In a nutshell, at least that's what I noticed, the "right" position is to give corporations as much leeway as possible while caging in the people as much as possible without causing an outright rebellion.
Meh. That currently sounds like both Liberal and Labor parties at the moment here in the land of Oz.
I remember reading somewhere that the largest number of gun related murders are committed by friends or family. So while the criminals may disobey laws, gun laws do work to keep your significant other from putting a hole in you because you left the toilet seat up.:D
The guy who wants to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time is going to figure out a way to do so. Somehow people manage to buy drugs and that's illegal too. With no CCW and everyone's lame-ass bolt action rifle in the gun safe a prospective mass murderer is virtually guaranteed a large number of kills.
Except that without semi-automatic weapons, the mass murderer can't do it on the spur-of-the-moment.
Except that while Nuclear Energy is cheap while the plant is in operation, the cost of stripping, renovating and updating nuclear plants (as well as storing the radiation-exposed material) when they get past their use-by date (30-60 years) makes it one of the most expensive forms of energy. I wish I could find a good, single-source primary sources, but I guess Wikipedia will have to do for the moment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
As I've mentioned above, in Australian rural areas, a large cleared area is essential to prevent bushfires burning your house down. Not everyone chooses to live in a city, and the price isn't that much different from a inner-city apartment.
When I mowed my grandfather's lawn (about twice the size of a large house) I used to do step 2 differently:
Split the lawn up lengthwise into two sections, and mow the outer edge of one, then return on the inner edge of another. My grandfather's lawnmower was pretty big, and much easier to push in a straight line than make a turn.
And I have to agree with the anti-anti big-lawn sentiment. I was raised on a dairy farm here in Australia and having a large play area is awesome. Also, the fact that the poster mentioned John Deere (most popular ride-on here) and an Australian mathematicians, suggests that the poster is Australian as well. For those people who have only lived in a large city where space is a premium, in less dense areas a large cleared buffer area is essential to prevent bushfires burning your house down.
And, why should they care to learn 1 x value = value? The problem with the way we teach maths is we teach it mechanically just like that instead of in a practical context in which that knowledge is utilized. Optimal learning occurs when people are engaged in a task. Mechanical, rote learning and the division of subjects in our education are no longer acceptable or effective in a fully integrated world.
In this particular context, it came up when I was attempting to teach fractions. Hard to teach if the kids don't know that 2x1 = 2, so I had to go back and cover some basic properties of multiplication and addition.
And while a practical context is useful, the fact is, that kids can't effectively utilise knowledge in real contexts until they've learnt the skills first. http://www.jefflindsay.com/EducData.shtml
Simply, it's more effective to teach students "mechanically", and then quickly get them to real contexts. I used to be very uncomfortable about this approach, but then I had a couple of experiences a few years back.
At the start of this year, my grade 8 students were complaining about the "application" of mathematics (Practical, real world skills such as estimation, fractions, decimals, etc.). But then I was forced by my school to teach a new algebra approach that focused on the abstract skills FIRST, and then the real applications last. I thought the students were going to be up in arms, because this was a pretty abstract topic to begin with. To my complete surprise, after one week, even the most voracious complainers were saying "This is fun! I can do this! This is easy!" Since then, I've come to the conclusion that when a student complains about the real world application of a particular topic, usually what they're really complaining about is the how hard they find it. Rather than trying to make things more realistic, I dig down and help them learn the basic skills. Doing this, I now have an extra week at the end of each topic to cover realistic applications at a much higher and harder level than I've ever been able to do and the kids are happier and prouder of their achievements than ever.
And, how many operations per second were the computers in their school capable of?
Not that long ago, humanity was almost exclusively agrarian. Someone could learn everything that they needed to be successful in their world without even going to school.
The world changes. If education doesn't to keep pace with the nature of the world people live in, the direction of our results will continue downward.
I'd agree with you about there being less to learn, if it wasn't a simply observable fact that most people knew more basic maths in my grandfather and father's generation than they do today. Even my wife, who hated school mathematics and was only able to scrape through, has a much higher mathematical ability than 1/2 of my year 10 students.
