What does your ideal education system look like?

Agreed, traditional grade levels are pretty stupid. TedX guy said it best (I paraphrase) "organizing grades by age suggests that your most important scholastic attribute is your date of manufacture (birth date)"

It is good that research is actually being done in this area, hopefully in the next few years there will be sufficient data to warrant a strong look at changing how students progress through school. Keeping learners within their zone of proximal development stops there from being wasted time, otherwise, at best, the speed of the class regresses to the mean.

Don't remember where I read it, but there was a story years ago about a teacher getting fantastic results out of implementing a game inspired level system in his classroom. The idea was that his end objective was less driven by academic "achievement" as it was by the demonstrable attainment of competency in skills. I remember reading that the end result was that kids picked up competency faster when they recognized that it was not about doing well on tests, but being able to demonstrate skill ability and apply them within a meaningful context.

This approach, to me at least, seemed a lot more efficacious when it came to building a competitive workforce than our current arrangement.

I agree, Paleocon. "Social Promotion" and other age-related stuff doesn't cut it IRL.

sometimesdee wrote:

I agree, Paleocon. "Social Promotion" and other age-related stuff doesn't cut it IRL.

Interestingly, what the teacher was going for was not a direct challenge to social promotion, but a rethinkiing of the entire paradigm of academic achievement and stack ranking based on test taking. It also gave the student a much greater level of control over his/her learning path and learning timeframe.

Yes, I see how it works on so many levels.

Paleocon wrote:
sometimesdee wrote:

I agree, Paleocon. "Social Promotion" and other age-related stuff doesn't cut it IRL.

Interestingly, what the teacher was going for was not a direct challenge to social promotion, but a rethinkiing of the entire paradigm of academic achievement and stack ranking based on test taking. It also gave the student a much greater level of control over his/her learning path and learning timeframe.

Most of the newer research I have seen on leveling in classrooms, suggests that it works much better with males than females. Males tend to enjoy the competitive aspects of it more. Most things that gives students more control are very useful in keeping them motivated.

Paleocon wrote:
sometimesdee wrote:

I agree, Paleocon. "Social Promotion" and other age-related stuff doesn't cut it IRL.

Interestingly, what the teacher was going for was not a direct challenge to social promotion, but a rethinkiing of the entire paradigm of academic achievement and stack ranking based on test taking. It also gave the student a much greater level of control over his/her learning path and learning timeframe.

I have seen stuff like that in a study that was done on jogging.

They took a group of kids, and had them run 750 metres. Thy then split them into two groups. One group was to run the 750 metres again, the other ran for the same time as they originally did. In almost 100% of the cases, the group that had the distance, and a concrete finish line/goal, ran faster than they did originally. the ones that just had the tie to run almost universally ran a shorter distance.

Not sure where to post this, but Slate had a whale of click-bait screed yesterday by condemning anyone who sends their kids to private/religious school as bad people who hate America:

You are a bad person if you send your children to private school. Not bad like murderer bad—but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation’s-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what’s-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad.

I am not an education policy wonk: I’m just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good. (Yes, rich people might cluster. But rich people will always find a way to game the system: That shouldn’t be an argument against an all-in approach to public education any more than it is a case against single-payer health care.)

So, how would this work exactly? It’s simple! Everyone needs to be invested in our public schools in order for them to get better. Not just lip-service investment, or property tax investment, but real flesh-and-blood-offspring investment. Your local school stinks but you don’t send your child there? Then its badness is just something you deplore in the abstract. Your local school stinks and you do send your child there? I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better.

And here's what I loved most about this collectivist drivel:

I went K–12 to a terrible public school. My high school didn’t offer AP classes, and in four years, I only had to read one book. There wasn’t even soccer. This is not a humblebrag! I left home woefully unprepared for college, and without that preparation, I left college without having learned much there either. You know all those important novels that everyone’s read? I haven’t. I know nothing about poetry, very little about art, and please don’t quiz me on the dates of the Civil War. I’m not proud of my ignorance. But guess what the horrible result is? I’m doing fine. I’m not saying it’s a good thing that I got a lame education. I’m saying that I survived it, and so will your child, who must endure having no AP calculus so that in 25 years there will be AP calculus for all.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double...

jdzappa wrote:

Not sure where to post this, but Slate had a whale of click-bait screed yesterday by condemning anyone who sends their kids to private/religious school as bad people who hate America

Yeah, I got suckered into that. What a load of drivel. If you wanted to have a serious discussion, you'd at least mention those who purposefully move to neighborhoods with better public schools.

