. The teachers have been using them to get the kids to work problems on the smart board, then saving the results for later retrieval on the teacher's website.
2. Other teachers without smartboards but with digital projectors get the kids participating by passing around a wireless keyboard.
3. One math teacher did a short introduction of the history of mathematics by building a lesson plan based upon Google Earth.
4. In another example, one teacher is now using the shared carts of laptops that the Econ department has to do all tests for her class online. The kids get immediate feedback (which they love), and she has a reduced grading workload. Win/win, eh?
5. Other teachers are using the free material available from MIT and other schools to augment their lesson plans.
6. At the last meeting, I did a quick demo of Freemind and got a pretty positive reaction. Most (all?) of them are familiar with mind or concept mapping. (It was new to me up until several months ago.) The teachers immediately recognized that a tool like that could be leveraged as a visual aid to show relationships between topics as part of a lecture series. One teacher commented that some of the

Re:I happen to disagree.

[winwar]

"Powerpoint and other slides are terrible for lectures."

Absolutely. But the students want them. So they get them....

"Blackboards are under-rated."

My best teachers used them well.

I just wish the notion that learning is or should be "fun" would go away. Learning is hard work. Often boring. The results may be fun, but not the process. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having fun while learning. The best teachers seem to manage the correct balance.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[TemporalBeing]

And why would a whiteboard be better than a blackboard? Chalk is harmless, unlike the solvent based pens, and it is far more environmentally friendly.

Chalk may be basically harmless, but it can produce dust. There are two kinds of chalk - normal, and dust-reduced. Some are allergic to the dust. Additionally, someone has to clean the chalkboard erasers.

That's not to say that white boards don't have problems of their own. They do - (i) you have to keep them clean, (ii) they break down after so long, (iii) you have to pay for solvent (typically rubbing alcohol) to clean them with and papers towels too, (iv) the ink can get on stuff and stain stuff, (v) they're not so easy to correct mistakes on (erasing isn't so fine grain, and you'll tend to smear the ink more with your fingers). That said, they're also typically cheaper for the same amount of space, and you don't have to worry about cracking them. (Improper cleaning will, however, lead to pock-mars on the surface as the materials break down.)

So it's a matter of trade-off. Personally, I use white boards a lot (I own several personally, but I am also a very visual thinker), though I always preferred real, slate black-boards in school.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[hackstraw]

The best way to learn something is to try to teach it.

No, the best way to learn something is to do something, but that is based on my definition of learning.

I define learning as a relatively permanant change in behavior. I don't count "knowing better" as learning.

I do believe that the best way to validate that you have learned something is to teach it. That goes a new level called mastery, understanding, or simply "getting it".

Re:I happen to disagree.

[MightyYar]

Total and utter horseshit. We spend more per student, even in the inner cities, than is necessary. You can't teach kids who have abysmal home lives. My cousin teaches in the Bronx and his 14-year-olds are mothers - do you really think that they can do their homework? They had to put benches in with immovable arm rests so that the kids wouldn't have sex on them. You could give these teachers a million dollars a year and whatever technology that they can imagine and these kids would still be largely lost.

In contrast, my wife is from the third-world. Her classrooms were little more than what we would call open-air sheds until she got to high school, where they had all the technology of 1920s America. That is, electric lights and blackboards and textbooks. Yet, somehow, someway, she managed to get into an American college and eventually became a doctor.

Her mother made her study. Were there lost kids in the third world? There certainly were - the schools can't fix bad parenting there, either.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[boris111]

Both my high school and college had a mix of whiteboards, and chalkboards...

There was something about the vigorous tapping noise of chalk of an inspired teacher who cares about what he/she's teaching that kept my attention better. Overhead projectors... ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[cecille]

The other thing I've found with black / white boards is that they force ME to go over the material and know it well enough to present it properly. With slides, I've found it's easier to skim over the stuff right before the class, whereas if I have to put everything down in class I'm more likely to focus on the parts that might be difficult for the students. Whenever I run into one of those "HOW do I get to that next line?" thoughts, that's probably a place students will have trouble. With a power point you get to the next line by moving the laser pointer down x number of inches.

Of course, I might feel differently if I was giving more than just the occasional lecture as a TA, but for now I can be the idealist. On the other hand, I do think power point is great for diagrams because I'm TERRIBLE at drawing on the fly. As long as I reign myself and don't rush, I've found it works quite well.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[Glothar]

Blackboards are under-rated.

They're excellent at what they do. However, that doesn't make them the end of the line.

What if (...I should patent this...) you could make a computer program that acted like a blackboard? Then, if you only had some device that would be able to take a computer screen and make it show up on the wall, you could make a sort of "virtual blackboard" And then, if only we had a way for you to use some pen-like device on something that was flat so you could still write normally. Wouldn't that be cool?

Right. You think a blackboard is great? Laptop/Tablet/Projector systems do everything they do, but give you the ability to display and manipulate real images, save everything you write so that it can be repeated/retrieved later, and provide a more interactive experience for all those students who don't learn as well just by listening to someone talk while writing on a blackboard.

Here's the best part: The schools out here (Northern VA) are already using them. And they're not even purchased with tax money. Private donations from local grocery stores pay the bills. No bureaucrat mandated their use. No stupid "No Child Left Without A Smartboard" law was passed to make the school obey rules written by someone with no educational experience whatsoever. This is being done by the teachers. Guess what? The teachers coming out of college right now are tech savvy. Of course, many of them who really excel at it choose not to be teachers. You've got to really love what you do to sign up for a profession where morons from across the country get to insult and punish you because they had this one teacher who was a jerk to them in fourth grade.

Back on topic, my point is this: Schools are already trying to get rid of "Old Schooling" but stupid politicians and the people who continue to think that education hasn't changed at all in thirty years are doing a pretty good job of holding them back. Urban areas have the money to battle this. Who knows when everyone out in hickville will see any of these changes. Maybe if they stopped treating teachers like they're one step above grocery baggers they'll have a chance. I know, we should pass another law requiring teachers to use technology intelligently. We'll make them attend classes in their spare time. But not pay them a cent more. In fact, we'll pay them less. Tech instructors don't work for free, you know.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[Glothar]

(I've seen this kind of technology being prototyped by GE during a business tour, its expensive but easily done)

How long ago was that? As I noted in another comment, this sort of thing has been in (limited but growing) use in classrooms in this area for a few years. It's not even that expensive. It's about the cost of two desktop computers (and the setup comes with a laptop).

Re:I happen to disagree.

[tehcyder]

Huh? +5 Insightful and a bunch of serious replies? Am I the only one who thought that was a dirty joke?

You are a fucking retard.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[Glothar]

Standing in front of a blackboard and addressing the students orally is an excellent method of education. And interactive, for that matter.

You'd make a horrible teacher.

Oh, sure, you could do fine in a University. Students there are expected to mostly teach themselves. However, primary and secondary schools are usually not that harsh. And don't give me the "If they don't want to learn they shouldn't be in school anyway" speech. Children are in school because, as adults, we know that they need to at least understand some basic things to function in society, even if they don't realize it yet.

Blackboards are great for one type of learning. Modern teachers, who know much more about how to teach people than you obviously do, try to teach to as many different types of students as possible. See, the point is to actually get them all to learn, not just the ones who learn quickly by lecture.

I'll hope that you said this as a joke. Even if you didn't, there are plenty of serious responses who agree with you. For all of you who thought this was insightful: The next time you wonder who to blame for any (perceived) lack in quality of education, look in the mirror.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[AK Marc]

Now how in the blue, bloody hell do you think technology helps teachers and professors explain concepts? Either they can teach concepts, in which case a blackboard is fine, or they can't, in which case using iPods and laptops won't do shit.

You are apparently equating explaining something with teaching it. Yes, a teacher at the front of the class talking to 30 students is a great way to explain something to a number of students at once. But what about learning? The smart ones figure it out before the teacher is done saying it. The slow ones don't get it after the first time through. So, what does a teacher do? Stop half way, knowing at least one person understood? Or explain it 3 times until the slowest student gets it, wasting five sixths of the smartest student's time? That's the inherent ineffiency of lecture-based teaching.

Technology allows the teacher to get up with a short description of the lesson, then have laptops with specialized software guide the students through the learning. If there are questions, the teacher is available. When the fastest student finishes, there are additional modules for more in-depth learning on that same subject. When the slowest student finishes, the class moves on. If the slow student wants to learn more about the subject, they access the material after class and the teacher is available in office hours or via chat or such.

Not that I think that's the best way, but it's one possibility using technology that stops screwing every student in class except the one that is taught to. Lecturing to understanding is grossly inefficient and either bores most of the class or doesn't teach to most of the class. How in the bloody hell do you think that is a good system?

Re:I happen to disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

But surely high school students already know how to use search engines, right? If they can make a ghastly abomination on MySpace, they can use Google. Sorry, but I'm afraid you're expecting too much. Seriously.

Examples:
In one class, only one person besides me knew about define:$phrase
In another, people didn't know that you could enclose a phrase in double quotes to search exactly for that phrase.

These are relatively recent examples.
These are, of course, only relating to syntax. But many people can't query properly either, and can't be bothered to think about their query in an efficient manner, maybe for more than 1 second. Or even think of asking the Internets for the answer to a question.

I could give some more examples, but I feel bad about doing this, even if they absolutely aren't going to read this, ever.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[PCM2]

And blackboards have been criticized for years about the chalk dust they create if air circulation isn't ample.

What -- seriously?? All the problems with the education system in the U.S. and this is what people focus on? Whoah, wait...is there a correlation here?

Re:I happen to disagree.

[MMaestro]

I saw this about 2 years ago. I'm not sure how other systems use it, but from what I understood it used a simple whiteboard and marker, and about a dozen or so extra sensors obviously wirelessly connected to a PC nearby. A sensor attachment was put on the marker and the eraser so that when it was being used to write and erase it recognize what to record/erase and what not to record/erase. Sensors on the ceiling and walls were used to triangulate the exact location of where the writing/erasing was done and all the data was recorded. From there it was a simple matter of having the PC, connected to a protector, display what was written/erased and when, exactly in the same order it was done in real life.

The problem with this system is the sensors. Color was recognized only by using 4 differently labeled sensors (red, green, black and blue), installing sensors in the ceilings is not always possible (either too high or the building doesn't allow it) and since the sensors are attached to the markers and erasers, costs would skyrocket when the students/teachers start stealing/breaking/accidentally throwing out the sensors.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Use the old-school comment system.
Drop-down, click, look at your moderation, go down and hit the "Moderate" button. And there's almost none of that crummy javascript to lag your slow browser down even more.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[master_p]

"Apparently you haven't been subjected to enough PowerPoint presentations to believe just how pointless presentations are. "

Whatever documentary I have seen on TV, it stays in mind. I've learned quite a few theorems in this way from a BBC educational program. It was far easier than reading.

"The home work a student does aren't usually for general consumption"

Don't they say that you haven't really comprehend something until you are required to teach it? I fully agree with that. Forcing the students to present their knowledge in a form which requires coherence would make them understand the material they deal with.

"as a visual analogy for a concept is presented rather than presenting the concept in straight language"

There is no difference from reading. Reading, at its worst, is an audio analogy, and at its best, is as visual as a presentation, if you care to exercise imagination.

"And compared to reading speeds visual presentation can be very slow.Wikipedia would not be improved if it were converted to a narrated visual media."

I think it would. For every concept I have searched Wikipedia for, a visual representation would convey the information much faster. For example, by the time I have to read the concept of particle duality in quantum physics, I nice animation would have presented that and the double slit experiment as well.

"Of course actually doing it tends to be better. And static presentations on paper may be a better bridge to the 'power tools' of physics: formula and mathematical manipulation. The ability to deal with the abstract rather than the specific and translate back and forth is the hallmark of many scientific disciplines. Visual presentation probably wouldn't help as much as one would hope."

Why not play with the mathematical formulas on the screen and also watch an experiment derived from the formula? for example, I could learn relativity much easier if I can play with a formula (say, gravity) and also watch the effects of it on a planet, object, star etc. Only an electronic medium offers such a possibility.

"Unfortunately working how to use them right is not straightforward. I don't mean to be dismissive, but I suspect many quite bright people have been working on this one and given the observed results, it probably isn't an easy problem."

I think it is very easy. The wrong thing people usually do is transfer the narrative property of a book to the screen. That's wrong. What is right is to show a few things on the screen, and let the child experiment with it.

For example, in a history book, don't show a list of chapters to a child, but a timeline where he/she can choose to see the main events on it. He can then click on an event and see another timeline, more detailed, concerning the specific period, and select any major event to play with. After clicking an event (say, a historical battle, for example, Waterloo), he can then inspect the landscape, the tactical play of the two armies etc, and then even proceed to play with it by changing the parameters and watch a different outcome.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[Glothar]

I saw this about 2 years ago.

I hope they weren't trying to claim that it was cutting edge. I had professors in college using that six years ago.

What you're describing is the (trademarked, I believe) SmartBoard or something just like it. It worked by using radio triangulation to pinpoint a market on a real board, I believe. It works, mostly. There were a number of drawbacks to this, as you pointed out. Yes, they are expensive to replace, but even more common was having them simply be inaccurate. You had to re-calibrate more than the salespeaple claimed and they always felt slightly off, even when they were set up perfectly.

A good SmartBoard system is (from reports I get) less pleasant to use and more expensive than the laptop/tablet/projector setup the schools here are using. The projectors are standard LCD projectors. Instead of sensors and odd markers, you use a bluetooth drawing tablet. You get as many colors as you want, more natural usage, and vastly greater durability without all of the fiddling with sensors.

Short story: Technology is already advanced way beyond what you saw (or at least, we've found better ways of using it). Realistically, I'd say you could get the laptop/tablet/projector setup for $1500 or so and have a system that worked in any room you can put a projector in. And it would be completely mobile.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[kidcharles]

Politicians and bureaucrats love to throw money at education... Where do you live and is there any room for me? Seriously, politicians and bureaucrats these days love nothing more than to cut, cut, then cut some more. Tuition through the roof in higher education, cutbacks in local education, "unnecessary" programs cut, like music and art, etc. I'm sure they prefer to spend the money on computers rather than salaries (capital investment good, talented staff bad) but there is definitely no money being thrown at education, more like grudgingly given.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[hugg]

In college we had "Deutsch Tisch" which was an excuse to go to the bars and speak German poorly while drinking prodigious amounts of beer. Now THAT'S interactive.

Re:I happen to disagree.

[MMaestro]

Yeah, I had the impression that it actually wasn't cutting edge, but given the fact that some corporations can be downright archaic when it comes to adopting new ideas it was pretty impressive. (It was a local branch of about 40 employees, including student workers, so it was pretty small)

As for mobile projector/tablets/laptops, thats not gonna happen anytime soon. The theft concerns alone would scare even the most tech-oriented colleges away from such a concept (I'm sure we've all seen PCs, projectors and even wires locked up on college campuses before.)

Re:I happen to disagree.

[Rich0]

Politicians and bureaucrats love to throw money at education, and technology, by virtue of being expensive, gives them an excellent outlet for this.

State of the art technology also has a few other benefits in this arena:

1. It tends to be a one-time expense - so if you have it you can spend it and not worry about paying for it next year (unlike a salary).

2. It looks good on resumes/tours/articles/etc.

3. It requires vendor selection - ie kickbacks/trips/gifts/etc.

4. It doesn't require convincing any established stakeholders (ie teachers/unions) to change anything.

No wonder they're so popular!

Re:I happen to disagree.

[qqaz]

But surely high school students already know how to use search engines, right?

I wouldn't be so sure. I deal with IT professionals on a daily basis who can't use search engines. They come to me for help, I google for the answer, and they thank me like I'm some genius.

They are toys

[EllynGeek]

In the olden days, would you have let them bring cribbage boards and cards into the classroom? Get a grip. They're fancier toys, but still toys.

Re:They are toys

[r_jensen11]

You make it sound like cribbage is dead or antiquated for some reason.

Re:They are toys

[Anonymous Coward]

You make it sound like cribbage is dead or antiquated for some reason.

SIOOMA

Re:They are toys

[sholden]

Crap!

We used to play 500 during our maths classes in high school, guess that dates me to "the olden days"...

Re:They are toys

[Anonymous Coward]

I learned cribbage in school, you insensitive clod!

Re:They are toys

[maj1k]

actually he makes it sound like they didn't use to have ipods or cellphones to bring into a classroom.

sure

[mastershake_phd]

Sure, but does he have any suggestions on how to integrate those things into the curriculum in a manner that might improve the learning process....somehow?

Re:sure

[thatskinnyguy]

Sure. It's called the O.L.P.C!

Just wondering....

[hasbeard]

what the author's plan for using these devices in education is?

Re: Just wondering....

[Black Parrot]

what the author's plan for using these devices in education is? I think a lot of CEOs - and even the owners of Pa & Ma businesses, for that matter - get used to being surrounded by people who are required to listen to their opinions, however dumb they might be, and progressively develop the foolish notion that they're experts on everything.

I wonder if he has ever taught a class.

Re: Just wondering....

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that a lot of Slashdot users get used to not reading the articles and posting rhetorical questions, however dumb they might be, after progressively developing the foolish notion that others won't call them out on it. It says he was a professor for 4 years.

Re: Just wondering....

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't say whether he was a good professor.

Re: Just wondering....

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

"Goodnight himself holds a doctorate in statistics from North Carolina State University, where he was a faculty member from 1972 to 1976."

It doesn't say what he actually did and he seems to be commenting on schools not universities.

Re: Just wondering....

[TimHunter]

Dr. Goodnight was a statistics professor at NCSU before he started SAS. Yeah, he's taught a class.

Time to revisit education in general

[jimmy page]

Why not videotape our best teachers/profs in each subject - pay them ungodly amounts of money and let the students watch over youtube (thanks Cal) and take the tests at a standardized testing center? The thought of paying 1000's of teachers low pay as a glorified baby-sitting service for K-16 doesn't make sense anymore.

Re:Time to revisit education in general

[Hal_Porter]

Even better teachers would have to compete globally.

So the marketing lecturer who told us we'd be competing with Indians and Chinese will now have to compete with some celebrity from Harvard Business School.

Re:Time to revisit education in general

[patio11]

I'm sure the teachers unions will embrace that idea with the same wonderful sense of acceptance and experimentation that they embraced charter schools, school choice, and merit pay with.

Re:Time to revisit education in general

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they want to ask questions? Maybe they want a person there to talk to? Maybe they want to engage in conversation? Maybe they need help understanding something? Maybe some students just CAN'T learn like that? I can think of many reasons that such a scheme would fail miserabily. Even with out a teacher's union.

Re:Time to revisit education in general

[senileoldfart]

Brings to mind the Pakistani that I had for "Statastics and Probablity" [sic]. 10 problems on the final. I got a zero. Then I explained to him why each of my answers was correct and each of his was wrong. Little details like selection "with replacement" vs. "without replacement". He gave me a "B".

On the other hand, I remember a fourth grade girl in a village in Vietnam working on her Algebra homework, the same material my brother was working on in high school back in the states.

I think one of the best teachers I had in high school was Frank Odle. This old geezer was in his 70's. He had been the area's first High School principal in 1919 and was still going strong in the late 50's. I didn't appreciate him till I took College Algebra in College form a young hot-shot that managed to make what had seemed so easy so difficult.

Re:Time to revisit education in general

[Wildclaw]

Videos are a very good idea. I don't think youtube is a good idea though. The video taped lessons should probably be a little more interactive than that. Allowing each individual student to decide what he needs to have a more detailed explanation of.

I don't think it is wise to remove teachers from the class though. A teacher should be availible to answer questions if they aren't answered in the videos. Having these videos would just free up a lot of time for the teacher to do the more useful interactive teaching.

The best part is of course that everyone can learn at their own rate, so the (study)smart ones wouldn't have to sit listening to things they already understood, while those that learn slower don't have to fall behind.

Re:Time to revisit education in general

[HW_Hack]

Great idea - I'm sure kids will sit at home or maybe in a library and watch some dude teach math ??? They'll be watching that friggin' dog on the skate board ......

I don't know what kind of schools you have in your area - but the large (2200 kids) high school I do tech support for does anything but baby-sit kids. The staff (both teaching and support) are highly motivated to keep kids engaged in the learning process. And when they fall behind (for any of many reasons - and yes we're a diverse school - 1 in 4 is esstimated to be living in poverty) the counseling + teachers + SPED (special ed - if needed) meet repeatedly to get a plan of action. And work with the student and parents. We are 60% white - 30% hipanic - 10% other and have strong English as a Second Language. I just finished setting up a fully multimedia - server based - self paced english learning system in one of our computer labs.

I'm not an educator - but I was surpised and pleased to see how well teachers are connected and communicate about "Is Tom having problems in your class this week ?" etc. And yes there are average / advanced / troubled / struggling / poor / rich students and both mature and imature --- the new principle runs a tight ship -- all halls are "swept" by both administrative and security folks to get kids into classes. Those who are late get ISS(In school suspension ---- lunch period in a classroom - no talking - no electronics - and a grumpy old lady) --- repeat offenders get to go to Saturday school and their parents must take them and sign them in and out later. Its all about choices and ownership.

We got this way due to 2 things: our community has about an 80% pass rate on education bonds / taxes, and the district is frugle and runs lean (while still paying a very fair wage to teachers and giving them latitude).

Good education takes 3 things
- First and foremost parents who are engaged (or at least tryingto work with the school)
- Dedicated and supported staff
- Money

Re:Time to revisit education in general

[stranger_to_himself]

Because you'd still have to pay babysitters. Most of a school's function these days is to keep kids busy while their parents are at work.

Re:Time to revisit education in general

[Anonymous Coward]

I think replacing standard instruction might be a bit overboard, and I've never been much of a fan of standardized testing in any case. On the other hand, it'd be great if there were some decent textbooks -- most of the current ones suck and are way too expensive.

Re:Time to revisit education in general

[tukkayoot]

While watching video can be a great way to learn, especially if used in combination with other learning techniques, it's not at interactive. Different teaching styles, tips, and methods to reinforce the learning are required for different students. To be on the safe side, the videos would have to cover every style, every tip, every method on every single point of the lesson because any student may struggle on any particular point. However, including everything in the standard lesson would greatly increase its length and repetition and students who understand most of the material will find themselves getting bored with it, which isn't a good thing.

Some level of interactivity, therefore, is absolutely necessary.

Would would be great is something like a Young Lady's Illustrated Primer. Start with an engaging and informative audio/visual presentation, and follow up with a "game" or quiz of some sort to evaluate how well the student is following along. If the student does poorly on the game/quiz, or requests additional tips and info, supplemental video could be played. A database could keep track of what teaching techniques the child seems to respond best to, past areas of difficulty or subjects/activities that seem to be of particular interest the student, and some basic AI could be employed to try to tailor lesson plans to the individual student's needs.

What would be even better would be if the program were smart enough to not be completely rigid in how a lesson plays out ... if a student gets in the "mood" for a science lesson in the middle of one about English, the program could oblige the student to at least some degree. Perhaps it could provide an passage on a scientific subject but have them perform English exercises on it.

It would take one awesome piece of software with a ton of quality content to really make it work though, and it'd still be inferior to a resourceful, intelligent, knowledgeable and attentive teacher. The reality, of course, is that such people are in fairly short supply and they can only be as resourceful as the resources at their disposal, and their attentiveness to the students is going to be constrained by classroom sizes and the length of time available to work with them.

Re:Time to revisit education in general

[pafcu]

Wow. This has got to be the worst comment I have seen today. But don't take it personally, I guess you're just not very well informed about educational research.

Students have problems sitting in class for 8h/day. Do you really think they will be able to sit infront of a computer screen 8h/day? Without any interactivity? No asking questions? No developing social skills? Who would make sure they actually watch the videos? Would you have the selfcontrol to watch 8h/videos if no one watched over you? I know I wouldn't, and I'm almost a teacher myself!

People learn in different ways, so you simply couldn't show the same video to everyone, even if it was made by some of the greatest educators. Some people learn best by just listening, other by discussing. Some people need more time to learn math than others. Some people learn best by constructivist thinking. etc. A good teacher constantly adapts to the class, mixing all of the above as appropriate.

Studies show that people learn more easily if you can tie the material being studied to the students own experiences. How would a teacher do that, if they have never had any contact at all with their pupils?

Also, do you really think that lecturing in class is the only thing teachers do? How about planning future education? Research about teaching and learning? Writing textbooks? Would you want someone who has never been in contact with any student to plan your future?

Studies (like e.g Pisa) show that students in countries that rely heavily on standardised testing learn less then those in countries that do not. Usually this is because less freedom is given to the teachers if standard tests are used.

So please, don't think of teachers as just babysitters. They actually do a very important job.

Re:Time to revisit education in general

[Hal_Porter]

It's not exactly PC to point it out but the average person from South Eastern country like Vietnam is light years ahead intellectually compared to the average Pakistani. Or for that matter the average American or English person.

And it's not racial at all - I think Indians are quite similar ethnically to Pakistanis, it's just that they have a culture which is capable of teaching maths and the Pakistanis don't. Americans are somewhere in between Vietnam and Pakistan.

And before people start to get all nationalistic and defensive about it, I said average as in Johnny Sixpack jock types in America and Madrassah fodder in Pakistan, not the 0.5% of the population who likes math and posts on slashdot. The thing SE Asian countries do well is to get average people to learn maths, mostly by old fashioned blackboard lessons a punishing curriculum and exams you can actually fail. America and Britain have dumbed things down to increase the pass rate and because telling people they're failures is a bit fascist, and Pakistan education is patchy and dominated by a poisonous religion.

In fact if you were looking at things from a cynical point of view, the War on Terror is a handy way to keep the people too stupid to pass Calculus 101 busy from both Pakistan and America.

Re:Time to revisit education in general

[Anonymous Coward]

Because most of the time the "best" educators are involving the students. Whether it is personalizing it to there interests (even just mentioning how it relates to what they are interested in), or giving them "hands on" materials, it involves the students interacting with the teacher not just watching a video.

Re:Time to revisit education in general

[garnetlion]

...and a grumpy old lady

Does every school have one for just that purpose? I attended 5 different schools in k-12, and every one of them had a grumpy old lady who only appeared as part of a student's punishment. Do they keep her on payroll just for that? And they're all suspiciously similar, like they're mass produced somewhere. I always figured it was the natural result of spending 30 years supervising punk ass kids who just want to be left the hell alone, but now I wonder.

Re:Time to revisit education in general

[edittard]

Americans are somewhere in between Vietnam and Pakistan.

Only if you're going the long way round.

Re:Time to revisit education in general

[E 99]

The thing SE Asian countries do well is to get average people to learn maths, mostly by old fashioned blackboard lessons a punishing curriculum and exams you can actually fail. America and Britain have dumbed things down to increase the pass rate and because telling people they're failures is a bit fascist, and Pakistan education is patchy and dominated by a poisonous religion.

I think you're absolutely right. I don't think that Orientals (I'm still holding out on this non-PC word, as "Asians" would obviously include such places as Pakistan and Russia, and there's no way I'm saying "South-East Asia" when there's a perfectly good word for that) or their culture are more inherently math-inclined. As you may be implying, the advantage of Oriental cultures is that they value discipline. The West hasn't valued discipline in a very long time. If we actually wanted our high school kids to excel, it would be simple. We would tell them, "you are going to spend half this year writing, and the other half advancing your math skills. It may or may not be enjoyable, but you will emerge with the most important skills you can have." Instead we tell them, "High school is for having fun. Take Drawing and Painting, Football, and TV Production. And here's a list of clinics for when you get an STD on prom night." A country that has become as petty as we have become deserves to fail, and we will. Then, when we have to struggle to survive again, like our ancestors did, we'll remember the reasons for discipline and seriousness.

Re:Time to revisit education in general

[Mr. Slippery]

Why not videotape our best teachers/profs in each subject - pay them ungodly amounts of money and let the students watch over youtube (thanks Cal) and take the tests at a standardized testing center?

How do I ask a videotape a question? Or start a class discussion with one?

Indeed, why would I need a videotape when I can read the textbook?

Real teaching and learning is a dialog. Too many teachers are merely reciting; too many students are merely playing stenographer.

A real teacher cannot be replaced with a book, a videotape, or a glitzy multimedia presentation. A real student is not a sponge who absorbs data and then regurgitates it on exams, but is someone who engages in conversation.

The Irony!

[vondiggity]

The people who engineered the Sputnik and the other later entries into the "space race" were all probably educated by these so called "old school" methods.

Re:The Irony!

[Fizzl]

And I could probably put a satellite in orbit today given Google and enough money

Re:The Irony!

[langelgjm]

That doesn't make you an engineer, though. I can follow schematics for plenty of things, without understanding how or why they work; so could the laborers in other countries when they used to put electronic goods together by hand.

Re:The Irony!

[Doctor Faustus]

And I could probably put a satellite in orbit today given Google and enough money
Google probably has enough money, doesn't it?

Why do teachers want to lose their jobs?

[CrazyJim1]

If someone designed a math program that trained a kid from kindergarden to calculus, why would we need math teachers? One software program that plays like a game. I think it'd take off. Of course I was easily amused by math games when I was young with a TI-99. I think teaching could be completely automated especially since tests are automated with supervision by a teacher.

Re:Why do teachers want to lose their jobs?

[pafcu]

Because teaching math is actually hard?

A lot of students have difficulties with math even though they have a human teacher who can explain things to them in a number of different ways. Why would a dumb computer program be any better?

Sure, arithmetics could probably be trained using computers, but I don't think a game would be the most effective way to learn new concepts, like polynoms, probability theory, etc.

Also, you couldn't ask the computer if you had problems understanding some concept or if you have forgotten something. Teachers sometimes have problems catching systematic errors that students do, and explaining why they are wrong. You'd be surprised by what students can come up with, it would be completely impossible to make a program (with our current technology) which could point out the flaws in their reasoning.

right

[mastershake_phd]

Most of the people who I know who use myspace, youtube, google, and video game consoles don't know what a .zip file is, a server, or the difference between "sponsored links" and search engine results.

What more could you expect?

[erareno]

Really, I just went through high school. Personally, I wouldn't have minded if I had the ability to listen to my iPod instead of the teacher every once in a while. Or the ability to (openly) text people in the middle of class. These things don't tend to help you with getting an education though. Listening to an iPod while doing busy work would have been GREATLY appreciated though...

The thing I WILL say about technology and high school is that it's (gradually) being accepted as a medium to teach people. More so in the programming classes than anything, though. The real cause for the lack of change in schools is bureaucracy, though. Teachers don't seem capable of grasping the concept of bending/breaking rules set by the local superintendent. Frankly, I'd rather they follow most of the rules set by the government. Just not the technology ones. Blackboard is JUST STARTING to be field tested in the county where I went to high school. It'll be a while before everyone is lugging their laptops to class and connecting to the high school's wireless network. I'm sure I'll be dealing with that with my kids though. Guess it's something to look forward to?

Re:What more could you expect?

[plover]

Teachers don't seem capable of grasping the concept of bending/breaking rules set by the local superintendent

It's not the concept they don't grasp. It's the zero-tolerance world which the extremists among us have created for ourselves.

