Government schools - reform?

[Vigilante]

I've been hearing about people wanting SERIOUS reform of public schools. Even as far as abolishing it altogether.
Such people complain that the education is pathetic and useless, takes WAY to long, becomes nothing but a babysitting services, etc...

I think the public schools DO fall short as far as quality of curriculum and focus. And no that isn't across the board, just a blanket statement. I'm sure there are exceptions. Anyway.

For example, schools become more about trying to fill heads with random pieces of info, rather then teaching them to think about things, how to judge and behave and live. Instead you want them to memorize historical dates, and the names of all creatures that walk the ocean floor.
Now granted, these random facts are cool to know about for a while, but a month after you've passed your test, they are forgotten. And then what was that educating for?

Why do we have shows like are you smarter then a 5th grader or whatever? Where we pit kids against adults in doing nothing but quoting useless bits of facts. Uh, what are the names of the 10 cloud types, or whatever. When has your average adult, working person EVER needed to know such things to get along in this world? Then again, of course if you are a weather-man, or in any kind of weather-related job, pilot, whatever, then you'd probably want to know such facts. But why does the accountant need to know? Unless they just want to, of course.

Thing is, how many of us really remember ANY of all those random useless facts poured into us going through grade school? How many wasted days of trying not to fall asleep in class, while some boring teacher tries to fill your head full useless facts you'll never need unless that general area of knowledge is where you're headed in life? And even then you'll most likely have to re-learn them through experience and repetition.
I hated history as a kid, because history was nothing but memorizing dates of events. "When did this happen - 1449. When did this happen - 1512. When did this happen - 1945." And on and on and on. I couldn't do it, a huge waste of time for me as a person going into a computer field. And I still hate history; when was the 1st world war, heck if I know. I'm sure I've read the dates 15 times, I just can't remember, refresh me again, I'll forget tomorrow. 1930s? 40s?

So I have to ask, is there something needing to change in public schools right now regarding curriculum? Seriously, kids spend like a 5th at LEAST of their entire life sitting through classes, and then when they enter the work-force, forget 4/5ths of what they "learned".

Does that mean I want to get rid of history class? No. But what needs changed, I think, is focus, priority. History is certainly meant to teach us things. We are meant to learn from the past and improve. So should history class be focused only only memorizing useless facts and dates and people's names? Or should it be focused on what actually HAPPENED, and why, and how we can learn from it, and so forth? Actually something useful, rather then just facts. Is it more important to know what the 1st world war was about, and why it happened, and how we learned/can learn from it; or more important to be able to recite dates and names and locations but know squat about it otherwise?

A lot of schooling I think is fine, everybody aught to know their multiplication tables, and be able to write out equations to solve problems, and learn how to spell and write with proper grammar. Those things you use in daily life, not mentioning more advance algebra and geometry. But at least the basics. However, those things don't have to do with ethics, or morality. But learning from the past in history class invokes the idea of how we behave, how we think, how we learn. And I think this politically correct, all-inclusive government can't have schools teaching kids how to think, about morals and ethics. It's going to get to the point where teachers will be afraid to make a kid say "please" before going to the bathroom, because we don't want teachers imposing their morality on kids. So school is reduced to nothing but filling heads with facts, and the kids graduate knowing basically nothing about life. And good luck if half of them can remember half the random facts they learned for a while.
Why is it that most people make the worst mistakes of their life, after their basic education? Why is it these kids run right to a sex-crazy, party-hardy life of drugs and alcohol and gangs and getting into fights and getting in to debt and running from parents and so on and so on? They enter low-paying "basic" jobs because they really didn't learn anything useful during school. And only after living in this world for a while, and learning something of responsibility and morality, do they start to reform from that "after-school" lifestyle. Why do the kids generally have the worst relationship with their families during these upper education times?

Now, that's not everybody's story, it may not even be a majority. But I've seen it more than not, and that is also what the media portrays, especially with all those dumb teen comedies that make our learning years out to be a big brainless, mindless party.

