Is U.S. education truly getting worse?

[Tokenconservative]

Like I said, I'm just guessing as to Senge's position on unions. However, he already has been taken seriously by dozens of charter and magnet schools, and a few municipalities as well, who have hired him to help regorganize their schools. And he's gotten results. But he does not try to apply the same solution to each school he goes to (that would be just another cookie-cutter approach). In one of the schools he worked with, for instance, he actually took the teachers out of the classroom, asked local businesses/employers what skills they wanted to see in graduating students, brought in volunteers from local employers to teach those skills, and used the professional teachers as "teacher-trainers" who had to train the volunteers in how to teach and manage a classroom.

And I didn't say that all the agents have the same goals in mind. Rather, they need to have the same goals in mind.

My area has several "college-track" high schools, and a vocational H.S. that teaches everything from metal shop to computer repair, and an agricultural school that teaches kids how to operate $240,000 harvesters, as well as forestry management, animal breeding, and environmental clean up. 8th graders all have to choose one of the three tracks before starting 9th grade.

I have issues with the "tracking" system. That's what was en vogue when I was a kid. Too many smart kids with issues at home, or other problems get "tracked" into food service or other scutwork, while, typically, only those kids from upper-income families (regardless of smarts) get tracked toward college.

Not sure that's what PUBLIC schools in America should be about...it never seemed to work in GB...not sure why it would here. Did you know what you wanted or were capable of doing at say, 13 or 14? I didn't.

I didn't go to college until I was 30. Got straight As in my admittedly not very tough Lib Arts major, but also in my Honors minor. Got pretty much Ds and Fs in the public schools.

There is nothing like what you describe in this state. There are a few vocational schools around, but they are very limited in the numbers of kids who can attend. As far as I know, though ag, mining, forestry, etc. are the second largest industries in this state, there is not teaching of that stuff in any school in this state, even in areas where those industries are prominent, and no plans to do anything like that, either.

In fact, "shop" has been atttritioned out of the schools here.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

A retired teacher who now spends his time campaigning for improved literacy has revealed that he taught classes for 17 years even though he could not read or write.

Despite his illiteracy, John Corcoran worked as a teacher then as a property developer until the age of 48, when he decided to seek help. He used oral and visual stimuli with his pupils, rather than words, and insists he was a very successful teacher.
Quote:
He continued undetected through high school and the University of Texas at El Paso, where he gained an athletics scholarship and was then automatically offered a teaching job. That is when he created an elaborate oral teaching method to avoid detection in the high school classes he taught - including English grammar.

Did it work? How successful was he?

The assumption by the "education" industry is that only those who've been through a "diverse" Ed. program at a "diverse" teaching college then have the skills to teach a "diverse" (you may notice the emphasis on "diversit") student population, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Hmm...I never went through one of those course, yet I was able, in under six weeks, to get 5th graders who'd been doing math at the 1st and 2nd grade level, ready to enter the last half of their 7th grade year in math.

How?

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Well he was (automatically) qualified, and I bet he never said that he could read...

I doubt any state has done this autoqualifying for some time, and certainly not under NCLB.

Tokie

 

[Prometheus]

I have issues with the "tracking" system. That's what was en vogue when I was a kid. Too many smart kids with issues at home, or other problems get "tracked" into food service or other scutwork, while, typically, only those kids from upper-income families (regardless of smarts) get tracked toward college.

Not sure that's what PUBLIC schools in America should be about...it never seemed to work in GB...not sure why it would here. Did you know what you wanted or were capable of doing at say, 13 or 14? I didn't.

I didn't go to college until I was 30. Got straight As in my admittedly not very tough Lib Arts major, but also in my Honors minor. Got pretty much Ds and Fs in the public schools.

There is nothing like what you describe in this state. There are a few vocational schools around, but they are very limited in the numbers of kids who can attend. As far as I know, though ag, mining, forestry, etc. are the second largest industries in this state, there is not teaching of that stuff in any school in this state, even in areas where those industries are prominent, and no plans to do anything like that, either.

