The Education System

[Lord J Esq]

This thread is for any and all discussion pertaining to the current state of, and desired betterment of, the American education system in particular, and all education systems generally. It is a thread whose time is due.

[Zephira]

Upon seeing that title, the first and only thing to pop into my mind was, "math classes SUCK." Currently, most math classes revolve around the memorization of a pre-constructed formula, handed to you by a book, without any reason or explanation for it's mechanics. I have only had one math class that actually taught the reasoning behind the numbers, and I have learned more from it than all the rest of my mathematical schooling, and this class isn't even transferable! The class worked so well that I found myself pondering truth tables and trigonometric applications while editing someone's essay in English tutoring.
When will schools ever deviate from the classic method of memorization and canned speeches? When will teachers actually teach those who want to learn? During my brief spell in this class I found math to be quite an interesting field of study. Unfortunately, the knowledge that every other class I need will be nothing like this and teach me nothing of value seriously stunts my enthusiasm.

This same complaint applies to history classes. History is taught by making students memorize dates, names, and dry descriptions of events. All history is written by whoever wins a war, or whoever has the most money to fling around. Students only get slight overviews of world events, a vague idea at best. A very wise man once told me that history is, in fact, just as awesome as the video games I so love. The only difference lies in the presentation. History is a mass collection of memories and stories, and should be viewed thus. If history classes were taught as stories, giving insight to the spirit and feel of events rather than the blatant facts, students would learn a whole lot more. And why do teachers not adopt this stance? Perhaps because it would take too long, or perhaps they have lost the art of story altogether.

I know there are a lot of deeper issues, not just with the way classes are structured, but with the framework that makes them possible. I, however, am ignorant to this subject. My main and current concern is the way knowledge is presented.

[Shee]

I'm gonna need more time than I have right now with this one.  But it's tough to pick where to start.  Personally, I think it needs to begin at home, but that might be heading towards something else altogether.  Another one of the biggest issues I see and hear about is money.  Not enough money.  My economic and financial knowledge is weeeeak at best, so in my mind it does not seem like an easy fix.

Working with kids at schools from Compton to Beverly Hills, I've seen and experienced plenty.  Location does not always play as massive a role as some would think, and that points to both progress and problems at large, at "the core."  At both ends of the spectrum or whathaveyou I've experienced kids that were a joy and kids that made veins I didn't know I had pulse out of my head.  Have I seen some thngs that point towards "privileged" or affluence?  Sure.  But I don't think that's the whole story, which is both good and bad.

I want to share more individual experiences and such, but just don't have the time right now.  Things that tell stories of excellence and ineptitude in some schools.  Class size, organization, facilities, testing.  Also, as if you didn't see this coming, season 4 of The Wire focuses heavily on education, the system, and its cycles.  I'll find some nice clips later.  Sheeit.

[ZeaLitY]

I recall, and at one time was a part of the all-encompassing clique of students who thought English blows and literature is boring. I grew out of it by high school proper, but this is a terrible state of affairs. If I had money, I would pour it into English (the gateway for arts and history) and Science (the gateway for applications and careers, as well as the fount of rationalism).

[Uboa]

I am guessing that this was this inspiration for this topic, so I am re-posting it for that reason, and also for the reason that I feel it to be a good starting point for what I want to say:

3. Should the states require K-12 students to complete Minimum Skills Tests?

This would probably fit into the "its own topic" that I just mentioned. I'll leave it for another time. In a word, yes. Why? Because evaluation (i.e., testing) is the only way to objectively measure how well the education system is working, without resorting to the context of economics.

The problem there is that what can be tested objectively tends to not be worth testing at all. Well... that's hyperbole, but still useful to say. If education is about memorizing the elements of the periodic table and their isotopes, then it is very easy to objectively test. Give then a paper, tell them to vomit the required information onto the paper, and then see what they got right and wrong. But if education is about critical thinking, about being a decent human being, things get a bit more tricksy. How should we test students in if they understand how to form legitimate and well-informed opinions? How can we test someone on if they are capable of appreciating Catcher in the Rye? Generally, we do this through essay questions, which are themselves about persuasive skills and conforming to expectations more than actually thought.