1. Send your kids to an inferior school.
2. Your kids don't get the education they need.
3. ??????
4. Schools improve.

The thought occurs that, just possibly, Step 3 might solve the problem without even needing Steps 1 and 2. Shame we don't know what Step 3 is.

The author argues that Step 3 is getting involved with things like the PTA.

Clickbait sanctiauthor wrote:

In many underresourced schools, it’s the aggressive PTAs that raise the money for enrichment programs and willful parents who get in the administration’s face when a teacher is falling down on the job.

You're right; you don't need to do steps 1 and 2 in order to do Step 3. Many of the activists fighting to improve the schools in my town don't have school-aged children. One of the biggest proponents for improving said schools has moved to another state*, but that hasn't stopped her from staying involved.

*presumably because her husband was laid off, and then got a new job in Florida. This happened a month after she ended up on the news during the whole school district attorney fiasco. Coincidence?

Malor wrote:

1. Send your kids to an inferior school.
2. Your kids don't get the education they need.
3. ??????
4. Schools improve.

The thought occurs that, just possibly, Step 3 might solve the problem without even needing Steps 1 and 2. Shame we don't know what Step 3 is.

Step 3 is listed right in the part of the article that was quoted: "Your local school stinks and you do send your child there? I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better" in which case you *do* need Steps 1 and 2.

Of course, there's always Step 2b: If you can afford private school (even if affording means scrimping and saving, or taking out loans), chances are that your spawn will be perfectly fine at a crappy public school. She will have support at home (that’s you!) and all the advantages that go along with being a person whose family can pay for and cares about superior education—the exact kind of family that can help your crappy public school become less crappy. She may not learn as much or be as challenged, but take a deep breath and live with that. Oh, but she’s gifted? Well, then, she’ll really be fine.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Malor wrote:

1. Send your kids to an inferior school.
2. Your kids don't get the education they need.
3. ??????
4. Schools improve.

The thought occurs that, just possibly, Step 3 might solve the problem without even needing Steps 1 and 2. Shame we don't know what Step 3 is.

Step 3 is listed right in the part of the article that was quoted: "Your local school stinks and you do send your child there? I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better" in which case you *do* need Steps 1 and 2.

Of course, there's always Step 2b: If you can afford private school (even if affording means scrimping and saving, or taking out loans), chances are that your spawn will be perfectly fine at a crappy public school. She will have support at home (that’s you!) and all the advantages that go along with being a person whose family can pay for and cares about superior education—the exact kind of family that can help your crappy public school become less crappy. She may not learn as much or be as challenged, but take a deep breath and live with that. Oh, but she’s gifted? Well, then, she’ll really be fine.

Unfortunately though that's a huge leap if your local schools truly are super crappy vs say mediocre. If your kid is a distinct minority in a crappy school like I was in a mostly African American grade school, they're probably going to get their ass kicked daily. I've heard the same thing from my African American Army buddy who had to put his son into an all white rural school filled with redneck kids. I recognize there is bullying and discipline problems in private schools, but overall they trnd to be much better than the worst public schools. The Jesuit brothers at my high school did a great job of civilizing the worst miscreants of my class. Secondly, the author herself admits that it's much easier to develop a bad drinking/drug habit at a dysfunctional school.

Finally, lots of wealthy people in a public school district can make things worse. This excellent rebuttal from a Forbes editor talks about how rich support can be a double-edged sword. Wealthy parents often put pressure on administration to make things easier for their kids, to the detriment of everyone else. The article also gives some concrete advice on what experts think will actually fix the problem. Failing schools dont need a bunch of wealthy benefactors. They need average parents to get more involved. Even if youre a working class parent, you can still make a huge difference. It's definitely worth a read.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywil...

jdzappa wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Malor wrote:

1. Send your kids to an inferior school.
2. Your kids don't get the education they need.
3. ??????
4. Schools improve.

The thought occurs that, just possibly, Step 3 might solve the problem without even needing Steps 1 and 2. Shame we don't know what Step 3 is.

