Slashdot Mirror
How Do You Fix Education?
TaeKwonDood writes "Carl Wieman is the 2001 Nobel Prize winner in Physics but what he cares most about is fixing science education. The real issue is, can someone who went through 20 years of science education as a student, lived his life in academia since then and even got a Nobel prize get a fair shake from bureaucrats who like education the way it is — flawed and therefore always needing more money?"
Get the parents more involved. For kids, school should be akin to their 9-5 job. In order to excel they need to put the time in at home, and the only people that can help instill that discipline are the parents.
Website Hosting
How can education be fixed when their is a war on critical thinking? Its better for those in power to rule by sound bites, innuendos, and accusations that appear credible enough to be believed.
Becuase to fix education is to admit that some kids are either smarter or work harder than others. Some are going to be left behind, and others will go on and learn to their full potential, but law makers can't tell that to parents. My mother has taught for about 30 years, and in her words, the problem is almost never the students, it's the parents.
A US$3,000.00 per student/per year federal voucher will fix education very quickly.
ever truly fix education?
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
"from bureaucrats who like education the way it is ".. really? do they? I have yet to meet one that does. However there seems to be a lot of argueing going on about what paperwork needs to be filed to get it changed, how that will documented, judged and administrated. Seriously one of the first things that needs to be done is to pay teachers a living wage so we can attract better talent to change the way the teaching is done. Don't get me wrong there are some GREAT teachers out there, who god bless them manage to hang in there despite everything. But take a look at the budget someday and ask yourself if schools are really getting a fair shake. You can change anything you want but unless teachers can be paid competative wages with other avenues they could take their talents to are our kids getting the best?
I Need someone to rebuild a Digitech Digital Delay pedal for me....for me...for me...for me.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
get a fair shake from bureaucrats who like education the way it is -- flawed and therefore always needing more money?
I know I'll be in the minority here on slashdot for saying this, but society isn't divided into us (virtuous, intelligent, benevolent, and wise) and them (stupid, malicious, dishonest, and greedy). I think there are very few bureaucrats twirling their moustaches and gleefully chortling over the failures of the modern educational system. One of the symptoms of the failure of education is lack of critical thinking and objective reasoning, and one of the hallmarks of that is the kneejerk reaction that every bureaucrat is by nature evil and dishonest.
The fucking article is about college level education.
Very nicely constructed post to show how no one reads the articles.
1:Smaller class sizes!
2:Less memorization, more critical thinking and analysis.
3:Less passive listening and watching, more discussion and experiment (think Socarates).
None of these need tons of computers or facilities or whatever. What they do need are more teachers, and less burnout.
I had the privilege of taking a quantum mechanics course from Carl Weiman 2 years ago while he was teaching at the University of Colorado. It was by far the best college course I've taken, he had the perfect mix of well versed lecturing with "clicker" quizzes throughout the class, homework that was appropriate for the material, and tests which rewarded understanding of the material and not memorization.
The best part really was that by the end of the course, he gave his lecture on Bose Einstein Condensate which he won the Nobel prize for, and all the students could understand what he was talking about from learning things throughout the semester, it was incredibly rewarding.
Compare that to my next physics courses which were basically applied calculus, except they left out the important part of what the **** any of it meant and how it applied to... anything really. His course overshadowed the rest of my physics courses and in the end, because of the huge disparity in teaching styles, made the rest of my studies quite grating and rather uninteresting.
one of the hallmarks of that is the kneejerk reaction that every bureaucrat is by nature evil and dishonest.
I had a conversation with an insurance lobbyist on a flight to Boston a couple years ago. She has a lot of dealings with state and federal senators and congresscritters, so I asked her what were the things she discovered in her interactions with them that came as a surprise. Three of them were:
The first one is relevant here, but the last one has been on my mind since then. Slashpac, anyone?
