One for the Educators in the crowd

[joessportster]

America in the top 5 spending the most per student

 

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/rich-countries/the-10-nations-that-spend-the-most-on-their-students/?view=all

 

 

It is not the money it is the system that is failing

[JJkizak]

At least they haven't changed the way they write down sheet music. Let's see is that 10 based or 8 based?

 

JJK

[Jim Naseum]

I got pretty interested in this topic and spent a couple hours reading about the pro and con of Common Core. Like so many topics in modern America, this one is fully politicized. A political football, as they say. Conspiracy theorists are having a field day with this, and the highly paid professional propagandists are working overtime!

The short story is this: new is bad.

The new math teaches theory ahead of rote procedure. The theory is foreign to the parents who only learned rote memorization of basic math tables. The parents are screaming bloody murder because they don't know how to help their kids do the home work. That's really about it. The theory the kids are learning is mathematically sound. A good foundation. But let's face it, parents don't want to be embarrassed by not knowing how to explain 9+6=. The CC people should have anticipated this problem. If the parent wasn't in on the lesson, how can they explain it?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Edited September 15, 2015 by jo56steph74

[Marvel]

My wife taught in China for eight years, at two different universities (same town). I sat in on her classes while visiting, and while seeing some hardworking students, they were no different than here. The larger problem, having to do more with culture, is their not being able to think/follow abstract thoughts. Like here in the US, many students/adults can't make the leap in their thinking.

We home schooled our three kids, and they all went on to college and did very well. We taught them to think on their own, to be inquisitive, and not think inside the box all the time. Neither my late wife or I graduated from college, yet our kids far surpassed us. We taught them to read, nothing was off limits (almost nothing).

Bruce

Edited September 15, 2015 by Marvel

[Jim Naseum]

If I had kids, and I know it's easy to say when you don't, I'd want them in private, non commercial, neighborhood school. A small school run by parents and volunteers. Probably in someone's home. Something based on Mdme. Montessori's principles. I wouldn't want a government school, a religious school, or worst of all a corporate school. I would definitely volunteer to reach kids.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Travis In Austin]

America in the top 5 spending the most per student

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/rich-countries/the-10-nations-that-spend-the-most-on-their-students/?view=all

It is not the money it is the system that is failing

Which is a state and/or local system. The percentage of state money to local money varies from state to state. New Hampshire used to have highest percentage of local money.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) passed in 2001, it started the testing requirements. It was a reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

Currently, right now, NCLB is in the process of being overhauled by Congress. Both Houses have passed different versions, the Senate in July by a vote of about 80 to 20 if I recall. It remains to be seen whether anything will come out of Conference.

Every issue regarding education discussed in this thread is up for debate and will be impacted by that legislation, either by sweeping changes, or no action. Yet, it isn't discussed at all, or just in passing here. The time for parents to have the most input on federal involvement in public school education was this Spring and Summer, but there is still time left.

I think that anyone who has a child in elementary, middle or high school should know at least what highlights are in the two versions and what they think is best for their situation.

Travis

Edited November 18, 2015 by dwilawyer

[Travis In Austin]

If I had kids, and I know it's easy to say when you don't, I'd want them in private, non commercial, neighborhood school. A small school run by parents and volunteers. Probably in someone's home. Something based on Mdme. Montessori's principles. I wouldn't want a government school, a religious school, or worst of all a corporate school. I would definitely volunteer to reach kids.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Is that legal in any state. A school in a home? I know teaching your own kids, in your own home is legal in some (many?) states, but I don't think any states allow people to teach other people's kids unless they are licensed and approved by whomever licenses and accredits schools.

Preschooling, ages 3 to 5, can be done under your model, but I think once they are age 5 everything changes.

[Jim Naseum]

I don't know the specific law, because I never had a reason to look. I would imagine someone needs a credential. Private, for profit schools exist, so I would imagine one could open a private, not for profit school. But that's a guess.