If a teacher allows any violations of the rules in his or her class, you can be sure that more than one nutjob parent is going to be filing a complaint with the school board. Doesn't seem to matter if it's a complaint about Junior reading Richard Dawkins or Sally reading the Holy Bible, there's going to be some asshole soccer mom who will threaten to take the issue to court. Right or wrong, firing a teacher is a whole lot cheaper than defending the district in a lawsuit.

And of course a fired teacher is another way of saying "homeless person." No other school board will risk hiring a controversial teacher. Hope that fallback career of "painter's assistant" pans out.

You may wish your teacher showed some balls, but your teacher really just wants to collect a paycheck next month. Standing up for your rights isn't going to help accomplish that goal.

Re:What more could you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll be a while before everyone is lugging their laptops to class and connecting to the high school's wireless network.


And when that happens, the students will start using their laptops to IM each other, play games, surf the web, and check their e-mails while tuning our the teacher. This already goes on in college classrooms.

Not quite old school

[lar3ry]

The problem with scholarship nowadays isn't the availability of hi-tech gizmos like iPod or cell phones. After all, those are just tools. It's what they are doing with them.

I think Meredith Wilson put it nicely...

Friends, lemme tell you what I mean.
Ya got one, two, three, four, five, six pockets in a table.
Pockets that mark the diff'rence
Between a gentlemen and a bum,
With a capital "B,"
And that rhymes with "P" and that stands for pool!

Some of them can't even spell iPod.

[I'm New Around Here]

Seriously, all the gadgets and tech toys that kids have do not teach them how to read, write or count. They certainly don't help students in planning science projects, or recording, analyzing and interpreting test results. They only help the kids push buttons faster.

And to add insult to injury, Bush's edumakashunal program is making it worse. They should take away the testing and the toys, and let the teachers teach again.

school is boring... if you're an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess being able to SIT STILL, PAY ATTENTION, and FOCUS on a single activity (that doesn't include flashing lights or music) is such a useless, obsolete skill. Is this wanker suggesting we use entertainment and recreation to teach kids? Well, go ahead, it probably won't make them any stupider than they are already. The world's intelligence is shifting to the East anyway, where children learn quaint topics like "math" and "the theory of evolution".

Actually, doesn't somebody come up with this "idea" every few decades? Wait! Let's teach with TV! Let's use videogames! Let's use the internet! Let's create "hip" cartoon characters and use "rap music" to teach multiplication. Yet, somehow, test scores still go down year after year.

PS: Isn't it funny to say that 47% of high school DROPOUTS think school is boring? Yeah, and 47% of the guys who broke up with that hottie in high school believe she's a bitch. Yah think?

PPS: 53% percent apparently DIDN'T think it was boring, which is MORE, i.e., a LARGER number (hey, I'm just spelling it out for "generation YouTube" here).

Re:school is boring... if you're an idiot

[piojo]

I guess being able to SIT STILL, PAY ATTENTION, and FOCUS on a single activity (that doesn't include flashing lights or music) is such a useless, obsolete skill. I have a very low tolerance for classes that don't provide enough information--for teachers that continue to talk on a subject after I already understand it, for teachers that explain what I consider common sense, and for any and all intro classes. It isn't because I'm part of the first generation that grew up with the internet (I didn't, actually), but because I have a low tolerance for boredom. The new technology isn't the problem -- it's just a new avenue for escape. (But when I can't bring my laptop to class, I'll bring scientific papers or a good book.)

Re:school is boring... if you're an idiot

[Gideon Fubar]

PS: Isn't it funny to say that 47% of high school DROPOUTS think school is boring? Yeah, and 47% of the guys who broke up with that hottie in high school believe she's a bitch. Yah think?

PPS: 53% percent apparently DIDN'T think it was boring, which is MORE, i.e., a LARGER number (hey, I'm just spelling it out for "generation YouTube" here). unless they were only counting the primary response, in which case there could be any number of other responses, and they could include things like 'i got offered an fasttrack college scholarship' or 'my brain was damaged by a passing manatee' for all you know.

Sometimes a method just doesn't work for some people. There is a near infinite set of possibilities for that, but that's just not the point. The point is that teachers are supposed to be educating kids to be helpful and productive members of our society. I agree that most of the efforts to use new tech to appeal to kids have failed dismally, but saying that it's the fault of the technology just doesn't sound right.

Then again, you just used the fallacy of the undistributed middle to try to prove that other people make stupid arguments, so i don't really know what sounds right to you..

the love of technology is a harsh mistress

[User 956]

Today's generation of kids is the most technology savvy group that this country has ever produced. They are born with an iPod in one hand and a cell phone in another.

No, I'm pretty sure that only happens if you're raped by a robot.

Re:the love of technology is a harsh mistress

[Hal_Porter]

No, I'm pretty sure that only happens if you're raped by a robot. Judging by the cartoons I've seen, that's quite a surprisingly common occurrence in Japan.

Re:the love of technology is a harsh mistress

[Anonymous Coward]

No wonder they're so technologically advanced!

how about...

[Anonymous Coward]

making a game where the algorithm is an equation
wait, they're technically savvy but they're not necessarily programmers;
must have confused kids and slashdot
oops :p
furthermore, I for one, welcome our school-hating overlords!

Doesn't translate, either

[Potato Battery]

I work with a lot of university students who are extremely conversant with the tech-goodies referenced here. I find that a high level of comfort with finely-tuned consumer devices does not translate at all to things that require some effort, ranging from FTP programs to even similar items, like a DV cam.

To show them how to use these things, I use a procedure remarkably similar to the one being derided. It generally works.

Re:Doesn't translate, either

[Hal_Porter]

Maybe the world will separate out into good looking but dumb Eloi who use technology and smart but ugly Morlocks who create it. Which would explain why IT support people are so horrible to their users - they need to start dehumanising them now so they can eat them in a few thousand years time and still consider themselves vegetarian.

School IS boring

[crashfrog]

No surprise school is boring; the rise of social conservatives have ensured that everything that made any subject interesting have been scrubbed from the curriculum. Can't teach about sex; have to force a religious minority's views that sexual knowledge leads to lunchroom orgies. Can't teach evolution; churches might write angry letters! Can't teach history from any kind of personal viewpoint, and we certainly can't dwell on stories of heroism and conflict; we might offend the other side or give the impression that violence is ok.

Given how little of a student's time is actually engaged in any learning of any subject, I'm hard-pressed to even remember what I spent 6 years (7th-12th) doing, exactly. (Of course, it was somewhat rich when, after my Knowledge Bowl team came from behind to win our school's first state championship in anything in a decade, the teachers lined up to pat themselves on the back, as though we had used anything they had taught us.)

I'm not sure that school's mission has ever been to teach. I think the purpose is to act as a warehouse for children, lest they learn about the world around them too soon for the grown-ups to handle. It's abundantly obvious that the thick-necked goons that run those places see them, fundamentally, as prisons, and themselves as wardens.

Re:School IS boring

[bigstrat2003]

Can't teach history from any kind of personal viewpoint While I think the rest of your post is quite valid, this sticks out at me. Why do you think we should teach history from any personal viewpoint? In my opinion, the point of history is to learn, as accurately as possible, what did actually happen, not what one side's version. I realize that in practice, that's an unattainable ideal, but still an ideal I think we should strive towards.

Re:School IS boring

[crashfrog]

Why do you think we should teach history from any personal viewpoint?

Because that's how it happened. History isn't just the things that happened, it's the people it happened to. History isn't just America fighting the British in the War of 1812; it's also John Paul Jones saying "I have not yet begun to fight," and winning.

I don't remember where I read it, but once I saw an instructive comparison of various high school history texts, excerpting that story about John Paul Jones and the degree to which it had been watered down from a rousing tale of naval victory and heroism in the face of overwhelming odds to just a passing remark about something some captain said during the war, once. There's some great, engaging history writing out there, whether it be modern historical scholarship or contemporary accounts from the time. It's just that, we don't seem to teach any of that in high school.

Re:School IS boring

[wanderingknight]

It doesn't work like that. History is not just a concatenation of events, we're long past that paradigm already. Instead, we talk about an interpretation of historical events--heuristics. The "modern" way of teaching history is by showing different points of view of different authors when talking about a determinate event or period of time. And if I have a history professor, he better well damn have an opinion on the subject, which would show at least a bit of commitment on his side. However, he should be able to get the students to distinguish between his opinion and that of the other historians. The more points of view on the matter the student learns to distinguish, the better.

Re:School IS boring

[TapeCutter]

Yeah, dammned nanny state teaching these kids to read and write so that they can be controlled by mass media, it's the reason we have so many stupid yet eloquent post on slashdot - give those spoilt brats a brush and put them back to work cleaning chimneys! /sarcasm

Re: School IS boring

[Black Parrot]

No surprise school is boring; the rise of social conservatives have ensured that everything that made any subject interesting have been scrubbed from the curriculum. Don't be silly. School is boring, but it has nothing to do with social movements. It's inherently boring because it's not what normal children and young adults would like to do with their time.

Perhaps it's possible to make it interesting, or at least less boring. But technical gizmos per se aren't going to do that - unless of course you want to replace education with mere entertainment.

Re:School IS boring

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no. History is not a collection of facts. You don't learn much by learning only the "accurate bits" of history. You need to feel on a personal level the culture shock of landing in a new world, the effects of being subject to intense political propaganda, the conundrum of "slaves currently allow me to feed my large family", what's it's like when your favorite neighbors are made to wear gold stars and then slowly carted away, what it feels like to be hunted down for performing scientific inquiry, etc. etc. etc. There should be classroom activities that put history students in the shoes of those who have gone before us, both "good" and "bad".

Without a "personal viewpoint" history becomes pointless rote memorization of stuff that happened to dead people.

Re:School IS boring

[teh moges]

I've always thought that school had very little to do with actual "textbook" learning and more about learning to interact with others. Sure, you learn to add and multiply, but the social skills that are (meant to be) learnt in school are the most important.

I've always also thought that if most of your learning is done at school, you'll never acheive much. Learning shouldn't stop at the end of the last period.

Re:School IS boring

[Anonymous Coward]

The generation that took us to the moon was raised by the generation that survived the depression and WWII by making things work better and they were raised on hot rodding and science fiction. They raised the generation that brought us Silicone Valley and gave them access to chemistry sets, ham radios, microscopes, telescopes, electrical toys, etc. Of course there was some mixing of these generations as well. The keys were things they were interested in and wanted to learn about. People learn what they want learn faster and better then what they have thrown at them.

Even the Vietnam War protesters were prompted to learn more by their interests, some even say it was the level of knowledge amongst these people that prompted efforts to dumb down the school systems. I know for a fact that many local school systems used integration as an excuse to dumb down the system, saying that it was required for blacks to be able to pass. That one was probably the most bogus excuse I ever heard and it was given to me by my high school counselor when I said something to him about we were not covering anything in school that I didn't have in grade school or junior high. Bit of asking about at UIL contests indicated this was a widely held opinion at the time. Frankly, I believe things have gone further downhill from there.

Even the kids see what you say about today's schools is all too true and if they are treated as prisoners, why should it suprise anyone when they act like prisoners? Resisting the system, trying to escape it, or rioting. We need some kind of real social upheaval in this country, more freedom to walk the streets, back to the government fearing us and us fearing not much of anything. Balance government and society properly and the education system would be fixed in the process and the kids would want to learn again, at least where their interests are.

Re:School IS boring

[Wildclaw]

Actually, it should probably be tought from several viewpoints.

The biggest problem with history is that it is tought as facts. The main reason (in my opinion) to learn history is so that you don't repeat the mistakes of the past. However, if you only learn facts, you will never learn to see why bad things happened.

Take the second world war for example. Why did the germans support Hitler? How could we best prevent it from happening again. Did the US really have to drop the nuclear bombs on Japan? Britain leaders knew of many german attacks before they happened, beacuse they broke the ciphers. Was it ethical too still let them happen, so that the germans wouldn't know?

If you only teach facts, those questions will never be asked. And that is sad, because those questions are the ones that make it worth knowing history in the first place. And they are also much more interesting than just memorizing boring facts.

Re:School IS boring

[phantomlord]

No surprise school is boring; the rise of social conservatives have ensured that everything that made any subject interesting have been scrubbed from the curriculum. Can't teach about sex; have to force a religious minority's views that sexual knowledge leads to lunchroom orgies. Can't teach evolution; churches might write angry letters! Can't teach history from any kind of personal viewpoint, and we certainly can't dwell on stories of heroism and conflict; we might offend the other side or give the impression that violence is ok.

Ahem, how do you think schools managed pre-hippie revolution? Back in the 50s, they weren't teaching much of anything about sex. Back in the 40s, there were tons of stories of heroism and conflict. Back in the 30s, very few were all that into teaching evolution. Back in the 20s, kids brought rifles to school to go small game hunting afterward. Back in the 18th and 19th century, most people were schooled by their parents (or if they were rich, a tutor who taught what the parents wanted the kids to learn). These were the schools (or lack of) who turned out Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Abe Lincoln, FDR, Thomas Edison, William Shockley, etc.

Maybe the problem is we've gone from actually learning solid facts (2+2=4) to feel good education where what counts is that you tried and you can always use a calculator so who cares if you get it right anyway. I went to elementary school in the early 80s and my teachers were the last of the old breed (most retired within a couple years of me having them, putting them in their early 60s which means they were born shortly after WWI and likely began teaching during the late part of WWII). My classes were forced to memorize multiplication tables. My sister's classes (7 years younger than me) did some funky new math but haven't retained any knowledge of how to do even the most basic math without a calculator (which I say as someone who used to supervise these kids in a restaurant... and even the 2001 valedictorian couldn't do simple Euclidean Geometry (9th grade math)).

My school is quite progressive (especially considering my town is very rural conservative overall), especially in terms of sex ed (we had everything short of a live demo when it came to topics like intercourse even before I graduated in 1995). I'd say something radically catastrophic changed in the way people are taught somewhere between those who learned to teach between about 1950 and 1980 based on my, albeit anecdotal, experiences... and I don't think the conservatives were dominating teaching colleges in that range. Throw in parents who don't force their kids to focus, parents who want to be their kid's friend instead of being a parent, channels like MTV which induce ADHD type thought patterns where you can't focus on anything for 3 minutes before needing a change, letting kids use things like cell phones everywhere (which produce a distraction and allows kids to be lazy about learning how to memorize things (how many heavy cell phone/PDA people can remember the phone numbers of their friends and family?)), an over-reliance on technology just because it's there (the computer lab at school was nice for the kids who took programming... everyone else just wanted to play games on them and the teachers were more than happy to let them because it meant easy supervision time instead of actually having to instruct them), etc.

Does school have to be boring? No... my best teachers made learning fun, but we actually learned something. "I could tell you that the volume of a cone is 4/3 PI r squared but it wouldn't mean anything to you so let me tell you why because then you'll never forget it (the same teacher often taught from a personal viewpoint and told us why various things would be applicable to our adult lives)." Does school have to force kids to put their toys away for 100% of the day and act like little adults? No... but kids should be able to sit in class and focus for 45 minutes at a time. Yeah, I spent my year in pre-calc sleeping thro

Re:School IS boring

[Thoguth]

No surprise school is boring; the rise of social conservatives have ensured that everything that made any subject interesting have been scrubbed from the curriculum. I don't think it can all be blamed on "conservatives" ... but it can fairly be blamed on politics. Conservatives in Texas won't stand for textbooks that are too critical of religion or "traditional values," whether those conservative values are appropriate or not. Liberals in California won't stand for textbooks that are politically incorrect ... whether the truth of history, science or literature is politically correct or not. Since Texas and California are both major markets for textbooks, the textbook manufacturers print only books that don't offend either end of the radical spectrum. The result is textbooks that are like lunchroom food... low-nutrition, not very good, but palatable to the majority.

I'm not sure that school's mission has ever been to teach. I think the purpose is to act as a warehouse for children, lest they learn about the world around them too soon for the grown-ups to handle. You might be interested in John Taylor Gatto's Underground history of Education in America. He comes off as a little bit tinfoil-hatted at times, but it's an interesting perspective on large-scale federalized public "factory" schools, which according to Gatto's sources were engineered to create conformity, rather than intellectual superiority

Re:School IS boring

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Why do you think we should teach history from any personal viewpoint? In my opinion, the point of history is to learn, as accurately as possible, what did actually happen, not what one side's version. I realize that in practice, that's an unattainable ideal, but still an ideal I think we should strive towards.

Personally, I think trying to teach history in isolation is the problem.

You can't just teach history as facts. That misses much of the point of the subject. At the very least, you need to teach people to evaluate information from different sources in light of the credibility and inherent bias in those sources. Expose them to different points of view, and allow them to learn that there is rarely an absolute "true" version of events that we can be confident about.

But more than this, I wonder whether the subject shouldn't be presented at school level as part of a combination with other subjects such as ethics, philosophy, maybe even some basic politics and economics. While many of these subjects can be studied in detail in isolation, and indeed history can be studied purely out of interest, its benefit for many lies mostly in what it can teach us so that we can do better next time.

For example, it is no good pointing at the Crusades or the holocaust, and just presenting them in isolation. There is an underlying lesson about the power of religion and the danger of allowing it to be misused, which history teaches us time and again because we are too stupid to ever learn it properly. Perhaps if we did, we would be better placed to recognise and deal with the nutters of various religions who are screwing things up for people today.

Of course, history isn't all about bad stuff. On the happier side, perhaps if schoolkids were exposed to more examples of humanity's great advances and how they can bring people together, there would be more public support for ambitious new endeavours that could make the world a better place, more willingness to give things a fair try, more patience as the work is done, and less general cynicism about life.

I don't think you can convey any of this to children through mere repetition of facts and rote learning. Sure, you have to teach what happened, with due emphasis on quality of sources and conflicting reports. That's the basis for everything else. But it's only the basis. It's also important that kids learn to appreciate why some historical events are significant, and how we can learn from them.

Re:School IS boring

[Anonymous Coward]

It has very little to do with the

Re:School IS boring

[protohiro1]

Can you read? Do you know algebra? Calculus? What was the civil war? Why was it fought? Who won? What are the three branches of government? How do I calculate force? Why is there no more slavery? What is DNA? Were do clouds come from? How is it that Europeans came to dominate the americas? What are leaves for? Kids actually learn a lot in school. But motivated middle class kids tend to learn a lot outside of school as well because they have access to all kinds of other opportunities. For poor kids school is the only chance they have to learn these things.

Antecedent - Behavior - Consequence

[75th Trombone]

Part --- not all, but part --- of the reason for more kids sucking in school is that when they go home, they've got all these gadgets that put them on a continuous reinforcement schedule. They get IMMEDIATE reinforcement on every click of the mouse, every push of a button, every touch of the stylus.

It's been a while since I took Ed Psych, so I can't use too many more big behavior-analysis words, but when you saturate children with immediate reinforcement and then drop them into a classroom, it's pretty obvious that a good percentage of them will become zombie children. Human teachers just can't provide the reinforcement schedule that they've become accustomed to.

Re:Antecedent - Behavior - Consequence

[crashfrog]

Part --- not all, but part --- of the reason for more kids sucking in school is that when they go home, they've got all these gadgets that put them on a continuous reinforcement schedule.

Well, what the hell else are they going to do? You can't play on the lawn where there are no lawns; and the vast proliferation of cars has made the street too dangerous to play in. What are kids supposed to do? Play with the chemistry set? Nowadays chem sets don't even come with chemicals. Build things? God forbid somebody get hurt using a tool. Nobody plays baseball with their buddies because no parent wants their kid wasting their time with stickball when they could be lettering the varsity baseball team, so every kid learns not to even dabble in any physical activity lest they be roped into full-blown extracurriculars and then bitched at for being "quitters" when they decide they don't like it.

Kids are being bored to death. We're boring them right into video games, the poor ones, we're boring right into drugs. Yeah, yeah. I know school isn't supposed to be "entertainment", but aren't teachers supposed to stimulate passion for their subjects? A love of learning? Intellectual engagement? They're simply not doing nearly enough in that regard.

Re:Antecedent - Behavior - Consequence

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, what the hell else are they going to do? You can't play on the lawn where there are no lawns; and the vast proliferation of cars has made the street too dangerous to play in. What are kids supposed to do?

Move. Around here, there are lawns. There are few cars. Kids can ride bikes, build huts (hell yeah, they are allowed to use a hammer). You don't have to do what the rest of the sheep around you do.

It is your choice to live in a concrete hell run by politicians who couldn't plan themselves out of a wet paper bag.

("Here" is Norway, by the way. Not perfect, by any means, but better than what you describe)

Re:Antecedent - Behavior - Consequence

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad it's full of norwegians. Zing!

Re:Antecedent - Behavior - Consequence

[AK Marc]

when you saturate children with immediate reinforcement and then drop them into a classroom, it's pretty obvious that a good percentage of them will become zombie children.

I think that would be a good summary. However, the implication is that the homes of nearly all children are broken. The education system is supposed to educate, not police the home-lives. As such, the "solution" is to change schooling so that it gives more immediate reinforcement and stops producing zombie children. Technology gives that ability. You may have stated the cause for the original article, and you are hinting that technology could be a solution, but you state it like the problem is the home lives of the children. Blame is useless. If the schools can control only their environment, and through that ability can fix the problem, they should do so, and leave the home problems to others to fix.

Crap

[dgagley]

There is a difference between using a technological device and creating one. Without a base knowledge of things you cannot move beyond what is in front of you. I agree there needs to be more science in schools but I still think of one saying, if you ignore the past you are doomed to repeat it. Yes if you are not interested in a certain subject it will be boring but that is why they call them BUILDING BLOCKS.

Constant communication....

[Braken]

That's because when kids take mobile phones to school they focus more on "constant communication with each other" than learning.

consoles and cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

They've got Nintendo Wiis, Game Boys, PlayStations.

[...]

but when they go to school, they are told to leave those 'toys' at home.

Maybe, just maybe, it's because they don't go to school to play, but to *learn*?. What good is a Wii at school? To learn gymnastics? The old teacher thing did the thing very well for me, thanks.

I'm not claiming that education is perfect as it is, but I'm sure we will not improve it by adding cells or consoles to the mix.

Old-school-new-school education

[anarchy_man3]

Does nobody remember playing Number Munchers on an Apple II? That game was awesome!

Re:Old-school-new-school education

[Remusti]

No, but I do remember Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego? on the same platform. That game was also awesome!

Actually, I just looked up Number Munchers and yes, I do recall it and concur, it was great!

Re:Old-school-new-school education

[jeremiahbell]

I remember Number Munchers. I was never really good at it, I was good at math, but not fast enough with the keyboard. What I remember more, though, is Ms. Pac-man on the Apple II. Goes to show you what kids want, entertainment. I know you didn't mention anything about it, but I honestly believe school shouldn't always be entertaining. It will be boring sometimes. Great satisfaction does come from learning, it actually releases dopamine, the problem is the classroom moving too slow. If we could cut out the lower ten percent of the students, and allow the rest to move forward I believe it would be much more rewarding to be in school.

I wish more people would think this way!!!

[filesiteguy]

I have a six-year-old in second grade and a four-year-old in kindergarten. The teachers are using the same boring techniques that didn't work when I was in school and are boring the crap out of my second grader. He's already turned off by learning every monday through friday and I have to reinvigorate him on the weekend with at-home projects.

It is unfortunate that the teaching system (of which my wife is a part) is stuck in a 19th century methodology of teaching the masses to act in unison. It is as if they're preparing these kids for the rote factory jobs of yesterday instead of the knowledge-critical jobs of today.

I've yet to find one instance in my work (IT manager over about 60 people in a large government agency with roughly 60 servers, 1,500 staff members and 18TB of data online) where I had to fill out a scantron form or decide which option was best - a, b, c, d, or all of the above.

As it is, I'm on the school site council, PTA and am constantly talking to the administration in my sons' school district. They just don't seem to want to 'get it.'

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[Tablizer]

I do agree that what people do at school generally does *not* match what they will be doing at work. I'm not quite sure how to fix it because it is not easy to test for things like collaboration skills and balancing trade-offs. If its easy to test then its also usually easy to automate. Trivia can be searched on google-like tools, for example. Thus, we have a catch-22. Do we pick something thats testable so that we can measure progress and to motivate, or something more fitting to the real world but is difficult to test objectively?

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[garompeta]

factory job? Are you a teenager writing that?

It is as if they're preparing these kids for the rote factory jobs of yesterday instead of the knowledge-critical jobs of today

Lets see, what is the basic study program of a highschool? Maths, Natural Sciences, Physics, History, Art, Geography, Chemistry, Biology, Accounting, English, foreign language. So, for you all those are "factory job" subjects, what would you replace then, programming and system architectures?

I think that being geek narrowed too much your vision of the world, to understand that this world still needs doctors, nurses, businessmen, lawyers, carpenters, butchers, farmers, cooks, artists, and yes, engineers and qualified workers working in a factory and logistics to provide yours produces all the way to your fridge. You know what? if there is a huge electromagnetic blast from the sun, penetrating the ionosphere and destroying every single electronic and electrical equipment on Earth, your IT skills will become quite useless.

You know what? The knowledge that the education system is trying to provide is not flawed. What it is not working is the didactics to keep them amused with learning.

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[drekhan]

"It is unfortunate that the teaching system (of which my wife is a part) is stuck in a 19th century methodology of teaching the masses to act in unison. It is as if they're preparing these kids for the rote factory jobs of yesterday instead of the knowledge-critical jobs of today." Indeed all the stupid things they make kids learn these days. I wish I hadn't been stuck having to learn about math, written and oral communication, or economics. Those things just never seem to come up in my day to day job as a software engineer. It's not like I ever have to convert word problems into equations that a computer can solve, or give a presentation to my bosses, or even write an e-mail. The point of public schools is to (attempt) to bring the entire populace up to some minimum level of education so we'd have riots in the street about "they sky falling down" every time it hails.

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[Mr2001]

Indeed all the stupid things they make kids learn these days. I wish I hadn't been stuck having to learn about math, written and oral communication, or economics. Those things just never seem to come up in my day to day job as a software engineer. It's not like I ever have to convert word problems into equations that a computer can solve, or give a presentation to my bosses, or even write an e-mail. Funny how you forgot the subjects that really are useless for most people, like... local history. Decades later, I still remember that the Ohlone tribe inhabited the area around Santa Cruz, and I know there's a region of Washington called the Willamette Valley, but I'll be damned if I've ever found a use for that knowledge (other than writing this comment).

How about gym class? Yes, teaching kids to stay physically active is important. But do they really need to be tested on their knowledge of volleyball rules?

Or how about English class - not the writing part, but the literary analysis part. Think fast: what's the symbolism of the light in the fog from The Great Gatsby? Why does Rose breast-feed an old man at the end of The Grapes of Wrath? What did "fleef" mean in Watership Down? More importantly... who the hell cares?

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[mcrbids]

It is unfortunate that the teaching system (of which my wife is a part) is stuck in a 19th century methodology of teaching the masses to act in unison. It is as if they're preparing these kids for the rote factory jobs of yesterday instead of the knowledge-critical jobs of today.

At least in California, there's a very positive dynamic known as the "Charter School". Basically, it's a school set up with alternative teaching strategies. Many of these are "Home School" philosophy, but they really run the gamut in educational strategies.

It's exciting to be part of this movement; My company provides software to track information for these alternative education programs. What prompted me to reply instead of moderate was your comment about "factory jobs" because I believe that's exactly what the standard, public school system prepares you for.

And it doesn't work anymore. Technology has progressed beyond the factory worker, but the schools teach everybody to work in lockstep with your team-mates. Its time has passed, and now it's time to move on. Get involved with your local alternative education program(s) - you won't regret it!

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've yet to find one instance in my work (IT manager over about 60 people in a large government agency with roughly 60 servers, 1,500 staff members and 18TB of data online) where I had to fill out a scantron form or decide which option was best - a, b, c, d, or all of the above.

Well, I'm a product of public schooling, and probably more importantly, the "19th century methodology" of teaching the masses. I'm also an engineer that makes the stuff that you use in your job, and you better be damn happy that I paid attention in math and science classes, else your equipment would most likely burn up and not really do much of anything. You can teach a lot in these newfangled "collaborative environments," but there's really only one way for you to learn calculus, or E&M, or crypto, or most everything else important in today's "knowledge critical jobs"-- sit your ass down and work through problems. It's going to be painful, no question about it, but you can't do anything fun without knowing something first, and there's really no other way to learn these things without a book, a blackboard and a teacher.

I will say that I did supplement my class work with a ton of project work while I was in college. Applying knowledge I learned in class to something practical was extremely helpful and tons of fun. But there was no way I could have done most of the things I did in those projects without first going though the painful, painful process of class.

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[beefstu01]

I can see where you're trying to go with this. It's important to realize while analyzing Watership Down may not be the most important thing to you, some people may love it. Same thing goes about calculus. I loved it, most people hated it. That's why I'm an engineer now and they teach English. Reading a whole bunch of books, however, can't really hurt someone. While trying to find the true meaning of a wax figure in a Sherlock Holmes mystery may be going a bit far, books help people to get a feel for the world around them and how times have changed. But really, in the end, it never hurts to read.

History is also a pretty important thing for grade school kids to learn... I actually wish I paid more attention to it when I was in high school. I could always say "those who don't know their history are bound to repeat it," but really, I'd just like to have a better understanding of the world and how we got here. It's not terribly important to me, hell, it's just an idle curiosity, but to others who would go into politics, they'd better know that stuff cold. Local history is also a kind of cool thing to know, or at least I think so.

Look, I really think in high school a broad education is best. I learned in HS that I wanted to be an engineer because I was exposed to math and science. Others in my class decided they wanted to go study history because they were exposed to history classes. When you're in college, you can go ahead and specialize, but grade school isn't the place for a kid to decide what subjects are "useful" or not.

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[DerekLyons]

I have a six-year-old in second grade and a four-year-old in kindergarten. The teachers are using the same boring techniques that didn't work when I was in school and are boring the crap out of my second grader.

They worked on the majority of people for decades/centuries. That suggests the problem lies not in the methods.
 
 

It is unfortunate that the teaching system (of which my wife is a part) is stuck in a 19th century methodology of teaching the masses to act in unison. It is as if they're preparing these kids for the rote factory jobs of yesterday instead of the knowledge-critical jobs of today.

Aw, horseshit. School back in the 19th century wasn't to prepare kids for factory jobs, it was the kids who didn't go to school and get an education who ended up in the factory. On top of which, the majority of jobs (even today) are largely rote. ('Knowledge based' is a meaningless buzzword.)

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[vidnet]

I've yet to find one instance in my work (IT manager over about 60 people in a large government agency with roughly 60 servers, 1,500 staff members and 18TB of data online) where I had to fill out a scantron form or decide which option was best - a, b, c, d, or all of the above.

Really, you've never had to pick one of five options? What kind of managing do you do?

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just curious, if your kid is bored at school and you suspect that it is due to the teaching methods, why do you still have him/her there? Perhaps a Montessori school?

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[walkie]

... and I know there's a region of Washington called the Willamette Valley, but I'll be damned if I've ever found a use for that knowledge (other than writing this comment).