And then the kids run off to college, still having no idea what they want to learn, and end up switching majors 5 times and eventually dropping out and forgetting that education as well within a year or two, because there was just no passion for it.

Frankly I think the system is screwed right from the bottom up. Schools need to stop focusing on filling heads with useless, forgettable facts, and get back to actually TEACHING people how to think, and, heaven forbid, even how to behave and act. How to make right decisions, how to learn from the past, and so on. If school is to do anything, it aught to teach kids how to LIVE in this world. And most important as far as education, how stuff WORKS! Any monkey can be taught to recite that 1 part chemical X plus 2 parts chemical Y produces effect Q. But that doesn't make a chemist. That is a forgettable and useless fact that might be fun to show people once or twice. But instead if you knew ABOUT chemicals, what they were, how they react, why they react, and other more useful bits of knowledge, you might even conclude yourself that chemX+chemY=Eff Q without even being told first.

This is probably not the case all across the board, not saying that. I'm sure there are non-government schools, private schools, even religious schools, which fall into the same mistakes. And some that don't.
Often times religious schools, bless their heart, just end up taking in kids which literally get kicked out of normal schools and have no where else to go. Usually because religious schools don't like to reject students. I know of one "Christian" college which ends up basically with loads of gays and misfits, because its the only college that accepts them.

This is why, I think, homeschooling was so big for a while there, and still is I guess. There are many curricula that are great and teach plenty of facts. But mix that in with a parent or private teacher who actually wants to invest their life into the child's, who really loves the child and can spend one-on-one time with them. Who can guide them through their growing thought process, who can lead them in understanding, etc... The child is bound to leave this education not with forgettable facts, but with actual understanding of facts, what they mean and how they apply to their life. I would be much happier raising a WISE child, then one who can recite facts like a monkey. With a child who, upon finishing school, doesn't have the idea that life is all about parties and sex and friends and filling up your first credit card and making daddy pay for my decisions. I would rather have a son who is wise and caring and considerate and morally sound and honorable and faithful and discerning and trustworthy; then a son who recites facts but doesn't know whether murdering unborn babies is right or wrong. I would rather have a daughter who has such qualities as well, who is loving and hard working and can make wise decisions about boyfriends and relationships and still has a relationship to her parents; then a daughter who finds herself objectified by society and thinks her worth lies in her looks and ditsy behavior and frivolous, promiscuous lifestyle.

If I had to choose a one-day educational course for my kid, would I choose one that tried to give him as many important facts as possible? Or teaches him how to use a library? The answer is obvious. We need to learn how to think, not only what to think. It's better to know how to find information, then try to memorize it all.

Does school pass these values on to the next generation? Do parents? Is there even TIME for parents to TRY? Most parents I talk to find themselves having to UNDO what schools do to their kids. Not to mention, a school full of kids leading kids is just the blind leading the blind. A life of peer pressure and trying to be accepted. That is a huge lesson kids have to learn. Be like everybody else! Don't dare to be different! You are not an individual, you must be like us! Are schools actually teaching these values? It's not parents who are teaching their kids to be like everybody else and hate those who are different than you.

Another time where kids make bad decisions and lifestyle choices is in college. But I don't think that is BECAUSE of college. The media has certain dumped into us a false view of what college life is supposed to be. I know all the young people I talk to who want to go to college talk about only one thing, the parties and people they'll meet. I mean HELLO? Wasn't college about learning something? Do they realize how expensive the education is? And who is paying for it? Most adults either get a gleam in their eye, or shake their head in disgust when remember their "college days". "If only I had known what I know now". Ya, exactly, if only you had some proper life-education.

OK, this is getting long enough, but there is still something left to comment on. The question is really, should schools attempt to delve into morality and ethics? Or stick to filling heads with facts? Well I think care is needed, I think the basic tenants of human morality are cross-religious and cross-cultural. Building prudence and honor and love into kids should not be seen as imposing morality on them. It aught to be pretty clearly OK. Teaching them how to learn, and how to apply things to our lives, shouldn't be a problem.