Step 3 is listed right in the part of the article that was quoted: "Your local school stinks and you do send your child there? I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better" in which case you *do* need Steps 1 and 2.

Of course, there's always Step 2b: If you can afford private school (even if affording means scrimping and saving, or taking out loans), chances are that your spawn will be perfectly fine at a crappy public school. She will have support at home (that’s you!) and all the advantages that go along with being a person whose family can pay for and cares about superior education—the exact kind of family that can help your crappy public school become less crappy. She may not learn as much or be as challenged, but take a deep breath and live with that. Oh, but she’s gifted? Well, then, she’ll really be fine.

Unfortunately though that's a huge leap if your local schools truly are super crappy vs say mediocre. If your kid is a distinct minority in a crappy school like I was in a mostly African American grade school, they're probably going to get their ass kicked daily. I've heard the same thing from my African American Army buddy who had to put his son into an all white rural school filled with redneck kids. I recognize there is bullying and discipline problems in private schools, but overall they trnd to be much better than the worst public schools. The Jesuit brothers at my high school did a great job of civilizing the worst miscreants of my class. Secondly, the author herself admits that it's much easier to develop a bad drinking/drug habit at a dysfunctional school.

Finally, lots of wealthy people in a public school district can make things worse. This excellent rebuttal from a Forbes editor talks about how rich support can be a double-edged sword. Wealthy parents often put pressure on administration to make things easier for their kids, to the detriment of everyone else. The article also gives some concrete advice on what experts think will actually fix the problem. Failing schools dont need a bunch of wealthy benefactors. They need average parents to get more involved. Even if youre a working class parent, you can still make a huge difference. It's definitely worth a read.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywil...

I feel like you turned around and wound up agreeing with the author of the Slate piece in your conclusion that I highlighted there.

I think maybe you read a lot into that article about 'wealthy benefactors'. The closest I read are the lines: Here is the response that most stuck with me: “In our upper-middle-class world, it is hard not to pay for something if you can and you think it will be good for your kid.” and Use your connections to power and money and innovation to make your local school—the one you are now sending your child to—better. Don’t just acknowledge your liberal guilt—listen to it. In fact, in the second paragraph, the author seems to disavow that the rich are part of the solution at all.

I guess it's hard for me to understand how you would call this collectivist drivel, and then turn around and propose as collective a solution as "parents need to get more involved" to fix the schools. As far as I can tell, what the author is saying is 'to fix the schools, you need more parents that are involved'. It kinda flips things around, but I don't see how it's any more collective a solution.

She may not learn as much or be as challenged, but take a deep breath and live with that. Oh, but she’s gifted? Well, then, she’ll really be fine.

Yeah, when she gets bored because she's not challenged enough, the teachers will decide she has ADHD and try to pressure you to put her on Ritalin. Sorry, but no. I'm not going to drug my kid because the school isn't prepared to deal with her giftedness. We're not quite yet sure about the long-term effects of these drugs on developing brains. Also, why stifle a gifted mind and keep her in mediocrity? She has so much potential that needs to be nurtured; instead, she'll learn that it's more important to conform to the "norm." That can end up being a detriment for all.

sometimesdee wrote:
She may not learn as much or be as challenged, but take a deep breath and live with that. Oh, but she’s gifted? Well, then, she’ll really be fine.

Yeah, when she gets bored because she's not challenged enough, the teachers will decide she has ADHD and try to pressure you to put her on Ritalin. Sorry, but no. I'm not going to drug my kid because the school isn't prepared to deal with her giftedness. We're not quite yet sure about the long-term effects of these drugs on developing brains. Also, why stifle a gifted mind and keep her in mediocrity? She has so much potential that needs to be nurtured; instead, she'll learn that it's more important to conform to the "norm." That can end up being a detriment for all.

Yeah, that part is definitely wrong, but I wonder sometimes if private schools are really any better at dealing with gifted kids. Sometimes I wonder if they're better off in a crappy school where the teacher is more likely to let them do what they want than in a more regimented private school which still fails to truly challenge them.