I would want to encourage independent learning not mass conformance. Classrooms filled with kids during at desks looks ridiculous to me. Kids have to much energy for that. Kids need to be doing projects, making art, making music, independent research, building things, exploring. That's how you learn.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Travis In Austin]

I don't know the specific law, because I never had a reason to look. I would imagine someone needs a credential. Private, for profit schools exist, so I would imagine one could open a private, not for profit school. But that's a guess.

I would want to encourage independent learning not mass conformance. Classrooms filled with kids during at desks looks ridiculous to me. Kids have to much energy for that. Kids need to be doing projects, making art, making music, independent research, building things, exploring. That's how you learn.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

 

I was a little curious, so I looked it  up.  The model you propose would actually be legal in Texas, however, it is one of about six (6) states that have little, or no, regulation of "private schools."

 

From a Texas Home Schooling Legal Collition:

 

"You may also send your children into the home of another parent or use a tutor for instruction.

The courts have determined that Texas home schools are private schools for the purpose of compulsory attendance. As such, home schools are not regulated, do not require teacher certification or third-party curriculum approval, and they are exempt from compulsory attendance laws.

Local school officials do have the right to make “reasonable inquiry” to determine whether your school-age child is in attendance in a private school. A 2010 letter from the Texas commissioner of education gives direction to school districts on how to legally make “reasonable inquiry.”

[Marvel]

Wisconsin was one of the first to really open up home schooling. The State BOE wanted the legislature to place more restrictions on private/church/homeschool settings. Before 1981, anyone wanting to home school had to have their curriculum approved by the BOE before you could teach your own kids in your own home. The State ended up saying that the BOE/State had no right to restrict parents who wanted to educate their own kids. All you had to sign was a card that stated you were not home schooling to circumvent the compulsory attendance aw, which mandated x number of hours per school year.

 

It worked out to about 2 hours per day, I believe. Of course, this is probably MORE than the actual teaching that happens in many schools.

 

In any case, many states soon followed. The interesting thing is that the religious and non-religious folks worked together to make it all happen.

 

Bruce

Edited September 15, 2015 by Marvel

[Travis In Austin]

 

 

I wasn't aware that it's illegal to educate your own kids. A computer, an internet connection and a library card are all that's needed. I suppose "home schooling" to many means keeping kids out of the public school, and at home?

I was being more general. I meant using the fantastic tools we have at all of our disposal to educate kids. Formal school goes so slowly, that it takes forever to learn important things. Most kids can learn at 10x that rate. Most of what take place in school is ridiculously light weight.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

All those things are fine but remember when your child goes to school and what you have taught is at odds with the schools agenda, now you are confusing your 8 year old child, I also feel like this confusion is a HUGE reason kids start to resent school, and eventually begin to give up

 

Our boys are ahead of the curve exactly because we do teach them at home, of course the schools take no notice of there levels and the bore the hell out of them for hours on end going over the same thing or confusing the hell out of them with this type crap.................

 

This is another MAJOR problem with "COMON CORE", Teachers have an agenda for their kids to do well on the tests set forth by the government. There is ABSOLUTELY no initiative for a teacher to HELP an advanced student with their studies and as a matter of fact it is counter productive for a teacher to push a kid who is smart into a higher grade level as I was, because it is going to effectively bring down their grade as a teacher. The Federal Government needs to get the HEIl out of Public Education.

Roger

 

Common Core is not a federal program.  It was prompted by the private sector being concerned about the quality of education of potential workers comming out  of high school back in 2007..  The private sector partnered with a national organization of scool administrators, who brought on the National Association of Governors (or is it NGA?).  Common Core is adopted, rejected, or repealed, state by state.  Forty something states have adopted it, three, I think, have repealed it after adoption.  Some states, like Texas, rejected it from the beginning. 

 

Testing is a byproduct of No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) which was passed in 2001 which was an overhaul of the 1965 ESEA.  Congress is in the middle of a major overhaul of NCLB.  There is consideration of the  elimination of standards and testing. 

