Is U.S. education truly getting worse?

[Dancing David]

Question:

Let's say schools today are not doing a worse job than they did 40 years ago (I wonder why that "arbitrary" date was chosen?).

If not, what would they LOOK like, if they were?

Tokie

Well considering the drop out rate forty years ago, I am not sure that would be a good thing. back then the ability to drop out varied widely some as early as seventh grade.

 

[Tokenconservative]

Well considering the drop out rate forty years ago, I am not sure that would be a good thing. back then the ability to drop out varied widely some as early as seventh grade.

I'm sorry, refresh my memory...now, was it easier to go into a trade or profession without a high school diploma 40 years ago, or is it easier today?

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Who are "they"? Teachers? Unions? Local school comittees? State education departments? Federal D.O.E.? Educational Testing Service? OECD? Parent Teacher Associations? Voters (via referendum)? Congress? State legislatures? A conspiracy of them all?

What would you suggest be done?

I've had one 4% raise in 7 years, but it came along with an increase in health insurance co-pays more than double the dollar amount. I wish someone would tell me which data I can "cherry pick" to at least let me keep up with inflation.

1. Yes. And while you can dismiss this as a CT, in fact, it is what it is. Tell me: we know that the earth revolves around the sun, right? But what would it LOOK like if it were the other way 'round?

2. Be done about the above? I would suggest be done, is that the schools start teaching to the STUDENT, not the test. Of course this is problematic because "teachers" came out of these same schools and are typically the bottom of their graduating classes in college, which means few can teach above the lowest common denominator, because few understand the material themselves. If you are one of those rare teachers to whom this does not apply, you know that what I am saying is true, but you'd sooner pluck out an eye than admit it in a public forum where the possibility--no matter how remote--exists that you might be identified. I saw "The Mist" last weekend in which the basic theme is "fear changes everything." And so it does.

3. I've had no raises in the past 7 years. I have increased my business at least 200%, but I still charge the same, because that's the rate the market will bear. Perhaps if you (collective) were delivering a better product, you could charge more for it? Has that ever occured to you? No, of course it hasn't. That's because your wage is set not by the market but by your union's negotiations. Maybe it's time to leave the union and become a free agent. Lots of private schools pay far more than the public. Lots more pay far less, of course...with no bennies at all. And by the way, why don't you count your bennies into that pay when you calculate it? Care to know what % of my pay I'll be retiring (HAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAWWW!) at? It's whatever I manage to squirrel away during my work life, not the 70-80% of the highest pay you ever earned, that you will see.

Tokie

 

[Dancing David]

I'm sorry, refresh my memory...now, was it easier to go into a trade or profession without a high school diploma 40 years ago, or is it easier today?

Tokie

Depends most trades accept family memebrs, if union. The industrial bust started fairly soon afetr.

Of course that was the standard excuse parents would give my mother 'my kid don't need english, he just needs a job'; 1969.

Then there was the wonderfull year 1979, when I was competing to get a job at age 19 (entry level at McD's) against guys with a family and a mortage.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

1. Yes. And while you can dismiss this as a CT, in fact, it is what it is. Tell me: we know that the earth revolves around the sun, right? But what would it LOOK like if it were the other way 'round?[/qupte]

It IS a CT. Good Call. (Note, you need to proof this.)

2. Be done about the above? I would suggest be done, is that the schools start teaching to the STUDENT, not the test. Of course this is problematic because "teachers" came out of these same schools and are typically the bottom of their graduating classes in college, which means few can teach above the lowest common denominator, because few understand the material themselves. If you are one of those rare teachers to whom this does not apply, you know that what I am saying is true, but you'd sooner pluck out an eye than admit it in a public forum where the possibility--no matter how remote--exists that you might be identified. I saw "The Mist" last weekend in which the basic theme is "fear changes everything." And so it does.

An ad hom, insult, and unsupported assertion all in one. Incidently, both liberals and conseratives want more testing, so you're assertion falls flat.. again.

 

[Spindrift]

Of course this is problematic because "teachers" came out of these same schools and are typically the bottom of their graduating classes in college,

Another Token lie!

 

[Spindrift]

...and I'll admit I did not get very far in math,...

Then why would you have been asked to teach a math class?

 

[Prometheus]

1. Yes. And while you can dismiss this as a CT, in fact, it is what it is. Tell me: we know that the earth revolves around the sun, right? But what would it LOOK like if it were the other way 'round?