So, ultimately, the argument is to embrace incompetence in public schools, that your kids can cope.

Sure, maybe they can cope, but few kids will ever reach their true potential in that kind of mess.

We've gotten so incompetent about educating children that we're now issuing the clarion call against parents who demand excellence in their teachers.

If you'd told school-age me that I would have seen this, thirty years later, I would have laughed. I already could see how very much better school could be, and if you'd told me that it would be ten times worse, and that people trying to find good schools were being shamed.... I don't even know what I would have done. But laughter would have been my first response.

Malor wrote:

So, ultimately, the argument is to embrace incompetence in public schools, that your kids can cope.

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. Send your kids to incompetent schools, and hope that your screaming will somehow improve them.

It's insanity.

Yeah, insanity. Because if there's one group in this country that has problems getting government to listen to their concerns, it's white people with money.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Yeah, insanity. Because if there's one group in this country that has problems getting government to listen to their concerns, it's white people with money.

Most of the people who send their kids to private schools may have money for tuition, but they certainly don't have enough money to get the government to listen. You need Koch brothers money for that!

The failing of schools has more to do with lack of money than anything else. Teachers are like any other profession, you get what you pay for.

The easy fix is changing the funding laws in each state. Right now, in most states, school taxes are locked to the district that they are collected in. Therefore a wealthy neighborhood will pay more (often based on property tax), but all of that goes back to their schools in their community. A far better system, if you are a fan of equality, would be if school taxes were passed up to the state and then reallocate across the entire state on a per student basis.

The notion of simply moving to a, "better neighborhood," will help individual students in the short run, however in the long run most research suggest it leads to what is termed, "white flight." Where high SES individuals move to new communities, away from the influx of people coming in, because of the perceived decline in the schools, and taking their school taxes with them. Over time the once, "good," school becomes average or worse, because of the tax system, and then a decline in funding.

The problem of schools not dealing with giftedness is, again, their funding models are based on kids passing courses. A gifted student will pass regardless of them getting any added support or not. Morally it is wrong, but economically it doesn't net them anymore funds from the Feds. Therefore, you get regression to the mean as teachers struggle to get failing kids to pass basic subjects, and anyone who is above average wastes their time.

The research on ADHD medicine, is sound, if your child has a ADD or ADHD the medicine will be a good shot at helping them focus. If they do not, you have just given them speed, and well they act like a child on speed. However, it is safe to use, when proscribed properly. In addition, most schools have shied away from the, "drug them," approach of the 90s, because well... having 25 fourth graders on speed just wasn't working out.

The problem is not sending your kids to private schools, its the mistaken belief that this means you shouldn't have to pay taxes to support the public school system. So when people in St. Louis send their kids to private schools, they also refuse to support those schools with their taxes. The schools get hit with a double whammy, as they also get less from the state when enrollment drops.

Then property values drop, because the option to send your kid to a private school isn't a selling point. Good schools attract families. Then the community has even less money to support its schools. Thus begins the spiraling out of control.

Inner city schools has a much higher percentage of students from single parent homes, and homes in poverty. These kids are harder and more expensive to teach. It was not their fault they happen to have poor and uneducated parents that, even if they wanted to be active, feel unwelcome in the schools due to their own lack of education.

That kid that breaks into your car, sells your kid drugs, and makes life worse for everyone in your community is the kid you didn't feel obligated to educate. We are all in this together, and it is a pretty disgusting system in which the disparity of public schools in our country is so great.

so sending your kid to a private school does not make you a bad person. Believing that it relieves you of your obligation to provide a strong public school system does.

Jayhawker wrote:

The problem is not sending your kids to private schools, its the mistaken belief that this means you shouldn't have to pay taxes to support the public school system. So when people in St. Louis send their kids to private schools, they also refuse to support those schools with their taxes. The schools get hit with a double whammy, as they also get less from the state when enrollment drops.