So anyway, reply to me specifically if you want, but I'm looking to hear what you've all got to say about the quality of government education, what it does to kids in areas that are most important, what trends you have found, and so forth. Is reform needed? Should we abolish government schools? Should we get rid of useless facts and shorten the school years? Should we focus on how to learn and how to apply, more than what to learn?


Peace

[Nicholas]

Oddly enough, I'm a history major and my classes haven't focused on what might be termed 'trivia' (which, by the way, comes from the roman term for the intersection of three roads, where information was often posted). We focus on the patterns of history, concepts and ideas. Yeah, we should important dates, but most things we've only needed to know the time period in which it occured.
But then again, I tend to think that people aren't taught enough about things like history. I'm a bit biased, yes, but I think that a good grasp of history is useful for everyone simply because knowing about the past helps you be an informed citizen.

[Vigilante]

But the question is, during grade school, did you remember ANY of those random facts, before going to college?
Did your grade school teacher use history to make you smarter about life, or use history to fill your head with facts that you can recite in order to pass a test?
After grade school, what respect did you have for history? What did you walk away with? What lessons did you REALLY learn? How did it effect your daily living?

Now I make a special case for college. College is no longer basic "all around" study. You are taking a history major of your own accord, I assume, because you found a passion in history. I would have never taken a history major, not even a minor!
So there is something to be said, during grade school, to dip your hands into as many fields of study as possible, so you can find your own passion, and what you'd like to study more about. So if your grade-school history studies did ANYTHING at all for you, they probably let you find your interest in history, to pursue further study.
Of all the studies I did in grade school, I felt I would have liked to learn more about astronomy, or even chemistry and biology. But I was really in to astronomy, but got MORE into computers, and went that route.

My whole contention is just that, upon leaving grade school, just what have we become? Who are we? What do we actually know beyond the facts needed to ace an exam? Is the A+ student really all that much smarter than the C- student? Or was he lucky enough to memorize more facts? Perhaps the A+ student would go out and rob a bank and spend his life in prison, and the C- student marries and raises a beautiful family in a house full of love. So who is really the smart one?

I know I wrote a lot of stuff, but let me boil it down to a few questions I'd like everybodies opinion on.

Is most of public school education useless?
Does the education take to long?
Is our curriculum really all that great?
Should schools get back into teaching better morality and ethics? That is, life lessons, and not just fact-filling?
Do you think schools seem to be more like babysitters then good education? Put them in school all day so mom and dad can work?

If anything, do you think, all things considered, our public education system needs a massive reform?

And again, not talking about higher education, specialized schools, colleges and so forth. But government-controlled public schooling.


Peace

[Nicholas]

I see your point. I do think that part of the problem is that our schools are deciding to focus so much on test scores. In my opinion, good test scores should not be the main goal of schools (which is one of the major problems I have with No Child Left Behind). The major beef that I and my parents have with the local school system is the bureaucracy. We have too many administrators, and whenever they don't get extra money for some referendum, they don't cut money from themselves, they threaten to cut it for everyone else. I think the system needs reform, yes, but not a complete overhaul. I think that students would do better if there were smaller class sizes so that each student would get more individual attention, because not every student is the same. I also think that we need to do a better job helping students with disabilities. I don't think that I would be where I am now if it weren't for the fact that my parents pushed for my brother and I to get what we needed. In the end, I think that the main problem is how the school system is run.

[Pilgrim]

In order to learn how to think, you have to be given data to process and think about. That is where the grade school emphasis on data comes from. With out the data, your thoughts are pointless. Not to mention the fact that in grade school kids are not physiologically able to think abstractly. Thus the concentration on raw information. Kids need to hear basic statements of facts so that in later grades and then in college and grad school and further we are able to begin to critically evaluate the data.