In fact, "shop" has been atttritioned out of the schools here.

Tokie

I agree completely with your misgivings as to the tracking system. My state still uses it, although from what I understand, the vast majority of students get tracked into college prep now. There's only one agricultural school, with a few hundred seats, for the entire state. When I was getting ready for high school I had one class mate who wound up going there, and his decision was primarily motivated by the fact that he came from a family of farmers, and was in line to inherit a very profitable string of farms and farmstands. There are vocational schools in every county, and the kids that go to them are pretty much always low socio-economic and/or bottom quintile academically (which by no means indicates low intelligence--lot's of kids are quite smart but have emotional or learning disabilities that are not diagnosed properly that prevent them from doing well in traditional academics. There's a push on now to overcome this, but they're doing it the wrong way around: requiring teachers to attempt to diagnose and report problems, without the training to do so correctly; my brother's life is currently complicated by an idiot teacher who thinks her Ph.D. in Education qualifies her to diagnose his son as autistic, and she keeps reporting this to the state, even though his family doctor, a psychiatrist and a neurologist have all examined him and pronounced him absolutely normal).

 

[Alt+F4]

We are skeptics on this forum, right?

While still teaching, Corcoran dabbled in real estate. He was granted a leave of absence, eventually becoming a successful real estate developer.

Linky: http://www.10news.com/news/15274005/detail.html

 

[Tokenconservative]

I agree completely with your misgivings as to the tracking system. My state still uses it, although from what I understand, the vast majority of students get tracked into college prep now. There's only one agricultural school, with a few hundred seats, for the entire state. When I was getting ready for high school I had one class mate who wound up going there, and his decision was primarily motivated by the fact that he came from a family of farmers, and was in line to inherit a very profitable string of farms and farmstands. There are vocational schools in every county, and the kids that go to them are pretty much always low socio-economic and/or bottom quintile academically (which by no means indicates low intelligence--lot's of kids are quite smart but have emotional or learning disabilities that are not diagnosed properly that prevent them from doing well in traditional academics. There's a push on now to overcome this, but they're doing it the wrong way around: requiring teachers to attempt to diagnose and report problems, without the training to do so correctly; my brother's life is currently complicated by an idiot teacher who thinks her Ph.D. in Education qualifies her to diagnose his son as autistic, and she keeps reporting this to the state, even though his family doctor, a psychiatrist and a neurologist have all examined him and pronounced him absolutely normal).

"Tracking" was what was done to me in the mid 60s. Given, it was my parent's fault, but because of a vacation schedule, I started 3rd grade late in an extremely overcrowded school and my parents never bothered telling the teachers I hadn't been there for those 2 weeks, and they just assumed I had, and since I was utterly clueless, I was "dummy" tracked. Of course, I had no idea I'd been tracked as a dummy, but every teacher I had from then out knew it, and that's how I was treated.

From about 8th grade on, I spent most of my time ditching class, in the library and barely graduated.

I would guess there are some ag programs at vo-tech schools in more rural parts of this state, but they have been attritioning out "shop" for a couple of decades.

One of the reasons for this, I believe, is that HS teachers think it beneath them to be teaching kids how to read and write to become plumbers and electricians (I could fit my entire house inside my plumber's living room...) so EVERY kid is being college-tracked and those who can't cut that are now the "dummies" (like my plumber...I wish I'd been as dumb as him 30 years ago...).

Those who dismiss "the old days" do so for vested reasons quite often...they are teachers themselves, or forcing a kid of their own who'd make a great plumber into college, etc. 'cause of course only "dummies" become plumbers.

Who live in mansions.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

I agree my brother's life is currently complicated by an idiot teacher who thinks her Ph.D. in Education qualifies her to diagnose his son as autistic, and she keeps reporting this to the state, even though his family doctor, a psychiatrist and a neurologist have all examined him and pronounced him absolutely normal).