There was a period in American education, particularly after Sputnik kicked the US government into the realization that those crazy goddamn Commies could scoop them on a major technological advancement, where a good deal of effort was put into finding and training scientists, mathematicians, technicians and so forth. Kids wanted to be rocket scientists, astronauts and atom splitters. Home chemistry and rocket kits, as well as toys like Mechanos and Legos, were seen as important ways to produce what the US needed to get ahead of the curve and stay there. But, sadly, within a relatively short period of time, the educational edifice took over, with it's unions, bureaucracies, mindless testing, endless tinkering and the new "next big thing", and now the US is faced with the reality that while domestic talent may just as often be wasted, it has to import talent from abroad.
Part of it is, I think, a consequence of the rugged individualism of America. In places like Japan and Germany, there's a pretty fiercing weeding process going on to find the best and brightest, and to some extent that sort of defies the American Dream that anyone has a chance to be the next guy on the Moon or the next President or the next Bill Gates or whatever. But the fact is that the one-size-fits-all education system favored in North America has become nothing more than a recipe for mediocrity. Coupled with ludicrous laws like No Child Left Behind, which should be restated as No Child Ever Pulls Ahead, and it's a wonder that education isn't worse off than it is.
To my mind, education should be more focuesed. By thirteen or fourteen the kids, parents and teachers ought to have some idea where the kids' talents lie. From there it should be an encouragement to go where those talents lead. Rather than basically delaying all of this until the kid is going off to college and then saying "Okay, waddya when a be when you grow up, which is about 9am this morning" start that process earlier.
The reality is, no matter how optimistic laws like No Child Left Behind are, some children will be left behind, for any number of reasons; socio-economic status, health, intelligence, disability and so forth. No system is going to catch every would-be neurologist and physicist, but at least we can try to better the odds.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I think the biggest thing that can be done to "fix" education would be to make it the primary focus of schools! I'm all for extra curricular activities, but it seems that in many places in the US, those are treated as far, far, more important that actual learning. Sports is a great example of how the focus in schools has been taken off of education.
Another thing would be to stop trying to make everyone equal, and allow faster students to excel instead of teaching to the lowest common denominator.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
There is this silly competition mentality in higher ed--competing for being bigger and badder. Everything is becoming so "corporate" in culture.
There is an unhealthy arena of competition for grants and research funding that puts the focus on the research track instead of education. The competition manifests itself by the universities pushing a "brand name" and trying to become larger.
In the end, the university becomes an entity who doesn't care about the student but rather its reputation and rankings in magazines.
This is kind of a problem that stems from the new breed of philanthropy that really isn't philanthropy--it's advertising and marketing for the donors. The development departments are getting suckered into making these silly deals with donors (especially corporate donors) that places the focus on promotional consideration for the donor rather than the spirit of the cause.
Small schools with low ratios from teacher to student are probably the best way to go to maximize your exposure in the apprentice model.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
I went to public schools with kids who had marginal skills at reading and math. Rather than passing them along and bogging down the education of kids doing well, don't pass them until they're actually meeting standards. Note, I am NOT talking about burning time on standardized testing. I'm talking about teachers being given more leverage to hold slow kids back. I think this is a big motivator for a kid to do better (as well as a confidence builder the second time around). This is based on my anecdotal knowledge, not science so I could be very wrong here.
If kids can't cut it after say 2 or 3 grades being held back, give them some some early out like a GED program say after the 10th grade. It's sad to see high school kids who can barely read because our education system isn't strict enough about standards.
I think by enforcing performance for passing, you'll also be able to increase the level of work being done at higher grades.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
>Do things right at school, and perhaps there won't be any need to get the parents involved.
This simply is not possible.
I used to be a huge proponent of "teacher accountability" until I shared a 7 hour plane ride with a teacher friend of mine.
She explained the obvious to me.
All students require motivation to learn. Most students are not self-motivated. Teachers lack the authority to instill motivation in their students through punitive means, and there are very few inspirational teachers. Thus for most students, their primary motivator is their parents.
You can have the most intelligent teacher on the planet combined with the most patient, compassionate teacher on the planet - Albert Einstein crossed with Mother Theresa - and it won't matter a whit if the student is not motivated to learn.
Some very few students are self-motivated. But by and large students require external motivation, and the only people with the authority to do that are parents. The days of teachers beating students into their studies are long gone. But not so for Mom and Dad.