[Vigilante]

That's true, Pilgrim. But the problem is, kids don't remember half the data, it's gone by next month. Without it being used in life, without repetition and experience, it's gone. Without some kind of life-application where that data actually means something, it's gone.

I know what you mean by, we have to learn to think by knowing the data, but the problem is still that schools aren't helping with that, they are giving data and there is where it stops. We are meant to memorize the data so we can pass tests, but nobody tells us what the data is for, and that's why so many people could care less for school.

I would rather have kids leaving schools to become good upstanding honorable citizens. Rather then sex crazy, boozing beach bum partying disrespectful hooligans that can recite the Encyclopedia Britannica.
These kids don't respect their country, don't respect authority, don't respect the law, don't respect other people's property, don't respect the elderly. I mean, of course there are exceptions, a lot of exceptions. But if schools are going to raise our kids from 4 years old to 15 and beyond, through all the most critical years of their lives, they've got to teach some of these ethical values. Parents just don't have the time, and kids get so involved they just don't WANT time.

One of my favorite subjects was math. I was the kid challenging myself (for fun!) with writing out multiplication problems across all 11" of my page to see if I could solve it. But I always had a problem with learning new math at school because nobody ever really taught WHY numbers work together the way they do. I was just meant to memorize tables, memorize formulas, memorize "tricks", but never knew why or how such formulas and tricks worked. I ended up buying my own math books to try and figure it out. And then further WRITING my own math book to explain the things in words I understood. In fact, my brothers used my math book when studying for GED, lol.
Basically, I was being told what to think, and not how to think.

[Tfbandie]

I know I wrote a lot of stuff, but let me boil it down to a few questions I'd like everybodies opinion on.

Is most of public school education useless?
Does the education take to long?
Is our curriculum really all that great?
Should schools get back into teaching better morality and ethics? That is, life lessons, and not just fact-filling?
Do you think schools seem to be more like babysitters then good education? Put them in school all day so mom and dad can work?

If anything, do you think, all things considered, our public education system needs a massive reform?

And again, not talking about higher education, specialized schools, colleges and so forth. But government-controlled public schooling.

Peace

There is a number of people within the realm of education seeking these exact reforms. They are trying to do away with the trivia nature of a lot of school, and also the time wasting for many kids. The biggest stumbling block are the standardized tests. They cover massive amounts of material (especially in the Social studies and science regions) and don't focus on the critical thinking. But schools, now, must teach to the test. The politicians and people who create the tests do far more to scope curriculum then any teacher. So this is the groundswell from teachers, principals, businesses and colleges: change the tests away from being data and material focussed. Especiialy at the high levels.
But pilgrim nailed the next major concern. Material is important not so much for it's own sake but as a medium to think with. Math is the prime example, trig identities are pretty useless for for 95+% of people, but we teach it because it can be used to teach thinking in new ways (plus prepare those 5% for later on). But with the current focus on standardized testing, the mterial gets put in the forefront above the true purpose of teaching it.
So be patient and keep pushing for these reforms, there have been a few recent studeis saying high school should stop at 10th grade, which I agree with. But first, put pressure on the politicians to back off standardized testing, or to change it to make it truly meaningful. But the changes are coming slowly, i think that they might be too slow, and a radical change might occur in the next 15-20 years.

[Vigilante]

Good point about tests. So the next question is, in what way could/should tests change?

I think it's perfectly OK to ask "solve this math problem" questions. I think it's OK to ask to point out problems in grammar, find misspelled words, and know some important facts about your own country's history. But I think we could really do away with the old "if two trains are traveling..." questions. The ability to answer such a question is nothing more than the ability to pick a memorized formula to apply. And who has EVER actually used that in real life?

But at the same time, we can't exactly give questions like, "if a man entered your house and threatened your mom, would you shoot him?" Moral questions, obviously, should not be the replacements.

So there is a fine line I suppose. Some people wonder if we should test at all? At least for some purposes.

[Tfbandie]

Good point about tests. So the next question is, in what way could/should tests change?