Some testing of route memorization is useful, but in a computerized era it becomes more important for individuals to understand how to handle information than to merely know the information themselves.

I've had long discussions about exactly this kind of concern with several people; professors, co-workers, and other young and concerned individuals.  I think that there is a need and that there are obvious justifications for regular objective testing in subjects such as mathematics, physics, languages, and chemistry.  However, testing in the subjects of literature, history, and civics, we risk the chance of students losing valuable perspective if we focus too strongly on the objective, or if we only test using methods which can be "placated" to a great degree.  Granted, this begs the question, "What other ways are there to test?"  This is a hard question, which makes me think that with regard to these subjects preparing for tests should not be the main focus of education.

Much of the value of understanding history, understanding civics, or especially understanding literature and the arts is being able to establish a connection on a very deep level with these subjects.  With history, it is important that we understand ourselves as part of the tapestry of humanity throughout the ages, that we understand that the capacities of people within all of the civilizations on earth as part of ourselves and our contemporaries, and that we develop an appreciation for the brilliant and bold narratives which have emerged from solely the natural course of human existence.  With civics, something I never developed nearly enough appreciation for until reading many of J's posts here, we need to be able to grasp whether or not our laws and our ways of government are providing a world in which it is most ideal for us to exist, and if not we need to be able to know where to investigate to find out why not and how to act in order to do something about that.  A proper understanding of civics requires not only a keen grasp on the state of the world, but also a good deal of self exploration, people-knowledge in general, and imagination.  With literature -- I'll just run with the example of The Catcher in the Rye -- we should be able to engage with novels to the point where we can connect with characters like Holden Caulfield, to critically analyze them and the picture of their existence, to venture further questions and investigation as to what makes them tick, and what made the author tick when he or she created them, among countless other routes of investigation.  Connecting with literature, when you get right down to it, is really one of the richest ways through which we can connect with other human beings.

These kinds of connections are almost things which have to be inspired in people.  They require a lot of energy to pursue and develop, and that kind of energy does not fall magically out of the ether in a classroom setting, and especially not one too geared toward test preparation.  People who are inspired to deeply understand these subjects will inherently do well on tests, however test preparation is likely not the way to inspire people to deeply understand.  I think the most important point to communicate in order to spark an interest in these and other subjects is the fact that they are sources of powerful knowledge, to understand ourselves and to be effective in the world, and not just to achieve an above-average score on a test.  To be able to make such connections in the first place requires a great deal of self-knowledge.  To be able to make such connections in itself is a potentially invaluable source of self-worth, as many here would attest.

I understand the need for testing, but if testing is given too much weight in any system of education then the unfortunate result is that the focus of the education shifts to test preparation.  There has to be considerable room in any education system for open-ended, albeit guided, inquiry, and for students to uncover the potential for self-expression and self-discovery that lies within these subjects.  I think that the education system should provide this room in class and not just assume that it exists, say, at home where it often does not to any degree, sadly.  

Upon seeing that title, the first and only thing to pop into my mind was, "math classes SUCK." Currently, most math classes revolve around the memorization of a pre-constructed formula, handed to you by a book, without any reason or explanation for it's mechanics. I have only had one math class that actually taught the reasoning behind the numbers, and I have learned more from it than all the rest of my mathematical schooling, and this class isn't even transferable! The class worked so well that I found myself pondering truth tables and trigonometric applications while editing someone's essay in English tutoring.

That, the last part, is great.  I'm really glad that you were able to have that experience.  I hear so many stories about people giving up on trying to understand mathematics because they're given too many formulas and no foundation.  The language of mathematics, like any language, requires a constant reinforcement of the basics in order to understand the "nuances", i.e. where the fun is.  