How about when the teacher works through his lunchtime to get the next class ready and the students get to go outside and play? As for the water/tea comment, the school I teach in has a simple rule. Kids are allowed to bring in drink bottles to class, but not food. Teachers are expected to follow the same basic rules as the students.
The best theory I've heard for educational reform goes like this:
Politicians and Bureaucrats tend to be reelected/promoted if they are seen to "fix things". So there's a strong drive to change things for the sake of being seen to change things. As a result, you see a 10 to 20 year cycle of "Education Reform" ideas, (Also "Business Reforms", "Tax Reforms", etc.) going around and around again.
In computer systems, when the CPU is spending all it's time shifting data backwards and forwards, and very little time doing actual work, it's called "Thrashing". We won't accept it in our computer systems, why do we accept it in our political systems?
I was somewhat horrified when I went to university, to find out that the then leading political party in Australia had ONE person trained in a Maths/Science degree (The Treasurer), and all the rest had Liberal Arts degrees (if they had any degree at all). And they were the ones telling us how to run the country.:(
I like the idea of "merit pay" but I'm also concerned as a teacher that "merit pay" doesn't become "pay the best teachers what they're getting at the moment, and cut everyone else's pay." Call me suspicious, but governments seem to love the idea of cutting teacher salaries, but are really resistant to increasing them. I'd say it's a 75% chance that this would apply to individual salaries as well.
Plus if each school gets a budget, what happens if some administrator decides that they'd prefer to "let go" (can't say we fired someone, can we) one 100% teacher and "buy" two 60% teachers? (Just look at what happened to lots of service industries once junior wages were dropped.) Please don't say that "this won't happen if we plan it well." because you have to trust the motives of the implementers as well as the initiators. People in general (And administrators, bureaucrats and politicians in particular) are all VERY good at manipulating a system to get what they want, rather than what the public wants.
I'm also concerned that there be a decent link between actual quality of teaching and pay rates. Let's be honest, political systems SUCK at judging the quality of people, just look at George W. Bush.
It's not the throwing or the money that's the issue. And as a teacher, I can let you know that there is very little of that money reaching teachers.:D
It's the fact that all the money-throwing that has happened over the last few decades has been poorly aimed. Governments love to implement new schemes that sound good to the electorate, and don't require much work from them. Teachers look at 90% of these schemes and think "What the hell are these guys thinking?" Government goes "Why are teachers so resistant to this, what do we have to do to get them on board?" And the simple answer is "Ask us before you implement these things!!!!"
Poor behaviour demotivates teachers, turning (some) good teachers into poor teachers. Poor teachers disgust and disenchant the kids, which means they start to act up more. Parents give up on education because "the education system is broken", and that demotivates the kids even more. Parents and teachers start to cry out for help. Government then royally screws things up (Really breaking the education system) by assuming that it must be the teachers' sole fault and calls for "accountability measures". Well, no, Government knows that there are a lot of factors affecting education, but their primary concern is getting re-elected. (Even the "good" politicians have to fight to be re-elected.) It's easier to appear to fix something by standardised tests, teacher re-accreditation, ongoing professional development, etc, than actually fixing things. Teachers now have less planning time and more paperwork. (Did you know you have to fill out a safety plan if you want to use glue and scissors now? Even if you do a "general skills safety plan" at the start of the year, your school needs to have a safety plan for f-ing scissors.) Either the teacher works harder/longer/"smarter", or they burn out and put less effort into planning. Lessons are worse, and kids are demotivated even more.
Parents are even more upset (and who can blame them) and start screaming at the Government "You haven't fixed ANYTHING." Government does more of the same poor ideas.
Repeat this through three or four cycles over a decade or two, and that's where we are now. *sigh*
How about a school system (and a society)that leaves parenting to...parents?
Hear, b&#*$@ hear. As a teacher, it's especially frustrating whenever governments dump more stuff on us. When did we become the kids parents? Of course with younger kids, you do have to take into account that they still need someone to emotionally support them while they are at school, but it seems that some parents expect us to do everything.