I think it's perfectly OK to ask "solve this math problem" questions. I think it's OK to ask to point out problems in grammar, find misspelled words, and know some important facts about your own country's history. But I think we could really do away with the old "if two trains are traveling..." questions. The ability to answer such a question is nothing more than the ability to pick a memorized formula to apply. And who has EVER actually used that in real life?

But at the same time, we can't exactly give questions like, "if a man entered your house and threatened your mom, would you shoot him?" Moral questions, obviously, should not be the replacements.

So there is a fine line I suppose. Some people wonder if we should test at all? At least for some purposes.

Right, how to test, and what questions are the biggies. Even things like solve the math problem, well what level math? algebra 1 or 2, or some geometry? It's a big problem, which people are trying to fix, but a lot of people don't like change. This is both teachers as well as parents and citizens saying like "I was taught X in high school these kids should learn it too". But all the while teachers and parents complaing like you are, that things need to change. It's a big fun mess.

Fortunately there are some working towards clarifying what it is school should be. Polling college professors, as well as work places, citizens, teachers. And jhust asking all of them, what is important for a graduating senior to know/ understand. and comparing answrrs and all that goodness. Hopefully there will be more and more of this going on, cause right now, i think schooling is fairly inefficient because it has no agreed upon goal, but rather a whole bunch of small things people try to make it do (replace parents, teach morals [though they'd never admit as much], eliminate socio-economic differences, etc)

[Vigilante]

I wonder if anybody has tried to write anything resembling an "official" plan for change, to be reviewed?
Is there any discussions anywhere taking place that we can overhear? Who are the leaders in school reform? I have no names, though I think Ron Paul had some ideas.

[rogue06]

Personally, I think any changes need to start with getting rid of the insipid teacher's unions.

[Pilgrim]

Personally, I think any changes need to start with getting rid of the insipid teacher's unions.

Unions, that at one time did good things, are now killing us.

[Ryokan]

Unions, that at one time did good things, are now killing us.

Unions are useful to combat monopsony's, but now that people can realistically travel beyond just one factory and the factories aren't part of giant trusts all a union does is provide workers with unfair monopoly powers.

[Pilgrim]

Yeah, I think that's about right.

[Tfbandie]

I wonder if anybody has tried to write anything resembling an "official" plan for change, to be reviewed?
Is there any discussions anywhere taking place that we can overhear? Who are the leaders in school reform? I have no names, though I think Ron Paul had some ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_reform

Here's a wikipedia article. It's got some good history of education theory, some of the big guns include Dewey and Piaget. Check out the reforms of 80s and 90s.

But here's one important section

Education reform has been pursued for a variety of specific reasons, but generally most reforms aim at redressing some societal ills, such as poverty-, gender-, or class-based inequities, or perceived ineffectiveness. Reforms are usually proposed by thinkers who aim to redress societal ills or institute societal changes, most often through a change in the education of the members of a class of people—the preparation of a ruling class to rule or a working class to work, the social hygiene of a lower or immigrant class, the preparation of citizens in a democracy or republic, etc. The idea that all children should be provided with a high level of education is a relatively recent idea, and has arisen largely in the context of Western democracy in the 20th century.
The "beliefs" of school districts are optimistic that quite literally "all students will succeed", which in the context of high school graduation exams, all students in all groups, regardess of heritage or income will pass tests that in the introduction typically fall beyond the ability of all but the top 20 to 30 percent of students. The claims clearly renounce historical research that shows that all ethnic and income groups score differently on all standardized tests and standards based assessments and that students will achieve on a bell curve. Instead, education officials across the world believe that by setting clear, achievable, higher standards, aligning the curriculum, and assessing outcomes, learning can be increased for all students, and more students can succeed than the 50 percent who are defined to be above or below grade level by norm referenced standards.

In my mind, this is one of the crippling assumptions in modern education. The progressive notion that all students can succeed. When historically, not the case. but wheat happens in todays schools, is that standards are lowered so that all can succeed. It striving for equality, we're promoting mediocrity