And, unfortunately, now that the use for that knowledge has finally arisen, you've failed to recall it correctly. The Willamette Valley is in Oregon. Here's to hoping you get another chance!

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[langelgjm]

It is unfortunate that the teaching system (of which my wife is a part) is stuck in a 19th century methodology of teaching the masses to act in unison. It is as if they're preparing these kids for the rote factory jobs of yesterday instead of the knowledge-critical jobs of today.

Is education (at least higher education) ever really supposed to have been about preparing people for jobs (academic/research jobs excluded), though? One of the complaints I often hear, and sometimes voice, is that much of college today has turned into vocational school. This is very apparent in a lot of CS and business curricula. What ever happened to education for its own sake, or to create informed citizens?

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[filesiteguy]

The point of public schools is to (attempt) to bring the entire populace up to some minimum level of education That's my point exactly! The schools are attemping to bring the populace - en mass - up to a "minimum" level. There's little room for those who want to go beyond and no change in the assembly line mentality of 100 years ago. Why don't we change the system to bring out the "maximum" level of education for each student??

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[filesiteguy]

Really, you've never had to pick one of five options? What kind of managing do you do?

Boy, tough crowd. Yes, I'm often - in fact, daily - faced with deciding between a number of unrelated and possibly disguised options for any given situation.

I'm never given a list of options on a ditto, however, and told to fill in the bubble knowing that only one is the right answer. In the options I'm presented - one, two, or more may be right or they may all be wrong and I'm forced to throw them all out and create (note that word) new options for myself.

Your point?

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[SIIHP]

'The teachers are using the same boring techniques that didn't work when I was in school and are boring the crap out of my second grader. He's already turned off by learning every monday through friday and I have to reinvigorate him on the weekend with at-home projects."

I have to wonder how much of your son's attitude is a result of your influence.

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[TheSkyIsPurple]

I'm in a similar position, and I'm constatntle having to chose which option "a,b,c,d" is best. When we're trying to come up with a solution to new problems, we have multiple approaches... we evaluate them, and then choose.

Yes, school was boring, and there were a lot of confirmity inducing activities, but they were helpful in their own right.

On one hand, companies tend to like most folks to conform, with a few folks standing out in order to have some sort of consistent and predictable direction.
On the other hand, those that do stand out, have learned to get along with everyone else, and still stand out and maintain their own individuality.

Have to rejuvenate the kid on the weekend? Good. That's your job. Keep individuality alive, and instill your own values. The school is a machine, and not able to that level of need consistently for everyone.

I still have yet to hear an education "solution" that gets folks out of the 18th century using the people that are currently teaching, and able to allow each and every student to do their own thing and be measurable in some way or another.

As long as we keep alot of the social/moral messages out of school, I'm happy enough with the system. Let them do the boring teaching work, let me do the interesting stuff.

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[TemporalBeing]

It is unfortunate that the teaching system (of which my wife is a part) is stuck in a 19th century methodology of teaching the masses to act in unison. It is as if they're preparing these kids for the rote factory jobs of yesterday instead of the knowledge-critical jobs of today.

How old is the teacher? Where did they graduate from, and when?

My mom is a certified teacher, and completed her degree in the mid 1990's, and there's a big difference between what they taught teachers on how to teach even between the 1970's and the 1990's. Older teachers typically have a more 19th century approach - sit, listen, memorize, repeat, some interactivity, but not much.

On the other hand, newer teachers are being taught about how students learn. There are 5 methods, though I don't remember them all among them are: (i) hands on, (ii) visual, (iii) hearing. If a teacher properly employs and balances their teaching across all the methods of learning, then all the students will be able to be fully engaged in the classroom and get the most of out it.

The problem is that older teachers have years of wisdom, but are not necessarily up-to-date with teaching methods. While newer teachers (especially young, new teachers) may have learned the methods but don't necessarily have the wisdom. So, in another decade or two, we should start to see a big difference in the classroom as more of the teachers that are learning these methods to teaching get the experience and fill the ranks of the schools. Right now, my guess would be that the majority of the teachers are still in the more old style of teaching, but we're probably close to the verge of where most of them are retiring and being replaced by teachers that are of the new style. Still, it'll take another decade or so for them to be able to have the wisdom aspect.

Wikipedia has some good info on learning styles; however, I am not finding the one I am thinking of and referencing above. (Don't know what it is called either.) Be aware that difference colleges/universities will teach different learning styles to their teachers, which is why I put the question in above about where did the teacher graduate from.

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they aren't. They think they are, but we as a group don't know shit about teaching. My BS and MEd are both a scam. I'm now in A&M's MS Math for Educators program because I'm actually learning something interesting. Still not learning shit about teaching.

That however, has nothing on the problem of parents who have no reason to raise their children.

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[drekhan]

Because the tax payers aren't willing to pay for that. Individualizing each child's experience would cost a good deal of money.

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[JimBobJoe]

I have a six-year-old in second grade and a four-year-old in kindergarten.

Are you by any chance located near and able to afford a Montesorri school?

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[lababidi]

I have a six-year-old in second grade and a four-year-old in kindergarten. The teachers are using the same boring techniques that didn't work when I was in school and are boring the crap out of my second grader. He's already turned off by learning every monday through friday and I have to reinvigorate him on the weekend with at-home projects. That's because the quality of teachers has gone down. with high demand, job security, pension plan, decent hours, many bad teachers are jumping at the chance to work in incredible areas with smart kids, such as Fairfax County.

It is unfortunate that the teaching system (of which my wife is a part) is stuck in a 19th century methodology of teaching the masses to act in unison. It is as if they're preparing these kids for the rote factory jobs of yesterday instead of the knowledge-critical jobs of today. What factory jobs are you talking about? Oh you meant your IT job :-P
I'm completing my masters in EE while substitute teaching at the moment, so I see the full grade spectrum. Kids aren't bored from the teaching tech (or lack there of), they are bored because of the lack of motivation and slow pace. There is more of a push these days to fill kids with information instead of having them learn it.

I've yet to find one instance in my work (IT manager over about 60 people in a large government agency with roughly 60 servers, 1,500 staff members and 18TB of data online) where I had to fill out a scantron form or decide which option was best - a, b, c, d, or all of the above. Ooh, ooh, can i please answer this one?? what about when you are making decision like buying servers or hardware and figuring out which option is the best.

As it is, I'm on the school site council, PTA and am constantly talking to the administration in my sons' school district. They just don't seem to want to 'get it.' Though I don't feel it's the teacher's responsibility to excite the student 100% on the topic or subject being taught, parents need to do their part instead of work 60 hours a week at a dead end job like most of these kids I deal with. And yes a corporate job making a 7 figure salary to me is dead end when you rarely see your family.

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[Mr2001]

Damn, so close. Maybe I would've remembered it correctly if I'd had some other use for that information, at some point in my life, that would've reinforced it in my mind. ;)

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[Mr2001]

I can see where you're trying to go with this. It's important to realize while analyzing Watership Down may not be the most important thing to you, some people may love it. I'm sure they do, and I'm not saying they shouldn't have the opportunity to do so. But there's no need to force it on everyone else.

Reading a whole bunch of books, however, can't really hurt someone. It can hurt them in the same ways that forcing them to waste their time on anything else could hurt them: first, it takes time away that they could be spending on something more valuable. I knew since junior high that programming was my thing, and now I'm able to make a living as a developer, despite never having formally studied CS, thanks to all the learning I did on my own. Every hour I had to spend memorizing the nonsense words spouted by imaginary bunnies was one hour I couldn't spend furthering my career.

Second, I would argue that forcing someone to spend time at something they'd rather not be doing is inherently hurtful. You can't rob someone of their time without hurting them. It hurts to have your will subjugated to someone else.

When you're in college, you can go ahead and specialize, but grade school isn't the place for a kid to decide what subjects are "useful" or not. One might just as easily and arbitrarily say "when you're 40, you can go ahead and specialize, but your teens, twenties, and thirties aren't the time to decide what subjects are 'useful' or not".

I'd say we should respect someone's decision on this as soon as they're able to express it. They can always go back and learn something later if they decide it's useful after all, but if you force them to spend their time something that turns out to be useless, they can never get that time back.

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[filesiteguy]

That's because the quality of teachers has gone down. with high demand, job security, pension plan, decent hours, many bad teachers are jumping at the chance to work in incredible areas with smart kids, such as Fairfax County. Though you are partially right about the need for teachers allowing less qualified ones to get through - especially during the bilingual push in the late '90s - this is no longer the case. My wife teaches at CSU Fullerton in the credential program. They are now able to be MUCH more selective in who they allow through the programs. They have realized they need a high-caliber of teacher at all times.

There is more of a push these days to fill kids with information instead of having them learn it.

Agreed. The NCLB push has caused the schools to focus on facts and figures - in order to achieve those vaunted 900-level API scores - instead of real subject learning and problem solving. I'm already seeing this in some of the kids I hire out of college.

Ooh, ooh, can i please answer this one?? what about when you are making decision like buying servers or hardware and figuring out which option is the best. I did actually answer that one in a previous post. I am faced with multiple-choice decisions every day. In many cases, however, the answer may be: a, b, c, d, e, any combination of the above, or none of the above and I need to make a new set of choices immediately.

Though I don't feel it's the teacher's responsibility to excite the student 100% on the topic or subject being taught, parents need to do their part instead of work 60 hours a week at a dead end job like most of these kids I deal with. And yes a corporate job making a 7 figure salary to me is dead end when you rarely see your family. Sigh - I wish more parents understood this. I see so many "day care" kids that it is pathetic. I purposely work 6:00 - 3:30 in order to ensure I am there to coach soccer, be a cub scout father, and be on the PTA. There IS no other priority to me or to my wife. I may work 60+ hours in a week, but I do so in a manner which is conducive to being available to my children whenever they need. Case in point, I just rescheduled an important meeting on 10/31 so that I can be sure and take my kindergartner to school that morning. Yes, the meeting was with some important lawyers on a lawsuit to which I'm an expert witness, but they can wait for my children.

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[smellotron]

One of the complaints I often hear, and sometimes voice, is that much of college today has turned into vocational school. This is very apparent in a lot of CS and business curricula.

Any curriculum that reads like a vocational track but is labeled as a CS track is a lie. It's not a surprise that most CS schools are crappy. In any popular field in life, there are a bajillion crappy options, and less options as you go higher up the quality scale. This is perfectly natural, but I agree, can be an annoyance to deal with.

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[smellotron]

I am faced with multiple-choice decisions every day. In many cases, however, the answer may be: a, b, c, d, e, any combination of the above, or none of the above and I need to make a new set of choices immediately.

Ok, you're a big kid now. You've gotten better at effective decision-making (hopefully), and now your boss expects you to be able to ask yourself your own multiple-choice questions.

The point of a scantron test isn't to memorize a set of available choices. The point of a scantron test is to encourage the students to learn the material. Buying servers is very different from learning how Kirchoff's Rules for current in wires works, and scantrons really just exist to make it feasable to grade the "easy stuff" without any human effort, so more effort can be focused on the more important parts.

Re:I wish more people would think this way!!!

[smellotron]

I purposely work 6:00 - 3:30 in order to ensure I am there to coach soccer, be a cub scout father, and be on the PTA

By the way, that is awesome. My parents were always involved in scouting with me, and it's made a tremendous difference in my life.

The generation that invented those toys...

[istartedi]

The generation that invented those toys stood in front of a blackboard. It remains to be seen what the kids with the toys will invent.

So...?

[AstrumPreliator]

The problem with schooling is that it's not "old-school" schooling. We just cater to the lowest common denominators who aren't interested in schooling which just makes it boring for those who are interested. I count myself lucky that my father instilled a great sense of curiosity in me at a young age. Yes I have an Xbox 360, gaming PC, iPod, cell phone, and all of that stuff, but as much as I like being entertained I also love learning. I have a deep interest in astrophysics, math, electrical engineering, computer science, and organic chemistry just to name a few.

Kids aren't interested these days because no one is showing them why they should be interested. All the kids see is their parents consuming mass amounts of entertainment, no wonder they choose their Playstation 3 over their algebra homework.

Re:So...?

[Wildclaw]

Actually, schools doesn't cater to the lowest common denominator. The always cater to somewhere in the middle.

This of course has the effect that those are above the level being catered to get bored, while those below the level fall behind, and never even learn to read or do basic math.

You are right in that learning needs to be made more interesting/fun.

Re:So...?

[E 99]

I have a deep interest in astrophysics, math, electrical engineering, computer science, and organic chemistry just to name a few.

Kids aren't interested these days because no one is showing them why they should be interested.

I don't think that's the reason. I think a lot of kids would be interested in engineering, astrophysics, and the like, just based on the subject matter. But once they get to college, where they can actually study those things, they look in the syllabus, and see all the advanced calculus prerequisites, and forget it. They never get the chance to learn interesting things, because nobody MADE them advance their math skills in high school instead of taking BS courses.

Re:So...?

[Anonymous Coward]

This of course has the effect that those are above the level being catered to get bored, while those below the level fall behind, and never even learn to read or do basic math.
I don't know what your local schools are doing, but this isn't the real problem. The issue is those students that do fall behind get pushed through to the next grade level instead of being held back. There is too high a correlation with age and the grade level. I currently teach college (and some grad school). If my students aren't learning, I don't push them through, I flunk them!

You are right in that learning needs to be made more interesting/fun. This statement is ALWAYS used, but its too subjective to be useful. What's fun to you may bore the hell out of someone else. You will only get as much out of your own education as you yourself have put into it. No one can FORCE you to learn the material. Sometimes, materials are boring, but necessary to given discipline. Then making it fun requires a week's worth of class time we don't have. There is the expectation of a certain amount of material that must be covered to have a class in Calculus or Macroeconomics or Computer Science. Ever try studying inflation? Its not fun and games and making it into such wastes 4 times as much time as having the students discuss the concepts.

Why waste that time when I can produce a better student making better use of my time in class? They student's then learn more.

That said, I teach on the college level and not K-12 where its not law to attend, its choice. The assumption is you want to be here and want to have access to more knowledge as opposed to less. But, I find it still just applies to the grad students. The undergrads still don't read the books when they are told to do so.

Re:So...?

[Trifthen]

That was true, until "No Child Left Behind!" Now, many schools will not allow teachers to fail students. Ever. Or classes are taught exclusively so that students can pass upcoming standardized tests.

Yes, even the special-ed kid who drools all day, is held to the same standard as the girl who experiments with integrated electronics in second grade.

Tell me that's not a recipe for disaster? The problem isn't old school teaching, because we've already abandoned that. It's the new school stuff that's the issue. Every other country using these supposedly antiquated systems seem to be doing just fine.

Savvy?

[cretog8]

Today's generation of kids is the most technology savvy group that this country has ever produced. They are born with an iPod in one hand and a cell phone in another. They're text messaging, e-mailing, instant messaging. They're on MySpace, YouTube & Google. They've got Nintendo Wiis, Game Boys, Play Stations. ...they don't know how to cook, they can't fix their own cars. They can't search for information past typing something into Google, THEY DON'T KNOW HOW SHIT WORKS.

OK, it's a generalization, just like his generalization. I hate the notion that "technology savvy" means "knows how to operate a user interface designed to be easy to operate". Yes, I'm an old fart (38), and grumpy. Regardless, my 4-year-old is proficient with a web browser. He is by no means tech savvy, and he learns more about real technology by interacting with a tricycle or bionicles than he does by playing some Flash game.

That said, I agree school sucks. It sucked when I was in school ("good" public schools in the 70's & 80's) and I hear it sucks worse now. I don't particularly see what text messaging can do to improve on the suckiness.

Re:Savvy?

[zhrinze]

Exactly. Nobody seems to care how things got to the level they take for granted.

"Tech-savvy" is a joke. Let's see, these kids can operate devices designed, built, and sold to the masses of people who have trouble making change at your local store.

That's not savvy people, that's willingness to buy and use tools. Any idiot can buy a hammer, it doesn't mean he should bring it to school unless they're gonna actually be teaching him to use it properly.

That said, the current thinking of schools seems overwhelmingly to be, "lecture, assign homework, test, repeat." Dumb. This doesn't begin to initiate critical thinking skills, creativity, or other problem-solving skills.

WAY BACK when I was taught (OK, so I'm 40), books were extra tools except for reading classes where they were obviously required. Teaching involved a quick explanation, then everybody gave a try at the solution to a problem. You weren't upbraided if you were wrong, merely corrected. If you were right, you may or may not get praised. But now we have to worry about self-esteem.

Which is funny too. WAY BACK nobody worried about your self-esteem and only a handful in my age bracket turned out to be ax murderers and usually that's around middle age. (sharpen, sharpen, sharpen) But the kids in SCHOOL didn't kill each other once a month around the country.

Now that we have these excellent self-esteem policies, there are metal detectors and gun fights and widespread mayhem on campus. Maybe it's me, but I think a little punishment at a younger age was worth it.

Side note - how do kids get into school past the metal detectors with braces...?

The point is that when I taught college courses (14 years) I did it by making people write down what I say, practice what skills had to be mastered, and many passed tests better (and gee, what a self-esteem booster for those that REALLY deserved it).

Rant over....

Re:Savvy?

[The Queen]

and he learns more about real technology by interacting with a tricycle or bionicles

Right. You know what gives me hope? The fact that I can show an 'old' toy to my bf's 8-year-old and she can still be fascinated with it. The fact that she asks if we can have quiet reading time after dinner (if we say no to Playstation, that is). If parents take the time to expose kids to alternatives to technology, they can help negate the instant gratification addiction.

Proof That CEOs are Overpaid

[littlewink]

The CEO of a successful firm selling intellectual property in mathematics ventures his (rather strong) opinion on education, proving that he is certainly overqualified to teach or to manage teachers or to be involved in education in any manner whatsoever.

How can you teach a 12-year old to multiply when he's on his cellphone or playing with a GameBoy?

Before you can walk, you must crawl. Before you learn algebra, you must learn arithmetic. To do these tasks most children must focus, focus, focus. Bringing electronics into the classroom only distracts students.

SAS's CEO is an idiot.

Re:Proof That CEOs are Overpaid

[jcr]

Think about what you know, and how much of it you got in school.

One of the biggest problems with schools in the USA is that they do not reward learning, they reward docility.

-jcr

Re:Proof That CEOs are Overpaid

[Anonymous Coward]

SAS's CEO is an idiot. ... said the disgruntled, low paid, office employee.

Re:Proof That CEOs are Overpaid

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a lot of people missed the point here by jumping on the ipod/cellphone comment. I think the key point is that teaching methods are outdated and fail to acknowledge key changes in the information age. There are new and better ways to team arithmetic and algebra, and furthermore, I can think of a dozen subjects that I'd teach in preference to algebra, like how to handle money, how internet banking works, how not to get screwed over by home loan vendors, ...

Dr Goodnight is a self-made billionaire by virtue of building the company over more than 25 years. Unlike public companies with appointed CEOs, he started the company, still owns the company, and wrote the software that started it all. Maybe it would serve you well to take in the rest of the article before jumping to the wrong conclusion.

Full disclosure: I work at SAS, these opinions are solely my own.

Re:Proof That CEOs are Overpaid

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, parroting the company line like a good little corporate drone. Enjoy drinking the kool-aid. Oh, and quit worshipping billionaires, while you're at it. All his money and past accomplishments will not prevent him from saying stupid things (like he's doing now).

Re:Proof That CEOs are Overpaid

[Lumpy]

Correction...

One of the biggest problems with public schools in the USA is that they do not reward learning, they reward docility.

Private schools are different.

Re:Proof That CEOs are Overpaid

[bgman]

Yes, he is an idiot. As is common, someone with an overinflated opinion of their own intelligence believes they have all the answers in a field in which they don't work. If only it were so easy - just let them learn math by texting their friends and listening to their ipods. The hours spent on those devices have created students with the attention span of a gnat. They need less of it, not more. This is america and everyone is entitled to an uniformed opinion. That fact doesn't require that we provide idiots with a platform from which to bore those around them. That CEO hasn't been there and done it and his opinion is crap. I'm certified to teach mathematics, computer science and science. I'm not complaining about American schools - I'm in the trenches trying to improve it.

Re:Proof That CEOs are Overpaid

[Anonymous Coward]

The root of this problem -- which nobody seems to realize (or want to admit) -- is that government schools are inherently a one-size-fits-all solution, just like everything else government has ever done or could do. Imagine if all education was private, but only one company dominated the market, so that nearly all schools were controlled by that one company. That's public education, except that it's even worse, because you don't have a choice whether or not to support that one company. If you refuse to support this company (government) -- either financially or in behavior -- you will be taken away and locked in a cage, at gunpoint if necessary.

Obviously, there isn't much room for individualism or personal choice -- the kind of thing that would make school interesting -- in a top-down centralized system. Especially now since the federal government has slowly but surely been taking over public education, which was supposed to be left to the states (like nearly every other "responsibility" the federal government seizes from the states or local governments).

You can probably tell I'm no fan of government schools, but here's the first and foremost change that can only improve things: decentralization. Move this power back in the hands of each individual state, where it belongs, and get the federal government OUT of the education business.

Re:Proof That CEOs are Overpaid

[Anonymous Coward]

re: "government schools are inherently a one-size-fits-all solution"
I have to disagree. I am involved in public education (not an educator) and I see that differentiated instruction is mandatory for public school teachers. In my opinion (no direct observation to support this) such is not _necessarily_ the case for non-public, typically Charter or private, schools. Public schools must educate all who come through the doors. Non-public schools by their nature service a homogeneous population.

Now, when funding shrinks -- as has been the case for almost the last ten years -- the typical reaction of a school district is to teach to the lowest common denominator. Gone are extra-curricular and enrichment programs as the available resources are focused on helping the slowest learners reach the appropriate achievement level. Funding creates the symptom of "one-size-fits-all" -- and funding is a public policy decision, which is controlled by the publicly elected legislators.

That being said I whole heartedly agree that NCLB and other imposing mandates need to be repealed and control restored to the local level. There is a need for a common curriculum, but the methods employed must be locally determined in order to be effective.

But you're missing the point of school.

[cliveholloway]

It's not to educate you, it's to keep you in line.

Re:But you're missing the point of school.

[trickster721]

Rock. On. It's so nice to be reminded that there are a few other wacky anti-learning kitten-hating conspiracy nuts like me out there.

Re:But you're missing the point of school.

[SIIHP]

I read your link.

As a former teacher, I have to say that was the biggest steaming pile I've ever seen. The assumptions that idiot makes must have resulted in one of the worst run, least effective classrooms in history.

I taught. I taught students how to think. So every time I see some asshole like you making blanket assertions like you did, it makes me glad I got out.

I was a good teacher, and jackasses who think they know WTF is going on like you ran me off with attitudes exactly like yours. So the next time you bemoan the state of education, remember the shit you've spewed and that you bear some responsibility yourself.

Re:But you're missing the point of school.

[cliveholloway]

It says at the top to set your irony meter. But, even so, I went to my daughters Kindergarten class the other day, and I was shocked to see them, hand on heart, staring at the flag, recanting the Pledge of Allegiance. If that isn't propaganda and control, I don't know what is. They are five fucking years old! Maybe being European, this sort of crap stands out to me like a sore thumb, but it weirded me the hell out. The "under God" thing made it all the more surreal to me considering I'm an atheist.

But anyway, back on topic. I suppose the writings of a State teacher of the year with 26 years in the classroom *should* be summarily dismissed. Without, of course, bothering to argue against any of the points made. Because, you know, since you were such a good teacher I should just accept your opinion without you answering a single point made by John Taylor Gatto.

Is this how you teach kids to think?

"Hey, read this. It brings up some interesting points about the school system that will make you think."

"That's crap, he's wrong, you're an asshole"

Please, let me bow down to your superior debating technique. How about a little "practice what you preach", eh?

Hey dropout

[Anonymous Coward]

Shutup and bag my groceries. Nobody gives a shit about your excuse for being a pathetic human being.

Unrelated

[pcgabe]

They're in constant communication with each other, but when they go to school, they are told to leave those 'toys' at home. They're not to be used in school. Instead, the system continues teaching as if these kids belong to the last century, by standing in front of a blackboard.

And? Does anyone really think the lack of cell-phones in the classroom is the problem holding American education back?

I used to teach in Japan (by standing in front of a blackboard, an actual blackboard, with chalk and everything). We told our students to leave their cell-phones at home, too.

Clearly, Japan's education system should be as bad as America's, given these criteria.

Re:Unrelated

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Japan's education that great?
They teach their kids to cram their asses off for entrance exams for universities where many of them will (*gasp*) promptly forget the exam material and proceed sit to around playing with their cell phones in class for four years. These are the kids who go to the high schools that are geared toward university entrance in the first place...

Sudbury Schools.

[jcr]

Google for them.

They figured out that making kids sit and pay attention for hours on end isn't a very good way to teach.

-jcr

So advanced

[alphafoo]

I certainly didn't like high school, but I don't remember being inflicted by boredom as much as frustration and annoyance. I never really understood why so many people called school "boring" until I started my first ever job teaching last year. I taught Arabic at a popular university in California, mostly to freshman and sophomores. Even in that rarefied atmosphere of over-achievers volunteering for a tough course, the difference between the top students and the bottom students (we were supposed to say they had "less capacity", as though they were hard drives) was vast indeed. So the problem wasn't teaching in and of itself, although that is a hard job and my hat goes off to people who actually make a career of it. No, the trouble for me was trying to teach to a bell curve of ability.

If I left no student behind and pitched to the slower students, then I would have completely alienated the average and gifted ones. If I pitched to the gifted ones, then 80% of the class would have felt left out. If I drove down the middle of the fairway, then both ends of the curve would be, well, bored.

So when I read this SAS guy's comment about how advanced these students are these days, with their MySpace and iPods and cell phones, I don't buy into the connection between their "cyber-lifestyle" and their educational ennui. I think a typical classroom with typical chalk and a typical board can be plenty stimulating in whatever topic, provided it's tuned to the students' ability levels. But if you are going to insist that everyone in the class is equally able to absorb the material just because they all somehow ended up in the same room together, then you are probably going to have a chunk of students tune out because they're too far behind, and a chunk tune out because they're too far ahead. It would not surprise me if those two groups together would add up to about 47%.

Re:So advanced

[garompeta]

Then we need a very basic communist educational system: divide them.
Make the gifted ones to be the most productive in the area that they are more confortable with.
And make the laziest ones to be the most productive in the area they find interested.
Both at their highest level of effective productivity.

If still there are unproductive ones in the education system, then send them to farms or to the army. No excuses.
The teachers don't waste time, and the students don't waste time either.

Re:So advanced

[Ironpoint]

There's no such thing as a 'gifted' student at the university. One person's gifted is another's obsessive compulsive with not very many real world responsibilites, low course load, and a bad sense of economics (anything above 90% effort is not optimal).

Re:So advanced

[Joe Tie.]

But if you are going to insist that everyone in the class is equally able to absorb the material just because they all somehow ended up in the same room together, then you are probably going to have a chunk of students tune out because they're too far behind, and a chunk tune out because they're too far ahead. It would not surprise me if those two groups together would add up to about 47%.

Well said. That, to me, is the single largest problem with the system. High schools are never going to meet their potential until they base class enrollment on ability, not age. It works pretty well in higher education, and I'd like to see it tried on the younger set as well. it'd sure take care of my worst memories of high school, each year spending the majority of the time going over the exact same things we'd already covered so the D students could get another D and move on again.

Try teaching students at the right pace

[Anonymous Coward]

School has always been and will forever be boring... especially for really smart kids that could absorb the material in a few weeks and for really stupid kids that are just never going to get it. It's always going to be painful as long as the system continues to lump almost everyone into the same curriculum. Only the super geniuses and super retarded get to learn at a different pace.

Technology is not the answer unless you're in a specific class that needs it... computers are great for word processing, and the occasional programming and CAD class. Maybe a graphing calculator for math classes, as long as the students understand the basics first and don't just use it as a crutch. Tech is used as toys for almost any other purpose in an education setting.

I just pray to whatever God will listen that teachers will stop using PowerPoint. Nothing turns a classroom into a more passive and tedious hell than a teacher that sits and just reads a PowerPoint presentation that they've been using over and over for the past 8 semesters.

Summary so far & what Goodnight forgot.

[JavaManJim]

Stellar comments so far. This has been the most refreshing thread response in a long time.

MY SUMMARY then WHAT GOODNIGHT FORGOT TO INCLUDE.

1. An iPod plus cellphone does not equal genius. Lack of underlying technology. Thanks AC & Jonathan.

In grade school, I built my own crystal radio, then a diode one. I wish we all had a vague idea of the electrons running around inside our devices.

2. If someone designed a math program that trained a kid from kinder garden to calculus.

Yes yes yes! And the best interface would be the greatest game ever played. I could go for that as an adult. Gaming REALLY IS THE answer. And its not just mental or watching a screen. Go for kinetic too. Throw kids into one of those Universal City rides for their gaming math lesson. Miss an answer and your world really turns upside down.

3. School is boring. Yes it has to compete with the empty glitz on TV and the rest of the time with distracting cell calls.

4. Immediate reinforcement at home. Inappropriately too. Splashes of color and sound teach what? Brain blowouts?

5. And all the rest of your great comment stuff. Thanks folks!

WHAT GOODNIGHT FORGOT TO INCLUDE.

Its easy to point out problems. So what's your idea of a solution Dr. Jim? Let us know!

Thanks,
Jim

Re:Summary so far & what Goodnight forgot.

[scottrocket]

Here's an idea: convince Apple, etc. & parents to manufacture/buy only solder-yourself kits for the Ipod,etc. In high school, when my electronics class wanted a computer, we bought an IMSAI 8080 kit, and soldered it together ourselves, while our math teacher taught us the basics of programming. If we needed an autotransformer, we either made/cobbled one, or bought a "broken" one & fixed it (ditto for our o-scopes, shortwave radios, TV's, etc.). 'course I've forgotten some of the details - a few - but a lot of the natural curiosity that I and probably all kids share continues to be nurtured, or at least remembered to this day. The odds of companies with enough influence doing this? Not too good, I suspect. Too bad.

Say Goodnight, Gracie.

Re:Summary so far & what Goodnight forgot.

[electrickoolaid]

One of Dr. G.'s solutions to the education issue: he built a school next door to his company. http://www.caryacademy.org/

Re:Summary so far & what Goodnight forgot.

[GPL Apostate]

The level of density of the electronic parts in the Ipod, combined with the high level and complexity of the software precludes it being any sort of a meaningful eletronic kit project. I mean, people these days cop an attitude like they are a 'tech wiz' if they can master the phillips screwdriver needed to screw together a PC clone. A better place to start out to give kids good exposure to lower-level electronics and computers is with robots and the embedded controllers that energize them. Give them a stepper motor or two and a processor and some drive MOSFETS to animate it. Highly integrated consumer electronics devices like an MP3 player don't count. Even the few 'homebrew MP3 player' projects that I have seen are essentially a hardware MPEG decoder chip hooked onto a PIC, so you're not getting deep into the device at all.

Re:Summary so far & what Goodnight forgot.