The single-most important thing to "Fix Education" is to increase parental involvement and stop the mentality that school is a place where you "send" your kids "to be educated". Too many people have come to view the educational system as a "service" - a place where you pay your taxes and then send your kids to be educated, with the whole burden of the process on the system. In fact, the system is merely the water - they can't force the kids to drink it. Only Mom and Dad have that power.
Unless you are extremely lucky and find the rare self-motivated student you simply cannot remove parents from a successful edcuation.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
The Initiative is already being rolled out. I'm at one of the first-round target schools in a department that won CWSEI funding, and have been involved in several of the curriculum-revision committees.
...kinda lame so far, but if you've got good ideas that fit within our ridiculous budget, I promise I'll try 'em out!
CWSEI is focused on undergraduate science education, both for science students and non-science students. The general plans is:
1. Articulate what we want students to learn
2. Figure out what they're actually learning
3. Fix things
4. Share everything that works with other department/schools
Step 1 has been pretty easy for the courses I've been involved with revising, although it can get pretty funny to see different schools of thought battling it out over what matters most (facts? ability to apply in novel situations? general "science" mindset? problem-solving?)
Step 2 is a bit of a nightmare, but is necessary to figure out if you're actually being effective or not (Step 2 & 3 are iterative until satisfactory, then progress to Step 4). How do you effectively test comprehension vs test taking-ability vs fact retention? It's a bit easier to fix the "Did we teach them or did they already know?" by doing before-and-after tests, but that still doesn't eliminate the keeners going out and self-teaching (no bad prof has ever defeated my desire to learn!)
Step 3 is also a challenge -- in big classes (Natural Disasters can have up to 400 students) it's almost impossible to have one-on-one interactions, they're undergrads so presumably parental-involvement isn't key for learning, the TA-hours to do good grading of neat projects is prohibitive, etc. This is where tech solutions come in: if everyone takes immediate multiple-choice quizzes throughout via clickers, or has to talk with their neighbours to decide on an answer, then we've got them interacting/thinking/talking inside class hours.
For Step 4, what works? U Colorado's physics department was where Carl started this idea, so they've got some pretty cool toys that help students practice concepts they heard in lecture even outside of lab sections. As for my department, no solutions yet...
Hopefully we can keep this from devolving into a flame war, but if you're interested do search for John Stossel's "Stupid in America". Private schools in the heart of Chicago catering to poor black students spend about a third per student compared to private schools and produce standardized test scores that compare favorably with white suburban schools. Being cheap and producing results, even poor families are willing to sacrifice that second tv and fast food meals to send their kids there. Charity will also go a lot further and be better funded with the knowledge that government isn't taking care of it. Gates by himself is already giving nearly enough to k-12 to provide free education at 1/3 current costs to every family below the poverty line, and that's just one guy.
And if you think the telecom industry is an example of the free market, I can understand your confusion. Telecom more closely resembles mercantilism than capitalism.
Rewards work also, no doubt.
But there is only one thing that kept me in line academically as a kid, and that was fear of my father's foot in my ass.
See for me, I could blow off rewards. Oh yes, it would be nice to get $5 for A's on my report card, but I don't really /need/ the $5 for anything. Oh it might be nice to watch a movie, but I could just as easily watch it on the internet. Leaving class might be nice, but where would I go? The only consistent motivator for me was FEAR of PUNISHMENT.
But that is merely a personal anecdote. I readily admit that motivation can be both positive and negative. But either way, I still beleive the most motivating influence on students is usually their parents. In my experience, teachers are usually either non-empowered or un-inspired to motivate.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
There's the big misconception. Understanding art, literature, design, history, communications and yes interpretive dance IS in itself a core skill set. Unless you rigorously train all aspects of your mind, you will be deficient. Science and engineering start with ideas...hell the word Eureka was coined from a scientific discovery...ideas start in the creative center of your brain.
You cheat yourself and disrespect science when you treat the liberal arts as nothing more than a hobby.
Some of the most exciting science and math discoveries were made because people had trained themselves to think outside the box. That's what studying the liberal arts does for you.
