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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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"

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.'

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....

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.

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: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

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: 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: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...

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?

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.

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: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.

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?

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.

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: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: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.

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?

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!"

No they aren't

[SIIHP]

"My space users are also building websites."

Sure they are, just like interior decorators are building houses.

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.