For number three, I hope that there is also some degree of accountability for the districts as well. If a particular district has a lot of fired teachers, will we ask the administrators to explain? Is it because the administration doesn't support teachers in this district and the teachers are burning out?
I'd also like to add this to the proposal: Four: Go back to making kids repeat if they fail a majority of a school year. Lots of people talk about how unrealistic school is now days, but how many jobs will promote you the next year if you did nothing this year? If they don't complete the curriculum by school leaving age, give them a certificate stating "This person has completed education to a grade 9 level." and then give them the choice of taking adult education classes, an apprenticeship, or entering the workforce.
So in effect you had three teachers out of six this year who didn't pull this crap? I agree that the examples you've stated are shocking, but do you know how discouraging it is to those three "good" teachers when you only rant on about the others?
I hope you thanked those three "good" teachers and let them know that you appreciated their efforts.
Then step up to the plate, get an education degree, and show us how to do it!
I'm aware that educational systems don't fit particular kids, but do you realise that we have 25 to 30 different kids to teach per class, and 5 or 6 different classes to teach per day?
That quirk that your kid does 3 or 4 times a day which is kinda cute? That becomes 3x30 to 4x30 quirks in a day, and that doesn't take into account how the kids bounce off each other. Close to a 100 quirks and it becomes a whole less cute. I'd hate to tell you this, but when you have that many personalities forced to sit still in a classroom for 5 to 6 hours, authority is the only thing that holds things together enough that you can even get to know kids individually. The last thing we need is some kid who thinks it's his RIGHT to disrupt 24 to 29 other student's learning every time he disagrees with a teacher's instruction. If he really disagrees that strongly, why doesn't he use his own time after class to discuss it with the teacher? Why is it necessary to stop the entire lesson to have his way right there and then?
If your kid did something disruptive on the first day in a particular class, then bucked up when the teacher tried to settle things back down again, and held it against the teacher ever since, I can see why he has good and bad experiences with different teachers.
I speak from experience. Had this kid in grade 8, very intelligent, but disruptive as all get together, to the point that other kids in the class were yelling at him to stop it. "I hate you, this school and science, it's boring." is one of the things he said when we finished the year. (And didn't the parents get up me.)
Got the same kid in grade 10. My teaching style is exactly the same, but his parents had an even rougher time with him in year 9, finally realised that he WAS doing a lot of things in school that they didn't get to see, had cracked down on him and he now behaved in class. Now because he's not trying to challenge me every b_____y second, I have the time to chat with him, discuss his interests, answer tangential questions and get to the more challenging work. The parents love me now, but I haven't made any substantial changes to my teaching.
Of course, my sympathies are with my son, since I was the gifted, bored student who despised school as well.
Yup, and your kid probably picks up on this. "I can get away with this because dad is more likely to side with me than believe the teacher."
But I was constantly involved in trying to get him engaged, and the school was very, very, VERY difficult to work with.
I have a little rule that has worked well for me in life. "If you see a personality trait in someone else, you BEST look to see if that trait isn't in you as well." So if you think the school is difficult... well I'm sure you can finish this hypothesis.
The best teaching I have seen (In Australia) is in a private Catholic school. The worst teaching was in a private non-religious school. Private Catholic schools get no government funding in Australia. Private non-religious schools get (per school) the most, even more than State schools (Don't ask.).
I'm currently teaching in the state system, and the quality of teaching is high, but somewhere in the middle of these two experiences.
When you don't have pay-per-grade salaries, you'll still have good teachers in poor areas because most people enter education because they want to help people. What I've heard about the American education system is that the poor school areas take advantage of this enthusiasm, run people into the ground and throw them away.
Slashdot Mirror
In a nutshell, at least that's what I noticed, the "right" position is to give corporations as much leeway as possible while caging in the people as much as possible without causing an outright rebellion.
Meh. That currently sounds like both Liberal and Labor parties at the moment here in the land of Oz.