[benj_e]

When my son was still quite young, I got a book showing how to teach calculus concepts to children. The book started them on learning those concepts just about as soon as they could understand the idea of dividing something (like a pie or cake) into portions.

He's 23 now and I have no idea where that book is (we've moved since then) nor can I recall the name. The point is that there are ways to teach concepts without the expense of computer games. Personally, I think computers in the classroom are a resource sucking mistake, but then that's just me.

Re:Summary so far & what Goodnight forgot.

[Wavicle]

while our math teacher taught us the basics of programming

I don't know why but I gotta comment on this one.

When I was in Junior High School, there were two instructors who could teach programming. Both of them were math teachers.

A couple years ago I graduated from college with a degree in Math (actually double major in Math and CS, but let's stick to math). My university produced mostly elementary through high school teachers. About 80% of those in the Mathematics program had a teaching career as their terminal goal. Every one of them were required to take a basic computer programming course.

When the degrees were handed out, none of the teacher-track students had remembered any of that programming course except one (who happened to double major in CS as well). Unfortunately she got a job offer writing software that paid substantially more than teaching so she didn't end up in that career.

Computer science started as a branch of mathematics. Heck, it arguably still is.

So why don't we see middle/high school math teachers teaching computer programming anymore?

Re:Summary so far & what Goodnight forgot.

[scottrocket]

Good points all, and you got the thrust of my proposal: get the kids involved in hands on projects-it's less boring, and gosh they actually learn something! I would say that your ideas are more practical than mine (but still there's nothing more fun than desoldering old boards & building up a junkbox).In fact, I'm going to put my money where my mouth is this weekend, & see what kind of projects and trouble I can get into. Homebrew robotics sounds right, I mean what kid doesn't want his own robot?

Re:Summary so far & what Goodnight forgot.

[scottrocket]

So why don't we see middle/high school math teachers teaching computer programming anymore?

I'm just guessing, but I suspect that a lot of the geek math majors can make more money & perhaps more satisfaction, doing anything but teaching. OTOH, My electronics/math teacher was also a member of the ARRL, an avid "electronics geek", ham radio guy, enjoyed math puzzles, etc. Looking back, I wish I had paid more heed to his insights and advice-sigh

Re:Summary so far & what Goodnight forgot.

[GPL Apostate]

The cool approach to take, and I haven't seen it done in a good way yet, would be to get kids involved in some projects that leverage old electronics with robotics. There are stepper motors and actuators and all kinds of good stuff in discarded disk drives from old PCs. Each old floppy drive has at least one stepper motor in it. CDROM drives likewise all have good bits just waiting to be pulled out and turned into neat stuff. A whole lot can be done with some $10 PIC controllers, a little homebrew hardware to program them, and someone to pull it all together in a way that kids would really get a lot out of.

A wise old man once said:

[jafac]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it.

Is that the water's fault?

Sheesh.

Re:A wise old man once said:

[MLease]

Well, sure! Water is so boring!

-Mike

I thought school had ALWAYS been boring.

[ulatekh]

School (at least the American school system I'm familiar with) takes something beautiful and wondrous like learning and manages to suck all the joy out of it. All school really did was expose me to a bunch of subjects that I otherwise might not have looked at. But I did all of my learning on my own, by doing things I was interested in. Around age 7 I got into chemistry, and got rather proficient with my home laboratory. I was learning stuff I wouldn't encounter in school for years, just to advance my chemistry hobby. Later, as the personal computer revolution hit, I got into computer programming. Through that I personally advanced my education far beyond what I would have gotten in school, all in the pursuit of increased ability with computers.

I feel sorry for anyone expecting to get an education out of school. I feel especially sorry for anyone that thinks learning is joyless and tedious just because that's how it was in school. School is not about education; it's about meeting legally minimum standards and making sure the vast majority of the people pass. Education is, and always will be, something you have to pursue on your own, for your own reasons.

Regarding his specific complaint about the lack of American scientists and engineers...that's because students entering college aren't stupid. They saw all the engineers get laid off during the dot-com bust, even though H1-B visa caps for engineers didn't get lowered for another four years. No one wants to enter a profession that's difficult to master and yet has no job security or much of a future. I don't know what the CEOs of America can do to fix this, but not outsourcing the bejeezus out of science/engineering jobs might be a good start.

Re:I thought school had ALWAYS been boring.

[BiggerIsBetter]

Education is not just intellectual, it's social too (some would say spiritual also).

Okay, I learned Math and English and Chemistry and even Home Economics, but I also learned teamwork, leadership, negotiation, how to surf, a bunch of good jokes, how to make out with a girl, etc. Those are skills you can't easily pursue on your own...

47% of HS dropouts?

[RuBLed]

Is 47% of HS dropouts that significant? Does that mean that 53% of the dropouts find it NOT boring. What is the % of dropouts compared to those still at school. Wouldn't it be more convincing if we say 47% of current highschool students? Back then (still less than a decade), boring is not the word I would describe HS, more likely I would say HS = Overload of everything much like what it is today. I find specialized HS more attractive, they tend to focus on one (+several related) field the most but dont totally ignore the others. It's like, if you're focused on sciences, spanish history suddenly becomes a minor subject, something you would learn but would not have 100+ items on tests every quarter.. or something like that...

Re:47% of HS dropouts?

[timmarhy]

typical drop out " yeah i could have done that advanced calc class, but it was just too boring"

BULLSHIT. life is not one big exicting attention grabbing event one after the other, like it or not kiddies, there's boring bits and plenty of hardwork involved.

bring back more repetition and more of the black board and stop trying to pander to wet behind the ears teenage brats. they have to earn their fucking dues, and all the time in the world playing with their wii won't help them.

He nailed it on the head...

[Secret Rabbit]

... though not what he thinks.

He outlined the problem with the *kids*, NOT the problem with schools. Perhaps if the kids didn't have access to all those toys they'd have an attention span beyond that of a chronically depressed lemming and actually be able to learn something while in class.

Re:He nailed it on the head...

[justinlee37]

That's a big "perhaps" without a correlation, or even a theory, to back up your idea. It's complete supposition; and as a Gen-Y college student who has spent most of his free time since adolescence with his computer, I can't really endorse the hypothesis that speedy access to information causes a short attention span. In fact, I'd argue that mass media is likely more to blame, and that is a product of previous generations (brainless sitcoms and 30-second commercials on television, anyone?).

I use my rapid access to information to, say, look up ideas that were mentioned (but not expanded on) in economics class. If I had a laptop in class, I'd just learn faster and more efficiently, because I wouldn't have to wait to go home to look them up.

Re:He nailed it on the head...

[suv4x4]

He outlined the problem with the *kids*, NOT the problem with schools. Perhaps if the kids didn't have access to all those toys they'd have an attention span beyond that of a chronically depressed lemming and actually be able to learn something while in class.

My, my. I've read more scary comments to this article than I ever imagined I could on an internet forum, let alone Slashdot itself.

Did someone replace the young geeky visionaries that fight for modern approach to modern problems with 70 year old bags overnight?

I'm reading stuff as "Yessir, in my time we also used black boards, and we liked it! Goddamn iPods spoiling our little brats. They deserve slap for using them newfangled gadgets versus not reading some good book like in the ol' times!"

Wow... *snivers*... Blaming the kids and refusing to even entertain the possibility of modernization in the education system (beside I guess forcing Linux and C++ courses on everyone, you'd all love that, right).

If geeks are on this level of thought, it's sad times we've come to in our development. Here's to hope poor countries at least pick up on a more modern trend with the OLPC.

Re:He nailed it on the head...

[dreamchaser]

Why don't you enlighten us then, and explain how cell phones and iPods can be used to better educate our kids? What's that? You can't? Didn't think so.

Technology is great when it's use makes sense, not just for the sake of technology. The problem with our schools is largely one of politics and political correctness, of 'outcomes based' policies instead of policies that are actually designed to TEACH.

Re:He nailed it on the head...

[suv4x4]

Why don't you enlighten us then, and explain how cell phones and iPods can be used to better educate our kids? What's that? You can't? Didn't think so.

I don't have iPod, I've a tiny cheap Chinese mp3 player with 256 MB of Flash memory on it.

I can load more than a day worth of interesting lectures on it, I can also load the CNN News Update mp3 straight from their RSS. And I actually do, it's great I can go anywhere, with my hands free and enjoy listening to something interesting and educational at the same time.

I pick my own topics, I'd probably not find anything a high-school student learns particularly interesting, even if I was at that age.

Using 3rd party tools you can convert the free lectures on the internet to mp3 or other format compatible with your device. I particularly like to listen to SALT - Seminars about Long Term Thinking. It covers wide range of topics, from technology, ecology, society, business and so on.

I'm the kinda guy who also thinks high-school education is boring the hell out of people, and frequently force feeding them facts they forget in a month or two. It could be so natural, and provoke kids to seek information themselves, if you connect with their world and provide them relevant information they may be interested in.

But if all you see when you look at iPod is "goddamn kids and their rap music", then there's no way you can connect to those kids and help them improve actively, you'll just be the old angry man trying to stubbornly keep Earth still.

Re:He nailed it on the head...

[AK Marc]

He outlined the problem with the *kids*, NOT the problem with schools. Perhaps if the kids didn't have access to all those toys they'd have an attention span beyond that of a chronically depressed lemming and actually be able to learn something while in class.

So the education system should be fixed by having the schools go into everyone's homes and take their iPods. Oh, not what you wanted for the solution? What if the schools recognized that the students had a reduced attention span, and taught with computers and such in a manner consistent with the student's abilities?

You sound like the ignorant asses here that have seen the studies that elementary school children naturally wake sooner than teens, so the medical conclusion is to have high school start last, but they chose to set elementary to start last and high school start first (they can't start at the same time because of bussing). Their excuse? The high schoolers should stop whining when the world chooses to harm them.

With school administrators purposefully picking that which they believe to harm the students, is it any wonder why students do poorly? Rather than trying to dictate what they do at home ("they should go to bed sooner"), they should make the choices to best educate those that walk through the doors as-is. It seems that you fit in well with the school administrators here.

Re:He nailed it on the head...

[Anonymous Coward]

Red Dwarf quoting to insult the modern day child? Thats as Evil as it gets because they probably wouldn't even recognize it.

Only idiots...

[kb0hae]

Well, only idiots that have bought (Cr)apples hype that the iPod and Iphone are some sort of status symbol would buy these devices and not take them back the next day when they find out what utter cheap junk that they are!

Confused

[grasshoppa]

Why does advances in one field mean we need to use it in education? And why is it that specific field? Computers are great tools, but they have little to do with the actual education part of the equation.

Teaching methods have progressed, regardless of what you see in public schools. They just aren't allowed to use the more advanced methods in a lot of cases, and in most they simply don't care enough to try. Standing up and lecturing is a useless method that no teacher should be using, I don't care what level we're talking about. Let me paint you a picture;

You set a goal. Say, this class will raise $XX.XX by December. From there, you brainstorm with your class: How do we do it? Now the class comes up with ideas, and the teacher picks the best of the bunch ( or best several ). Then they set to work making that happen, with the teacher mixing in social studies, history, math, and science into the mix ( which is the criteria they used to select the 'best' ideas ). Over the course of the next several months, your class works towards this goal using skills you teach them along the way.

Now, not only are they learning their subjects, they are using them in a real world environment to accomplish a real world goal. The lessons they learn here will stay with them for life. They are exercising their imaginations to come up with solutions to real problems. Through this, they gain the confidence to go on to bigger and better things.

Anybody who simply lectures is not a teacher; They are a highly paid monkey with a larger vocabulary.

Re:Confused

[E 99]

Standing up and lecturing is a useless method that no teacher should be using, I don't care what level we're talking about. Let me paint you a picture;

You set a goal. Say, this class will raise $XX.XX by December. From there, you brainstorm with your class: How do we do it? Now the class comes up with ideas, and the teacher picks the best of the bunch ( or best several ). Then they set to work making that happen, with the teacher mixing in social studies, history, math, and science into the mix ( which is the criteria they used to select the 'best' ideas ). Over the course of the next several months, your class works towards this goal using skills you teach them along the way.

Now, not only are they learning their subjects, they are using them in a real world environment to accomplish a real world goal. The lessons they learn here will stay with them for life. They are exercising their imaginations to come up with solutions to real problems. Through this, they gain the confidence to go on to bigger and better things.

Anybody who simply lectures is not a teacher; They are a highly paid monkey with a larger vocabulary.

That sounds amazingly useless to me. How do the students improve their writing skills by doing this? What do they learn about science? What new math skills do they learn? Practice adding and subtracting? If this is a remedial school for kids who are going to go out into the world and scrounge for money, then maybe it's useful. For kids who might be interested in studying advance subjects in college, and will need to improve their writing and math skills, it seems like an incredible waste of time.

Furthermore, if kids don't develop the ability to learn from lectures, they will not only fail in college, but they will fail in the business world.

Re:Confused

[grasshoppa]

That sounds amazingly useless to me. How do the students improve their writing skills by doing this? What do they learn about science? What new math skills do they learn? Practice adding and subtracting? If this is a remedial school for kids who are going to go out into the world and scrounge for money, then maybe it's useful. For kids who might be interested in studying advance subjects in college, and will need to improve their writing and math skills, it seems like an incredible waste of time.

That's where the teacher comes in. If you do the base line and just accomplish the goal, you would be right; This method would be useless for most kids. However, the teacher is what makes or breaks this method. They would tie in all those that you mention ( writing, math, science ).

For grade school, this achieves amazing results. Not only are the kids motivated to learn, but the confidence they gain enables them to tackle other, harder, problems.

Regarding learning how to deal with lectures; Lectures are a horrible way to "teach", I've established that. However, it is true that no matter what, students will have to deal with these people who insist on doing so. The methods I listed previously teach children/people how to learn, which once you learn that you can take in information no matter the format.

MIT undergrads disagree as well

[nathanicus]

I'm an freshman at MIT, taking a physics course (8.01 classical mechanics) that is supposed to use technology to the fullest: radio frequency response cards, computer for every third person, full integration with experiments, video feeds from the professor's desk to screens all around the room, online extra homework assignments, etc, but undergrads pretty much all agree that IT SUCKS. Interaction is far lower, the professors are tempted to stuff absurd numbers of meaningless assignments into the syllabus since they no longer need to grade them by hand, and the end result is that learning physics has become a lot harder than it needs to be. A lot of my friends have moved up to 8.012, not because it is a harder class, but because they have -normal- lecture and recitation sessions, which makes all the difference. We may like flashy technology a lot, but right now it isn't an improvement over what we have. The 'blackboard' style of teaching goes back 2000+ years for a reason.

Technology 'bling' isn't the answer

[apposite]

Learning, and as a result teaching, is a tricky process. Good teachers help debug the learning process- understanding misconceptions that blindside the learner, pacing material to achieve flow states and helping the learner deal with the extrinsic interfering factors involved in learning (e.g. you are six and have the attention span of gnat).

Without doubt some elements of technology will help in the learning process- flash games for little people to help with rote learning or access to the web for older students who are at a point where they can investigate more on their own. But primary school and high school (not sure what they are called around the world but school from about age 5 through to about age 12 and school from about 12 through to 17) try to teach some pretty challenging stuff. In primary school one of most important objectives is socialisation: don't punch the girls, don't wipe your snot on the desk, don't pee at your chair, say please and thank you- learn to be an acceptable member of your society. After that they also hope to teach some basic tools of society: literacy and numeracy. In high school the objectives expand: learn to teach yourself a bit and learn some wider societal skills. And the socialisation continues: girls and boys are different, you have more freedom, you can do more stuff.

It isn't until University that it is assumed you know how to learn and socialise. That you have the discipline to sit in front of a piece of paper, book, typewriter, computer, script, essay, musical score -or whatever the tool of your profession is- and get on with your work. Your high school homework is trainer wheels for learning to be an independent learner and do things yourself.

Technology may help in the primary and high school education- in fact I'm sure it could- but you need to make sure it doesn't get in the way of the most important things we learn: how to be a social human being and how to gain enough self discipline to independently learn- and maybe some basic literacy and numeracy. Most of that stuff really does need someone standing over you- hopefully being supportive, understanding and encouraging- but not always helping provide some support for your growing self discipline. Computers aren't so good at that.

I don't in any way think that today's schools are ideal but technological 'bling' isn't going to fix the problem.

(Of course I also think we treat our teenagers like children and -worse- force them to hang out with each other rather than adults. Which means they grow up surrounded by other equally confused unchallenged kids. In cultures 200 years ago a teenager would start to take on adult responsibilities- or be a full adult- and I don't think we do our children any favours by removing this responsibility from them. If you want our kids to pay attention then give them real world meaningful challenges. Nothing forces you to learn like doing something that matters. My little one is 1 year old- I've got about a decade to work out how to do this!)

Grammar nazi

[bidule]

Yeah, and they couldn't write a proper sentence if their lives depended on it.

I consider myself fairly bad a communicating, English is a second language for me, and I am amazed at the crappy level of written communication. I mean... copywrite is the opposite of copyleft... don't people understand what they are writing? PEBKAC crisis keep happening because users don't understand what they are doing. They don't stop and think, they have no common sense.

Ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement et les mots pour le dire viennent aisément.

Yes, grammar is a pain, maths also. Nothing that is worth learning is easy. My handwriting is barely legible I don't use it and it would take a year of daily practice to regain it. It always takes time to master something. Kids are at school for this purpose before all. You are there to learn how to learn, to get used to persevere until you get it. And it you don't, all you'll do is fill up you credit card and go bankrupt because you don't know what you're doing and you cannot persevere in making and respecting your budget.

what's an education?

[misanthrope101]

What the hell do we want from education? Technical proficiency? Cultural knowledge? Time spent learning programming is time not spent pondering Hamlet. The education that produced Joyce is gone, because classics/literature are no longer considered central to education. People want their kids to be able to get a job, but we also end up with well-trained, specialized idiots.

I worked with a nurse (RN, Master's degree) who didn't know who Stalin or Freud were, by picture or name. In the USA the education system was designed to produce compliant, useful factory workers and consumers, and I guess in every country education is meant to imbue patriotism, willingness to trot off to war whenever the government wants, and so on. But I think we should preface every argument on education with what we mean by education. That stipulation would obviate a considerable amount of angst on the subject.

We also need to be careful stipulating that education has to be fun and exciting. Learning is not a video game, nor is it watching TV. Basically I've seen education dumbed down to where it COULD be taught in a fun, engaging way that bolsters self-esteem and makes everyone happy. If we raise kids who can opt out of any activity because it's "boring," then we'll have a society of amusement-seeking idiots who can't recognize, much less utilize, critical thinking. Since this seems to be what we have already, I guess it goes a bit further back than the current generation of kids.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Blame the mandate

[Mr2001]

Students do not *normally* come to school to learn anymore. Of course not! They come to school because the law says that's where they have to spend their weekdays. It's a wonder that any of them spend their time any more productively than prisoners do.

You get rid of the kids who cause trouble. Put them in a program to help them with their difficulties. Better yet, just stop forcing those kids to attend. It shouldn't come as a surprise that you'll have a better learning environment if the only students there are the ones who want to learn.

Re:Blame the mandate

[QuantumG]

The other cool thing about removing the mandate is that a lot of people who didn't see the point of school will, after experiencing the world for a while, go back to school. That means students will no longer be segregated by age, which has many beneficial effects, such as making fast advancement of gifted students less of a problem. It also means that adults who try to improve their education will not be seen in such a negative light anymore.. and means that our society will have to provide for them, causing a more socialist attitude (in the good, European sense of the word).

Re:Blame the mandate

[rastilin]

Supposing however that it works differently. That after dropping the mandate, the country that does it will see literacy rates begin to fall as well as the overall average of education in that country. School might not be fun, it might very well be like a prison, but that's too bad, because it's the most important thing the government can do for you. The state funded school system is the result of centuries of struggle for the right of all people to receive a fair and equal opportunity at the beginning of their lives. School is forced onto students because given a chance, most students would choose NOT to bother and many of their parents won't force them.

If you remove the mandate, odds are that you'll also increase the rates of poverty in poorer areas. Decrease literacy, decrease numeracy and almost certainly lower university attendance.

One other thing, from what I've seen, these vaunted "special" courses are just a way to get rid of the poorer and less able students so they won't have to be dealt with. They receive a lower standard of education and their opportunities are reduced.

In essence, even if certain students cause problems. They still learn something, they're worth teaching and a poor learning environment is just the price we have to live with. Needless to say I think it's worth living with.

Re:Blame the mandate

[TubeSteak]

a lot of people who didn't see the point of school will, after experiencing the world for a while, go back to school. That means students will no longer be segregated by age, which has many beneficial effects It also can have many negative effects.
There is a reason we don't put a 21 year old in the same class as a 16 or 17 yr old.
It would only make drug and alcohol use in schools more pervasive.

Up through highschool, developement is very very compressed and mixing age groups together is not really a good idea, unless it is done in a very controlled fashion (big brother/sister mentoring type programs).

Re:Blame the mandate

[QuantumG]

And what exactly do you base this on?

Seems to me that segregation is the cause of age idolization by youth.

That and disenfranchising teens.

Re:Blame the mandate

[rizzo420]

the mandate is there because some kids won't realize how much they need school until much later in life. then you end up with 18 year olds in class with 10 year olds. that just doesn't work.

the age segregation thing is more beneficial to students than removing it. i remember reading a story about a 14 year old (i don't remember the exact age, but he was too young to drive) going for his phd. that's just messed up. this 14 year old will not adjust properly to real life. the reason that we keep kids of about the same age together is because they are all going through generally the same life cycles at the same time... puberty for instance. they have each other to help each other get through those various points in their life.

while i agree that gifted students should have something else or more advanced work to keep their minds going, they shouldn't be off to college before they can drive. they end up missing out on the most important school (and i know this sounds cheesy, but it's true)... the school of life. there's a reason why geniuses end up being outcasts and maladjusted. they don't grow up the same way as everyone else. parents are too pushy to get them into harder programs and out of school faster, when all they need is a different type of attention while staying in the same grade level as everyone else.

and i want to know where you're getting this idea that adults who try to improve their education are seen in a negative light. maybe in the backwards parts of the country, but here in the northeast, they're applauded.

Re:Blame the mandate

[AvitarX]

It is also worth noting that the greatest advancements are likely to come in non-guided settings. The people that self taught themselves assembly on an AppleII at age 12 (I am sure there are plenty CS types that started there) would likely not get the oppurtunity taking advanced highschool science classes.

Another example I read about is a group of children at a boarding school that succesfully set-up a snack business that netted $30k/year. They learned more about small business than they would have in any amount of education, but advanced pace education would have not given them the time. There are always things on the horizon that high schools and even undergraduate courses are not ready to teach, but can be learned by someone bright with free time, even at an exceptionally young age.

Of course if you are working on a phd it changes things a little, because you then have more freedom and access to the truly cutting edge that HS and Undergrad may not give you. But the vast majority of people are not going to be that much accelerated, and end up going to college a year or 2 early, and with a few credits to start, the end point is still generally the same for most people though. It's not like the average genius is going to go so much further because they have a 2 year head start on college, especially if compared to someone that enters knowing the basics of OS design (from studying the Linux kernel in their free time).

People need to be able to have free time when they are not supporting themself (at least through HS) so that they can explore things and really learn.

Re:Blame the mandate

[Anonymous Coward]

It's based on human nature and him not being a fucking idiot.
You don't put 22 year old drop-outs in a school with 17 year old girls. Doing so is STUPID.

Re:Blame the mandate

[rizzo420]

yes... they do need that free time. there are clubs and extracurricular activities. the schooling is just as important as the free time. blame the parents, not the system. the kids whose parents spend time when them sharing their own interests are the kids who end up adjusting well and succeeding in life.

school is only 6 hours a day, 5 days a week for most high school students. the rest of the time should be spent on homework, fun stuff, and hobbies. it's those hobbies that can get people ahead, like your computer hobbyist example.

Re:Blame the mandate

[QuantumG]

then you end up with 18 year olds in class with 10 year olds. that just doesn't work. Uhhh.. says who? I actually had a mature age student or two at my high school. Nothing makes smart asses 16 year olds shut up like a fellow student telling them they better pay attention or they'll be back trying to get their diploma when they're 22, like him.

Re:Blame the mandate

[GreyPoopon]

Better yet, just stop forcing those kids to attend. It shouldn't come as a surprise that you'll have a better learning environment if the only students there are the ones who want to learn.

And for those kids who do not attend? What happens to them? What do you do when they are adults and cannot support themselves? Not saying you are wrong, but I'm curious is to what the rest of your game plan is.

Re:Blame the mandate

[khallow]

the age segregation thing is more beneficial to students than removing it. i remember reading a story about a 14 year old (i don't remember the exact age, but he was too young to drive) going for his phd. that's just messed up. this 14 year old will not adjust properly to real life.

If you ever figure out what "real life" is, you tell us.

As I see it, it may be that this person is adjusting to real life just fine. 14 years old is pretty much an adult. Sure there's still some growing to do, but exposure to a bit of responsibility isn't a bad thing. And if it gets a PhD too, that could be pretty useful.

Re:Blame the mandate

[GreyPoopon]

i remember reading a story about a 14 year old (i don't remember the exact age, but he was too young to drive) going for his phd. that's just messed up. this 14 year old will not adjust properly to real life.

I agree that forcing the younger students to deal with an older student is probably a bad idea. However, in the case of this 14 year old, his obviously higher intelligence was probably going to make it difficult to adjust to "real life". I'm not sure that going to the University for his PhD at that age would make it any worse. As you mentioned later on, maybe some sort of gifted program for kids who have completed their schooling early would be better.
 

and i want to know where you're getting this idea that adults who try to improve their education are seen in a negative light.

Yeah, I wonder about this too. Personally, I have a great deal of respect for an adult who chooses to go back to school, particularly those who do so to complete the basic education that they never finished. It takes a _lot_ of determination for someone who works a full time job to focus enough to earn their HS diploma at the same time.

Re:Blame the mandate

[rizzo420]

by what reasoning can you say that 14 years old is pretty much an adult? let's see... can't drive, can't vote, can't live on your own, can't even join the military. i'd say that a 14 year old is nowhere near an adult. heck, most college students i know aren't adults yet, even those over 21.

there's a lot of growing up to do at 14, and at no point did i say that they shouldn't be exposed to responsibility. in fact, i think children as young as 5 or 6 should be exposed to responsibility, though that might be something as menial as sharing (which many adults still have problems with).

the reason i have for a child (yes a 14 year old is a child) not going to college is that most children are not mature enough (not to say that 18 year olds are very mature) to deal with what goes on at colleges. not only that, but they won't be able to get the most out of college. i'm talking about the social experiences, not just the educational ones (which i will say are more important).

anyone who thinks that a child that young should be moving as quickly as possible through school doesn't know a whole lot about child development.

Re:Blame the mandate

[rizzo420]

I agree that forcing the younger students to deal with an older student is probably a bad idea. However, in the case of this 14 year old, his obviously higher intelligence was probably going to make it difficult to adjust to "real life". I'm not sure that going to the University for his PhD at that age would make it any worse. As you mentioned later on, maybe some sort of gifted program for kids who have completed their schooling early would be better. a gifted program would have definitely helped this kid. while a phd wouldn't hurt, going through college as a child does not help development. development is a part of schooling, believe it or not. slower learners need more help, sometimes one on one. gifted students also need help, again, sometimes one on one. when i was in grammar school, they had this program for gifted students (granted none of us were super-geniuses, but our classes didn't fulfill us as much as they could have, i also went to a private school) that met once a week and we got to do things that interested us. one student made a claymation movie, others did a radio show, i did extra drawing. it gave us time to do something we were interested in and then show it off. programs like that should be in place for students who need extra attention or time to explore.

Re:Blame the mandate

[QuantumG]

heck, most college students i know aren't adults yet, even those over 21. Americans.

You are aware that most everywhere else in the world people aged 21 are a lot more sensible than in the USA.

It's your culture that makes people that way. I'm suggesting your culture is bad. Big shock.

Re:Blame the mandate

[QuantumG]

Maybe you should send your princess to a nice catholic school where she wont be exposed to the evils of the opposite gender.

Re:Blame the mandate

[thrillseeker]

wont be exposed to the evils of the opposite gender

Slashdot fits this criteria ...

Re:Blame the mandate

[MightyYar]

Hmmmm, I went to school with a whole bunch of foreign students right here in the USA and we seemed to be pretty compatible.

I think you need to get out more. People are not so different as you seem to think.

Re:Blame the mandate

[khallow]

by what reasoning can you say that 14 years old is pretty much an adult? let's see... can't drive, can't vote, can't live on your own, can't even join the military. i'd say that a 14 year old is nowhere near an adult. heck, most college students i know aren't adults yet, even those over 21.

That just illustrates problems with US society. If you treat your 14 or 21 year olds like babies, then they usually become so.

the reason i have for a child (yes a 14 year old is a child) not going to college is that most children are not mature enough (not to say that 18 year olds are very mature) to deal with what goes on at colleges. not only that, but they won't be able to get the most out of college. i'm talking about the social experiences, not just the educational ones (which i will say are more important).

Clearly, this kid is different. And if someone is smart and mature enough to get something out of college, then that's probably a better choice than high school. You don't need to get the "most" out of college. It just needs to be better than your other choices.

anyone who thinks that a child that young should be moving as quickly as possible through school doesn't know a whole lot about child development.

Oh, I quite agree. I'd even go as far as to say that there's a lot of people who shouldn't even try until they get more mature to go through high school. They aren't mature enough. One of the reasons that colleges have better learning environments than public schools is because the students generally want to be there.

Re:Blame the mandate

[tehcyder]

Nothing makes smart asses 16 year olds shut up like a fellow student telling them they better pay attention or they'll be back trying to get their diploma when they're 22, like him.

When I was a smart arse 16 year old, I would just have taken the piss out of a 22 year old in my class.

Re:Blame the mandate

[jedidiah]

You really need to get out of the suburbs more, mebbe take out the silver spoon.

The 22 year old doesn't need to hang out in class to contribute to the delinquency of the 17 year old.

Nevermind how you are patronizing the 17 year old.

Making school purely optional, and immediately ejecting trouble makers of any age, quickly sidesteps the entire problem. It also has a nice side effect of working for the 11 year old girls too that have to put up with 11 year old male hoods that are no less menacing than the 22 year olds you are fixating on.

Re:Blame the mandate

[GreyPoopon]

when i was in grammar school, they had this program for gifted students...

The private school I went to had programs like that as well. Even the public school I attended for high school was experimenting with some accelerated programs. For example, my freshman-year math class combined algebra and trigonometry into the same year. I thought it was a good idea, but I think I heard that the school canceled the program a year or two later. I'm not sure why, though -- maybe something about parents complaining over the amount of homework the kids had. Whiners. ;) Anyway, in the case of the 14-yr-old PhD student, do you think such a program would have helped? I mean, think about it. If you're 14 and you're in a PhD program, you've already been through six years equivalent of college. That means this kid was probably doing algebra and chemistry at the age of six or something like that. I don't know of any gifted programs that can handle such advanced students. The only choices I can think of are 1-1 tutoring (very expensive for higher education levels) and homeschooling (which would also be difficult at higher education levels). Developmentally, I'd really worry about the kid, though. He either totally misses childhood altogether and doesn't care, which leaves him completely unable to relate to or understand other people and their background. Or, he turns into this fantastic overachiever that commits suicide the first time he encounters failure because he can't handle it. Very disturbing -- I'm not sure what the answer is.