And clearly the "good old days" predate my own...my parents were told by my Kindergarten teacher (circa 1965 or so) that I was demonstrating "abnormal" psychology because I like to color in red so much.

This, too, complicated my life as this became a part of the dreaded "permanent" record...which, by the by, your nephew will be confronted with from here on out.

My recomendation having gone through this myself (but of course I was unaware of it until I was an adult...and it was too late to sue) is that your brother and his wife remove that kid from that school district TODAY...homeschool him, get him into a private, or just take him to another school in the district and start fresh (don't let them insist on transfer of records, etc...they HAVE to take any kid who shows up...hence, all the illegals).

He is going to be nothing but damaged by this as the school will not now, under any circumstances back down from this "diagnosis" out of fear of lawsuits, and because of this, the boy's "record" will be the first thing every new teacher he has for the rest of his school career (in that district or elsewhere, including college) will see.

Listen, I sub teach, and I can't tell you how many teachers have given me files on kids (when I'm going to be there a few days) or lists saying "look out for this one, etc...

Often, they are right. Just as often, they are wrong. I sub'd for a few weeks for a Spec. Ed. (learning disabilities, not the phys. stuff) last year, who had had a nervous breakdown and was given that list. Not one of the kids on the list gave me any trouble at all, and in fact a couple of them were very helpful.

Tokie

 

[volatile]

Hey, I'll agree with you -O) that there are plenty of people whose parents force them to do degrees they don't want to do. Interestingly, this seems to be a result of the type of market-led thinking you've expounded, and has gotten worse (as far as I can tell) since we introduced tuition fees.

I know plenty of amazing artists, musicians, philosophers, kids interested in politics, history, archeology and a tonne of other subjects, who have been shoehorned by their parents (either implicitly or often explicitly) into law, finance and business management degrees because it would make them "more employable". Most of them dropped out, having no interest or inclination in their (un)chosen major.

 

[Tokenconservative]

Hey, I'll agree with you -O) that there are plenty of people whose parents force them to do degrees they don't want to do. Interestingly, this seems to be a result of the type of market-led thinking you've expounded, and has gotten worse (as far as I can tell) since we introduced tuition fees.

I know plenty of amazing artists, musicians, philosophers, kids interested in politics, history, archeology and a tonne of other subjects, who have been shoehorned by their parents (either implicitly or often explicitly) into law, finance and business management degrees because it would make them "more employable". Most of them dropped out, having no interest or inclination in their (un)chosen major.

One of my kids has expressed an intereste in either paleontology or astronomy, primarily because she feels she should be expressing an interest in SOMETHING.

Now, if this kid had been showing a real interest in either of these area for some time, I'd be right behind her, encouraging her to go into either of these, tough as it may be to find work in them...yes, yes....we can argue back and forth, but the reality is, you are not going to go onto Job.com or Craigslist, plug in "paleontologist" and "astronomer" and find even ONE listing.

So, I've told her (and expect her, anyway) to get double major, business, computers, something else that's marketable (she's interested in biochemistry...so that has REAL potential and easily cross-references to dozens of other areas) AND either a second major in one of these or certainly a minor. Of course, we are still doing the research, to see what else is out there for her.

Believe it or not (and I know you don't, you are a liberal) some parents have their kids' best interests at heart. I don't want my kids waking up 20-30 years from now, having spent 10-15 years getting various "fun" degrees only to discover they are unemployable with and often BECAUSE of those degrees.

I am not a wealthy liberal who has million-dollar trusts set up for these kids and will not be leaving them a fortune when I die, either. While I'd love to see the one who is a classical pianist work in that field, given that there are what, at most 50 people in the US working as classical pianists, and given that she is not Chinese, and is while good, not spectacularly so, her liklihood of making a living at that is close to nil. I encourage her writing of music more because that has some real potential as a career.

Yes, yes...we all learned in the 60s and 70s that we need to be "happy" and the money will come.