 

This is from the NCLB back in 2001:

 

Standards and Testing

The centerpiece of the bill is the requirement that states develop and implement "challenging" academic standards in reading and math, set annual statewide progress objectives to ensure that all groups of students reach proficiency within 12 years, and then test children annually in grades 3 through 8, in reading and math, to measure their progress. The bill specifically prohibits any "national testing" or "federally controlled curriculum." It is up to the states to select and/or design their own tests, and to make sure that the tests are aligned with the state curriculum standards. States will receive federal funds to help develop their tests, and a "trigger mechanism" specifies that states are not required to develop the reading and math tests for grades 3-8 if the federal government fails to provide the necessary funding.

 

The NCLB required that "students reach proficiency witiin 12 years."   That would have been 2013. Did they?

 

They held one Conference meeting to reconcile the two bills prior to the summer break.  It does not look like anything is currently scheduled for a second conference meeting, and so it may be dead.  The Senate Bill had major bipartisian support, the House bill narrowly passed, by something like two votes I think.  Testing and standards are at the heart of both bills.

 

It appears that the status quo under NCLB will prevail for at least the forseeable future. 

 

 

Travis:

[Jim Naseum]

Mr. DWI lawyer,

Thanks for the previous info about home school rules in Texas. It makes sense. I've always thought that "compulsory state education" should be made into "available state education."

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Travis In Austin]

 

Except, I think you are totally missing the point I made about teachers not fostering advanced students because of their own personal grading system set forth by the Federal Government...

ok.

But the point I wanted to make is that any real education has to be done outside the official school. Compared to a typical school curriculum, a kid can learn 5X as much on his own time. Government education of the masses (doesn't matter which level of government) is a process of meeting THEIR goals. K-12 + JC is designed for training docile worker bees. Cogs in the wheel. Look at how silly and superficial the history is that kids learn in school. Useless comes to mind. Get your kids to be avid readers, then help them select reading lists that will enrich their interests. Do this for a year or two to get then kickstarted and they will be unstoppable - no matter what politicians are doing with schools.

 

I am trying to wrap my head around this concept and understand what you are suggesting.

 

Should we eliminate schools and set kids in front of a commputer monitor and let them go at it?  In a supervised and safe enviorment of course.  Who teaches them to read? 

 

Or do we keep the schools and swtitch everything to a self paced system, the "teacher" only monitors/approves what they teach themselves on the computer?

 

Are they graded?  Periodically assessed? 

 

The concept of a 12 year-old child left to his/her own devices and free to direct what they are interested in learning is kind of a scary thought. 

 

Plato believed we were born with all knowledge, it was a matter of just being able to bring it out, anamnesis.  Others, like Locke, believed that we are born a blank slate, a tabula rasa and we must learn everything.  Still others think we are pre-wired for somethings, like spoken language, but not others, like written language.

 

There are a lot of people who are "self-taught" in a great many fields.  However, I am not aware of anyone who is completely self taught.  Abraham Lincoln would be the closest that comes to mind, but he was taught to read and spend abour 18 months is one form of a classroom or another.  He is the shining example of what you say about having kids love to read and what they can learn on their own.  Lincoln in fact loved to read, and would walk for miles to borrow just one book to read.

 

There is a pretty strong correlation between how much a country spends on education, and the wealth of a country.  I don't see states chucking out their school systems and leaving it to the kids to teach themselves.

[Marvel]

Part of the problem is that schools don't cost enough...

 

Meaning we aren't willing to pay to have enough teachers and staff to get the teacher/student ratio a lot smaller. One teacher to 5 or 10 students would be a lot better, but huge classes are a big problem.

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

Except, I think you are totally missing the point I made about teachers not fostering advanced students because of their own personal grading system set forth by the Federal Government...

ok.

But the point I wanted to make is that any real education has to be done outside the official school. Compared to a typical school curriculum, a kid can learn 5X as much on his own time. Government education of the masses (doesn't matter which level of government) is a process of meeting THEIR goals. K-12 + JC is designed for training docile worker bees. Cogs in the wheel. Look at how silly and superficial the history is that kids learn in school. Useless comes to mind. Get your kids to be avid readers, then help them select reading lists that will enrich their interests. Do this for a year or two to get then kickstarted and they will be unstoppable - no matter what politicians are doing with schools.

 

I am trying to wrap my head around this concept and understand what you are suggesting.