Re:Blame the mandate

[rizzo420]

i never said treat them like babies, i simply said that they are not adults and are not ready to handle adult situations. at 14, you still have a lot of life learning to go through and it can't just hit you all at once. there are responsibilities that 14 year olds should have and responsibilities that they should not have. living on their own is not the type of responsibility a 14 year old should have. they are still at a development level that, though most of them would disagree with me, leaves them dependent on their parents for certain things.

college used to be the type of place where people went because they wanted to, but it's becoming the type of place where people go because they think they are supposed to (or in some cases because parents force them to). because of that, students are learning only what their majors tell them they need to and their extracurricular stuff or extra work on the side is generally drinking and having fun rather than exploring academic interests (usually because the academic interests just aren't there). unfortunately, society has started to say that if you don't have a college education, you aren't good enough.

Re:Blame the mandate

[hb253]

You can be sure the 22 year old male will be salivating at the prospect of screwing underage girls who get star struck by "older men."

Re:Blame the mandate

[GPL Apostate]

they have each other to help each other get through those various points in their life.

"Everybody belongs to everyone else" is a slogan from Huxley's "Brave New World." Its from one of the themes from that book that usually gets brushed over in school. It's safer to stick with simple things like the 'test tube babies' theme for some horrible reason.

Re:Blame the mandate

[Trillian_1138]

school is only 6 hours a day, 5 days a week for most high school students. the rest of the time should be spent on homework, fun stuff, and hobbies. it's those hobbies that can get people ahead, like your computer hobbyist example.

Now, I know you said "most," so I'm not trying to pick on you. I just want to point out that the extremes can be, well, extreme. For example, my highschool (admitedly one of the longest if not the longest school days in the state of Illinois) was 8:05 - 3:35, or 7.5 hours a day. I don't even really want to disagree with your point, as I think free time is extremely important. I just wanted to chime in that, for some, it really isn't *that much* FREE time. At times in highschool, I had the equivilent time commitment of a fulltime job (school), plus working part time, plus being involed in theatre at school, plus outside activities, plus homework (totaling well over 60 hours a week).

I really don't have a point here. Again, I agree with what you and many others are saying, that parental involvement is super-important. I just wanted to comment on your assumption that most highschoolers are only in school for ~6 hours. (Although it looks like, at least in the early 1980s, you're right. This is the most recent thing I could find on school day length in 2 minutes of googling: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/findings.html)
-Trillian

Re:Blame the mandate

[Doctor Faustus]

Better yet, just stop forcing those kids to attend. It shouldn't come as a surprise that you'll have a better learning environment if the only students there are the ones who want to learn.

Alternately, make the mandate be actually finishing, not age. If you never graduate, you're never legally an adult, and can never stop going. That should be fairly motivating.

Re:Blame the mandate

[Anonymous Coward]

(Posting anonymous for obvious reasons.) In that case don't let your 17 year old daughter get a job, or ride the bus, or so forth. I think your main concern is raising her properly. When I was 20 and 21 I briefly dated a girl who was 16. I'm now 22, and she's now 17. I met her at work. I don't feel ashamed of it at all (I'm posting anonymous because eventually someone might want to investigate me, and if they scour my Slashdot posting history they'd find this, and some people don't understand.) Trust me, the big bad men in their early 20's aren't taking advantage of the underage girl. She has to be a slut to begin with. I don't see "slut" as a bad thing, and I have a great deal of affection and respect for her still, but some people are sluts, and if you don't raise your daughter to be a slut you have nothing to worry about. (Note: raising her as a Catholic schoolgirl, in effect, will potentially raise her as a slut.)

Re:Blame the mandate

[rizzo420]

even today, the school day is still about 6-6.5 hours, which includes lunch (which i think in most high schools is about half an hour). i went to a private high school. the school day started around 8:30 and ended around 2:30. this allowed the ability to have sports practice after any extra help sessions and still get out by 4 or 5. because it was a private school, the rules were a bit different, but the public school in my town started around 7:30 or 8 and ended around 2 or 2:30. it was still no more than 7 hours of being there.

but again, the biggest issue is parental involvement. my mother runs an after school program that goes until 6-6:30 every day. the parents don't get to spend a whole lot of time with their kids. it's really sad. in some cases the parents don't want any involvement other than the occasional fun thing to make the kid think their parents are awesome. it's pretty bad.

but yes, i made a generalization on the length of the school day. the problem is schools are trying to pack more and more into the school day thinking that quantity means something.... when it really means that the kids sit in class longer and get bored more often. the teachers are a part of the problem, but it has nothing to do with "old school schooling". unfortunately, the classroom setting is the best way to get through to all the different types of learners, though teachers have to be sure to accommodate everyone and not just lecture and test. there needs to be some hands on stuff and different methods of explaining things. i used to be a substitute teacher for a while and when i was doing a lesson on percentages with a 7th or 8th grade class, they had no idea how to get it. what was worse is that the book didn't explain it well and their teacher followed the book word for word. she was a really shitty teacher and should have been fired. i explained percentages the way i learned and they all got it, but were tested on the book's way. i was put on the spot and managed to come up with a way to incorporate my method with the book's method. their teacher who didn't know what she was doing (either that or she was just plain lazy) wasn't teaching them, she was making them just regurgitate stuff.

Re:Blame the mandate

[Eli Gottlieb]

We mature people (both Americans and foreigners) generally spend much of our time around immature people wishing we could have as much fun as they do.

Re:Blame the mandate

[The One and Only]

17 isn't underage. 17 is usually only months short of 18. There's a heap paradox here and you're completely ignoring it.

Re:Blame the mandate

[MightyYar]

I went further than that - I actually tried to hang with my roommate freshman year of college and he completely exhausted me. I just couldn't do it. I think the point where I realized I wasn't built for it was when he and his buddies were flipping a car on it's side, and all I could think of was when we were going to get home so I could get some sleep.

After that, I mostly hung with more sedate people.

Re:Blame the mandate

[Anonymous Coward]

"As an elementary-school student and the parent of an elementary-school student..."

Re:Blame the mandate

[Mr2001]

In fact, in most U.S. states (and most of the western world), the age of consent is 16 or lower. No need to argue about whether a 17 year old is "underage enough"... in most places, she's not underage, period.

Re:Blame the mandate

[The One and Only]

16 is the legal age of consent above which you're not guilty of statutory rape. Whether you're guilty of being a dirty old man is a social boundary set by the ceiling function of half your age plus 7 years. In which case, a 21 or 22 year old man should only date women 18 or older. The taboo against dirty old men, of course, isn't consistent.

Re:Blame the mandate

[Mr2001]

And for those kids who do not attend? What happens to them? What do you do when they are adults and cannot support themselves? Not saying you are wrong, but I'm curious is to what the rest of your game plan is. I see no reason to treat them any differently from any other group of people who choose not to support themselves. What do you do when a factory worker is laid off and doesn't have a broad enough education to get a job in another field? Solve that problem and you'll have your answer.

I don't think it's as much of a problem as you make it out to be, though. Kids will learn something, no matter where they are and what they're doing; that's what kids do. There are several schools based on the idea that if you put kids together in a resource-filled environment where they can spend their time doing whatever they feel like, most of them will find something that interests them, and they'll end up learning a lot of valuable stuff even without classes, tests, and daily schedules. I went to a regular public school, but still, the skills that I use to support myself have very little to do with the classes I was required to take in school.

Re:Blame the mandate

[Mr2001]

Supposing however that it works differently. That after dropping the mandate, the country that does it will see literacy rates begin to fall as well as the overall average of education in that country. Well, as long as we're just supposing... what if after dropping the mandate, our economy starts to grow at an unprecedented rate, as the billions of man-hours per year that were previously being wasted studying such things as the rules of volleyball, the symbolism of books about talking bunnies, and the innards of fetal pigs are instead directed into more productive pursuits?

Reading is a prerequisite for pretty much everything else in life, and written text is all around us. There are plenty of opportunities and motivations for literacy outside of a classroom. As for the "overall average of education", such a metric presumes that the number of hours spent in school is the only worthwhile measure of a person's knowledge and skill.

School might not be fun, it might very well be like a prison, but that's too bad, because it's the most important thing the government can do for you. The state funded school system is the result of centuries of struggle for the right of all people to receive a fair and equal opportunity at the beginning of their lives. Providing all people the opportunity is the important part. Forcing all people to attend, not so much. No one ever struggled to have their freedom taken away.

School is forced onto students because given a chance, most students would choose NOT to bother and many of their parents won't force them. Given a chance, most people will also choose not to work in a coal mine, or drink urine, or watch Battlefield Earth. I eagerly await your proposal to mandate those activities for everyone, since apparently the fact that someone doesn't want to do something is enough justification to force them into doing it.

In essence, even if certain students cause problems. They still learn something, they're worth teaching and a poor learning environment is just the price we have to live with. They'll still learn something no matter where they are. Most of the important stuff I learned wasn't taught in school, and there are several schools based on the idea that if you put kids in an environment where learning is possible, and let them spend their time however they want, most of them will find something that interests them, and that's what they'll devote their time to.

Re:Blame the mandate

[Mr2001]

by what reasoning can you say that 14 years old is pretty much an adult? let's see... can't drive, can't vote, can't live on your own, can't even join the military. i'd say that a 14 year old is nowhere near an adult. Legally, that's true. But sometimes the law is wrong, and I'd say this is one of those times.

the reason i have for a child (yes a 14 year old is a child) not going to college is that most children are not mature enough (not to say that 18 year olds are very mature) to deal with what goes on at colleges. not only that, but they won't be able to get the most out of college. i'm talking about the social experiences, not just the educational ones (which i will say are more important). Unless you can come up with a way to measure how "mature" someone is, statements like this are nothing but hot air. You say 14 year olds aren't mature enough, but if I say "yes they are!", you have no way to respond except to pound the table and claim that you're right and I'm wrong. That's because the word "mature" has no objective meaning here.

You might want to draw the line at 18 or 21, but what happens when some geezer comes along and says a 30 year old is still a child, and no one should go to college until they're at least 55, because that's when people really start to become mature? Again, since you've decided to rest your claim on your personal beliefs about "maturity", you have no way to argue that your line is any better than his.

Re:Blame the mandate

[rizzo420]

you're the one blowing hot air. you know as well as i know as well as an 80 year old knows that there's a difference between mature for a 14 year old and mature enough for college.

sure, maturity doesn't have a good measurement, but development does. and at 14, a child (yes, developmentally, both physically and mentally, still a child), is not ready for life outside the family.

while it might be some "judeo-christian" thing from the last century, human development does evolve and the environment affects our evolution. in pretty much every developed nation, you don't see 14 year olds out on their own. maybe they're mature enough in the undeveloped countries where people have to fend for themselves. maybe we should throw our kids out of the house at 12 so they can learn to be "men". i don't know what you're getting at here, but it's a whole lot more hot air than anything i've said. clearly you don't know a whole lot about human development. having a super high IQ and being super intelligent does not make someone mentally developed enough to be on their own.

Re:Blame the mandate

[rastilin]

Well, as long as we're just supposing... what if after dropping the mandate, our economy starts to grow at an unprecedented rate, as the billions of man-hours per year that were previously being wasted studying such things as the rules of volleyball, the symbolism of books about talking bunnies, and the innards of fetal pigs are instead directed into more productive pursuits? Like playing Xbox360 games you mean? I suspect very strongly that this is what's going to happen.

Reading is a prerequisite for pretty much everything else in life, and written text is all around us. There are plenty of opportunities and motivations for literacy outside of a classroom. As for the "overall average of education", such a metric presumes that the number of hours spent in school is the only worthwhile measure of a person's knowledge and skill. Then why, despite everything, are there government programs to help illiterate adults in modern day Australia. Even with everything we try there are STILL people who don't know how to read sufficiently well. Making it optional in some reverse-psychology plan won't necessarily make everything better. I mean, if we lived in an ideal world, it would. But we don't. To that end I say it's not worth the risk to find out.

Given a chance, most people will also choose not to work in a coal mine, or drink urine, or watch Battlefield Earth. I eagerly await your proposal to mandate those activities for everyone, since apparently the fact that someone doesn't want to do something is enough justification to force them into doing it. That just makes no sense.

They'll still learn something no matter where they are. Most of the important stuff I learned wasn't taught in school, and there are several schools based on the idea that if you put kids in an environment where learning is possible, and let them spend their time however they want, most of them will find something that interests them, and that's what they'll devote their time to. Just because they're being tried doesn't mean that they're working. From what I've heard, some have produced above average results, some below average and most pretty much on the line. The one thing they have in common is that they force people to come.

In summary, I think it's too idealistic to say that if we let people choose to learn, more would choose to do so than at the present time. I strongly suspect, based on personal experience, that more people would choose NOT to learn.

Re:Blame the mandate

[Mr2001]

you're the one blowing hot air. you know as well as i know as well as an 80 year old knows that there's a difference between mature for a 14 year old and mature enough for college. If you're so sure there is a difference, then you should be able to explain what it is, so go right ahead. I'm listening.

sure, maturity doesn't have a good measurement, but development does. and at 14, a child (yes, developmentally, both physically and mentally, still a child), is not ready for life outside the family. You keep saying that, but repetition is not evidence.

in pretty much every developed nation, you don't see 14 year olds out on their own. That's right, but do you know why? Because the law prevents them from living on their own. It's not that they can't or don't want to - it's that they aren't allowed to. The law prevents them from signing contracts and holding most jobs, and it requires them to spend their days in school instead of working.

i don't know what you're getting at here, but it's a whole lot more hot air than anything i've said. No, not really. That's my point. If you say "14 year olds aren't mature", all you're doing is expressing an opinion, and your opinion is no better than else's unless you can come up with evidence to support it. So far, you haven't done that; you've just repeated phrases like "still a child" and "not ready" as if repeating them makes them true. If I say "yes, 14 year olds are mature", or even "no one is mature until age 50", without any evidence or reasoning to back those statements up, then that's exactly as much hot air as you're spouting, no more and no less.

clearly you don't know a whole lot about human development. That's funny, I was thinking the same about you.

Re:Blame the mandate

[Mr2001]

Like playing Xbox360 games you mean? I suspect very strongly that this is what's going to happen. Well then, you're in for a surprise. At that Sudbury Valley school I posted a link to, video games are available, and yet the students spend plenty of time on other things. Even video games can only capture a kid's attention for a finite time.

Then why, despite everything, are there government programs to help illiterate adults in modern day Australia. I might ask you the same question. There are schools in Australia, right? And students are required to attend? But somehow that hasn't wiped out illiteracy. Maybe you just can't beat knowledge into people, eh?

My conclusion is that some people don't want to learn anything, others do, and that distinction is independent of whether you force them to go to school or not. Take someone who doesn't want to learn, force him to attend school, and he'll just end up causing trouble and dropping out as soon as he can. Take someone who does want to learn, let him spend his days however he chooses (like a human being), and he'll learn from the library, from other people, from playing games, from working on his own projects, or somewhere else.

Even with everything we try there are STILL people who don't know how to read sufficiently well. Making it optional in some reverse-psychology plan won't necessarily make everything better. [...] it's too idealistic to say that if we let people choose to learn, more would choose to do so than at the present time. Perhaps you misunderstood... it's not a reverse psychology plan. I'm not envisioning that letting kids stay home from school will somehow make them want to go to school even more. I'm saying (1) they don't need to learn everything in the school curriculum, (2) school isn't the only place to learn that stuff anyway, and (3) schools will be better places if the students who don't want to be there are allowed to leave. The primary goal is not to increase school attendance, but to respect the rights of young people and to improve schools for those who choose to attend.

Just because they're being tried doesn't mean that they're working. From what I've heard, some have produced above average results, some below average and most pretty much on the line. The one thing they have in common is that they force people to come. Even if they produced nothing but average results, don't you think kids would be more willing to go to school if they knew that their "school day" would be whatever they decided to make of it?

Fact vomit excludes critical thinking

[Dracos]

America's educational system is modeled on a militaristic system developed in Prussia during the 1840's. It's primary goal is not to impart knowledge, but rather to keep the students subservient to the faculty.

It certainly doesn't make learning tolerable (never mind fun) and the curriculum for the grade levels is still what it was when developed in the 1940's (if not earlier). Between reiterating the previous grade's who, what, when, and where (the fact vomit) for a third of the next grade, and increasingly ludicrous methods* being taught which are harder to comprehend, there's little room for teaching any why or how, which are a necessity for comprehending math and science. No wonder why American kids can't build simple circuits, but they sure can deafen themselves or talk themselves hoarse with their keen grasp of technology.

* I just recently helped my fiancee's 9 year old daughter with her math homework: multi-column addition. Apparently kids can't carry anything other than books in school, because the method she learned begins with the leftmost column, and filling in the resulting rows with zeroes.

I tried to explain to her that this was like building a house and starting with the roof instead of the foundation, and promised to show her the easier way when this chapter was done.

Re:Fact vomit excludes critical thinking

[Iloinen Lohikrme]

What's wrong with Prussian style system? What's wrong with repetition, pouring down facts and memorizing? In my mind these items are the key ingredients that you just have to study in order in later life to be able to abstract things and think critically. At earliest abstracting and critical thinking should be practised at high school and only at university level should be requirement.

Also it should be mentioned that having Prussian modeled school system doesn't mean bad results. If you in example go to Finland or in Germany to Bavaria, you will get excellent learning results.

PS. Remember the Southpark episode where all the class started to took Ritalin, and the ad about alternative method. That alternative method, also known as 'SHUT UP AND LEARN' would be my solution to make schools better.

Re:Fact vomit excludes critical thinking

[Ihlosi]

What's wrong with Prussian style system?

Well, it's not like Germany produced a lot of brilliant scientists and engineers in the late 19th/early 20th century ... oh wait ...

Re:Fact vomit excludes critical thinking

[Doctor Faustus]

What's wrong with Prussian style system? What's wrong with repetition, pouring down facts and memorizing?
For one thing, many of the kids never realize that math isn't really the obnoxious algorithmic/memorization work they suffered through in elementary school, and they might actually like it and be good at it if they gave it another chance. I think I was in algebra 2, with a really good teacher, before it sunk in that I really do like math. If I hadn't had Mr. Seifert and wasn't interested in science, I might well not have gone any further than that.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It's not broke, don't fix it.

[Mr. Freeman]

"Instead, the system continues teaching as if these kids belong to the last century, by standing in front of a blackboard"
The problem is that the schools are stopping to do that. See, this is how the previous generation was taught because IT FUCKING WORKED.
Today, you have schools trying to teach physics with shitty software "games", math with physical objects (cubes, etc.) that poorly demonstrate anything, etc. The only class that hasn't changed is English, damned if I know why.

There is no way you can learn any real subject by playing with a lot of flashy or high-tech junk, you have to sit down, study, read the book, study, take notes, study, do practice problems, study... you get the point. High-tech stuff (computers, Ipods, cell phones) are cool, but they don't help you learn anything and therefore shouldn't be used to teach students. My school recently installed a bunch of "smart boards" (a whiteboard that connects to a computer which projects stuff onto the whiteboard. The whole thing is pressure sensitive so you can draw on it and save the images for later). There's a handful of circumstances under which that might come in handy, but in 90% of the classes that have them they aren't anything more than $5000 whiteboards.

My AP calculus teacher (best teacher ever) uses the two blackboards at the front of the room. He doesn't use any flashy shit or high-tech crap. Just plain, white chalk, on a plain, black chalkboard. I have learned more in that class from that teacher than I have from any other class with any other teacher, ever.

My Econ. teacher had a "smart board" installed in his room (the teachers didn't actually choose these, the administration just picked random rooms to install them in). He tried to use it a couple times, found it to be a much larger pain in the ass than it's worth, and now just uses it like a standard whiteboard. I've learned a lot from this teacher too.

There are a lot of teachers that actually "use" the "smart boards" and from what I've heard, no one learns anything in their classes because 50% of the time is spent teaching, 25% fixing the board when it doesn't work, 15% trying to figure out how to save the images to the computer, and 10% just having the class look at all the 'cool' and flashy colored lines.

I hope that demonstrates why these new "teaching strategies and tools" are really nothing more than a load of shit.

Now, there's something to be said about cell phones, Ipods, etc. distracting students. My calculus teacher has figured out the proper procedure for handling these devices.
1) All cellphones must be sent to silent so they don't distract anyone.
2) Use of cellphones is not allowed during class. Ipods are allowed when the class is just working on problems.
3) If someone is using a cellphone during the lecture but not distracting anyone else, then don't do anything. This is AP calculus, if they want to fuck themselves over for the test, it's their own damn fault.

Unfortunately, too many teachers try to confiscate cell phones, or worse, tell students to "put that away" repeatedly without actually doing anything. There's several problems with this:
1) It wastes class time for the teacher to deal with confiscating cell phones and it interrupts the lecture to say "put that away".
2) Students don't need a cell phone to distract themselves if they don't want to pay attention to the lecture. They'll just move onto something that distracts more than themselves. Either talking to other people, or something that involves making noise (I.E. making squeaky noises with their chair).
3) By the time you're in high school, teachers need to stop babysitting you. College professors simply let you text message and if you don't take notes, then you're fucked. End of story. High school needs to prepare you for this when it isn't as big a problem as it will be when you're in college.

All this talk of high school preparing you for college/"the real world", and yet, it's doing nothing of the sort.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Not boring because of technology

[dlevitan]

School is not boring because of the lack of technology. School is boring because the only people who benefit from the one-size-fits-all schooling are the ones that are just average. Everyone else finds school boring and thus many drop out. Technology can only be used as an aid - its not going to bring anyone in to learning.

I'll address both topics here, starting with the boring aspect. American schools teaching to the average student. The student who will plod along in life getting OK grades, is mildly interested in the material, and needs a lot of help to get through it. However, there are plenty of people who are either way too advanced for this method of teaching or are interested in something completely different - be it art, music, or manual labor. You're not going to capture someone's attention by letting them use an iPod or a Wii in class. In fact, plenty of people will not learn a thing from the new technology. The only way for students to be excited about school is to be given the opportunity to do what they want. That means offering advanced classes for advanced students and letting people who want to paint or build cars or stage plays do that instead of boring them with classes that they don't want to take. I found college interesting because I took what I wanted to take. My girlfriend took only the courses she was interested in. And we both enjoyed our time there, even though our academic interests to mesh for the most part. The same thing needs to happen in high school if you don't want most people bored.

Regarding technology, the goal of education is an information transfer from one person to another person. What one has to answer before just throwing technology at students is "What does this technology do to help the student learn?" And the answer is probably very little for most technology. Just look at how much we all love Powerpoint compared to blackboards. I don't see how an iPod is going to help me learn history or physics, and I definitely don't see how the Wii will help. Maybe for a visual arts type class, but not for anything else.

In summary, 200 year old technology that works is better than today's technology that doesn't work. Technology doesn't do much when the system is fundamentally flawed.

Programming vs Theory

[pQueue]

That's why most students can code for 20 hours and can't do theory (math) for even an hour. Writing code gives fairly immediate reinforcement since you can generally compile what you have and see how it works. If it doesn't you can tweak it and recompile.

Re:Programming vs Theory

[Ihlosi]

Writing code gives fairly immediate reinforcement since you can generally compile what you have and see how it works. If it doesn't you can tweak it and recompile.

Let'em use punch cards and only one hour of computer time each week (Saturday night, 2 am to 3 am) for a month. That'll teach'em.

And now get off my lawn.

Project: Shared Online Learning website

[mha]

Slightly off- but still right on-topic... and I'm promoting my own project (whenever appropriate and here it is IMHO).

http://letexa.com/

There isn't much, but a few first impressions of 3-7 minute multimedia courses. Working on more...

Tech savvy? Pffft.

[Circlotron]

"Today's generation of kids is the most technology savvy group that this country has ever produced. They are born with an iPod in one hand and a cell phone in another."

In my day we didn't =have= Ipods or cell phones or [insert modern device] so we invented them.

teachers as the source of knowledge

[Jano-r]

=BAD

Students should have the leading role on their own learning process. Instead people still spend most of their university time taking notes as there were no computers, no photocopiers.

Put all the information online, let students make questions, update and repeat until any normal student can understand everything on their own. Let students learn at their own pace, dont drag them to class as listeners. Teachers should be just helpers, an accessory on our education.

Re:teachers as the source of knowledge

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure ... the fact that you did own some textbook made you understand the subject taught, or was it the painfull notetaking & teacher-listening you were doing ?

• Listening course & being handed over some photocopies => 1x passive learning, and EVENTUALLY some active learning ....
• Listening course & taking notes => 2x semi-passive learning (you have to understand at least somewhat what is being taught)

If students are actually required to read some text BEFORE coming to class asking questions, students learn better ... unfortunately, this kind of approach cannot be expected until university-level courses (the "being required to read" part).
Another problem plagues your reasoning : "[teacher] repeats until all students get it ...". Given the amount of stuff to be learnt in school and the very low attention span brought by TVs, Ipods, PSP, texting and so on, NO teacher can expect to finish the required curriculum on time ... Sure, the education systems leaves to be desired, but it produced Einstein, Goethe, Proust, Gallois and countless other talented minds ... so, for the most part, PEBBADOK (problem exist between [student's] brain & delivery of knowledge).

Re:teachers as the source of knowledge

[Jano-r]

Listening, processing, and taking notes are three different things. Note taking requires you to think but also distracts you during the class.

When whole generations of normal people have trouble with a system, the system should at least be modified (improved) to acknowledge that. That includes not finishing the curriculum on time, or failing 70% of your students. Too many prima donas out there requiring exaggerate attention on a given subject, failing 70% of the class, etc.

Quite often there is a disconnection between theory and practice. It requires some discipline to study for years in the hope that some day all this may be useful. If active involvement is the key, maybe some practice is lacking. From my experience at least, I say an hour studying the right material produces better results than an hour listening, that is, it is faster. Maybe this could provide the much needed time to put our knowledge to work. It ain't easy to organize a curriculum, a collaborative effort would surely help here.

Kids ain't dropping out because they're bored

[Wansu]

Jim Goodnight doesn't spell out what he'd change to liven up the curriculum but cell phones and iPods notwithstanding, people need to learn how to read and write. They need to learn mathematics, science and history. He decries last century's teaching methods as antiquated but they worked for him. He says kids are smarter because they grew up with more advanced technology. They take the technology he's referring to for granted. He claims kids are dropping out because they're bored due to the antiquated teaching methods.

The kids really haven't changed all that much. But the schools sure have. Today's schools with their zero-tolerance, post-911, police state lockdown mentality are more like penal institutions than they were when I was a kid. Most kids aren't nearly as naughty as I was but they catch an order of magnitude more hell for anything they do. I thought I had it bad. But today's kids have it worse. I hate it for 'em. I really do. They are voting with their feet and the ruling class is aghast.
 

NCLB

[KiloByte]

Four words: No Child Left Behind. And similar changes in other countries, legislated or not.

I took a look at the curricula of: school I remember (I was born in '78), school just several years before my time, school today and US school. The trend is absolutely horrifying. Another thing to note is, US school is 20-30 years before that in Poland. No wonder that when I visited an US university, the labs had nothing but Polacks, Indians, Chinese, and generally second/third-world crowd.

But don't worry, we Polacks are going there too...

Re:NCLB

[zig007]

The problem in the U.S. isn't about the universities, from what I've understood.

Re:NCLB

[Eli Gottlieb]

No wonder that when I visited an US university, the labs had nothing but Polacks, Indians, Chinese, and generally second/third-world crowd. *HEM-HEM*

What, you didn't see any Jews?

Schools have been dysfunctional for years

[Whuffo]

There's a number of problems in our school systems that have been with us for years. School boards have been diverting funds to luxury offices / other perks for a long time. Arrogant control-freak teachers (you'll hold your pencil THIS way because I TOLD YOU TO!) are allowed to teach our children the social skills they'll need in their adult lives.

And the worst thing that they do: they operate under the assumption that all children are the same; sure, there's a few "slow" ones but the rest of them get the same opportunities for education. The classes are targeted to that elusive "average" student - but that was too challenging for the percentage below the peak of the bell curve. So let's dumb it down some; now more children get passing grades. They're also getting less education.

But what about those on the high side of the bell curve? What does the near-genius child think about the classes that were designed to be marginally challenging for a highly functioning moron? It's no wonder that these kids are bored; after going through the textbook on their own in the first week what do you expect them to do for the next 12 weeks?

Some schools have "advanced placement" classes to make an effort to serve the bright kids better. But the material in the advanced class isn't really that much more advanced than the moron-level stuff and the teacher usually (if not always) has no idea about what those "advanced" kids are capable of or what they think about their "special" class.

Each generation there's a small number of children that are unusually intelligent. But the world they see is quite different from what others may see. Imagine holding a conversation with a moron; at an IQ level of 70 he's 30 points under the average of 100. Not too stimulating of a conversation, is it? As a normally intelligent person you'd find a moron to be hard to tolerate for any length of time. Now, try for a moment to imagine that child with an IQ of 130 or more; he's 30 points (or more) above the average. To him, the average person looks like a moron does to the average person. That includes the teacher of that special class.

Anyway, these kids learn to put up with the rest of humanity in whatever way they can - and grow into adults who live in this world but don't feel like part of it. They'll learn more and faster about all the subjects in the textbooks and are usually very capable at any task they put their hand to. But their social development was - well, they were ostracized by their fellow students and misunderstood (and abused, verbally at least) by the teachers who thought their "different" was wrong.

This is one of the greatest failures of our school system. These children, whose natural talents could make the world a better place in so many ways - our schools allow them to be tortured by the "normals" and the teachers are no help to them (at best). They learn to distrust their fellow man, learn that authority figures are often evil, and eventually learn on their own to take on "protective coloration" so they can blend in with the rest of the herd. They're never comfortable in that herd and prefer to spend time in isolation or with small groups of trusted friends.

I'll bet you know some people who fit this description; you might even be one. Are they achieving the great things they're capable of - or was yet another generation of genius and near-genius children wasted?

All the problems I touched on here and many more have been part of the school system for generations. How to fix them? It's going to be very difficult. Those school board members got their position through politics and although there may be one this isn't corrupt it's just a matter of time before he sells out too. Better teachers? It's hard to hire quality teachers at the salary that the school board can afford to pay after they buy some more new art for their offices. And genius / near-genius teachers so that the intelligent children can be adequately served? They'd have to overcome their deep-seated dislike for the scho

Tech CEO

[edittard]

Tech CEO promotes use of technology in schools. Film at ... hang on a mo, there's someone at the door. Ah, it's the barber - he says I need a haircut.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are the SAS worried about the american education system... shouldn't they be spending their time thinking about iraq?

Just goes to show how good these guys are, ultimate fighting machines and they still have time for social commentary. My hat goes off to you men of the Special Air Service.