I'm not being dismissive. I only asked for clarification of your position. I'm fully open to the possibility that some such conspiracy may exist, if anyone shows me some compelling evidence for such. I know that I'm not in on any sort of conspiracy, and I'm fairly certain that none of my co-workers are either.

2. Be done about the above? I would suggest be done, is that the schools start teaching to the STUDENT, not the test.

This is what every teacher I know did before "No Child Left Behind" forced them to stop doing so, even the few who were willing to sacrifice their own careers to teach anything other than the new test material have been unable to do so because they get replaced by administrators fearful of losing their own jobs as soon as they try.

Of course this is problematic because "teachers" came out of these same schools and are typically the bottom of their graduating classes in college, which means few can teach above the lowest common denominator, because few understand the material themselves. If you are one of those rare teachers to whom this does not apply, you know that what I am saying is true, but you'd sooner pluck out an eye than admit it in a public forum where the possibility--no matter how remote--exists that you might be identified.

I was at the top of my class in elite private high school, undergrad university, and graduate school. I know many other teachers who are also highly qualified. However, on the whole you are right--there are a great many underqualified, underperforming teachers, especially in the public grade schools. I can't go so far as to say "most", however, since I don't have any numerical data to back up such a claim. I don't think I'll pluck out an eye. And while I don't make any attempt to advertise my identity in this forum, I'm quite vocal in my criticism of the deficiencies of my field. On the many occasions when I've complained of exactly these problems, other teachers have only agreed with me.

I saw "The Mist" last weekend in which the basic theme is "fear changes everything." And so it does.

Haven't seen it, but I agree with the sentiment

3. I've had no raises in the past 7 years. I have increased my business at least 200%, but I still charge the same, because that's the rate the market will bear. Perhaps if you (collective) were delivering a better product, you could charge more for it? Has that ever occured to you? No, of course it hasn't. That's because your wage is set not by the market but by your union's negotiations. Maybe it's time to leave the union and become a free agent. Lots of private schools pay far more than the public. Lots more pay far less, of course...with no bennies at all. And by the way, why don't you count your bennies into that pay when you calculate it? Care to know what % of my pay I'll be retiring (HAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAWWW!) at? It's whatever I manage to squirrel away during my work life, not the 70-80% of the highest pay you ever earned, that you will see.

I'm not in a union. And in fact, I was freelance (travelling around the world teaching English) before I took my current job. I did get paid a lot more for that type of work than any school, public or private, pays in the U.S., though the market has somewhat cooled recently.

I don't see where you got the idea that I disregard the value of my benefits, though they're not nearly as rich as people outside of teaching tend to believe. I get 10 days of paid vacation per year. I do not get paid for the summer months when classes are not in session. I get to purchase my own health coverage at a 50% discount over the individual rate offered to the public, but the rate I pay, and the co-payments required tend to go up every year, while my pay does not. I do not get a retirment pension. I do not contribute to, nor am I allowed to collect Social Security. I do not get paid for holidays.

I, like most of the teachers I know, are not considered "full-time" even though we work more than 40 hours per week. Our employers' budgets have been cut so sharply that full-time positions are rare. Even teachers that are in the union are usually in the same predicament, because union negotiations generally only apply to full-timers, and the employers get around calling us full-time by firing, and then re-hiring, us every semester. This practice also prevents our being able to fight should a teacher be dismissed without good cause.

I get paid an hourly rate, for in-class time only. Although my job description specifically requires me to spend an average of 16 hours per week in meetings, trainings, test sessions, and scoring tests, I don't get paid for any of that time, nor do I get paid for any time I put in to preparing my lessons or grading students' homework. This is the norm in my field, and while I am one of a few teachers who still puts a great deal of time and effort into creating quality lessons, most teachers are not as dumb as me, and they are not willing to do work that they don't get paid for.
This is one of the primary reasons for the poor quality of teaching in many schools.

There's no doubt at all that our education system is broken, and that some of the people you blame are a part of the problem. However, I think the problem is actually a lot larger and more complex than anyone outside of teaching (and few people in the teaching field) understands.

Nevertheless, my primary response to the OP is still that the available data cannot be trusted, so it's not really possible for anyone to back up any strong claims about what should or shouldn't be done.

 

[LostAngeles]

Then why would you have been asked to teach a math class?