That's what's happening around here, only more so. Certain parents are getting public school funds to send their children to private schools, citing a need for special education programs that cater to their religion (this is so common, the state Department of Ed notified the district that they were violating the law). They're also voting down every school district budget, because they feel their property taxes are too high. Yes, they're voting against the same taxes that are funding their children's private school education. There is also a rumor that many of these families are avoiding property taxes by claiming their homes as places of worship. I'm not too certain of how widespread the practice is, but I can't discount it.

Jayhawker wrote:

Then property values drop, because the option to send your kid to a private school isn't a selling point. Good schools attract families. Then the community has even less money to support its schools. Thus begins the spiraling out of control.

Yup. There has been an exodus from this school district. The ratio of private school students to public school students is 2:1. The district has universal busing, so the district has to pay to transport every single child. I know I've mentioned it before, but tensions are super-high (see the July 2 confrontation between parents and the district's attorney), and antisemitism is rampant. "At a young age, you hear "Jewish" and you automatically think, Oh, they’re trying to kill my school district."

They just fired all of the elementary music and art teachers. There are no more extracurricular activities. The award-winning marching band is no more. High schoolers spend half of the day in lunch or study hall because there aren't enough classes for them to take. It's becoming less and less possible to finish high school within four years.

The school board actually considered getting rid of kindergarten!

Ugh. This entire article sums things up pretty well. I know that this isn't the case everywhere, but, in this case, who wouldn't want to send their kid elsewhere?

IMO, the ideal "education system" is supplementary, rather than standalone. Rather, I think that the family unit should stand at the center of education and training, with schools and education centers being adjunctive. Disclaimer: (for the two of you who don't know, I'm Filipino and we have weird ideas about family).

What I mean is that the chief educator in every child's life should be a major caretaker - could be a parent, uncle or aunt, grandmother, sibling, or fictive relative (godfather or godmother). This person directs educational efforts and spearheads all learning. Kids are sent to school for "specialty material." For instance, learning how to cook food is a basic skill - something for the Crèche to teach. Gourmet cooking or restaurant management is specialty training - for schools.

Analogously, teaching multiplication concepts can be left to schools, but daily practice and application of the mental skill is applied at the Crèche. The concept of evaporation is taught at school, but pointing out where it happens daily is up to the Caretaker at the Crèche (see the steam coming off your food? That's evaporation happening!).

It's part rote and part Montessori.

I'm stressing the role of caretaker instruction because I've always believed that family-based education is the most important determinant of life success. I have happened across several investigations by Western authors suggesting that this might also be true in Western societies. Therefore, since the caretaker position is crucially important, that educator role must be addressed first.

Adjunct:

This view necessarily connotes that daycare is the most important educational location and position since the caretaker at that location will be teaching very young children the basis of society, culture, and life itself. Literally, everything important they need to know in life will be taught to them in kindergarten.

For people claiming money can't solve the problem, here's a quote from someone I follow on twitter about one of her kid's class situation (she's a woman of color living in Chicago):

Kid #2's classroom has AC. No math books, and it's the 3rd week of school. Classroom fee of $85 & they still need us to donate copy paper.

Throwing money at things may not solve everything--but lack of money certainly doesn't help a goddamned thing.

Hypatian wrote:

Throwing money at things may not solve everything--but lack of money certainly doesn't help a goddamned thing.

QFT

Lack of basic necessities like books and classrooms are a major factor that hinders learning in school. That's the predominant opinion coming from the teachers at our local public school. It weirds me out that an American school would have textbook availability issues.

Spending mass amounts of money alone does not guarantee a good outcome - unless you're convinced all our homeland defense/military spending actually makes us safer, or the fact that Americans pay more for healthcare than most other countries means we live way longer and are much healthier.

One of the leading education technology sites put out a recent study showing that America spends more per student than a lot of countries that are getting way better results. The vaunted Japanese, Canadian, Australian, South Korean and Finnish systems that are kicking every other countries butts in math and science spend a fraction per student than America does. This is not to say that the individual district Hypatian is talking about doesn't have funding problems, only that at the national level we're not getting our money's worth.

http://www.edudemic.com/2013/07/how-...

Also, I'm not one of those people who say we shouldn't support schools. I'm in full agreement with Jayhawker for rightfully calling out his neighbors. But the school system can't overcome the fact that way too many American parents are not really involved in their children's education. The home is really where we need to start.