Actually, the problem is a little larger than that

[WheelDweller]

Today's public school system will only manage to waste EVEN MORE money if they try to bring in laptops and iPods and iPhones, try to manage the software releases, track bugs, and all the other things each and every company fights to do along the way: the problem is more basic, not simple, and requires being solved before technology can be applied sensibly.

The public school system is unchanged, really from it's founding purpose: to educate farm kids (who needed little to survive, milking cows and such) at the turn of the century, they needed English and math, a little money management (which used to be called Home Economics) in order for them to hold down a factory job. They had to learn how to behave and become productive in an old-style mill. Most of these people knew SO much more than their modern counterparts...

But, SURPRISE! We don't "do" factory jobs anymore, at least not like we used to. This is great for the community of man; no longer does so much of the Third World have to starve all the time, they can get jobs....thank heavens.

And since the 60's the role of the public school has become more of a babysitter, anyway. Create more consumers; don't worry if they can't read on the output-side, we need people to toil their lives away on minimum wage, too. And if the don't feel like getting away from the TV, there's always Welfare. And there, they'll vote Democrat and wait for the next check, anyway. This kind of thinking didn't work for the Romans, and isn't working here.

The specifics of education in the Constitution isn't clearly defined; there's no SAT score guide mentioned, no payscales or other details. But there was a time when the first graders shared a single, big room with the seventh graders, so that all could learn at their own pace. It cost almost nothing since there was no teacher's union to ensure that horrid teachers could keep their jobs, too. It was strength in simplicity.

My dad (1926-1983), was one of these children. He wasn't bored, he did his work, and listened in on the big kid's part of the schooling and was double-promoted.

But now as DC-city school cost $10,000+ per student, per year, and something like 20% can't read (and even more can't find America on the map with both hands) while the best performing school I know of, Gibalt School for Boys in Maine is $1,024 per student, per year, and they have laptops to the fourth grade, it's clearly not a matter of more-money-makes-better-students. The waste in the system is every bit as large as the once-touted "War on Poverty" on which we've literally spent about 10T dollars and have had more casualties than the Iraq occupation. :)

Some realities:

1. Unions don't teach kids. Unions go on strike, make more demands (and take their cut), and keep teachers from teaching. Normally, in dealing with enormous bureaucracies you need them, but here they only muddy the water. In New York teachers earn $30,000 while sitting in the school system's "penalty box" when they've been perceived as doing something wrong, or have _actually_ done something wrong, come to work at literally sit in 'detention' all day, and we still pay them, sometimes for years. That is, until the members that adjudicate the cases come in to say yes or no....and they only meet one day a month. (Why?) It's a mess. But then, we elect people who have a talent for being elected, not for actually working for a living.

2. The Department of Education similarly sucks down the millions each year, but after all these years has yet to teach either student or teacher. Why is it there, then?

3. A standard must be agreed upon. Easy: this has already been done, because while the public school is gathering steam towards "worst system ever", the private school system of colleges rages-on towards perfection. THAT is why so many non-natives are in graduate school. It sounds insane, but let's take the SAT (or other, vendor-neutral yardstick) and put it to use in the public school. Sure, a fourth grader will score

D students

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said. That, to me, is the single largest problem with the system. High schools are never going to meet their potential until they base class enrollment on ability, not age. It works pretty well in higher education, and I'd like to see it tried on the younger set as well. it'd sure take care of my worst memories of high school, each year spending the majority of the time going over the exact same things we'd already covered so the D students could get another D and move on again. That has been tried in my own country and it only led to 70% of the effort going into the most able students while the majority of 'C students' and 'D students' i.e. the 'slow ones' (to use an ugly term) getting totally ignored which is pretty much a one way ticket to poverty and even criminality. Being a C or D student certainly has at least something to do with intelligence but it usually has much more to do with lack motivation, lack of intellectual stimuli in children's upbringing and in some cases disabilities like dyslexia that inhibit the students ability to learn. Personally I favor encouraging things like study groups and recruiting the more able/motivated students to help the teacher during special 'problem solving' classes where there is no lecturing. Instead the class sits down divides it self into small groups and spends an hour or so solving, say, math problems with assistance from teachers and his student helpers. It worked well at the high school I went to and I know for a fact that it saved a number of people from a lifetime of minimum wage jobs. Teaching is also about motivating students and patiently diagnosing the reasons some of them fall behind and trying to help them, one can't just concentrate on the top 20% and write the rest off.

As for using technology in classrooms I don't think this guy meant using iPods, GSM phones and Game Consoles in the classroom as some other people here have suggested. From my point of view a sensible use of technology in the classroom would be to record lectures with, say electronic blackboards, recording the teachers lecture electronically.... etc... and then making this material available on the school website for the students to review as they do their assignments or study for tests. Those are the types of media-centric, electronics/computer driven education aids which the relatively tech savvy modern student can relate to.

Magnificent Learning Tools

[TheBrakShow]

I can still remember the moment that may have destroyed my aspiration to become a programmer.

I was in 3rd grade and lucky enough to go to a private school where they actually had a computer. Sure, it wasn't much, but that little Texas Instruments TI-99 was a powerful tool in its day. My family had a TI at home and I was always fiddling with it. I would endlessly type lines of code that I couldn't even save because we didn't have a floppy drive.

Anyways, one day during our designated free time, a classmate and I were using the computer. I was showing him some of the basic commands I had learned, PRINT, CALL COLOR, CALL SOUND, etc. I accidentally typed too many zeros or something and a CALL SOUND command resulted in an angry-sounding low pitched noise from the console.

The teacher immediately came over and scolded me for "breaking the computer." I remember how guilty she made me feel for making use of an skill I had learned. She didn't even bother asking me what I was doing or what had happened. She just turned the computer off and made me feel ashamed.

OK, 20 years ago many teachers didn't understand technology. I would hope that this ignorance has subsided, but I'm doubtful that even today, a student wouldn't still be discouraged from demonstrating any advanced knowledge or programming skills. A stigma still exists regarding technology in the classroom.

Technology can be a great learning tool. But just as the article says, students are ill-served by the same old-fashioned mindset that once discouraged me from typing code into a TI-99.

Re:Magnificent Learning Tools

[Keebler71]

No offense but are you sure this was third grade? You could type in 3rd grade? Somehow I doubt that. Maybe today kids could... but if you had a TI-99 at home and school then this is probably 1982 or so. Today keyboards are all around kids - in the early 80's most homes didn't even have a type-write let alone a computer. Most kids are learning multiplication tables in 3rd grade - programming might be a stretch. I could be wrong and good-on-ya if I am...

Re:Magnificent Learning Tools

[TheBrakShow]

{sigh} only on slashdot...

This would have been around 1989 actually. Both TI-99s were hand-me-downs. My dad eventually broke down and bought an IBM PS/1 two years later, so I could finally have a real pc to work with.

I was hardly touch typing back then, but I was certainly competent enough to write a few lines of code. Nevertheless, your nitpicking hits on the exact point I'm trying to make. The teacher could have turned that incident into a teaching opportunity. I knew more about that computer than she did. Instead of applauding my skills, I was scolded out of ignorance. She had the same attitude as you: How could a 9 year old possibly know how to properly use a computer?

There's a reason why I vividly remember this event nearly 20 years later. I might be a different person today if I hadn't been made to feel so guilty.

Re:Magnificent Learning Tools

[sjwaste]

Heh, I have a similar experience, but it was in 11th or 12th grade, I forget. I was in AP Computer Science and the teacher, who I'd had for two years prior for programming classes absolutely couldn't stand me. I'm not the first to admit that I didn't have a little bit of an attitude, especially with respect to the things I was really good at, but at the same time I was genuinely good at what I was doing and was not one of those kids that got in any sort of trouble. To put it another way, I probably wasn't the worst "smart kid" in terms of attitude. The teacher was great with theory and algorithms (the backbone of writing code, imho), and I took a lot from that class. But I think he was struggling to learn object oriented programming in general, and was sort of learning as he went, since this was the first year of AP CS in the school.

He gave me a really hard time and knocked my grades down when I was doing things that we hadn't yet covered in class. Sort of took an attitude whenever I tried to participate or help other people learn, debug their code, clean up their algorithms, etc. I didn't really understand it then, and I really haven't cared to try to understand it since, but even though we as a class were all friendly with each other and wanted to help each other out, I especially was discouraged from doing it. My reward that year was not being invited to join our team at the state (I think it was state level) high school programming contest. Didn't talk to me about it, didn't even mention it, since this sort of thing happens without the knowledge of the rest of the class every year. I only knew because the prior year (as a junior) my team won first overall at the first competition and I won first individual at the second.

At this point I was in college mode and sort of let it go. In retrospect, this probably should have been confronted. This is what a bad teacher can do when he gets spiteful. His behavior definitely factored into my decision to avoid comp sci in general. I finished up with a business degree and did statistical modeling after college (SAS programming involved, does that count?). Now I'm in law school. I'm definitely happy with the path, and maybe it was a blessing in retrospect, but there are awful teachers out there and they can singlehandedly steer people away from things they really like and are really good at.

Re:Magnificent Learning Tools

[Anonymous Coward]

Nitpick much?

A first-grader can find the key with the "A" on it and press it. I don't think he said "when I was touch-typing 60 wpm with my eyes closed."

Re:Magnificent Learning Tools

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. I had always avoided being taught CS in highschool, out of fear that someone would spoil it for me. And maybe because I wouldn't have been able to stand someone lecturing me about computers, but maybe that last part is just because all the highschool CS teachers I had met weren't very competent. And I was able to respect some other peoples' lectures, but those people were usually family members.

Cheers,
Anonymous Coward.

Re:Magnificent Learning Tools

[sjwaste]

Well AC, you made the right decision. This teacher certainly didn't strike me as someone who loved to teach or help people focus the direction of their independent learning. He just liked having a captive audience who had to do what they were told. If you ran into one of them, they'd ruin it for you too.

IMMEDIATE reinforcement NOW

[egork]

They get IMMEDIATE reinforcement on every click of the mouse, every push of a button, every touch of the stylus.

I am trying to play Metal Gear Solid on my PSP I've got for my 30th birthday.
It is FRUSTRATING with EVERY click. I can't even get this gun to fire.

What am I doing wrong, where is my IMMEDIATE REINFORCEMENT? :-)

From the link

[imsabbel]

>Goodnight himself holds a doctorate in statistics from North Carolina State University, where he was a faculty member from 1972 to 1976. His passion for learning has since led him to endow several NCSU professorships and make education the focus of SAS' philanthropy. Together with his wife, Ann, he co-founded Cary Academy in 1996, an independent college preparatory day school for students in grades six through 12, with the goal of creating a model school for integrating technology into all facets of education.

Ok, so he is full of "passion of learning" and got his phd... Somehow, the summary of the "high school dropout gone CEO" seems a lot less likely now...

>Shortly before Cary Academy opened, Goodnight launched SAS inSchool®, which develops educational software that helps schools meet the challenges of the new millennium. The software contains the framework for a new generation of teaching courseware that will further extend the use of technology as a learning tool. Year after year, SAS inSchool earns awards for educational technologies and, more importantly, the support of students, teachers and parents.

Oh, and of course, a "19th century black board school" wont buy all those nice products he has to sell. No wonder he is slamming them!

Perhaps it is political reasons.

[master_p]

It's not in the best interest of the political authorities (of any kind) to make a very good education system, because then the masses will understand how much of a fraud politicians are.

Duh!

[yoprst]

School is boring. So is work, so it makes sence. On a separate note
HELP!
How can I disable this fucking slashdot's new discussion system?!

Re:Duh!

[yoprst]

Thank God it's in the prefs.

SAS itself uses a 30 years old "language"

[egork]

which is the most inconsistent thing I have seen in computing. There is no structure, or, better, there are all structures at the same time, from command-line like, to Java like. The only way to know wich style to use to call a function is to learn it by heart.

I wonder if Mr. Goodnight is aware of this and if they plan to change it at SAS. Because any day I would rather learn the language of R-Projekt or S-Plus than spending time guessing, should I use a comma, semicolon, slash or bracket in a SAS script. And this is where the problem for SAS lays now. As soon as people who know nothing but SAS get out of the business, SAS will go with them.

It may be similar to the school problem, where there are teachers, that are used to teach in the old way. And why should they change, everybody out was taught in this way, and they launched appollo and stuff... SAS caters to Fortune 500, so why change the SAS language, awkward it may be?

Gifted and non-gifted.

[master_p]

"If I left no student behind and pitched to the slower students, then I would have completely alienated the average and gifted ones. If I pitched to the gifted ones, then 80% of the class would have felt left out. If I drove down the middle of the fairway, then both ends of the curve would be, well, bored."

Is it really true that there are gifted and non-gifted people when it comes to school? from my personal experience at school, and from watching my sister's kids and their interactions, I can't say that children that do not do well in school are not gifted. They are simply not approached in a way that allows them to shift their interest to the subjects at school.

I find it extremely interesting that I have a really hard time to feel at home with "lower class" people. I am educated, I have an MSc in software engineering, my interests beyond computers are astronomy, physics, sci-fi, soccer and basketball, and I find it extremely easy to communicate with people in the same status as me or in higher status. But I find it extremely hard to participate in discussions carried out by people with lower education than me, like workers, plumbers, etc. But it is not that their discussion is stupid, actually it is extremely intelligent, with subtle cues for almost everything, which I have a hard time understanding in time so as that I can participate as an equal in their discussion.

So, who is really cleverer? I don't consider myself cleverer than them. I am not more gifted, although I was amongst the top-rated students at school and they were average or below average.

The only difference is that I paid attention, and they did not.

Re:Gifted and non-gifted.

[SIIHP]

"Is it really true that there are gifted and non-gifted people when it comes to school?"

Yes.

"They are simply not approached in a way that allows them to shift their interest to the subjects at school."

That may be true, but it has nothing to do with being gifted.

Giftedness has some equivalence with athletic ability. Some people have extraordinary reaction times, or muscle strength, or flexibility. It is possible to gain a similar level as those people through intense training, but the difference is that the gifted do not need intense training, their natural aptitude places them at a higher baseline to start and gives them a greater peak level than those with less aptitude.

Your definition of "giftedness" appears to have no relation to what it actually is.

Re:Gifted and non-gifted.

[master_p]

Well, maybe, but is the difference between gifted and non-gifted so great that we can label them as such? gifted and non-gifted sounds ridiculous. A child clever in math may be stupid in philosophy, for example.

I think there are no non-gifted people, except those that are mentally retarded (and even those can have exceptional abilities sometimes). I think it's social reasons that lead to the separation of gifted vs non-gifted people.

Re:Gifted and non-gifted.

[SIIHP]

"but is the difference between gifted and non-gifted so great that we can label them as such?"

It's a continuum. The most gifted are certainly far enough above the norm to be classed as such.

"A child clever in math may be stupid in philosophy, for example."

That's not how being gifted works. It's not ability in a particular subject, so your example doesn't apply.

"gifted and non-gifted sounds ridiculous"

No one says "non-gifted", so I suspect it would sound ridiculous since it's never used.

"I think there are no non-gifted people"

With all due respect, what you think is irrelevant, and you've already shown you don't have much experience with the topic. Might I suggest you educate yourself a bit before you form an opinion?

"I think it's social reasons that lead to the separation of gifted vs non-gifted people."

None of the selection criteria used to determine which children are gifted have anything to do with "social reasons" so I can't see how you'd think this if you had done your research.

I strongly suggest you learn more about the subject. You have some serious misconceptions that you need to address, because as it is, you're so far off the reality of the situation that you sound very ignorant.

Suggestions for better schooling

[tsa]

Shouting that something is bad is something every idiot can do. But I can't take someone who doesn't give at least one suggestion how to improve on things seriously.

Attention span

[vorpal22]

I certainly agree that school can be quite uninteresting at times; this was the case when I was young, and I'm sure that it's still the case now. It was always great to have a teacher that brought a subject to life and got us enthusiastic about learning, but that wasn't particularly common, at least in my case.

One valuable skill, however, that I feel that I learned from my more boring teachers was the ability to pay attention and stay focused, even in the face of serious tedium. I think that, due to the hyperactivity inherent in our technology and society these days, this is a skill that will be sorely lacking in the current young generation. Hell, I can see a deterioration of this in myself; I'm certainly not as good at concentrating at dull tasks as I was back in the 80s and 90s, and I think it's partially because I'm surrounded by highly rewarding outlets that provide instantaneous positive stimuli. Back in the day, if I wanted to play a game on my C64, I had to wait approximately one second per block for a program to load; thus, a game took in the ballpark of a minute in order to get from disk into memory. Now, if my web browser takes more than two seconds to start, I'm wondering what's wrong and feeling slightly antsy.

Look to entertainment for an even better example. Go ahead and download or rent some of your favourite, more exciting shows or movies from the 80s. They don't seem so exciting and stimulating in retrospect, do they? Things have changed and entertainment and technology are much, much more engrossing and instantaneously satisfying than they used to be. This is good on some levels, and bad on others. I have friends in their early 20s who are clearly very affected by this: if anyone attempts to, say, engage them in conversation and tell them a story that lasts more than a minute, you can see that they're really struggling to pay attention. Some of them will even pull out their cell phones and start "multi-tasking".

I'm of the opinion that this high need for stimulation is almost like an addiction and probably not healthy. Again, a lot of these same early 20 year olds that I know struggle with things like ADD and anxiety disorders: they always seem keyed up and twitchy, for lack of a better word.

So, at least in school these kids are forced to learn to pay attention, which is a highly undervalued life skill, IMO. Your boss, later on in life, is not going to go out of his way to make sure that every aspect of your job is delightfully interesting and engrossing, nor should he or she be expected to. You're going to have to sit through duller than dishwater meetings and put up with a lot of really boring grunt work on occasion; someone has to do it and I'm sure most people here can attest to the fact that it's unavoidable at times (and in many cases, quite frequently). Why should schools be any different and struggle to make every aspect of education stimulating?

Re:Attention span

[Nexus7]

I agree, once we go out into the so-called real world from school, no one is obligated anymore to keep things interesting and fun. Employers, for example, will instead arrange work things to (in theory) maximize their economic benefit. There will always be people educated in less gadget-rich environment who will find such work quite interesting.

The question then is whether the skills and faculties developed in an exciting and engaging educational environment are economically useful. Kids tinkering in their garage have started successful companies.. but is it enough to have only those skills around?

Wow, has Dr Jim's brain gone "Goodnight"!!!!

[pandrijeczko]

Is this guy some kind of idiot???

Prior to iPods, mobile phones, Facebook, etc. etc., were the youth of the day just standing around bored with their hands in their pockets any more than they do today?

When I was a teenager 25-30 years ago, I read a lot, built models, did a lot of home electronics, a bit of woodwork and started programming on some of the first home computer systems - and I'd argue that I'm more technically savvy than most of the youngsters today because I learnt to build stuff from scratch so much, whether software, some wooden shelves or an electronic gizmo.

An iPod is a portable music player like a Walkman was 15 years ago, Facebook is just an extension of writing and meeting pen-friends 20 or more years ago.

If anything the modern "have it all now" youngsters have lost such qualities as patience and long attention spans.

I did well at school because I DAMN WELL GOT SOME COMMON SENSE AND BUCKLED DOWN TO DOING SOME BLOODY WORK!!!!

Remind me - HOW MANY KIDS WITH DYSLEXIA AND ADHD WERE THERE 25 YEARS AGO???

Re:Wow, has Dr Jim's brain gone "Goodnight"!!!!

[tomstdenis]

Actually that raises an important distinction. I was a teen in the 90s, but I took an interest in computing early on (e.g. when I was a kid). I was more into tinkering with software and building computers than chatting on BBSes or whatever. I think kids of today know how to use technology quite readily, but do they actually understand how the hell it works? The percentage of kids who actually get how software/hardware works is probably just as low as it was during the 80s and 90s.

I mean, being able to use a VCR (look it up kids if you don't know what that is) in the 70s didn't automatically make you an electrical engineer. Just like using an iPod doesn't make you a software engineer.

I think we're kidding ourselves if we think that kids/teens/young adults of today actually are technically inclined to the point of knowing how things actually work.

Re:Wow, has Dr Jim's brain gone "Goodnight"!!!!

[BrianRoach]

If I had mod points, I'd mod you up for this one.

The kids of today use high-tech much like they use a microwave oven. They don't really understand how either works .. and aren't supposed to - that's the point in us making all this stuff easy to use. Trying to tie that into education really is a stretch.

If you're exceptionally bright, public school is boring. It caters to the lowest common denominator (which is pretty low these days, I admit). But that's always been the case. Having met a number of high-school drop-outs at Walmart, 7-11, etc ... I can't say that any of them struck me as highly-motivated, self-starters who were simply "bored" in school.

I have met maybe one or two in the last 20 years that really were ... and they went on to do just fine as most self-educated people will.

- Roach

Re:Wow, has Dr Jim's brain gone "Goodnight"!!!!

[tomstdenis]

High school is free, social, and runs for 4 years. Even if the classes are "boring" it's not a big deal. I use boring in quotes because that's what kids say when they don't even open their minds to something.

Basically, use this line on kids "if it's boring than you should be getting straight A's." Because otherwise, you're there to learn so pay attention.

Now I don't want to insinuate that all high school drop outs are failures in life, but it's very rare that they have enough self-taught know-how to actually really accomplish something other than be a car salesman.

And not all dropouts work at walmart, some of them are breeders. Cuz you know, as a person with a grade 10 education you just "need" to start a family...

Re:Wow, has Dr Jim's brain gone "Goodnight"!!!!

[BrianRoach]

High school is free, social, and runs for 4 years. Even if the classes are "boring" it's not a big deal. I use boring in quotes because that's what kids say when they don't even open their minds to something. Basically, use this line on kids "if it's boring than you should be getting straight A's." Because otherwise, you're there to learn so pay attention.

While that's somewhat valid ... I can say from experience that I did not get A's in high school. I was bored silly, and found that continuing my self-education in programing (and really, everything else) was far more valuable than reading "Fahrenheit 451" for the 3rd time in 4 years. (Seriously ... senior English ... I stopped showing up after that). I literally learned *nothing* in high school that I didn't already know.

Now ... that being said, I didn't drop out. I showed up for tests, aced those, and aced the finals. The resulting average was flying Cs for basically showing up once a week. 20 years later I don't really regret that much as it hasn't ever hurt me and my career as a Software Engineer is very rewarding (I love my work). But I'm not the norm - I love learning and have always been a self-starter.

- Roach

Re:Wow, has Dr Jim's brain gone "Goodnight"!!!!

[lwriemen]

>If anything the modern "have it all now" youngsters have lost such qualities as
> patience and long attention spans.
>
This is bull! Kids are the same; they just have different stuff.

> I did well at school because I DAMN WELL GOT SOME COMMON SENSE AND BUCKLED DOWN TO
> DOING SOME BLOODY WORK!!!!
>
I was bored at school 25-30 years ago, just like my son is now.

School is about mass education, and not individual education. It is set for average intelligence.

> Remind me - HOW MANY KIDS WITH DYSLEXIA AND ADHD WERE THERE 25 YEARS AGO???

From what I've seen, I'd say the numbers were on par with today, except that societal awareness is higher today. This may have reversed the trend from under-diagnosed to over-diagnosed, but actual numbers might be constant.

I don't have any studies to reference for this, but I'm just following your lead. ;-)

School is for learning?

[WoollyMittens]

I thought schools were designed as day-care centers for kids and teens, while they get brainwashed in to obedient drones. Seriously... All the programming skills I have, I had to teach myself. The only competent, successful people I know are drop-outs.

Invoking Sputnik again

[Brad Eleven]

Despite the very interesting discussion generated here, TFA is about a speech predicated on the US' reaction to what it thought Sputnik represented, e.g. technical dominance by the Soviet Republic. On the 50th anniversary of a watershed event, we learn that it was not a concerted effort with project plans and classic goal-setting. Or maybe we haven't learned it. The flurry of articles I find today are very different than the ones published before the actual anniversary of the launch. At first, the talk was all about the irony we can now see. The current articles ignore this and seem to simply react.

I'm saying that Goodnight's talk seems to have been designed to attract attention, rather than to present a clear statement of the problem and a proposed solution. It rather neatly illustrates the problem: We as a people can't be bothered to thoughtfully consider very much at all. Our attention has to be yanked away from something else. Think for a moment about the 9/11 attacks: It took something incredibly dramatic to get everyone's attention.

Attention-getting behavior has nothing to do with meriting attention, though, does it? And yet that's how politics and influence work. Invoking the survival instinct in others is a time-tested trick: it often spurs action in favor of thought, and can lead to holding false, lifelong-held beliefs borne of the reaction and the attendant misdirection. This is how religion works: Invoke profound fear at an early age, and reinforce it with icons to reactivate the fear. It's not necessarily bad or harmful, but it doesn't belong in education, unless all you want to teach is fear-based respect. Consider the mistakes made by human beings who have reacted rather than reasoned. Education teaches the subject matter and how to think and act about the subject matter.

Is there anyone who believes that reactionary education is effective? Consider the irony of the US' anti-meritocracy: Bureaucrats didn't just throw money at the problem that they believed that the launch of Sputnik represented. They threw money at people who wanted money instead of empowering people who could define and solve the problem. FFS, the ensuing actions were labeled as The Space Race. Has anyone consistently performed well in a technical situation that looked like a race? Outside of films about people saving the world heroically, that is.

Education lagging behind is not a problem. It is a symptom of the failure to recognize and passionately promote the value of education. In a reactionary society, thoughtfulness and consideration are not just rare, they're devalued in favor of fast results. There may come a day when teachers are revered, respected, and rewarded for their profound long-term, strategic influence. For now, we are still reacting to perceived threats and craving results that feel good in the short term.

Here's an idea

[Intrinsic]

Marking the 50th anniversary of Sputnik with a call for renewed emphasis on science and technology in America's schools

Actually I think it would be better to have an emphasis on expressive art with science and technology complimenting it. S&T is great for the mind, but it doesn't feed the soul.

Re:Here's an idea

[E 99]

Actually I think it would be better to have an emphasis on expressive art with science and technology complimenting it. S&T is great for the mind, but it doesn't feed the soul.

Americans have obese and lethargic souls. School is for education. It's not for feeding the bloody soul. If we do not MAKE it be about education (by which I'm referring to reading, writing and math), then sooner or later American workers will become completely economically useless, and our extreme economic poverty will FORCE us to make it about education.

Re:Here's an idea

[The One and Only]

S&T is great for the mind, but it doesn't feed the soul.

Speak for yourself. I find more beauty in logic, physics, and mathematics than I find in what passes for "art" these days. If you don't see beauty in a binary adder I pity you. This isn't to dismiss art entirely, as there is a lot of art I like. But mindless art is simply junk food for the soul.

Re:Here's an idea

[macduffman]

Hear, hear! I am going to go back to school to get a degree in Education to teach the arts because I'm afraid that all this emphasis on S&T will make us fucking robots. We need to have balance!

Re:Here's an idea

[Intrinsic]

Point Taken, there is beauty in math. I think its the application S&T that should be driven from an Art perspective. I think we focus to much on the next best thing when we really can be appreciating the moment by creating for beauty's sake, and let the progressive part be a byproduct of that..

Re:Here's an idea

[The One and Only]

I enjoy marijuana too, but I don't post on Slashdot while I'm high. You should find more fulfilling things to do, like listen to Led Zeppelin.

so fucking what?

[tomstdenis]

A lesson is a lesson regardless of whether it's in front of a blackboard or on a netmeeting whiteboard. When will these people realize that it's the MESSAGE that counts more than the medium. Not every fucking kid needs a laptop, or their own personal PDA/etc. We got along just fine in the 80s/90s with a paper agenda book, blackboards, and textbooks.

Maybe if we expected our kids to take an interest in their own education, we wouldn't worry so much if precious wittle Johny is bored in class or not. The incentive should be to learn and explore knowledge. If the kids aren't fundamentally interested in learning, no amount of toys, gizmos, trickery, or whatnot will get them through a proper education.

I was hardly an ideal student. I was into my own things by time I was 14, I taught myself comp.sci and cryptography usually at the expense of regular high school subjects. Yet despite all that, i still managed to graduate from high school, go to college, grad from that, and then land a career in my field of choice.

High school dropouts are nothing more than anti-social lazy people who want instant gratification and think the world owes them everything. Oh school is boring. Well you know what, not every subject in life is going to be the most exciting thing in the world. But you go through it just the same because the more rounded your education the more versatile and interesting you become. I sure as fuck wasn't that into english lit, but I still took the courses just the same, and participated as best as I could.

In short, stop crying and whining, nobody owes you jack squat, and if you stop making excuses like "we need laptops and powerpoint!" you'd actually realize that the problems are mostly with the students, not the system.

Re:so fucking what?

[hb253]

Amen brother. Well said.

Re:so fucking what?

[jfreaksho]

You sir, are full of shit. I almost didn't graduate from high school, simply because one teacher wanted me to kiss his ass a little more. (I did, my best friend did not.) Neither of us were below average in grades or intelligence. A college classmate of mine never graduated from highschool because it was a waste of her time and she knew it. (She was an excellent student of Chinese, and is now majoring in that.) The most brilliant guy I know quit going to high school his senior year because it was a waste of his time, and he graduated only because he had enough teachers who ignored his bad attendance and gave him a passing grade anyways. My fiance's brother dropped out of high school after taking every shop class that was available. He's now a mechanic/welder, and the richest of the twelve siblings. He has patents on construction equipment that Caterpillar is licensing from him.

When I say that school was a waste of time, I mean that they were more productive members of society outside of school than in, and there were no benefits that they would have gained that were worth that wasted time. School is designed for everyone to fit into a certain mold, and some people just can't or won't.

I won't pretend that the plural of anecdote is data, but you pretending that all people who have not finished high school all have lazy and anti-social traits is fucking ridiculous. Critical thinking is apparently not one of the things you learned in school.

J.

Re:so fucking what?

[tomstdenis]

If you claim that all of high school is useless, you either attended a really dysfunctional school, or are abusing hyperbole. I don't know a single person who dropped out of high school and ended up with a career of their choice. All of the people I know who are working their career of choice at least have high school, most have a degree.

I'm sorry but I don't see the validity in supporting a "high school is for chumps" attitude, or suggesting that they need gizmos, prizes, incentives [other than learning something new].

As per my previous comment, if school is so boring, you should be getting straight A's. Otherwise, they're testing you on things you don't know, and should learn. The bullshit argument of "oh when am I going to use integrals in the 'real world'?" doesn't hold up, since the purpose of a diverse high school education is to open doors, not missile you down to a career. You're supposed to learn a variety of subjects [some of which you may initially find dry and boring] so that when you hit college/uni and/or the real world, you're not totally ignorant about subjects that are not solely in your preferred domain.

In short, most kids (not all) who can't manage to get through 4 years of free schooling because they're "bored" are just juvenile, not mature. What? You think everything in the "real world" is fun and games? You're going to have boring work from time to time, have to sit through a meeting you'd rather not be at... You think you can tell your boss "I'm gonna sit out this staff meeting cuz it's boring" and that will fly?

High school graduates are the borg...

[Kadmos]

They are all brain dead. They they have no critical thinking skills, intuition, enthusiasm or initiative. When hiring I don't expect them to have the knowledge to do the job but I do expect them to be able to learn. If the education system wants to improve, then stop turning out mindless drones. And for fucks sake let them retain just a little of their original personality.