Right. That is the problem in a nutshell with a great many of my cohort, myself included. It's easy to be happy when you are 20 and not too worried about anything but maybe the cable or 'net bill. It's a different sort of thing when you are 50 and worried over whether you'll be able to buy groceries this month.

While those comfortably ensconsed in academic positions can harrumph over this, those of us living a bit closer to where the rubber meets the road cannot afford to be quite so quixotic about it.

Tokie

 

[volatile]

Believe it or not (and I know you don't, you are a liberal) some parents have their kids' best interests at heart. I don't want my kids waking up 20-30 years from now, having spent 10-15 years getting various "fun" degrees only to discover they are unemployable with and often BECAUSE of those degrees.

That sounds OK in theory (Dad knows best, right?), but in practice it means that business and law classes are either clogged with disinterested and disengaged students, or empty because of all the people skipping class. You can lead a horse to water, as they say.

As I said, those people I know whose parents selected their major (or even just their minor) serially skipped class, flunked assignments and dropped out. This is through no lack of intelligence (all did well at high school, and most have gone on to rewarding and profitable careers in other fields), it was just because they didn't give a fig for the subject they were expected to study. This does not help students, it hinders them. It is not in their best interests, or yours, for them to be emotionally or financially (often both) blackmailed into remaining under the panopticon of parental supervision and in a subject set they have utterly no interest in.

If you tell your daughter she "must" do business or computing, not only will her overall grade suffer (say she gets As in palentology and Es in business; then you really will have scuppered her chances of working with dino bones for a living!), so will her personal development. I know you only "mean well", but you have a terrible way of showing her (if you don't mind me saying).

Further, though you keep saying arts graduates are unemployable, it isn't true. You've been shown the earnings figures for grads vs. non-grads, and you've been shown the job adverts explicitly seeking arts degrees. Pay attention.

I am not a wealthy liberal who has million-dollar trusts set up for these kids and will not be leaving them a fortune when I die, either. While I'd love to see the one who is a classical pianist work in that field, given that there are what, at most 50 people in the US working as classical pianists, and given that she is not Chinese, and is while good, not spectacularly so, her liklihood of making a living at that is close to nil. I encourage her writing of music more because that has some real potential as a career.

Degrees, as I keep saying, are not training for careers (except in a very rare number of fields, one of which is medicine). No-one gets a job in the exact same field they completed their undergrad degree in. To expect this is absurd, given the number of possible careers compared to the pedagogical limitations of tertiary curricula.

Let her do what she wants, make her own choices and live her own life. You're not doing her any favours whatsoever.

Right. That is the problem in a nutshell with a great many of my cohort, myself included. It's easy to be happy when you are 20 and not too worried about anything but maybe the cable or 'net bill. It's a different sort of thing when you are 50 and worried over whether you'll be able to buy groceries this month.

While those comfortably ensconsed in academic positions can harrumph over this, those of us living a bit closer to where the rubber meets the road cannot afford to be quite so quixotic about it.

I chose a vocational undergraduate degree. Now, it was of my own volition, but the fact is that when I ended up in the field I'd selected, I realised it wasn't for me. Luckily I had the wherewithal, and the lucky breaks, to end up doing something I really do enjoy, but I can tell you it would have been a damn site easier had I gone with my heart instead of my head in the first place.

Undergraduate degrees are not apprenticeships. Unless your daughter has a strong desire to be a doctor of medicine, a vet or a dentist, her choice of major is (broadly) unimportant at this stage. If she's sciencey, let her do a science degree. If she's more arty, let her do an art degree. Why are you doing research for her? Why are you "seeing what's out there for her"? It has nothing to do with you.

 

[Tokenconservative]

That sounds OK in theory (Dad knows best, right?), but in practice it means that business and law classes are either clogged with disinterested and disengaged students, or empty because of all the people skipping class. You can lead a horse to water, as they say.