As I understand it, most math teachers, at least in CA, do not have a degree in math. So I'm not surprised there. Considering how much of the advanced math I know gives me ideas on how to better explain the simple math (because the advanced math tells me why the simple math works), I can see why this is a problem.

I am honestly interested in Tokie's methods to get the class from 2nd grade math to "near 7th grade" math.

One of the real problems I'm seeing in working with some students is that their teachers/curriculum are using some very bizzare methods to try and explain things that are just making it worse for the kids. If I get a chance later on, I'll try and demonstrate the really weird, "equation mat," for you.

 

[Prometheus]

I am honestly interested in Tokie's methods to get the class from 2nd grade math to "near 7th grade" math.

One of the real problems I'm seeing in working with some students is that their teachers/curriculum are using some very bizzare methods to try and explain things that are just making it worse for the kids. If I get a chance later on, I'll try and demonstrate the really weird, "equation mat," for you.

I'll second that. I know that the sort of rapid advancement Tokie describes is possible, as I've seen it happen, but I would honestly like some detailed information as to how he did it, and how he knows he did it (how were students abilities measured before and after his instruction).

 

[Prometheus]

If I get a chance later on, I'll try and demonstrate the really weird, "equation mat," for you.

Is this what you're talking about?:
http://www.cpm.org/pdfs/information/conference/AC_Solving_w_Manipulatives.pdf

 

[Jeff Corey]

Could someone tell me what the fark "algebra tiles" are? Google was not my friend on this.

 

[LostAngeles]

Is this what you're talking about?:
http://www.cpm.org/pdfs/information/conference/AC_Solving_w_Manipulatives.pdf

Yes! They had stuck two of those together with a double bar between them to indicate an equals sign like in 2.75 of that PDF.

Basically, she brought the work up to one of the tutors who had never seen anything like that before so they brought it to me, who had also never seen it. Since all my smarts come from being the one who RTFM, I asked for the textbook. Once I figured it out, I tried to explain it to the student. I wrote out some equation like 3x+7=6x+4. She understood the equation itself, but the mat threw her for a loop. It basically complicated something she understood already.

The idea of using a manipulative like that isn't bad. I think as an actual manipulative it might work better. I don't think handing it out as a worksheet is really the best way to work with it, but technically, IANAE (I am not an educator).

What really bugged me about it, was that it resembled (to me at first look) the Cartesian coordinate graph with an attempt at labeling the quadrants. Most math builds upon things you're already familiar with and from my experience and the experience of folks I've talked to, when you get something new that looks like something you've seen before, a lot of the time they are similar/isomorphic/whatever. The mat isn't like the graphs at all.

 

[LostAngeles]

I'm giving it a bit more reading. There's definitely some good stuff in there and the usage of algebra tiles makes for some potentially interesting stuff.

I can say, honestly, that the whole use of an equation mat for simplifying and representing equations doesn't seem to work for my learning style at all. I recognize the need for different approaches to the material, though. So, it's not bad, I just don't like it and were I a teacher, I don't think I would demand that every kid be able to do this. I'm just not sure how I would incorporate it for the kids who did need it and the kids who would find it enlightening and still accommodate the kids like the student I mentioned above.

 

[Anerystos]

[N]orm referencing was the basis of the Stanford-Binet IQ scores years ago and they used all the data they had to calculate the mean and arbitrarily say that was 100.

Let's start with some historical facts about IQ measurement.

Binet - in France - was tasked by the French government to devise a method by which children in the school system who needed additional help to achieve the required standards. I can't remember the date and my reference book is the opposite end of the house and I can't be bothered to go get it, because the date is not very relevant.

He devised a series of tests which allowed him to estimate the average level of achievement of children of a range of ages. This allowed him to propose the idea of "mental age" - ie this child was performing at the level expected of a child of chronological age x, say.

IQ was then defined as: (mental age / chronological age) * 100

The use of a multiplier of 100 was not arbitrary: it was just convenient.

Later work by Weschler at Stamford led first to the Stamford Binet and then to the range of Weschler tests - still in wide use for clinical and educational purposes.

Unfortunately, the idea of "mental age" has no real meaning when dealing with adults. Weschler therefore developed the idea that scores on his tests would be converted into distributions with mean 100 and standard deviation of 15. Nothing magical - just convenient. And nothing sinister either.