Just to clarify...

[langelgjm]

hell, didnt some tests show that as long as the first and last letter of the word was in the right place, the other letters could be all over the place and not affect readability?

Just to clarify, but the "tests" that so many people like to refer to didn't actually happen in the way that many people think they did. People are referring to a letter that was published in New Scientist making reference to the phenomenon. Some of the claims made in the portion of text that circulated around the Internet are clearly false; see this page for more information (he has some examples of sentences that are "scrambled" according to that rule, but are mostly unreadable).

Re:Just to clarify...

[fredklein]

he has some examples of sentences that are "scrambled" according to that rule, but are mostly unreadable

I'd say it's because of the unfamiliarity of the words in the harder-to-read examples. I mean, "pensioner", "manslaughter"? Many people are eithe runfamiliar with these words, or at least unfamiliar with their correct spelling, so it's not a surprise they can't understand them scrambled.

Re:Just to clarify...

[weierstrass]

these are very very familiar words in the UK to anyone who reads/watches the news since 'pensioner' is what you might call a 'senior' and 'manslaughter' is 'thrid-degree murder'.

Re:Just to clarify...

[petermgreen]

hmm, I couldn't find the words pensioner and manslaughter anywhere on that page.

but anyway at least in british english (that study is british) both those works are pretty common.

Re:Just to clarify...

[Convector]

'thrid-degree murder'

I'm sure you intended to type 'third-degree murder'. Though I'd have never noticed the typo had I not been looking for one based on the posts.

Get tough, not tech

[williambbertram]

Replacing traditional education with tech training, especially at the grade school level, is not the solution for a number of reasons.

Reason #1. Apathy, and a complete lack of discipline. Take kid who sits around playing computer games all day. Send him to an undisciplined playground where he eats chips and drinks soda all day. A place where he's allowed to skip school with little or no consequence. Let him get bad grades, while weak willed parents sit around wondering "what's wrong with this kid". Throwing tech at this kid will do nothing. I'm not saying *all* kids are like this, but I'm sure most would agree that a common factor in dropouts is lack of structure. You just say "honey, now you go to school" to a kid like this. This kid needs to know that he is expected to be in school, and there will be hell to pay if he's not there. This kid most likely needs some positive adult involvement in his life. He does not need additional tech. If anything most dropouts probably need *LESS* tech.

Reason #2. Traditional education has great value. Kids need PE to build healthy bodies. Kids need history so we don't keep making the same mistakes over and over. Kids need home ec so they don't think eating chips and pop is the only way to survive. Kids need math so they can budget their money. Traditional education has great value that we should not ignore.

Reason #3. Useful tech skills are not fun to learn. There is a big difference between playing with an iPod, and debugging Java. The tech that kids find interesting, for the most part, does not translate into useful life skills.

Reason #4. Too much tech is not good for kids. Kids need to have real life social skills. Kids need to be physically active. Kids do not need to have chat buddies and video game clans.

Reason #5. The Microsoft effect. Big corporations use tech just like big tobacco. Get 'em while they're young. I'm sure the big tech companies are just dying to take our tax money, and create an entire generation of kids who learned to use their products in school.

There is no easy solution. We've made a society where both parents have to work in most cases. A lot of people just don't make enough time for their kids and it shows. There is no magic iPod that will raise our kids for us.

Ok enough complaining, now here's what I think might work. Slow down, spend more time with our kids, and have a return to traditional parenting and schooling. Make them sit down at the dinner table and eat vegetables. Read them stories at night. Make time to sit down with them and do homework. Punish them when they aren't doing what they're supposed to. Stop buying expensive cars and homes, and put some of that money into the school system. Take the gadgets away and force them to interact in the real world. Let them be kids.

Just my two cents. I'm a parent too, and it's tough. You have to be willing to pitch in and do the work if you want your kid to come out right. Throwing tech at young kids will not make them better people.

What education should be...

[E 99]

Here's my prescription for fixing K-12: Make it 30% writing, 30% reading, 20% math, 5% science, 5% economics/government, 5% history, and 5% geography. All the new-age "progressive" crap, sex ed, and all the various forms of entertainment disguised as education, should be dropped like bricks. The 5% science is just to give everyone a decent general knowledge of the current state of the sciences. For those actually interested in science, it doesn't matter if they take high school chemistry or physics anyway. They start with the same 100-level courses in college regardless. If the U.S. adopted a plan like that, we would once again become the intellectual superpower of the world, and therefore have a chance at remaining the economic and military superpower of the world. As it is, though, we're an embarrassment to ourselves. Even most of our professional writers seem to no longer know how to write well.

As for toys, yes, leave the toys at home. Offer a small computer lab with an assistant for any kids who don't have one at home. But DON'T add programming classes or other garbage. The nerds will have already taught themselves to program, and the borderline nerds can learn it in college. Instead, USE THE TIME TO TEACH THEM TO WRITE BETTER.

Learning tools

[Corson]

That CEO is mistaking learning means and tools for knowledge, reasoning, and curiosity.

Boring Schools

[StormReaver]

I graduated from high school in 1987, but I'm finding that the problems back then are still the problems of today. There are a near infinite number of problems facing the public school system, and I obviously can't hope to cover even a fraction of them, but here is one that has always stuck out:

There is a bigger problem in what is taught rather than how it's taught. I was forced to spend four years of high school enduring social studies, physical education, and arts when my interests were in science and technology. It doesn't matter what gadgets are used to teach a class if the subject sucks. Most of my time in high school was spent not doing my social studies homework, turning in unintelligible globs of kiln-fired clay, and not sinking "nothing but net" game-winning dazzlers. Instead, I was teaching myself assembler, learning how microprocessors executed code, and how various computer technologies operated at as low a level as my resources allowed (which was strikingly limited since my learning environment was very hostile to learning outside the box).

Sure kids have a bagful of technologies, but do many of them know how those gadgets work under the hood? I will hazard a guess that less than one tenth of one percent (at the most) of technology-using kids are anything but technology users. So yeah, teachers are correct in telling them to leave that shit at home. Bringing them to school serves no useful purpose in the classroom. Maybe if the iPods allowed the teacher to wirelessly transmit lecture notes to them, or if kids used them to record the lessons, then they would have some purpose. But we all know that the kids are going to use them solely to tune out of the lecture rather than to get more our of it. And who can blame them? If any school curriculum resembles the one I had at Radford in the mid-80's, it should be shut down as a Geneva Convention violation against torture.

I bet..

[Anonymous Coward]

I am willing to bet that all those gadgets and applications that keep the kids networked were created, developed, financed, produced by people who spent substantial amount of their time in from of the "black chalkboard" and all by themselves.

I realize you need to defend your point...

[SIIHP]

"Back in the day when only one parent worked out of the home, the other parent generally spent an equal amount of hours working in the home. (Cooking, cleaning, etc...) They had no, or very little, time for 'quality time'."

But that comment is just silly.

There is nothing about cooking, cleaning, housework in general that excludes it from ALSO being quality time.

Your assertion that it was one or the other shows that you really have no clue what you're talking about.

You don't think learning to bake with mom was quality time for little Susie?

Re:I realize you need to defend your point...

[DerekLyons]

'Quality time' has, ever since the term was coined, been applied exclusively to time spent by the parents interacting in games, reading, discussions, watching TV together, hobbies, etc... etc... (I.E. participating together in pleasurable nonwork activities.) Telling little Sally to go clean up her room and little Johhny to get that yard mowed hardly qualifies.

Far Too Many Problems To List

[Shaltenn]

There are far too many problems to list with general education systems in the United States (many of them mentioned):

1) The insistance that everyone should be good at everything at a level (what they call General Education). I entered highschool, went through a year of cake bread and butter classes, then got transferred (because my parents moved) and the new school wanted me to be a freshman because I didn't have any of their bread and butter classes. They wanted to basically void out my entire first year of highschool because their general education requirements didn't match my old school's general education requirements. It was ridiculous - only after fighting the school board for the entire summer was I allowed to take Sophmore classes.

2) Lowest-Common-Denominator Issues: If you're a smart kid - school is boring. Not because you're smart, but because you have to sit through the same boring bullshit 6 times because some idiot didn't understand it. Again I use the example of highschool. In algebra we were working with variables and fractions and what not, and someone did not understand for the life of them how (4/5)*x=1, x therefore (5/4). I had to listen to it for 15 minutes before he and the teacher gave up. By then I was already hazily asleep - and get sent to the office for it. For what? Being bored by stupidity? Guilty as charged.

3) Non-choice of classes: In highschool (and now I realize college - almost graduated!) that there is practically no choice when it comes to classes. In highschool it becomes: you have to take x, y, and z - even if you don't want to. Then you can put other classes in there to fill out your schedule and do what you want. In the course of 4 years of highschool there were only 4 classes I wanted to take (Photography, AP Biology, Computer Programming, and AP Government). AP Bio and AP Gov are full year (2 semester) classes, but Computer Programming and Photography were 1 semester classes. In a semester there are 9 periods - 1 set aside for lunch. That means in a year there are 16 periods, and in a highschool period of 4 years there are 64 possible classes to take. I got to chose 6 out of 64 of my classes. Does that sound right? In college, you are required to take even MORE general education - classes that aren't your major but are designed to let you "spread your wings" so to speak. I don't want to spread, I want to focus on the things I know I can do - Mathematics and Computer Science namely. Arg!

4) Teachers. Some (most?) teachers do not want to be there teaching little brats all day long. Believe it or not, it shows. We notice, and if you don't want to be there then I don't want to be there. The best teachers are the ones who work in that field and have a zeal for the topic. Some of the most boring sounding classes I've had, Conservation of Natural Resources, Linear Algebra, and Graph Theory to name a few, have had awesome professors that brough the topic to life and made me WANT to learn it. That makes all the difference.

5) Restrictive policies: Remember the fun stuff from highschool? Sex Ed? History (the good history, where they tell you about specific fights/conflicts in a war and gave you real down-to-earth, person-to-person point of view)... Even *gasp* Phys Ed. All the fun things in these classes are gone because we're worried about offending a group, or pissing off the god-freaks, or making the out-of-shape people work out. The most disappointing part of highschool was finding out that the history course I wanted to take was removed and that they assigned me to a Foreign Language class instead of another history class. Not even related in the least.

6) Mandatory teaching of foreign languages: I don't believe these are necessary. I don't plan on going to France or Spain, or any other foreign country. Except maybe Canada or the Caribbean, but those don't count. Making me take 2 years of a foreign language because "it's a changing trend" in US culture just pisses me off. Instead of making ME learn Spanish, why don't we make THEM learn ENGLISH. Not a difficult concept there.

Ugh.

Where do you get your wrong assertion from?

[SIIHP]

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/26/education.rankings.reut/index.html

Vietnam is nowhere to be found.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e75e94c0-5df7-11db-82d4-0000779e2340.html

Vietnam is significantly behind the US in every metric listed.

http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf011210.htm

Again, Vietnam is nowhere to be found.

"It's not exactly PC to point it out but the average person from South Eastern country like Vietnam is light years ahead intellectually compared to the average Pakistani. Or for that matter the average American or English person."

I think that comment reflects your own education (or lack of) more than reality.

You ARE wrong

[SIIHP]

"Can't teach evolution; churches might write angry letters! "

Having taught evolution in my science classroom less than 2 years ago, with not a single comment, letter, or intervention of any kind, I can say with 100% certainty that you are talking out of your ass.

That goes for your entire post.

Re:You ARE wrong

[crashfrog]

Having taught evolution in my science classroom less than 2 years ago, with not a single comment, letter, or intervention of any kind, I can say with 100% certainty that you are talking out of your ass.

You're right. Your single point of data has convinced me that, at no point in American history has any church, religious group, or ID advocacy organization initiated any sort of public protest against the teaching of evolution, whatsoever.

You teach science, you say? I pity your students.

Re:You ARE wrong

[SIIHP]

"You're right."

You should have stopped there.

"Your single point of data has convinced me that, at no point in American history has any church"

No no no you stupid cunt, that's not what you said or implied, so save that shit you said

"Can't teach about sex; have to force a religious minority's views that sexual knowledge leads to lunchroom orgies. Can'tteach evolution; churches might write angry letters! Can't teach history from any kind of personal viewpoint"

you stupid sack, so stop trying to back peddle once you're shown to be a liar.

"You teach science, you say? I pity your students."

You shouldn't, I taught them the skills necessary to sniff out lying back peddling, spinning, propaganda spewing morons like you and how to deal with them. I suppose you thought got an education like yours when you said that you pity them?

And by the was ignoramus, even if I only have one data point, you have none. Of course, you were too fucking stupid to realize I worked with three or four dozen other teachers who all were allowed to teach the things you claim they can't, so not only do I have my data point, I have theirs too.

And you still have nothing but your moronic opinion.

You were someones child right? I pity your parents.

Problem with your assumption

[SIIHP]

A continuous reinforcement schedule is less effective than other kinds, such as a variable reinforcement schedule.

There's nothing about continually reinforcing behavior that can't be mitigated, as long as the teacher involved understands how to do it.

Re:Problem with your assumption

[75th Trombone]

It's less effective than other schedules at evoking the behavior under new antecedent conditions, yes.

But I'm not talking about teaching them to do the gadget-behaviors, I'm talking about teaching them to do completely unrelated stuff when the schedule they're used to is continuous. I don't know if there's any behavior analysis terms for it, but it seems to me that a constant exposure to continuous reinforcement might impair their ability to be brought under the control of new operants in less gratifying situations.

Re:Problem with your assumption

[SIIHP]

"but it seems to me that a constant exposure to continuous reinforcement might impair their ability to be brought under the control of new operants in less gratifying situations."

You would be wrong about this assumption. The important criteria are contingency and contiguity. In addition, I have seen no research that indicates a deficit in "their ability to be brought under the control of new operants in less gratifying situations."

This idea, in fact, goes directly against the fundamental principles behind behavioral psychology.

So basically...

[thanatos_x]

because the phone companies restrict you to a ridiculously short block of text, and charge quite a bit for sending/receiving a very small amount of data, we have a generation that can't spell?

Those evil phone companies. Just think of how they'll lament when they can only get ppl tht r sbstrd spllrs n cnt do wrk.

For the record it takes me about 3 times as long to do shorthand spelling, especially on the computer, and 2 times as long to do it with texts. t9 is your friend. I also don't need to be texting war and peace to my friends.

Re:NCLB and Federal Government

[moeinvt]

We should force the Federal Government OUT of our public school system entirely. Get rid of ALL Federal mandates, gut the Department of Education, and distribute previously allocated funds(and money saved by removal of worthless bureaucrats) equitably among the states.

Washington DC is a fantasy land where people far removed from the trenches of the public education system dream up idiotic(if well-intentioned) laws like NCLB and then force it on our schools without adequate funding. They are, in effect, controlling even more of our education dollars by forcing schools to waste resources to comply with their ridiculous mandates(under threat of removing ALL funding of course).

The teachers, parents, and interested people from the LOCAL community(e.g. school board members) should be the ones in control of the funding and policies of the public school system(perhaps with some limited participation from the states). The parents(most of them) and teachers have the strongest interest in the quality of education the kids are receiving, AND they are in the best position to implement meaningful and beneficial change because they are completely in touch with the day to day realities of their school system. They can certainly do better than a "one size fits all" Federal education law.

Troll... Flamebait... Threadjack!

[Corwn of Amber]

Go read the historical reasons why school really sucks

That book explains everything you need to know about the education system, why it is so fucked and yes, why it is boring, what it really is supposed to do and how it is doing Just That Real Well.

Re:Troll... Flamebait... Threadjack!

[nuzak]

Let me guess, it's a massive conspiracy to create an army of unthinking worker drones that will march in lockstep to the drumbeat of some hidden political puppet masters? Or something like that?

Hanlon's Razor isn't a universal maxim for me, but I think it applies here.

Re:Troll... Flamebait... Threadjack!

[crotherm]

Hmm, given the way our critical skills have been declining, may the GP is not too far off. Except that the real "dumbing" of our schools did not start in the 19 century like the author suggests, but rather much more recently. Like maybe in the 80's when the new GOP came in power and Reagan started rolling back FDR's New Deal. All this standardized testing is making matters even worse.

Re:Troll... Flamebait... Threadjack!

[nido]

Not familiar with that one, so I had to look it up:

Hanlon's Razor (or Hanlon's Law) is a corollary of Finagle's law. Hanlon's Razor says "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

That's a pretty easy way to deal with the inconvenient truth of the matter: thumbs in your ears, "la la la la, I can't hear you", never even considering the evidence. The rich get richer, the middle class disappears and defends the massive wealth transfer anyways.

Gatto has made an incredible contribution to understanding the reason schools function the way they do. Also recommended is the life work of John Holt.

You've passed Mind-Fsck 101, apparently. :)

Re:Troll... Flamebait... Threadjack!

[Wavicle]

Ahhh yes... Nearly impossible to get an education thread going without a link back to Gatto's book.

If you truly buy Gatto's rantings, maybe you should have paid more attention in school. Yeah, yeah, multi-time teacher of the year award, blah, blah, blah. Okay, great. So he is a really good teacher.

That does not make him well qualified to speak on history.

Let me state that again: Good high school teacher does not imply good historian.

Now that doesn't mean he isn't a good historian, but he should at least provide very detailed support of blanket assertions he makes. But he doesn't. He attempts to make economic statements about schooling that even a high school student should be able to recognize has fatal flaws. He berates well developed statistics and science for which he has no training to give him a grounding from which to offer real criticism.

Huzzah for non-critical thinking.

Maybe that's why he was teacher of the year.

Re:Troll... Flamebait... Threadjack!

[nuzak]

That's a pretty easy way to deal with the inconvenient truth of the matter: thumbs in your ears, "la la la la, I can't hear you", never even considering the evidence.

Evidence, eh? I call it "selection and confirmation bias". The conspiracy nuts raise it to an art form.

A massive enough degree of incompetence does become a sort of conspiracy, but doesn't require the sort of moustache-twiddling robber-baron villians that you apparently need, just in order to assert your superior inside knowledge of "what's really going on". In other words, you ain't really helpin', son.

Re:Troll... Flamebait... Threadjack!

[nido]

well, you know what they say: "you can't cure stupid".

Have a nice day.

Plato condemns the invention of writing

[peter303]

COmplaining aboutmodern education hasnt changed in 2400 years. Reminds of the passage from Plato's Phadreus dialog condemning the invention of writing. The speaker claimed people would use their memory less and it would become much weaker. Homer's epics are pre-writing. Lore-masters would memorize them - tens of thousands of lines. In the original greek they have a beat and rhyme fairly similar to modern rap, to assist memorization.

Spoken like a true fogey.

[Loosifur]

Reading that quote about the kids and their fancy gadgets all I could think about was my grandparents being frustrated with their cable remote and asking me to show them how to use their cell phones. It also reminded me of a class I had in elementary school with the somewhat vague title "Computer Class". I'm not totally sure what this class was meant to teach, but two days a week we'd march our butts down to the computer room (which, mind you, had one computer in it) and play "educational" games on an Apple IIe, or watch our teacher do something with Logo involving a "turtle". The most I got out of that class was a tremendous ability to find Carmen Sandiego.

Around middle school an uncle of mine who works in IT gave me his old 286, some manuals, and some software, and turned me loose. I learned more about computers by repeatedly breaking and fixing that thing than I ever did in elementary school.

What's my point? I guess I've got two, really. The first point is that a computer is just a tool. School administrators seem to think along the same lines as hillbillys, luddites, or the old and uninformed; to be "good at computers" in some vague and shadowy way means that one is technologically savvy, possesses sharp analytical skills, and is a good problem-solver. By putting computers in schools they hope to make kids technologically skilled through some sort of sympathetic magic, much in the same way shamanic belief systems might make amulets of bear teeth to confer that strength to the wearer. The idea that because kids can play video games and text message each other they can propel the nation in to technological advancement is like saying that anyone who can drive a car should be equally good a designing and building one.

The second point I would make is that, while I wasn't thrilled with school when I was a student and I would like to see a more free-form system of education, the point of school is not primarily academic learning. School teaches you to work within an institution. Anyone can crack a book open or mess around with an engine. Formal education teaches you how to interact with a social structure similar to what one would find in most workplaces. (Similar, mind you, not identical.) That's not a worthless skill. Our society is structure, there is authority, there are rules. Whether you want to change that or not, that's the game as it stands and you need to know how to work within it.

The third and final point I would make, although probably better made by other posts, is that this guy is pointing out the problem with students, not schools. Speaking as a knee-jerk hedonist who acts to satisfy my every whim as they occur, it's not necessarily a good thing that an 8 year old can whip out a phone and text his friends in the middle of class, or that he can pull out a PSP and watch a movie or play a video game because geometry is boring. And, seriously, as intellectually curious as I am, if I got to choose my classes in school I would be utterly incapable of even the most basic arithmetic today. Sometimes, just sometimes, it's a good thing that someone who's priorities including eating as much cookies and cream ice cream as possible and watching Duck Tales is not calling the shots with his academic future. And before anyone starts in I know that there are 6 year olds who are super focused and mature for their age who might very well be able to make responsible decisions as to their education, I'm just making the point that, when you've lived fewer years than the lifespan of some pets you may not have the perspective to make good decisions. So maybe having someone who is trained in their academic field and in the skill of education in charge might not be a bad thing? Maybe, in this case, tradition is tradition for a reason?

It's not about technology!

[Sody]

What Goodnight and many other "educational" technology proponents miss is that plugging it in to the wall does NOT make education qualitatively different than using more tratitional materials. Giving students the opportunity to interact with the material is the most vital change that needs to, and is, happening in education now.

I am a high school Chemistry teacher, and I use electronic technology when it's appropriate, but mostly it's using old analog technologies to physically apply inks and pigments to surfaces -- WRITING and DRAWING on paper, transparencies, and the whiteboard. Writing and drawing require much higher level understanding and allow for more creativity than point-and-click. Animations, illustrations, and simulations are sometimes great for getting across a point that I am incapable of drawing using stick figures. Also, calculator probe hardware allows us to collect and analyze large sets of data that would be more time consuming using the "analog" tech.

All of this has one purpose: to get the students to interact with and understand the material, and there are many ways to accomplish that. Blind acceptance of electronic technology can kill that goal. A great example is a computer-based lab simulator where students carry out labs on-screen that they could be doing in real life! There is really no substitute for hands-on-chemicals-and-glassware experience.

Consider the source here..

[Anonymous Meoward]

Dr. Goodnight is also the de-facto CEO of Cary, NC, a well-to-do suburb of Raleigh. He attempts to rule the place with a velvet-clad iron fist, much like David Packard tries to dictate terms to Palo Alto, CA. As a result, all the new development in Cary (and there is a lot of it) tends to resemble the set of either "The Stepford Wives" or "The Truman Show". (I know, I lived there for 13 years.) Thus Dr. Jim has the occasional delusion of God-like powers within the town limits.

To his credit, he also started Cary Academy, a boarding school with a very intense math and science curriculum. (I think it's K-12, not sure, but I do know that SAS employees get a break on the tuition.) But I'm convinced his insights are marred by the bias of the student population he's observed there: motivated, intelligent kids with affluent parents.

He only needs to venture a few miles west to Granville County, NC to see what the rest of the student population looks like: neglectful parents who have never known the value of an education, and who are barely scraping by in construction or crappy service jobs. (I know someone who taught there. If you ever want to know where the left-hand side of the bell curve lives, go to Granville.) I don't think any upgrade of classroom tech will transform the young lives there.

So Jim, if you read Slashdot, please heed my advice, and pull your head out of your academy.

Re:Consider the source here..

[TRIcarl]

Just to set the record straight. Cary Academy, which Dr. Goodnight was instrumental in founding, is not a boarding school. And is not K-12 but 6-12. It does indeed have motivated students, from by-and-large well to do families. My daughter went to the school for 11th and 12th grades and the education provided was very good, but not because of some special focus on technology. Rather, I would credit excellent and hard-working teachers doing education the tried and true way -- setting high standards and inspiring young people to achieve them.

Re:Consider the source here..

[protohiro1]

You are right, this is generally a pretty elitist view. Maybe middle class students and up are very tech savvy. The guy is right, science, match and technology education is weak at best in this country. But the rest of kids are the opposite, and this is the problem. Reading a lot of this comments in this thread is annoying, because so many are complaining about "kids that don't want to learn" or boring classes that don't excite students. Someone upthread suggested we stop mandating education. But before you assume that these are serious problems in American eduction let me tell you that they are not really problems at all. I mean, if boring classes drove you from education and left you unemployable and uneducated that is hardly the school's fault is it? Do you think the poor aren't going to college because they are too bored? BUT, before you go out so many people in technology assume that the problems of education are the same ones that smart, generally middle class or better boys have. Or that their upper middle class kids in Palo Alto are some how representative of students at large. I challenge these guys to get out of their neighborhoods. My wife is a teacher in East Oakland. Her school has a total of 0 computers for student use. Zero. NONE. The students also typically do not have computers or internet access at home. They do not have ipods. Some have cell phones. The problem these kids have is not the "stifling" educational environment. The problem is that they are so far behind middle class students they will never catch up. My high school was not particularly challenging for me. I could have learned more there and I learned a lot on my own outside of school. But I certainly have not been handicapped by this experience. But you try going to college with the middle class kids having little to no experience with technology. Before we start fixing education for smart middle class kids (who seem to be doing just fine) we ought to consider making sure that poor kids get access to technology at all or they are going to be left even further behind.

Re:Consider the source here..

[protohiro1]

I read the article again. This guy is right...why the hell aren't we funding education better? Why are we responding to failing schools by taking money away? Why doesn't this country want to invest in education?

Get off my lawn

[COMON$]

And there is a HUGE difference between being a hobbyist and an actual professional.

However, as most seasoned IT people have figured out, 90% of the public user realm will never know the real stuff you do to make their world better. However they will think you an IT genius if you can show them how to color code their excel spreadsheet. Which is, I think how many IT people got their jobs in the first place...."Woah, a pie chart???!? You must be able to secure our webserver, manage our devs, and negotiate 6 figure budgets, thats the same!"

Technology enhances the learning experience!

[samgman]

The point is use technology to enhance the learning experience, much like NASA uses flight simulators to train shuttle astronauts. Some of the people on this thread would argue that astronauts must learn C++ before they can train on the flight simulator.

No they aren't

[SIIHP]

"My space users are also building websites."

Sure they are, just like interior decorators are building houses.

Re:No they aren't

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Wow, the second 1m+ UID I've friended for quality commenting today.

Re:No they aren't

[COMON$]

Good lord where are my mod points when I need them. Best post on this subject I have read so far!

Re:No they aren't

[OECD]

Wow, the second 1m+ UID I've friended for quality commenting today.

So at least some of these kids today are doing something right.

Language Labs Must Be Used Knowledgeably

[littlewink]

My high school also had a multi-hundred-thousand dollar "foreign language computer lab". In middle school French class, common activities were listening to educational cassettes and conversing with fellow students in French. At my high school, we would go to the foreign language computer lab, put on headsets and... listen to educational cassettes and converse with fellow students in French - but over headsets attached to computers!

Maybe you weren't using the language lab correctly.

A "Language lab's" primary use is to provide the student feedback . E.g., you listen to a recording of a Italian phrase spoken by a native Italian speaker, then try to repeat it (while recording yourself) and then you listen to what you just said . Repeat the procedure until what you say is indistinguishable from what the native Italian speaker says.

Two things happen as you do this:

• you hear the differences between Italian and English,
• you change your pronunciation to the proper Italian form.

This is done alone. Other students would only be a distraction.

I spent many hours alone in my university's humble language laboratory doing rote exercises. The result is that my Italian pronunciation is excellent and I learned to think in Italian.

Teachers vs. Pedagogue

[Stu Charlton]

I remember Peter Drucker discussing education in his autobiography, Adventures of a Bystander.

There are very few "teachers" out there, those who can illuminate a subject and adapt to all the various types of learning styles, personalities, and perspectives that various students may have. This is not a skill that we really know how to teach itself, it's more of a talent.

The second, more common effective educator, is the "pedagogue" (his use of the term), by which he implies, professionals who help motivate students to structure their own learning. This is a skill set we can teach & codify.

I think that new technology has a lot to do with increasing the pace of self-driven learning. In that vein, new technology is very important. I think old technology is great too (libraries, blackboards, etc.), but the ability of (for example) hypertext to provide context to information is an extremely powerful agent to learning, especially for those with short attention spans.

As for "damn kids are all entitled with no attention span" carmudgeons, I'd note that this seems to be a mainstream variant of Nerd Attention Deficit Disorder (NADD), which seems to be a way of coping with the increasing information glut. Some people bubble up, some people fixate on one medium, others soak it all in, but as a result wind up with "mile wide / inch deep" knowledge, for better or worse.

The trick, for educators, I believe, will be a way to structure education so that people can be specialists in several areas. This keeps things interesting. The second is to allow those areas of speciality to arise based on the student's strengths & talents. Sudbury Schools seem to be a growing approach, but I'm sure there are others.

  Finally, there needs to be a sense of urgency instilled in students that is gradually increased as they grow... the work ethic is a hard thing to instill. I know from my experience in school that I coasted with 80s for 18 years ... and then fell flat on my face in university. And it took me *years* to develop the work ethic to work on distasteful things, something I still struggle with. I was lucky enough to get high-paying jobs I enjoyed for almost 10+ years before I had to really do something important that I disliked. It's a growing experience that I wish I figured out earlier in life.

No guy

[SIIHP]

What you actually hear is people wondering why you and those like you think the information changes depending on the method used to introduce it.

"Did someone replace the young geeky visionaries that fight for modern approach to modern problems with 70 year old bags overnight?"

NEWSFLASH, EDUCATION IS NOT A MODERN PROBLEM, IT IS A PROBLEM. NO part of that problem requires (read that REQUIRES) a "modern" solution. Solutions exist already, and those solutions have not been proven ineffective or even less effective that your modern ones. Your baseless assumption that modern is better is both inaccurate and biased.

As a former teacher (and a damned good one) I have to say you have no idea WTF you're babbling about. Your post makes it clear that you're more interested in ranting against something than actually analyzing the discussion.

But will technology help this?

[pavon]

Yeah, I've had good teachers and bad teachers, but adding technology will not magically turn bad teachers into good ones. In fact from my experience it makes them even worse. Think a poor lecturer can't get worse? Just give them powerpoint, and you will quickly change your mind. As far as interactive tools (like computer geometry packages), a good teacher will integrate them seamlessly with what they are teaching, a bad one will just put it in front of the kids and expect them to learn on their own.

Technology in education can be useful, if used for good reason, but it is usually just an expensive crutch. And what is particularly frustrating is that the administration never listens to the (good) teachers to figure out when this is. In high school my science teachers could never get money to do experiments, the art/drafting teachers could never get money for graphics/CAD software (for the advanced classes) - they constantly had to scrape, borrow and buy things out of pocket. Yet some bonehead bureaucrat gets the idea that we should have "internet in every classroom", and they spend 10x what the teachers were asking for on useless crap.