I remember reading somewhere that the largest number of gun related murders are committed by friends or family. So while the criminals may disobey laws, gun laws do work to keep your significant other from putting a hole in you because you left the toilet seat up. :D
The guy who wants to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time is going to figure out a way to do so. Somehow people manage to buy drugs and that's illegal too. With no CCW and everyone's lame-ass bolt action rifle in the gun safe a prospective mass murderer is virtually guaranteed a large number of kills.
Except that without semi-automatic weapons, the mass murderer can't do it on the spur-of-the-moment.
Except that while Nuclear Energy is cheap while the plant is in operation, the cost of stripping, renovating and updating nuclear plants (as well as storing the radiation-exposed material) when they get past their use-by date (30-60 years) makes it one of the most expensive forms of energy.
I wish I could find a good, single-source primary sources, but I guess Wikipedia will have to do for the moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
almost no-one uses it?
As I've mentioned above, in Australian rural areas, a large cleared area is essential to prevent bushfires burning your house down. Not everyone chooses to live in a city, and the price isn't that much different from a inner-city apartment.
When I mowed my grandfather's lawn (about twice the size of a large house) I used to do step 2 differently:
Split the lawn up lengthwise into two sections, and mow the outer edge of one, then return on the inner edge of another. My grandfather's lawnmower was pretty big, and much easier to push in a straight line than make a turn.
And I have to agree with the anti-anti big-lawn sentiment. I was raised on a dairy farm here in Australia and having a large play area is awesome.
Also, the fact that the poster mentioned John Deere (most popular ride-on here) and an Australian mathematicians, suggests that the poster is Australian as well.
For those people who have only lived in a large city where space is a premium, in less dense areas a large cleared buffer area is essential to prevent bushfires burning your house down.
That'd be nice, but observation suggests to me that less than 10% of the general population holds this view.
And, why should they care to learn 1 x value = value? The problem with the way we teach maths is we teach it mechanically just like that instead of in a practical context in which that knowledge is utilized. Optimal learning occurs when people are engaged in a task. Mechanical, rote learning and the division of subjects in our education are no longer acceptable or effective in a fully integrated world.
In this particular context, it came up when I was attempting to teach fractions. Hard to teach if the kids don't know that 2x1 = 2, so I had to go back and cover some basic properties of multiplication and addition.
And while a practical context is useful, the fact is, that kids can't effectively utilise knowledge in real contexts until they've learnt the skills first. http://www.jefflindsay.com/EducData.shtml
Simply, it's more effective to teach students "mechanically", and then quickly get them to real contexts. I used to be very uncomfortable about this approach, but then I had a couple of experiences a few years back.
At the start of this year, my grade 8 students were complaining about the "application" of mathematics (Practical, real world skills such as estimation, fractions, decimals, etc.).
But then I was forced by my school to teach a new algebra approach that focused on the abstract skills FIRST, and then the real applications last. I thought the students were going to be up in arms, because this was a pretty abstract topic to begin with. To my complete surprise, after one week, even the most voracious complainers were saying "This is fun! I can do this! This is easy!"
Since then, I've come to the conclusion that when a student complains about the real world application of a particular topic, usually what they're really complaining about is the how hard they find it. Rather than trying to make things more realistic, I dig down and help them learn the basic skills. Doing this, I now have an extra week at the end of each topic to cover realistic applications at a much higher and harder level than I've ever been able to do and the kids are happier and prouder of their achievements than ever.
And, how many operations per second were the computers in their school capable of?
Not that long ago, humanity was almost exclusively agrarian. Someone could learn everything that they needed to be successful in their world without even going to school.
The world changes. If education doesn't to keep pace with the nature of the world people live in, the direction of our results will continue downward.
I'd agree with you about there being less to learn, if it wasn't a simply observable fact that most people knew more basic maths in my grandfather and father's generation than they do today. Even my wife, who hated school mathematics and was only able to scrape through, has a much higher mathematical ability than 1/2 of my year 10 students.