 

Should we eliminate schools and set kids in front of a commputer monitor and let them go at it?  In a supervised and safe enviorment of course.  Who teaches them to read? 

 

Or do we keep the schools and swtitch everything to a self paced system, the "teacher" only monitors/approves what they teach themselves on the computer?

 

Are they graded?  Periodically assessed? 

 

The concept of a 12 year-old child left to his/her own devices and free to direct what they are interested in learning is kind of a scary thought. 

 

Plato believed we were born with all knowledge, it was a matter of just being able to bring it out, anamnesis.  Others, like Locke, believed that we are born a blank slate, a tabula rasa and we must learn everything.  Still others think we are pre-wired for somethings, like spoken language, but not others, like written language.

 

There are a lot of people who are "self-taught" in a great many fields.  However, I am not aware of anyone who is completely self taught.  Abraham Lincoln would be the closest that comes to mind, but he was taught to read and spend abour 18 months is one form of a classroom or another.  He is the shining example of what you say about having kids love to read and what they can learn on their own.  Lincoln in fact loved to read, and would walk for miles to borrow just one book to read.

 

There is a pretty strong correlation between how much a country spends on education, and the wealth of a country.  I don't see states chucking out their school systems and leaving it to the kids to teach themselves.

 

Ok, here's what I mean.

 

1. The public school system has these problems:

-Way too slow. The pace is geared to the slowest kids.

-Way too biased in subjects like history and literature. The "government view" of history and literature is not the view I want my kids to learn.

-Too dependent on sitting at attention. Kids are far too dynamic for this. They need to move more, get more physically active and have more freedom of movement.

 

2. Public school should be a kind of last resort.

 

3. Teaching, should as far as possible be directed by parents and other family/friend/neighbor adults who can easily be trained in how to apply creative curriculum developed by experts.

 

4. Self education is not "rare" at all. Although most people went through public schools, most ambitious people self taught their special interests. Even drug dealers and criminals who drop out of school become highly intelligent and can often run circles around formally trained business people.

 

5. There has never been a time in history with so many free education opportunities avail to virtually everyone. An internet connection and library card is all you need. Putting aside "credentialed" work, a person can go learn anything they want.

 

6. We're shortchanging kids. We're wasting their vast energy, potential and creativity and learning abilities in school systems that are archaic relics of the 19th century. Mostly be cause we are insisting on "mass production education" in an age of mass specialization. it's like comparing a General Store of 1856 to Amazon.com. Oh sure, they put computers in schools, but it's window dressing. They are still the same schoolroom models from 1850.

 

7. Children are the lowest priority in western society. It's a pity. Adults would never go to work in buildings we use for schools. Asbestos, broken plumbing, No HVAC, closed bathrooms, crumbling structures - abound in big cities.

 

8. The way of the future is not on the factory floor. We no longer need millions of generic workers who can be plugged into spots on an assembly lines. We need specialists. Everyone has to find a niche talent and specialty. You can't do that in an American K-12 system which is 100 years old.

 

9. Testing is probably a waste of time. It's being used again, to create "generic workers" when that's not what the future looks like. We have to help kids find their expertise, their love, their talents, as early as possible.

[twistedcrankcammer]

Except, I think you are totally missing the point I made about teachers not fostering advanced students because of their own personal grading system set forth by the Federal Government...

ok.

But the point I wanted to make is that any real education has to be done outside the official school. Compared to a typical school curriculum, a kid can learn 5X as much on his own time. Government education of the masses (doesn't matter which level of government) is a process of meeting THEIR goals. K-12 + JC is designed for training docile worker bees. Cogs in the wheel. Look at how silly and superficial the history is that kids learn in school. Useless comes to mind. Get your kids to be avid readers, then help them select reading lists that will enrich their interests. Do this for a year or two to get then kickstarted and they will be unstoppable - no matter what politicians are doing with schools.

I am trying to wrap my head around this concept and understand what you are suggesting.

 

Should we eliminate schools and set kids in front of a commputer monitor and let them go at it?  In a supervised and safe enviorment of course.  Who teaches them to read? 