[Thought]

Another one of the biggest issues I see and hear about is money.  Not enough money.

It isn't just that there isn't enough money but that we also don't spend our money wisely.

Consider what the objective of a school is, the single criterion that we can use to judge if a particular school is satisfying its purpose. A school is supposed to teach students "stuff." Consider then how a school teaches. It is in the classroom, at the hands and words of instructors. Thus, teachers are the most critical aspect of the entire educational complex. Every single other position in the system should support them and help them perform their job. If they fail, the school fails.

Given the importance of teachers, one would think they'd be near the top of the pay-scale in the educational system. Well, they often make more than the janitor, and maybe a clerk or two, but that is about it. Despite how important teachers are to the success of the system, they are poorly paid even in comparison to other positions in the teaching system. Not only are they poorly paid, they are put upon by the network of individuals who are supposed to help them. They are given senseless protocols to follow, they are told what to teach (often with no consideration for how a subject should be taught), they are told to take work home with them, and if the teacher tries to actually be a good teacher, it is against the efforts of parents and school systems alike.

I have proposed and will continue to propose a simple pay-scale restructuring. It should be possible for an instructor to receive the highest pay in a school system while remaining an instructor. Thus, superintendents and their administrative monstrosity would need to take a pay cut and maybe even a restructuring.

It isn't that the position of superintendent is not important, but rather that it is not as important. Indeed, it is possible to cut off every position above principle and a single school will still be able to run quite well. Cut out the teachers and the entire thing grinds to an immediate halt.

Of course, that being said, lack of money is itself a problem as well. Generally it is much easier for government to cut funding to schools than to the police, firefighters, and other public services. Sure, a few parents might complain, but the ones it affects the most are not real citizens yet, so they don't have a voice. And the harm the cuts do to them is subtle. Cut the budget for firefighters and when someone dies in a fire, it will be on the front page (of section C, or whatever the local news is in your paper). Cut the budget for education and when someone claims that they hate Huck Finn or that the French fought against all Indians in the French and Indian war, what will happen? There is no funeral service to provide lovely photos for the paper, no gruesome injury to shock the reader out of the daze of everyday life. It’s a silent crime against society.

And thus this gets into civics and social engineering. To solve the problems of education, we can't treat it separately from the rest of society. Education can only be "cured" when the social afflictions that result in the problems in the first place are addressed (this isn't to say that we can't improve it, but we won’t have an ideal education system until we have an ideal society... which is sort of obvious, now that I write it out). One of our social diseases that hamper education manifests itself as a desire for more tests. As a society, we want to measure outcomes. We are very product oriented; if we pay money, we want something to show for it. I suspect that this is a trend that causes problems in a variety of social situations, and not just education. Anywho, testing is fine, but it shouldn't be the focus. Requiring tests tells students that the information is important "because it will be on the test," not that it is important because it is important. This isn't necessarily a problem with tests themselves, but with how we perceive tests. A test is an end goal, it is something we can complete and produce a lovely grade from to show off. Instead of being part of the process, we make it the goal of the process.

To move things away from education for a moment, consider this same social theme in a relationship setting. You are in love with someone, birds are singing, squirrels are frolicking, flower petals are magically falling from the sky, the city sets up fireworks every time you kiss, Barry White follows you around, etc. But what if we were so product oriented in love? What would that look like? Perhaps we might be focused on what we consider to be testable expressions of love? Now that would vary with whom you talk to, of course, but sex is often related to love, so sex itself can become a test for love. Imagine if sex was a relationship goal, then, as testing is an educational goal. People might strive for it, study for it, prepare for it, and work towards it... but afterwards, meh. Test is over and you can forget everything you learned… until the next test comes up, that is. People cheat at tests too; getting a good great is so important that who cares if you follow the rules as long as you get the outcome you want. In relationship, we call this sort of cheating “rape.” To note, I used sex as an example, but people also use marriage in this exact same manner, as well as a variety of other testable indicators.