As I said, those people I know whose parents selected their major (or even just their minor) serially skipped class, flunked assignments and dropped out. This is through no lack of intelligence (all did well at high school, and most have gone on to rewarding and profitable careers in other fields), it was just because they didn't give a fig for the subject they were expected to study. This does not help students, it hinders them. It is not in their best interests, or yours, for them to be emotionally or financially (often both) blackmailed into remaining under the panopticon of parental supervision and in a subject set they have utterly no interest in.

If you tell your daughter she "must" do business or computing, not only will her overall grade suffer (say she gets As in palentology and Es in business; then you really will have scuppered her chances of working with dino bones for a living!), so will her personal development. I know you only "mean well", but you have a terrible way of showing her (if you don't mind me saying).

Further, though you keep saying arts graduates are unemployable, it isn't true. You've been shown the earnings figures for grads vs. non-grads, and you've been shown the job adverts explicitly seeking arts degrees. Pay attention.

Degrees, as I keep saying, are not training for careers (except in a very rare number of fields, one of which is medicine). No-one gets a job in the exact same field they completed their undergrad degree in. To expect this is absurd, given the number of possible careers compared to the pedagogical limitations of tertiary curricula.

Let her do what she wants, make her own choices and live her own life. You're not doing her any favours whatsoever.


I chose a vocational undergraduate degree. Now, it was of my own volition, but the fact is that when I ended up in the field I'd selected, I realised it wasn't for me. Luckily I had the wherewithal, and the lucky breaks, to end up doing something I really do enjoy, but I can tell you it would have been a damn site easier had I gone with my heart instead of my head in the first place.

Undergraduate degrees are not apprenticeships. Unless your daughter has a strong desire to be a doctor of medicine, a vet or a dentist, her choice of major is (broadly) unimportant at this stage. If she's sciencey, let her do a science degree. If she's more arty, let her do an art degree. Why are you doing research for her? Why are you "seeing what's out there for her"? It has nothing to do with you.

1. Not THIS dad, most likely, but I do the best I can, and I know too many liberal arts majors (yrs. truly included) whose degrees have been worse than useless to them, and since both of my kids are good at math and science, they will not be getting (only) lib arts degrees on my dime and I've been encouraging (you would call it "conservative brainwashing") them to seek useful educations, given their skills in those areas, instead. If I turn out being wrong, I will be LESS wrong than I was in my thinking in getting a lib arts degree myself, and so will die happier than had I not encouraged them to seek an education with some utility.

2. You must beg the question in order to "show" me that..you are comparing graduates in some liberal art to those who failed to graduate from an lib. arts program and are saying "see!? SEEEE!!! The graduates make a better living!!!" Golly, I guess you shore dun showed this dumby redneck!

3. As to your parenting advice: thanks. As with the frequent offers I get for free internet psychoanalysis, I am certain it is worth at least thrice the price.

4. Are YOU a parent, by the way?

5. Degrees (in the US) are indicators of skills, aptitudes and interest. The Art History major who applies for a job as a manager of a engineering firm, loses that job to the computer sci major...maybe not in GB, but in the US...which is where I and my kids live.

6. Again, thanks for that sage parenting advice...and the 1970s-era hippy -dippy approach, too. I um...lived through that period and discovered that such advice is...flawed. One thing I believe in, is that every generation has an obligation to create in the next generation better people. My kids are much better humans than am I (maybe not such a stretch, you would probably believe) and will be better educated and in better DIRECTIONs than was I.

6. When you have kids of your own, come back and tell me again what a terrible parent I am for wanting my kids to have a better life than I have had.

Tokie

 

[volatile]

1. Not THIS dad, most likely, but I do the best I can, and I know too many liberal arts majors (yrs. truly included) whose degrees have been worse than useless to them

Huh? You got a career as an English teacher. How, then, was your degree "worse than useless"? Presumably you also learnt about some wonderful literature, learned about history, sampled some inspirational prose and actually lived a little? How, dear Sir, is being culturally literate to the point that you are considerably employable (you *did* get a job because of your degree, right?) worse than useless.