Too late? Most people do not really form their identities until their mid-20s. University is the PERFECT time to hone social skills (or learn the basics...either way).
Bonus: Understanding liberal arts will help you get laid. That alone should be enough for the /. crowd to line up for art appreciation classes.
Thank you Dave Raggett
As such at college level there needs to be a way to separate the cream of the crop from the rest of the class.
The simple fact is, we are not created equal nor do we apply ourselves equally regardless of our ability.
Yet education is beset with claims of racism should one group do poorly compared to another regardless of the subject. As such schools have to dumb it down because if they did separate someone would take offense, even if they were not directly affected. Too many people are of the belief that they have the right to not be offended and that means not being called sub par compared to their fellows.
So how do you fix it? Take politics out of education. Take favoritism other than by demonstrated ability out of college. This might mean having two types of degrees for the same course. You could award a minor bonus to gpa for taking and succeeding at the harder level or grant more hours or even shorten the length of the classes.
One last area, reduce the effect of tenure even it means getting rid of it. It allows some real idiots to persist simply because they "have done their time". Professors who pontificate about politics instead of the subject at hand, provided they even bother to show for the course.
Still to fix college your going to have to fix public schools too.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
How to fix education in 4 easy steps
1. Make going to school non-compulsory
Kids that don't want to be in school, who have parents that don't care if they are in school, do not need to go to school. They are nothing but a distraction for the kids who want to learn. Any teacher will tell you one disruptive student will ruin the class for everyone. Public schools in the U.S. force kids who have no discipline go to school, then they are surprised when they don't listen to the teachers. The kids know the teachers can nothing to discipline them, the kids know their parents will do nothing to discipline them. I fail to see the disincentive to goof off in class here, and so do the kids, so they will goof off. Schools do not need these children and in public schools, not only do they have to go, but the public schools want them to go so that make that ever important buck from the federal and state government, education be damned. I personally know more than one teacher who cannot kick a particular kid out of their class because the school administrators tell them they can't.
2. Privatize
There is a ratio of teachers to administrators in all schools, public or private. An administrator would be like a vice principal, guidance councilor, text book researcher, sensitivity director. In a private school, the ratio is about 1:7 in public schools it's almost 1:1. Meaning for every teacher there is an administrator. And every time someone says "there's something wrong with our schools" they just tac on more administrators in a blind attempt to "fix" the problem. Administrators fix nothing, ever. Which leads me to..
3. Do away with tenure and teachers unions
The idea that teachers unions somehow are for kids has got to be the biggest lie I've ever heard. Teachers unions are for, teachers. Some people didn't know this, but if you've worked in the LAUSD for more than 3 years you cannot be fired for anything short of molesting a child, it's called tenure. Tenure is for, teachers. There is no way you can argue that keeping poor teachers (tenure) or keeping teachers that have broken the rules (teachers unions) somehow helps the kids. With these two "protective" organization are in place it takes an act of god to get rid of poor teachers. There are no teacher's unions in private schools and the level of education you get in a private school by far exceeds that in a public school. Without tenure, without teacher's unions. So at the very least it's proof that excellence does not require tenure or unions. And there is a strong argument that they do more harm than good.
4. Allow parents to take their kids out of failing schools.
I think it's a travesty that the government is going to force parents to place kids into school that they know are going to be a bad influence on the child. Parents should be able to send their child to whatever school that is reasonably in their area. It's so bad that people actually buy houses in order to get their kids sent to a particular school, and I guess for those who can't afford to move or afford a private school... to bad? That's just wrong. If we are going to be forced to pay for schools we should at least be able to select which one we're going to send our kids too, or at least let us get our money back so we can send them to a private school. The only obstacle that stops this 'voucher' system is the teachers unions. I would love to hear how the lack of a voucher system helps kids, because I'm pretty sure it only helps teachers at failing schools.
I have no belief that any of these things will change, teachers unions are far to powerful. It a huge union with almost limitless money, but it's a self perpetuating bureaucracy with the honest belief that teachers should be paid more than any other profession in the world. More than doctors, lawyers etc.. no matter how much anyone else thinks teachers deserve.