A product-focused approach to relationships is often seen as unhealthy, so why are we so willing to take a product-focused approach to education?

Almost every aspect of our lives is product-based. Social standing is usually determined by the number of friends one has, not the quality of those friends. Political standing is usually determined by how much one has done, and not so much the quality of what was done. President Obama, for example, is sometimes noted as being a do-nothing President just because he hasn't been cranking out legislation with factory-like regularity, while FDR's "first 100 days" are praised because he pumped out so much, even though most of it failed to achieve the intended purpose. Want a job? What sort of degrees do you have, or how many people did you supervise, or how many contracts did you get? We ask for quantity first, quality second (or not at all). Musicians who are one-hit-wonders are looked down upon; they might have made a single great song, but it is better if they would have created a lot of pretty good songs instead. Want food? It better be fast and there better be a lot of it; they can make up for flavor shortcoming by overdoing one or two tastes.

We need a social shift away from our current product-orientation towards one that is, perhaps, more experience-based. How to get there, however, is well beyond me.

[GenesisOne]

Simply amazing.  

I never would've in my wildest dreams that one of my questions concerning required testing in K-12 schools would turn into a thread of its own.  This is true because my wildest dreams don't have anything to do with one of my questions concerning required testing in K-12 schools would turn into a thread of its own.  But getting serious, it's time I lived up to providing the reasons on my question.

Former President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act outlined extensive testing and accountability requirements. Students would be required to take standardized reading and math tests, with a science requirement added in 2007. Some would argue the act should go even further into other subjects of study. The idea behind the act is to provide tougher standards to push students and to prevent children who clearly don't meet the requirements of a certain grade level from advancing.

This debate (from what I can tell, anyways) centers on whether or not this improves the education level of students and whether the requirements are fair.  As such, here is a list of the biggest reasons why I believe that there should be a Minimum Skills Test for all K-12 students.

It improves the accountability of students and schools.
Let’s face it.  Virtually all of us sometimes need a push to study and do our best (even if it’s not a school environment, there’s nothing wrong with studying on your own time). Unfortunately, schools and teachers around the country have relaxed their standards for two reasons:

- To end the disparity between the best and worst students. (that’s a parent’s job, not a teacher’s)
- To be more popular (this reason alone should bar a graduate from getting his or her teaching certificate).

It’s only natural that teachers want to be liked by their students and don't want the failing students of the class to feel bad. Unfortunately, these relaxing of standards dissuade students from doing their best. After all, if a student can do very little studying and still get an A, what incentive is there for them try harder? Mandatory testing ensures that students are required to learn a minimum amount of material no matter whom their teachers are and no matter which schools they go to. Mandatory testing also improves the accountability of schools. If an inordinate amount of students from a certain school are failing the tests, if gives the government an idea where it should concentrate its time and resources. We can find underfunded schools. We can also reward the best schools. Simply publishing the overall scores of certain schools would give parents an idea which schools are best. This would lead to competition, and competition is always better for the consumer (in this case the student).

It motivates students to really learn the material rather than just memorize for tests.
U.S. students at all levels have become specialists at memorization. Cramming the night before a test has become the norm rather than the slow, methodical approach that yields longer-lasting knowledge of the material retained. If students know they have to take a standardized test at the end of the year, they have added incentive to focus on really learning the material rather than just learning enough to pass the class. Since they will face future standardized exams, it will open their minds to different study techniques that ensure the knowledge will stick. Not every student is going to change their approach, but any additional source of motivation is beneficial, be it positive (“Think of all the career opportunities that you’ll have when you truly earn that a diploma”) or negative (“If you fail, you’re doomed to a career in a cubicle farm at best.”)

Okay, maybe that last bit was a bit harsh, but this is taken from personal experience.  In today’s working world, the Master’s Degree is the new Bachelor’s Degree.  That’s why I’m going all the way (PhD).