 

Or do we keep the schools and swtitch everything to a self paced system, the "teacher" only monitors/approves what they teach themselves on the computer?

 

Are they graded?  Periodically assessed? 

 

The concept of a 12 year-old child left to his/her own devices and free to direct what they are interested in learning is kind of a scary thought. 

 

Plato believed we were born with all knowledge, it was a matter of just being able to bring it out, anamnesis.  Others, like Locke, believed that we are born a blank slate, a tabula rasa and we must learn everything.  Still others think we are pre-wired for somethings, like spoken language, but not others, like written language.

 

There are a lot of people who are "self-taught" in a great many fields.  However, I am not aware of anyone who is completely self taught.  Abraham Lincoln would be the closest that comes to mind, but he was taught to read and spend abour 18 months is one form of a classroom or another.  He is the shining example of what you say about having kids love to read and what they can learn on their own.  Lincoln in fact loved to read, and would walk for miles to borrow just one book to read.

 

There is a pretty strong correlation between how much a country spends on education, and the wealth of a country.  I don't see states chucking out their school systems and leaving it to the kids to teach themselves.

Ok, here's what I mean.

 

1. The public school system has these problems:

-Way too slow. The pace is geared to the slowest kids.

-Way too biased in subjects like history and literature. The "government view" of history and literature is not the view I want my kids to learn.

-Too dependent on sitting at attention. Kids are far too dynamic for this. They need to move more, get more physically active and have more freedom of movement.

 

2. Public school should be a kind of last resort.

 

3. Teaching, should as far as possible be directed by parents and other family/friend/neighbor adults who can easily be trained in how to apply creative curriculum developed by experts.

 

4. Self education is not "rare" at all. Although most people went through public schools, most ambitious people self taught their special interests. Even drug dealers and criminals who drop out of school become highly intelligent and can often run circles around formally trained business people.

 

5. There has never been a time in history with so many free education opportunities avail to virtually everyone. An internet connection and library card is all you need. Putting aside "credentialed" work, a person can go learn anything they want.

 

6. We're shortchanging kids. We're wasting their vast energy, potential and creativity and learning abilities in school systems that are archaic relics of the 19th century. Mostly be cause we are insisting on "mass production education" in an age of mass specialization. it's like comparing a General Store of 1856 to Amazon.com. Oh sure, they put computers in schools, but it's window dressing. They are still the same schoolroom models from 1850.

 

7. Children are the lowest priority in western society. It's a pity. Adults would never go to work in buildings we use for schools. Asbestos, broken plumbing, No HVAC, closed bathrooms, crumbling structures - abound in big cities.

 

8. The way of the future is not on the factory floor. We no longer need millions of generic workers who can be plugged into spots on an assembly lines. We need specialists. Everyone has to find a niche talent and specialty. You can't do that in an American K-12 system which is 100 years old.

 

9. Testing is probably a waste of time. It's being used again, to create "generic workers" when that's not what the future looks like. We have to help kids find their expertise, their love, their talents, as early as possible.

With 34 kids in a classroom, you are nuts.

I will say it again, as far helping kids find there expertise, their love, their talent, that is the parents job!

Roger

[Jim Naseum]

With 34 kids in a classroom, you are nuts.

 

Did you read what I wrote? Or, do you just like telling people they're nuts? LOL! Try especially 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and see if you can find me advising to teach "34 kids in a classroom."  

[oldtimer]

dude.  Roger is super smart.  His posts just never reveal that fact.  The educational system failed him and me.  Well, sort of.

[The History Kid]

With 34 kids in a classroom, you are nuts.

 

Did you read what I wrote? Or, do you just like telling people they're nuts? LOL! Try especially 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and see if you can find me advising to teach "34 kids in a classroom."

None of those points solve any of the issues. Using these methods would take far more time to accomplish and drastically increase the room for error. Let alone, who manages and mandates the quality of education being received?

[Jim Naseum]

dude.  Roger is super smart.  His posts just never reveal that fact.  The educational system failed him and me.  Well, sort of.

Oh, I know. I think he said he was a genius. All the more reason to be baffled by that comment.