Can I work at your communities school? *pleading*
How about when the teacher works through his lunchtime to get the next class ready and the students get to go outside and play?
As for the water/tea comment, the school I teach in has a simple rule. Kids are allowed to bring in drink bottles to class, but not food. Teachers are expected to follow the same basic rules as the students.
Interesting.
I'm a teacher, and I sooooo wish I had points to mod this up.
The best theory I've heard for educational reform goes like this:
Politicians and Bureaucrats tend to be reelected/promoted if they are seen to "fix things". So there's a strong drive to change things for the sake of being seen to change things. As a result, you see a 10 to 20 year cycle of "Education Reform" ideas, (Also "Business Reforms", "Tax Reforms", etc.) going around and around again.
In computer systems, when the CPU is spending all it's time shifting data backwards and forwards, and very little time doing actual work, it's called "Thrashing". We won't accept it in our computer systems, why do we accept it in our political systems?
I was somewhat horrified when I went to university, to find out that the then leading political party in Australia had ONE person trained in a Maths/Science degree (The Treasurer), and all the rest had Liberal Arts degrees (if they had any degree at all). :(
And they were the ones telling us how to run the country.
Damn straight.
I like the idea of "merit pay" but I'm also concerned as a teacher that "merit pay" doesn't become "pay the best teachers what they're getting at the moment, and cut everyone else's pay." Call me suspicious, but governments seem to love the idea of cutting teacher salaries, but are really resistant to increasing them. I'd say it's a 75% chance that this would apply to individual salaries as well.
Plus if each school gets a budget, what happens if some administrator decides that they'd prefer to "let go" (can't say we fired someone, can we) one 100% teacher and "buy" two 60% teachers? (Just look at what happened to lots of service industries once junior wages were dropped.)
Please don't say that "this won't happen if we plan it well." because you have to trust the motives of the implementers as well as the initiators. People in general (And administrators, bureaucrats and politicians in particular) are all VERY good at manipulating a system to get what they want, rather than what the public wants.
I'm also concerned that there be a decent link between actual quality of teaching and pay rates. Let's be honest, political systems SUCK at judging the quality of people, just look at George W. Bush.
It's not the throwing or the money that's the issue. And as a teacher, I can let you know that there is very little of that money reaching teachers. :D
It's the fact that all the money-throwing that has happened over the last few decades has been poorly aimed. Governments love to implement new schemes that sound good to the electorate, and don't require much work from them. Teachers look at 90% of these schemes and think "What the hell are these guys thinking?" Government goes "Why are teachers so resistant to this, what do we have to do to get them on board?"
And the simple answer is "Ask us before you implement these things!!!!"
It's a positive feedback loop.
Poor behaviour demotivates teachers, turning (some) good teachers into poor teachers. Poor teachers disgust and disenchant the kids, which means they start to act up more. Parents give up on education because "the education system is broken", and that demotivates the kids even more. Parents and teachers start to cry out for help.
Government then royally screws things up (Really breaking the education system) by assuming that it must be the teachers' sole fault and calls for "accountability measures". Well, no, Government knows that there are a lot of factors affecting education, but their primary concern is getting re-elected. (Even the "good" politicians have to fight to be re-elected.) It's easier to appear to fix something by standardised tests, teacher re-accreditation, ongoing professional development, etc, than actually fixing things.
Teachers now have less planning time and more paperwork. (Did you know you have to fill out a safety plan if you want to use glue and scissors now? Even if you do a "general skills safety plan" at the start of the year, your school needs to have a safety plan for f-ing scissors.)
Either the teacher works harder/longer/"smarter", or they burn out and put less effort into planning. Lessons are worse, and kids are demotivated even more.
Parents are even more upset (and who can blame them) and start screaming at the Government "You haven't fixed ANYTHING." Government does more of the same poor ideas.
Repeat this through three or four cycles over a decade or two, and that's where we are now. *sigh*
How about a school system (and a society)that leaves parenting to...parents?
Hear, b&#*$@ hear.
As a teacher, it's especially frustrating whenever governments dump more stuff on us. When did we become the kids parents?