Knowledge is cumulative, so a student doing poor early can end up behind indefinitely.
To learn to read and write, you must understand the alphabet and phonics. To learn history and English, you need to understand how to read and write. To learn algebra and geometry, you must know how to add and subtract. To learn chemistry, you have to understand algebra. You get where I’m going with this? Knowledge of school material (especially the fundamental basics within them) is cumulative.  If you struggle with a subject such as math yet pass anyway, chances are you're going to struggle that much worse in algebra. The problem might not be that algebra is particularly difficult, but that you don't understand the basic s of math. In this country, it's become an all-too-common practice to advance students to the next grade level despite the fact they don't have minimum understanding of the material. Because of the cumulative nature of their studies, students find school increasingly difficult as they up from middle school to high school on up to college. Students fall further behind and become more discouraged. Minimal Skills testing would ensure that students aren't pushed into a grade level they aren't ready for. After all, isn't it much better to have a student repeat one year than end up behind the rest of his or her school career, and be discouraged from learning in the process?  This is perhaps one of the most underlying reasons that we have drop-outs (that and them claiming that learning is boring).

*      *      *      *      *      *

I'm glad that this thread is getting such attention.  You're right, Lord J.  This is a thread whose time is due.

[FaustWolf]

A product-focused approach to relationships is often seen as unhealthy, so why are we so willing to take a product-focused approach to education?

Almost every aspect of our lives is product-based. Social standing is usually determined by the number of friends one has, not the quality of those friends. Political standing is usually determined by how much one has done, and not so much the quality of what was done. President Obama, for example, is sometimes noted as being a do-nothing President just because he hasn't been cranking out legislation with factory-like regularity, while FDR's "first 100 days" are praised because he pumped out so much, even though most of it failed to achieve the intended purpose. Want a job? What sort of degrees do you have, or how many people did you supervise, or how many contracts did you get? We ask for quantity first, quality second (or not at all). Musicians who are one-hit-wonders are looked down upon; they might have made a single great song, but it is better if they would have created a lot of pretty good songs instead. Want food? It better be fast and there better be a lot of it; they can make up for flavor shortcoming by overdoing one or two tastes.

We need a social shift away from our current product-orientation towards one that is, perhaps, more experience-based. How to get there, however, is well beyond me.

Hear, hear! I've never really studied the history of the education system in the US. Is it possible we've lost something to the focus on consumerism over the years? Also, anyone know whether education systems in other cultures have a radically different approach compared to ours when it comes to educational format, and the relationship of education to a country's economy?


I think in order to get a high school diploma, every student should have to log in to the Chrono Compendium and debate Lord J on some subject. We could call it...The Kobayashi J, and it would replace standardized testing. But in all seriousness, I wonder if we have something going right here at the Compendium that could contribute greatly to an improved educational model. I literally went, like, 23 years of my life without ever having a real intellectual conversation with someone from a vastly different part of the United States, let alone a vastly different country. The Forum of old has been lost, but through the Internet it could not only be reclaimed as an educational environment, but made more effective through cross-cultural communication. The closest I ever got to this during my education was a briefly lived "pen pal" exercise in elementary school.

Secondly, I'm beginning to think women's and minority studies courses are something we should be doing in grade school rather than college. I guess I recall some lessons about Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass in elementary school, but that doesn't cut it against the issues facing women and minorities today in American society.

[Thought]

But in all seriousness, I wonder if we have something going right here at the Compendium that could contribute greatly to an improved educational model. I literally went, like, 23 years of my life without ever having a real intellectual conversation with someone from a vastly different part of the United States, let alone a vastly different country. The Forum of old has been lost, but through the Internet it could not only be reclaimed as an educational environment, but made more effective through cross-cultural communication. The closest I ever got to this during my education was a briefly lived "pen pal" exercise in elementary school.

I'll let you in on a history secret, Faust. Ever hear of the Republic of Letters? History repeats itself (or maybe it is just historians?), and I believe we are in the middle of a new Republic of Letters. The Enlightenment was made possible by the printing press; a new era of Enlightenment has been made possible by the internet. The similarities are actually quite impressive, even down to the *ahem* smutty underside of the movement. Historians will be talking about this era for centuries to come.