So what's you point?

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

Fancy toy gagets that distract, Just like my computer classes taught in a computer lab, the pc's are more of a distraction than an aid to focus and learning. The screens on those tiny devices do not provide the expanse and freedom of expression afforded by the sweep of chalk on the chalk board. It is more a matter of teaching ideas, showing ideas, and the time focusing on those ideas. Not sure that technological toys have a positive role to play in the classroom.

Hey these kids are also into skateboards and text messaging. I can just see it now, haveing the class skating around the room texting each other about the lesson being taught. Sorry the bandwitdth of information on a text message is much too small for the amount of information that needs to be taught.

The root of the problem

[Plugh]

... is not that schools don't use hip technology, or that teachers are old-skewl.
Those are secondary problems to the primary one:
Education in most Western countries is almost fully socialized: Soviet-style, centrally-planned and bureaucratized.
John Stossel's recent video stupid in America did a good job of relating this fact.

Imagine if the Government made cars, how much innovation would there be?

the orgins of the school system...

[big_paul76]

Are, um, checkered, to say the least...

Let's remember, that there were at least three competing philosophies/schools of thought on the purpose of universal compulsory education.

First, there's the "Jeffersonian" idea that a well educated citizenry is essential to the proper functioning of a democracy.

Then there's the school of thought that feels education should be quite deliberately used for social control, that is, to keep the masses in line.

And then there's the idea that schools ought to produce people with marketable job skills that will keep them employed.

The problem is, these are kind of in opposition to each other. The 2nd and 3rd ones might work well together, but they're diametrically opposed to the Jeffersonian ideal. I mean, which is it? Either you want happy obedient worker-bees or you want critical thinkers who will challenge the status quo.

So, if education policy seems to be direction-less, it's because there is no clear consensus on the purpose of compulsory public education.

Re:the orgins of the school system...

[sydbarrett74]

Then there's the school of thought that feels education should be quite deliberately used for social control, that is, to keep the masses in line. This is the premise upon which John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education is based.

They are less technically savvy than my generation

[Crazy Taco]

Just because some kid has an ipod and a cellphone doesn't mean they're a genius when it comes to technology. An ipod is easy enough for an idiot to use, it's not a badge of honor to be able to use one.

I wholeheartedly agree. This group might be the most lazy, or might have access to gadgets with more processing power than any prior generation, or might have access to the most disposable income, but calling them the most technically savvy is ridiculous. I was born in 1983, and I would say that people my age can make a much better case for being the most technologically savvy generation than the current crop of teenagers can, for the following reason:

When I was young, much of the new computer powered technology coming out was quite new. As a consequence, much of it didn't work. For instance, just about every time I tried to install a new DOS game on my computer, something didn't work the way the directions said it would. I had to learn quite a few DOS commands and quite a lot about the system just trying to get my games to install when I was 8. When the list of commands that the instructions listed for installation didn't work, I had to figure out why. Maybe a directory assumed to exist didn't. Maybe something got copied to the wrong spot. Maybe a path setting was wrong. Maybe a device the game needed was detected or configured right. Maybe my CD-ROM had a different letter name than D: (assumed by directions).

Some of those issues sound ridiculously simple now, but keep in mind, for an 8 year old with no training on the computer whatsoever, it was pretty good that I could, just from reading game instruction books, start spotting similarites between them and learning DOS just from seeing the different commands. I cut my teeth on computers just trying to get programs to run in those early days, and ended up gaining an interest in them that never left (I'm now have degrees in computer science and computer engineering and work as a developer).

So here's the point I'm getting at. I, and the many others like me who grew up in the 80's, had to demonstrate far more technical savvy getting flaky products to work than any of today's teenagers are demonstrating. Today all it usually takes to install a computer game is clicking the next button, but most kids today don't even do that much. They all have consoles and just pop CDs into those instead. Any fool can put a CD in a slot; that doesn't make you technically savvy. Being able to use an iPod scroll wheel to select songs and then pressing a play button doesn't make you technically savvy. My wife works with mentally retarded women who require constant supervision all day long, and even THEY know how to put a DVD in a DVD player and press the play button. Calling kids today technically savvy is bull. They now how to push on switches on the expensive toys they are constantly buying. Whoop-de-doo. See how many companies want to hire you for possessing that "technical savviness."

Note: This wasn't a sour grapes post, I have nothing against people who have cool gadgets and toys like iPods, iPhones, or Wiis. I have some of those myself. But it isn't that today's kids are more savvy because they can operate them; on the contrary, their adoption has a lot more to do with the fact that our engineering and usability design has gotten so good that anyone, including toddlers and mentally handicapped people, can use them.

SAS doesn't give a rip about education

[Radical Moderate]

...or they wouldn't have just changed their licensing agreements so that universities can no longer purchase unlimited site licenses, and they don't allow concurrent licensing, which is crucial in the educational market.

When you have hundreds of machines loaded with hundreds of apps used by thousands of students, concurrent licensing is the only cost-effective means of deploying software. And SAS just doesn't get it.

I wasn't allowed Walkman, Atari, or Walkie-Talkie

[Elvis Impersonator]

Schools don't allow kids to use music players, video games, or communication devices during class?

Holy crap!

Its a good point that public school is a little behind technology but does teaching mathematics, reading comprehension, and writing skills actually need to keep pace with technological innovation?

OR

do some tech company execs really want to turn our schools into breeding grounds for the next generation of tech workers etc etc.

Is school education or job training?

bridging the abstract-practical gap

[slfnflctd]

My biggest pet peeve about education - and the reason I think fewer kids are interested in math & the other sciences than should be - is that most of the time, there is little to no opportunity for the conveyance of useful or interesting knowledge about how stuff works.

Yes, this is a complicated problem, because it's very difficult to find the balance between illuminating the function of a device or program enough to spark interest and overwhelming a child with too much technical information (so much knowledge is dependent on so much other knowledge and it gets exponentially more complex at every layer), but I really think that if more effort was made to craft useful summaries of how their iPods, PSPs and phones actually function, at least some kids would be more excited about learning the underlying 'abstracts'.

When one has at least a glimmer of understanding about how a seemingly dry subject connects to something with a higher 'coolness' factor, it's motivating, as I'm sure most people here know. Once a student grasps that it will give them more control over the tech tools they love so much (whose underlying operation is usually obscured by their interfaces) to be more fluent in math & physics, I think it might just give them the extra push to pursue those subjects a litte harder.

In keeping with this idea, I also think more schools should teach a lot more software design a lot earlier... just the other day I was helping install a Cat-6 network for a local middle school, and I asked what kind of programming classes they offered kids. The answer? None. I think that really sucks. The technology world would make more & better advances sooner if we would just give young people a chance to peek into it under the guidance of properly-equipped teachers & curriculums instead of forcing those who wish to learn more about it to pursue that knowledge only in their distraction-packed free time. Whether on a PC or via chalk on a blackboard, content that relates directly to the fascinating things happening in the real world is something I think schools need to give their charges a lot more of.

Mea culpa, mod parent up, mod gp and gggp down.

[75th Trombone]

Ehhhnhh, okay, I guess you're probably right. I knew I wasn't in true behavior-analysis territory with my original post, but it just seemed like it made sense.

typical /. meritocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

"When I was in 5th grade I was learning how interbutts work. Instead of playing sports I was reading some "for dummies" books and learning the basics. I was designing basic websites for myself and my pets. I was exploring and learning about the technology that was springing up. I wanted to know how my first PC (Only an IBM with Win95, I'm too young for anything much older) I took it apart and figured out how it went together." etc. etc. etc.

In other words, "Public school worked great for me, the nerdiest 1% of the students, everyone else must be retarded or their parents must be crack whores. What they really need is a stern lecture on the value of an education, or for social services to send them to a "good" home. Why can't everyone be as great as me?"

Sorry, but just because throwing technology at the problem doesn't help, it doesn't mean that the "golden age" of dog-eared textbooks and the dewey decimal system was any better. The fact is that it's the MATERIAL (dry, unapplied math, eurocentric history, irrelevant literature, and a science curriculum from the 1930s) that is turning off students as it becomes more and more irrelevant to life in 2007, as well as the inexcusable fact that the primary assessment tools are still dinosaurs like standardized tests (funny how those who succeed on them don't see any problem with the "tried and true.") I'm outraged that these things haven't changed in public schools in decades, and it's got to be some sick form of nostalgia for the time when you were the brainiest kid in your class that makes you so complacent. The rest us us weren't so lucky.

Unlike you, I was a C student in high school, and I spent more time in detention than tinkering with computers. Now I'm 23 perusing a degree in CS. Any you know why? Because those same "toys" you elitists love to deride (I'm a DJ, proudly doing my part to shorten our nation's attention span) are the only things in my life that actually made technology RELEVANT for me, and inspired me to learn it. I think it's sad that you spent the better part of your youth making websites for you family pet and playing with disk drives. Most of us get our first dose of technology from music players, pop websites, and video games, and instead of telling all these kids that they're just losers for not being able to fit lock step with America's failed educational system and telling them all to learn C, we should be showing them real web design with high level software and how make their own digital music on DAWs (The prevailing attitude among adults is still that if it comes out of a computer, it's not "real" music). And NO, you don't need to be a super admin to do these things. I switched to linux because of what it had to offer me as a desktop user and an artist, not because I had some maladjusted dream when I was 12 of becoming a network admin, and I'm not any less of a user because of it. It's especially sad to see all these people here at /. falling over each other to show how above the techno-slave youth they are, when a lot of them fetishize their $MP3_PLAYER and $GAME_CONSOLE just as much as any 12-year-old. It's true that pushing ipods and cell phones as learning tools is a joke, and out-of-touch doesn't even begin to describe this Jim Goodnight guy, but a lot of the posts I've been seeing are just as out of touch, and worse yet, just plain snobby. Just because the old system worked for you doesn't make you special or better, or make it right. And giving the students who fall through the cracks more of the same is the last thing they need.

Re:typical /. meritocracy

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

The only part of my post that mentioned the education system was the one about the computer repair class. And the teacher of that actually runs a local computer repair business. His method of teaching is "Here's what you need to do this month. If you have questions, I'll be over here. If you want to play counterstrike and fuck around, do that. You will pass but you will learn nothing."

He gave us the tools and told us what we needed to end up with. Nothing like "classic" education system crap. All my regular school classes were awful. History? I learned this stuff when I read about history over the summer. Math? I failed because I can't show my work since I did it in my head. English? I read the books you're telling me to read now back when I was 12.

The current system is awful, I'm not saying it works. I never said the system works, but I guess I should say "You get out of it what you put into it." If you sit in the back of the class talking to your friend and not paying attention, you will not learn as much as the student who WANTS to learn. I never said I was great, but I was motivated to learn how the things I enjoy work. And not everyone has to be. You don't need to know how a hard drive works to like your MP3 player, you don't need to understand how your cell phone works to use it, but the world is becoming high tech. Understanding the basic workings of the things you enjoy should be something everyone is interested in.

I like driving my car, it's nothing fancy just civic (and I'm not a ricer, it's stock) but I looked into how everything in it worked. I learned a little bit about engines and the history of Honda. Did I have to? No. But I wanted to. I don't understand why more people don't think like that.

Re:typical /. meritocracy

[COMON$]

"showing them real web design with high level software and how make their own digital music on DAWs"

Wow, just wow. Good luck with that CS degree, maybe you want to look into Vo-Tech rather than wasting you skillz with an actual abstract degree that will require you thinking and not looking at pretty lights and GUIs.

The problem with students in HS today is the students are practically incapable of abstract thought, something you usually start to grasp in Junior High. It is a type of visual addiction, where a kid cannot learn unless there is a flashy demo to go with it. This poses a problem because these flashy demos are expensive to put together and all of our schools money are going to the "no child left behind" so that now no one understands dick. I predict BS curriculum's will drop off the face of the earth because, why understand it when you can stand on someone else's shoulders and see the view. As it has been said earlier in this forum, people dont care about the how, they just care that it works. The 4 year college is doomed with this mentality and we as a nation will slowly crash.

Tell ya what, if you are capable, try to read some Ann Ryand, or in your case go find some cliffs notes and try to slowly grasp what happens to the society in the book.

Re:typical /. meritocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

"I predict BS curriculum's will drop off the face of the earth because, why understand it when you can stand on someone else's shoulders and see the view."

Yeah, that "standing on someone else's shoulders" you were talking about? They have a name for it now - design. It's what usually happens _after_ a technology becomes widely available.

I know a lot more than you think. And I gave up on Ann Ryand because I have the self confidence to go about my day without that quasi-religious whisper in my ear telling me, "It's Ok, you're smarter than them; you can be as much of a jerk as you want. And global warming doesn't exist."

Re:typical /. meritocracy

[heinousjay]

Sorry, bullshit. You're just being a get-off-my-lawn-elitist. Kids today are no worse than they were 20, 50, or 100 years ago. It's the same mix of some brilliant, some stupid, and a bunch of average that it's always been. Believing that your generation is somehow smarter is an incredibly common blindspot. Everyone likes to think it, but no one can ever actually prove it.

Re:typical /. meritocracy

[COMON$]

Believing that your generation is somehow smarter is an incredibly common blindspot.

My point exactly, maybe you missed it. The point was not that gen Y X or (pick your gen) is better smarter or lazier than another. But the idea that "special considerations" need to be taken into account with our current generation is assinine. Just because kids have tech now doesnt mean that they are any less/more capable of learning. My gen X group had a problem with laziness and were the beginning to the "I have issues with my father" therapy group. This group tends to be a bit more ADHD specific, I attribute that to the instant gratification we all have now with technology. We expect it from the learning process as well now.

Each generation has their issues. However, what disproves my point is that having grown up with Teachers, gone to college with Teachers, and worked with schools over the past 5 years (not that long). I have heard enough teachers complain about this current generation that there is something different. The entitlement that has been hanging around since gen X has grown a bit, and you start to see these articles on how this new generation is "special" and "smarter" if we would just give them special consideration because they have more technology than the other gens. I dont know if this is really true but it is interesting that teachers that have taught for 30 years are noticing a downward trend. You can't prove it because academic scores have been doctored over the last 15 years in a fight for funding (not conspiracy theory, fact). What you are starting to see it in, is talk to college professors, I want to see if the HS teachers are right, because if they are there should be a higher failure rate and lower grades in college now but I haven't seen any stats yet to confirm or deny it.

Force never works

[blitz487]

Those are all good suggestions, but they are doomed to failure. Why? Because a system cannot work that:

1. one group of people is forced to pay for
2. another group of people is forced to attend
3. is run by people who are not accountable

Those three characteristics will inevitably produce a system that few care about, and the ones that do care will find impossible to fix.

Re:Force never works

[innerweb]

1. Society who also reaps the biggest part of the education dividend
2. Children who rarely know what is good for them
3. Politicians who are only not accountable because the public is to caught up in other issues (that are far less meaningful and far reaching).

I do not disagree with you. Which is why private schools are once again taking off. And they are not cheap. So, again the divide between those who have and those who have not (or can not afford) gets wider.

InnerWeb

Our childrens do learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or at least they would if they were taught by a different SAS.

P.S. - It's true what they say. In America anyone can be president -- even one of the lolcats.

Because

[conspirator57]

80% of technical advancements in other fields in the last few decades since the advent of cheap computers are also attributable to computers. This is due mostly to their aid in the analytic, visualization, control automation, and training fields. This is just an extension the truism that holds math as the foundation upon which the other sciences are built. Have you noticed that the older and better CS departments originated in the math department? Princeton's CS department still maintains close ties to both the math department and the philosophy (for logic) department.

How did distance learning move out of the postal-mail-based correspondence class dark ages?

The subject of TFA is the CEO of SAS. His company's products are used everyday by people from many scientific and analytic disciplines, but all of them use SAS's tool on computers. My take on his dissatisfaction is to help drive schools to adopt computer training, simulation, and analysis rubrics for exploring a variety of subjects. I'm sure that deep in his heart he sees this as a natural path to kids exploring e.g. social studies by performing statistical analyses using his software. Sure beats the heck out of memorizing chief imports and exports written down by adults using the same software. Obviously, though one would need a variety of friendly, age appropriate, subject appropriate front ends and curricula to guide their use by students to help them have the epiphanies of insight that are learning.

This raises several questions: whether this is a good idea on its face; how to keep this from being just a cash cow for companies like SAS, rather than actually enhancing the learning experience; how to keep it vendor neutral; can this be picked up by a joint open source software / educational research community; etc.

re: great comments but I beg to differ on one part

[King_TJ]

Both of my parents were teachers, too - and now that I'm in my mid 30's, I have good friends in teaching careers as well.

I'd say I'm totally in agreement with most of your insightful comments on the subject, first of all. My own kid has recently been diagnosed with ADHD, and was definitely causing a lot of disruption in her pre-K classes. Now that she's in kindergarten, our school district actually did move her to a special classroom (part of our "Special School District"), where she shares a class with less than 10 other students, all of whom have similar problems - but are otherwise intelligent, capable kids. She'll be re-integrated into the regular school district if they determine she's improved enough to do so. This is the way it SHOULD be handled, like you said. But unfortunately, many districts still won't spend the money for this sort of thing (or only do it after you jump through dozens of hoops for them first).

The only point where I'd have to argue with you is when it comes to parents "getting more involved in the process". Yes, in a perfect world, it would be NICE to see all the parents volunteering to repaint the school, fix broken desks or chairs, coming into the classrooms to teach the kids about what they do for a living, etc. etc. It would also be "ideal" if parents actually had 3 or 4 hours a day to spend working with their kids. But in the real world, this is simply an unreasonable expectation, bordering on fantasy.

I know when I was growing up, neither of MY parents had 3 or 4 hours of time to spend interacting with ME each day. I was expected to entertain myself, and I found many ways to do it. What my parents did for me was to supply me with constructive tools to accomplish that goal. (EG. One Christmas, I got a "Capsella" set - which teaches kids a lot about gears and mechanical systems, while they have fun building creative, moving toys out of the parts. Another time, I was given a Biology lab kit, complete with several preserved animals to dissect and examine. Still another time, I got a giant "All in one" electronics lab kit from Radio Shack, which let me learn about basic electronics and circuits while having fun making all sort of gadgets with it.)

They took out the time to encourage me or praise me if I did something constructive, and that was important. And in grade-school, they did push me and assist with learning some of the basics (like memorizing my multiplication tables, which they bought me a gift I could look at but not touch until I succeeded). But ultimately, I don't think parents should feel "guilty" if they don't have lots of time to spend with their kid(s). I'm a single parent now myself, and time I spend "playing with my kid" is time I take away from necessary things she counts on me to do, like washing the clothes and putting them away, or paying the bills, or ..... I think the *main* thing is that I encourage her to be creative and constructive. If she knows I care about her, she can get by with less "attention" from me than the "experts" might say is needed.

This is mainly CULTURAL

[curri]

Keep in mind this is mainly cultural. The judeo-christian tradition uses 12 as the age of reason, and up until a hundred years ago or so, people were functioning as adults at that age (and they probably still do in some parts of the world).

For a more current example, I grew up in Mexico. There you do not normally leave home to go to college (you go to a college in the same city). Most students behave much more maturely that our traditional freshmen or sophomores. The US tradition of partying your first 2 years of college is mainly just a US tradition.

competition for SAS

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like someone should compete for this prize: http://www.dmlcompetition.net/innovation.php. Must be the craze in the circles of the wealthy to talk about this idea of technology and learning. I think they see that as the next big market. Truth is, school exists solely to train kids for boring 8 hour workdays. Success in our school is more tightly correlated to who you know, how quickly you can jump on the next big thing, how willing you are to manipulate the courts, and how easily you can get funding from the US money printing machine. Not school. Kids are not stupid. I call this the "mass gestalt effect". Just like the masses out-smarted the banks by taking out loans on risky investments (reverse risk assignment)*; the kids realize the future will not reward them for book learning. Kinda dumb when Wikipedia is always at your fingertips anyways. Even if you build the next great radio transmitter, you cannot be successful without the millions to buy the spectrum and get the approvals to use it. I suspect kids subconsciously realize we live in a tightly regulated society.

* The masses did not realize the Government provided a golden parachute to the bankers. But maybe those who assumed the risk did make the realization and those who saved and rented were the fools.

And how exactly

[treeves]

are cell phones and iPods supposed to replace blackboards (or whiteboards)? What is being proposed here? Just let 'em bring their toys so they can chat, text, play games, listen to music etc. while they're supposed to be (or instead of) learning? What? Or is it that those things are all they need to know nowadays? I'm a little unclear on the premise.

Re:NCLB and Federal Government

[FroBugg]

I wonder how many school systems will drop evolution in favor of "intelligent design" once this is the policy.

Let's hear it for the blackboard

[drix]

iPods, MySpace, Facebook, texting, gChat, Wiis, Game Boys, PlayStations, and, God, especially YouTube all have something in common: using them doesn't make you smarter. Let's face it, the solution is to put down the toys and pick up the books. There's just no way around it. Other countries (China, India) seem to understand this, which is why the admit list for most graduate programs now reads like a Badminton World Cup roster. I look at the study habits of the average American middle schooler and shudder. The future is not bright.

Of course, I would expect no more informed a comment from the guy responsible for the single worst piece of software ever created.

Yes, it's all the banks fault.

[quax]

You discovered the perfect scapegoat! Nobody likes banks. Everybody will always agree that they are the source of all evil. No more concepts such as self-responsibility needed. And you even build in a fall back position. If not the banks than the pill is to be blamed. Well done, sir. Your comment surely qualifies as insightful.

Re:Yes, it's all the banks fault.

[innerweb]

Did you mean this in humor, or did you simply mis-read the post? He actualy gave credit to the banker for having it right all along. How funny.

InnerWeb

Re:Acronyms in SMS

[Thomas Shaddack]

Sometimes you have to fit more text into a length-limited SMS message than conventional language allows. Use of heavy shorting, even dropping spaces and articles where it does not introduce ambiguity, is a viable option there.

Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

make games that teach something then reinforce by activity in school.
problem solved

f

(p.s. actually teach something well and kids will want to learn don't pass the buck and say that someone other than the educators are primarily responsible)

Old-school works for us

[Anonymous Coward]

Make it interesting parents and teachers. The last thing kids need is the distraction of technology. Sounds like SAS wants to sell educational applications.

Yes and no.

[jd]

Doing something is indeed the best way to learn the practice, but it's not necessarily such a good way to learn the theory. If you don't understand why something works, then knowing that it works is less useful. Theory can't be taught so well in a lab setting, but seems to be best done in a traditional lecture-hall setting. Having said that, I do agree that rote learning is a BAD mistake. Again, it substitutes replication for understanding - these are not the same thing.

Some of the oldest schools of all work along a method known as "Classical Education", in which it is argued that understanding is impossible without context, and that context requires diversity of knowledge, not specialization. It argues a few other things I don't agree with - there is no inherent superiority to Greek or Latin - however, it has been shown several times in studies that additional languages increases overall brain capacity and decreases the rate at which brain function will decay over a person's lifespan. The brain grows far larger than is normally needed and thins back the unused portions in the late teens, early 20s, according to studies. If it's made use of, maybe this will improve the capacity of the brain overall, in addition to slowing mental aging.

New technologies don't enter into the discussion except insofar as they provide an effective means of delivering information. Generally, they don't, except in lab settings when they allow people to learn what those devices can do. Computer assisted learning has been shown to be a tough problem and one not easily solved except in very isolated cases - and the most effective CAL has been in the form of rote memorization. Nobody has taken technology much beyond that point yet.

Exactly!

[jdickey]

How much mindless drivel is cluttering up people's minds (memories, thoughts, lifestyles) these days? What, exactly, is being encouraged and reinforced by our attention-deficit lifestyles?

A hundred and fifty years ago, an educated man wasn't just literate and fluent in his own language and/or those of his neighbors (say, Spanish in Texas or German in Walloon Belgium) but also had soemthing of a "classical" education (typically Latin and possibly Greek in these two examples). He had working familiarity with the theology of the religion he adhered to, could quote from its scripture at length, and generally knew and respected at least one individual who had memorized the entire work. Being from a larger family than is common in early 21st century Western society, he knew a much larger "tree" of his relatives than is generally the case today. (Quick: What's the difference between a second cousin once removed and a third cousin? "It doesn't matter now," you say, but society is different now - for good and ill.) He didn't have the technology that is commonplace today, but what he did have, he took it as a given that he had to understand what he used. (again, a broad generalization, but this entire thread is, no?) A childhood friend of mine came from a family with an *eight-hundred-year* oral history; it had been written for over a century, but family tradition still demanded the ability to carry on the oral tradition - emphasizing memorization skills. How many Wii-wielders today could take such a challenge?

How many of the iPod-using generation can explain basic electrical theory? Something as simple as Ohm's Law, let alone, say, the difference between an NPN and PNP transistor? (And if you say "ICs make transistors obsolete," you're proving my point about what you know).

Instead of useful information, our kids learn trivia. I'd be willing to bet that more American grade-school kids know Britney Spears' bra size than know what a subjunctive is, or how osmosis works. I think I'd also be on safe ground wagering that those who are complaining the most about other people's religions pose a "threat to the nation" know very little of that religion and even less of their own. Another inexpensive proposition would be to reward those high-school graduates who are fluent and literate in more than one language. This despite the urgency that globalization brings to effective communication across cultural and geographic divisions.

How to solve the problem? We need to get away from the thinking of the last century or so that schools are primarily a place to warehouse children until they can be beneficial to the current corporate economy. This will in turn necessitate the end of "one size fits nobody" uniform education, enforced by standardized tests that test skills of at best limited lifetime use. Above all, we need to get away from the idea that paper certifications are the sole and sufficient indicator of a person's ability to teach effectively. The gifted are *not* the same as the average kids; neither have the same needs as the "slow" kids...and experience has proven that subjecting them to a uniform edicational system merely guarentees uniform mediocrity as a result. We need a system that provides a general-purpose education that can then be specialized as needed for different phases of life -- *not* the present vocational training masquerading as education which leads only to a mind-numbingly specialized vocation which can become obsolete (and therefore unsustainable) at the whim of ill-defined, inassailable "economic forces", usually standing in for individuals of largely hereditary wealth well-connected to influential corporations and nation-states.

Twenty-some years after we as a society embarked on a "greed-is-good" focus on short-term results/instant gratification at any and all costs, we as a society need to rethink that idea in light of the myriad problems it has either caused or made needlessly worse. Education - and our attitudes towards it - can be seen as a general application of tha

Old school vs . New School

[flyer150]

Hmm This is an interesting situation. "The Internet allows the great unwashed to communicate" & "PAY attention - can you do that for at least a minute and a half?" Let's see how stupid a CEO can be? Most are clueless when it comes to understanding what a Decision Support system really is. Many CFO's don't understand what an ERP is. Most CMO's don't understand what internet media is. Do I sound biased yet? I have been in this 'industry' for over 25 years and speak from experience. As many of the remarks under this topic point out that kid's today have the attention span of a fruit fly and are so over stimulated that they can't think. Critical THINKING is very hard to learn. Critical thinking allows one to properly filter the information they receive. We need to slow down the bombardment of so called 'information' kids receive or we will have more and more blithering idiots that think food comes from the microwave and the English language is comprised of TTFN CU LTR. To sum this up in terms of averages a High School Education 60 years ago equals what most average College Graduates have today! No amount of technology will replace spending the time an individual needs to understand. So called Information without context is simply garbage information.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Valid complaints

[darCness]

He may or may not be correct about his assessment, but it's largely irrelevant IMO. There are much larger problems with
US schools. This applies to public and private schools, both of which I've attended. This is an NYC-based, personal, anecdotal perspective, and doesn't feature any sort of statistical rigor.

• Co-student apathy, class disruptiveness, and disinterest. Seeing other students cheat, fall asleep, space out, not participate, and fail horribly can be a motivation killer.
• A predilection toward violence by many students/the constant threat of getting "jumped" (less of an issue at private, but not completely eliminated)
• Overcrowded classrooms
• Teaching to the lowest common denominator. No attempt at tailoring education to individuals or logical groups.
• At times, more time spent on attempting to restore order than teaching
• A habit of blaming "everyone involved" (i.e., anyone in the vicinity) instead of attempting to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of activities that were against regulations. A very "short-cutty" attitude towards determining any sort of blame. Nothing resembling due process and no requirements for sound evidence. "10 guilty men go free" had no meaning.
• Little to no coverage of the source theories or practical future applications of subjects. Much focus on facts, figures, and formulas without any attempt at relating it to the real world, past, present, or future. "Real world" examples tended to be laughably contrived. Attempting to glean information about sources/reasoning for the thing's existence often met with angry stares ("you're causing us to veer off the subject and confusing people!") or simply stopped cold ("it doesn't matter, just learn it").
• Poor facilities and equipment (not an issue at private)
• Alternately attempting to paint the currently taught education as a personal enrichment experience ("it's for your own good") or a necessity for future survival ("learn this or you'll sleep in the street"). Neither perspective was accompanied by anything resembling *why* or *how* it was beneficial.
• A jarring, cacophonous, impersonal, zoo-like atmosphere. Getting up early, waiting outside in the cold/heat, being stuffed into classrooms/buses/lunchrooms with people who had horrible hygiene; disgusting habits; were loud and obnoxious; were dramatic, crying, whining, moping children; were four feet tall and no life experience, yet filled with endless arrogance and bravado. Blaring bells going off when you're still half asleep. If you were precocious/mature, you tended to feel very uncomfortable and out of place. Arguments about this being like the "real world" are complete and utter nonsense; if I don't like a place of work or other institution, I go somewhere else that I like better.
• Absolutely horrible food.
• Far too much focus on testing rather than the ability to understand and apply knowledge (which goes right along with not attempting to teach how said knowledge could be usefully applied).
• Lack of depth. I've learned (and continue to learn) more about subjects researching them on my own than I ever learned about them in school. Perhaps that's a given considering how much time we can personally spend on subjects outside of school, it still seems like schools could do a lot better job of it.

How incredibly sad and small of you

[SIIHP]

"'Quality time' has, ever since the term was coined, been applied exclusively to time spent by the parents interacting in games, reading, discussions, watching TV together, hobbies, etc..."

First of all, no it hasn't and redefining something because you were shown to be wrong is pathetic, you disgust me for being that petty and small.

Second, baking is a hobby so you were both making up a new definition, then using said definition to PROVE YOURSELF WRONG.

Give up loser, you're just making yourself look even more like an imbecile now.

Amen to the Physics Teacher!

[shoran]

As one of those teachers who has won many of those awards (Math and IT, not physics), I can only echo his points with one or two additions I have gleaned doing this since '82. Lawsuits. Our public classrooms are hamstrung by the fears our districts have of being sued. Most our our networks are so tied down, students can do little of what they do at home... and while that protects us all, it also serverely limits the top 50% of our kids. Computing... We need to redefine our Core Subjects and include IT or Computing or whatever a local municipality wants to call it. We require students to know many IT topics, but do not require that it be taught. Most Districts seem to think this will come via osmosis. If you look at the educational computing industry, it is less about "the ABOUT computing" and more about teaching "WITH" computers (how can we use computers to jazz up History).