The usage of the word education has evolved to mean a mechanical process whereby an institution can add knowledge and wisdom to an individual, like QuickLube changing your oil.
Teachers are taught that they can "motivate" students, that is, make them want something the institution wants them to want.
It is all part of the scientific pretensions of the academic "Education departments".
Let us replace this false belief in institutional "education" with the original concept of "learning".
It used to be that a person with knowledge and wisdom was called "learned".
Teachers should be thought of as helpers who assist those who want to learn, rather that god like knowledge creators who apply some "educational" algorithm.
Teachers should stop trying to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig. Instead, they should assist those with the desire and ability to learn.
Perhaps the best example of this is mathematics. Many (perhaps most) people lack the ability to do mathematics beyond what can be done by a calculator. Instead of egalitarian, futile attempts to turn these people into Eulers, teachers should focus on those with actual math ability. Civilization only needs a few people with the ability to do mathematics, the rest are incapable of it.
The wealth gap in the US is small enough that the richest quintile only outspend the poorest quintile by about 2.1 to 1. That's not really an obscene difference. Link.
"The days of teachers beating students into their studies are long gone. But not so for Mom and Dad."
Try taking a paddle to Junior in some states... it's an instant trip to jail for Dad, and a legal nightmare with "children's advocate groups" and the state's department of social services bringing down lawyers on the parents. You don't even need real proof to arrest a parent for abuse anymore, just an accusation. It's getting to the point that corporal punishment of any kind, no matter how appropriate, is being banned "for the children".
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
"There's the big misconception. Understanding art, literature, design, history, communications and yes interpretive dance IS in itself a core skill set."
More than that, even if you're a mathematician/scientist/engineer, if you don't have a strong, broad understanding of literature, history, and philosophy, I don't see how you can call yourself educated.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
> ..you're a failure if you don't go to college.
College isn't the only place to learn, probably not even be the best place. But expecting to survive in the Information Age with a junior high education (as the idiot I was aiming the flamethrower at was claiming) is just daft.
> The world needs ditch diggers too... and stockboys, coffee makers, and retail clerks.
It does today... but for how much longer? A person coming of age in the next few years will probably live to see many of those positions obsoleted. Not even many actual ditchdiggers today, lots of backhoe operators but not a lot of guys with shovels. Tomorrow it will be one guy supervising a bunch of semi intelligent automated equipment. That one guy will be the one holding the blueprints and making the big picture decisions the machines won't be quite smart enough to be trusted with. Bob the Builder in live action.. and with that nightmare thought I'll stop.
Democrat delenda est
This whole "engaging the kids" meme avoids the fact that there is only one acceptable outcome--study, learn, don't take the easy way out, etc. We are trying to SELL them on the idea, not involve them in the process of decision-making. That's inherently dishonest, because we're only pretending to give their preferences (which consist of sleeping, video games, and manga) equal weight in deciding what their priorities should be.
Basically I think we're too nice to our kids. I'm not saying we should beat them (much), but I remember a conversation I had with a doctor I worked with (parents were Chinese) whose siblings also all had professional degrees. On a basic level, the kids all had the feeling that if they didn't do well in school their parents wouldn't love them anymore. It was never stated, but the feeling was there. Could I do that? No. But that inability translates into, if not academic mediocrity, then definitely a mentality that makes excellence a hypothetical option for my kids. They do well enough to get by, but there is no drive. I basically feel that I've let them down by being too nice.
The problem with the US broadband market is that competition isn't free enough - especially because you seem to have pathetic DSL offerings, due to poor legislation on copper access.
Here in Sweden (although we still have access problems due to the state-owned Telia still dominating copper access) we have seen much healthier DSL competition, due to freer competition in copper-access to homes.
This in turn helps keep cable and fiber offerings honest. In the last few years, the addition of fast 3G connections has also intensified the competition.
Interestingly, Sweden also has a rather innovative system for increasing competition and choice in education. However, it is important not to overestimate the gains that can be had from more choice in education. Indeed - people seriously overestimate the effectiveness of virtually all possible educational reforms in rich countries. But that's a topic for another day.