Is history boring? Pshaw, this is history. Every word is shaping humanity, every key-stroke will echo throughout the ages.

[FaustWolf]

Fascinating, I had not heard of this Republic of Letters. It seems like a great analogy; but what will historians call what we're doing? The Republic of...Internet postings? The Internet Republic? Maybe "Chronopolis"?

[Thought]

Wellity wellity wellity, here, have an overly-large history book: The Printing Press as an Agent of Change, volumes 1&2, by Elizabeth L. Eisenstein

I want to be an Early/High Medieval Historian, but the current era is fascinating enough to make me want to change. I'd love to study the Age of the Internet^TM but I don't think I could stand wading through the sources to find the gems.

[Radical_Dreamer]

More important than reforming the education system itself (although that is extremely important) is reforming the anti-knowledge, anti-intelligence culture that surrounds it. Once you teach kids that they shouldn't learn, you're going to have a hard time teaching them anything else.

[Uboa]

To move things away from education for a moment, consider this same social theme in a relationship setting. You are in love with someone, birds are singing, squirrels are frolicking, flower petals are magically falling from the sky, the city sets up fireworks every time you kiss, Barry White follows you around, etc. But what if we were so product oriented in love? What would that look like? Perhaps we might be focused on what we consider to be testable expressions of love? Now that would vary with whom you talk to, of course, but sex is often related to love, so sex itself can become a test for love. Imagine if sex was a relationship goal, then, as testing is an educational goal. People might strive for it, study for it, prepare for it, and work towards it... but afterwards, meh. Test is over and you can forget everything you learned… until the next test comes up, that is. People cheat at tests too; getting a good great is so important that who cares if you follow the rules as long as you get the outcome you want. In relationship, we call this sort of cheating “rape.” To note, I used sex as an example, but people also use marriage in this exact same manner, as well as a variety of other testable indicators.

This analogy offers some great perspective.  What is frightening in light of it, borrowing from what Faust mentioned in the "Fuck Sexism" thread, is that people may regard pornographic material as a kind of SparkNotes on relationships...

[FaustWolf]

...people may regard pornographic material as a kind of SparkNotes on relationships...

This is highly insightful IMHO and still relevant to the topic at hand: maybe images figure hugely into our education. If critical thinking skills, and therefore our ability to evaluate and deconstruct the images we see, is at an all-time low, then...

...now I'm thinking art appreciation classes should be taught at younger and younger ages too. I feel this is where I learned a lot about interpretation of images, examining the artist's life and motive, examining the subject, etc. But can we even pack all these high school and college level humanities into grade school education?

Actually, I take that back -- I think there was some "advanced" reading course I made it into in, like, third grade, and the teacher in charge of that really excelled in picking apart every little detail of what we consumed in that class. It was all about building critical thinking skills, not through visual art but through reading and interpreting fiction. Which leads me to the topic:

Why do we segregate student bodies into "advanced" and "normal" educational tracks, anyway? Is this justified for some subjects but not others? Could one of my third grade peers who wasn't guided into that single reading/interpretation class have enjoyed better relationships later in life if he hadn't been denied access to that mode of education?

[Radical_Dreamer]

Why do we segregate student bodies into "advanced" and "normal" educational tracks, anyway? Is this justified for some subjects but not others? Could one of my third grade peers who wasn't guided into that single reading/interpretation class have enjoyed better relationships later in life if he hadn't been denied access to that mode of education?

A long time ago, I was exposed to a study that said that the "normal" group of students have a substantial effect on the whole of the student body. They pull the "weaker" group up, but also the "advanced" group back. If modern research continues to verify this phenomenon, then it's a very good idea to separate out the "advanced" students, so that they can be in an environment where they aren't held back from their potential by the "gravity" of the "normal" group.