Further, you claim to be "successful" in whatever you are doing now, though you haven't said what as far as I can tell. How to you extricate this from your past experiences?

and since both of my kids are good at math and science, they will not be getting (only) lib arts degrees on my dime and I've been encouraging (you would call it "conservative brainwashing") them to seek useful educations, given their skills in those areas, instead.

So you'd rather they get a bad business degree than a good arts one? You think someone who fails business is more employable than someone who passes history? You'd rather spend how ever many thousands of dollars for your daughter to not attend a business class than for her to attend an arts one? More fool you, frankly.

I think you hate "liberal arts" subjects because they have the word "liberal" in their title....

If I turn out being wrong, I will be LESS wrong than I was in my thinking in getting a lib arts degree myself, and so will die happier than had I not encouraged them to seek an education with some utility.

All education has utility.

2. You must beg the question in order to "show" me that..you are comparing graduates in some liberal art to those who failed to graduate from an lib. arts program and are saying "see!? SEEEE!!! The graduates make a better living!!!" Golly, I guess you shore dun showed this dumby redneck!

Do you know what "begging the question" means? It is analogous to "circular reasoning". There is none of that in my second paragraph. I also did not mention people who failed liberal arts, I mentioned people who failed science and business courses that their parents forced them to take.

What I'm trying to point out to you is that artistically-minded acquaintances of mine who were forced to take "profitable", "useful", "worthwhile" or "vocational" courses failed them because it was not what they wanted to be doing. They had no interest in the things they had been emotionally and financially blackmailed into doing.

Your daughter is an adult. Let her live like one.

Are YOU a parent, by the way?

No, but as I pointed out to you, I am a university lecturer. I know how disinterested students act.

egrees (in the US) are indicators of skills, aptitudes and interest. The Art History major who applies for a job as a manager of a engineering firm, loses that job to the computer sci major...maybe not in GB, but in the US...which is where I and my kids live.

Why would an art history major (or a comp sci one, actually) apply for a job as the manager of an engineering firm? This makes no sense.

You seem to be claiming that all these people who have great jobs using the skills and interests of their humanities degrees would much rather be managing engineering firms. That's absurd. Hell, I'm sure even if you asked those poor saps with philosophy degrees waiting tables if they would want to manage an engineering firm, the answer would be a resounding no. What planet are you living on where the ultimate goal of everyone, everywhere, is to have a well-paid desk job in a scientific discipline?

Again, thanks for that sage parenting advice...and the 1970s-era hippy -dippy approach, too. I um...lived through that period and discovered that such advice is...flawed. One thing I believe in, is that every generation has an obligation to create in the next generation better people. My kids are much better humans than am I (maybe not such a stretch, you would probably believe) and will be better educated and in better DIRECTIONs than was I.

How is cultural literacy, employability and a well-rounded, learned approach to life worse than what you have? I'm confused.

I agree that we have a duty to pass on our knowledge; that's why I'm a research academic. I'm very, very passionate about the benefits of education.

When you have kids of your own, come back and tell me again what a terrible parent I am for wanting my kids to have a better life than I have had.

You are defining quality of life in a very narrow, and very narrow-minded, way. Better life does not mean higher wages.

In any case - incidentally, I earn more than my parents, but the fact that my life is "better" than theirs has little to do with this. My life is better because I am more aware of the world, more culturally literate, more well-read, better travelled, have a wider circle of friends and a greater range of interests. All of these things are a direct result of my "liberal arts" education. I have learnt about art, literature and music. I have learned about the cultures of countries I could never have dreamed of. I have met some of the most fascinating, awe-inspiring and enlightening people. I have the answers to questions they never thought of asking. I have learnt so much, shared so much. I have looked far into the past, and far into the future. All of these things make my life "better", and they have nothing to do with my employability, or the numbers in my bank balance.

If you define "better life" as "more money", then frankly, I pity you. This is doubly true if, as you claim, you really were a teacher of literature, and triply true if you plan to enforce this view on your reluctant, eager-to-learn progeny.