As a matter of interest, and "multiple intelligences" advocates notwithstanding, the scores on most tests of ability/intelligence are highly correlated. Indeed, the evidence from Factor Analytical studies is that there is a single factor which accounts for 60-65% of the variance in test scores. Most statistically numerate psychologists would see this as fairly convincing evidence that there is just one "intelligence" factor. This does not stop some test publishers from trying to extract - by dubious means - three (or more) factors: verbal, numerical and "spacial"

Before someone flames off at me, any psychologist who uses these tests is well aware that there are likely to be strong cultural factors in the test results: one major engineering group in the UK had to develop their own norms for the tests which they used for selection.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Most statistically numerate psychologists would see this as fairly convincing evidence that there is just one "intelligence" factor. This does not stop some test publishers from trying to extract - by dubious means - three (or more) factors: verbal, numerical and "spacial"

What do you mean by "intelligence factor"? Clearly there are many brain functions that contribute to intelligence. For example, a person can be quite intelligent yet find it difficult to read, and this would clearly affect an IQ test. But that can't be the one intelligence factor to which you refer.

Are you suggesting that if we can control for all the variance in brain function, then we'd find only one intelligence factor?

~~ Paul

 

[drkitten]

As a matter of interest, and "multiple intelligences" advocates notwithstanding, the scores on most tests of ability/intelligence are highly correlated. Indeed, the evidence from Factor Analytical studies is that there is a single factor which accounts for 60-65% of the variance in test scores. Most statistically numerate psychologists would see this as fairly convincing evidence that there is just one "intelligence" factor.

I'm afraid that this particular argument is one major reason most professional statisticians consider the phrase "statistically numerate psychologists" to be an oxymoron. (That and the over-reliance on correlation as proof of causation that is endemic to the field.) Actual statistics students are taught in their first-year class that reification of factors on the basis of variance is not justifiable.

 

[Jeff Corey]

... the over-reliance on correlation as proof of causation that is endemic to the field...

Maybe it's endemic in your experience, but I have certainly not found it to be the case. Chapter 2 of our Intro text discusses the issue and our Experimental students are expected to be able to discuss the issues of third variables, directionality and other problems with correlational studies.
Maybe I'm lucky to be in a behaviorally oriented environment and you are not.

 

[bigred]

Conclusion: I have a collection of impressions and data that doesn't tell the whole story. Is this enough to reasonably conclude a declining school system, or is it merely a tower of leaky buckets? Where do I go from here for hard data?

Unfortunately (and I know the scientifically geeked out JREF community won't like this), "hard data" isn't the be all/end all here, since that data can be misleading, only tell part of the story, etc. For example, higher test scores might mean the tests are easier, not that the kids are doing better - and don't even get me started on kids who are "pushed through" or otherwise given numerous and unbelievable breaks that do them no favors. Not saying such data shouldn't be counted though (I have to mention that or sure as sunshine some Einstein will go "oh so you don't think hard data should count at all!!" ).

Anyway, I know and have talked to a wide variety of teachers and discussed this online with many more....the ones who feel our educational system is quite broke and kids (generally) in much worse shape than generations past is, oh, somewhere in the mid-to-high 90 percentile area. This goes across areas of the country, age of kids being taught, age/experience of the teachers themselves, and across "classes" (from inner city "slum" schools to middle class, upper-middle class, even some pricier private ones). Granted I haven't exactly had an in-depth discussion with every single teacher in the land, but I find it highly unlikely that my experience is so skewed as to be grossly off-base.

 

[The Gnomon]

Regardless of improvements in othe areas if the major fault isn't fixed then it's for naught.

The major fault in USA education is its negligence in teaching its citizens how to think cogently. Such training should be started at the earliest age possible to make it second nature. This training should be buttressed by classes in ethics. This double emphasis would create citizens who will not commit crimes based on reasons they feel are justified. They will also be able to examine political issues properly and not be swayed by sly politicians who gain votes mainly on charm or physical appearances or by making promises impossible to keep. Such training will also make for better inter-citizen relationships. Why such training is neglected is beyond me.

It's not too far beyond me. The stakeholders in having a populace easily swayed by invalid argument, attractive-but-faulty logic, and other devious methods of persuasion are numerous and powerful. Business, politicians, religous leaders are some who come to mind. A clear-thinking populace who could arrive at valid logical conclusions is not in their best interest. Therefore, teaching clear thinking in the schools is not demanded by politicians, the business community, or institutional churches.