Of course with younger kids, you do have to take into account that they still need someone to emotionally support them while they are at school, but it seems that some parents expect us to do everything.
I STRONGLY agree with number two.
For number three, I hope that there is also some degree of accountability for the districts as well. If a particular district has a lot of fired teachers, will we ask the administrators to explain? Is it because the administration doesn't support teachers in this district and the teachers are burning out?
I'd also like to add this to the proposal:
Four: Go back to making kids repeat if they fail a majority of a school year. Lots of people talk about how unrealistic school is now days, but how many jobs will promote you the next year if you did nothing this year? If they don't complete the curriculum by school leaving age, give them a certificate stating "This person has completed education to a grade 9 level." and then give them the choice of taking adult education classes, an apprenticeship, or entering the workforce.
So in effect you had three teachers out of six this year who didn't pull this crap? I agree that the examples you've stated are shocking, but do you know how discouraging it is to those three "good" teachers when you only rant on about the others?
I hope you thanked those three "good" teachers and let them know that you appreciated their efforts.
Then step up to the plate, get an education degree, and show us how to do it!
I'm aware that educational systems don't fit particular kids, but do you realise that we have 25 to 30 different kids to teach per class, and 5 or 6 different classes to teach per day?
That quirk that your kid does 3 or 4 times a day which is kinda cute? That becomes 3x30 to 4x30 quirks in a day, and that doesn't take into account how the kids bounce off each other. Close to a 100 quirks and it becomes a whole less cute. I'd hate to tell you this, but when you have that many personalities forced to sit still in a classroom for 5 to 6 hours, authority is the only thing that holds things together enough that you can even get to know kids individually. The last thing we need is some kid who thinks it's his RIGHT to disrupt 24 to 29 other student's learning every time he disagrees with a teacher's instruction. If he really disagrees that strongly, why doesn't he use his own time after class to discuss it with the teacher? Why is it necessary to stop the entire lesson to have his way right there and then?
If your kid did something disruptive on the first day in a particular class, then bucked up when the teacher tried to settle things back down again, and held it against the teacher ever since, I can see why he has good and bad experiences with different teachers.
I speak from experience. Had this kid in grade 8, very intelligent, but disruptive as all get together, to the point that other kids in the class were yelling at him to stop it.
"I hate you, this school and science, it's boring." is one of the things he said when we finished the year. (And didn't the parents get up me.)
Got the same kid in grade 10. My teaching style is exactly the same, but his parents had an even rougher time with him in year 9, finally realised that he WAS doing a lot of things in school that they didn't get to see, had cracked down on him and he now behaved in class. Now because he's not trying to challenge me every b_____y second, I have the time to chat with him, discuss his interests, answer tangential questions and get to the more challenging work. The parents love me now, but I haven't made any substantial changes to my teaching.
Of course, my sympathies are with my son, since I was the gifted, bored student who despised school as well.
Yup, and your kid probably picks up on this. "I can get away with this because dad is more likely to side with me than believe the teacher."
But I was constantly involved in trying to get him engaged, and the school was very, very, VERY difficult to work with.
I have a little rule that has worked well for me in life. "If you see a personality trait in someone else, you BEST look to see if that trait isn't in you as well." So if you think the school is difficult ... well I'm sure you can finish this hypothesis.
Not to mention the same number of spelling errors, poor grammar, flat-out-wrong values, etc. :D
It's hard to write a large block of 'perfect' text.
The best teaching I have seen (In Australia) is in a private Catholic school. The worst teaching was in a private non-religious school. Private Catholic schools get no government funding in Australia. Private non-religious schools get (per school) the most, even more than State schools (Don't ask.).
I'm currently teaching in the state system, and the quality of teaching is high, but somewhere in the middle of these two experiences.
When you don't have pay-per-grade salaries, you'll still have good teachers in poor areas because most people enter education because they want to help people. What I've heard about the American education system is that the poor school areas take advantage of this enthusiasm, run people into the ground and throw them away.