Failure

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Oh, my stance hasn't much to do with those things. Its why I exluded private education from it (private education is a right, its not something that concerns me being at a public institution).

I got my degrees from a public institution. I work on my masters at a public institution. I teach in a public institution. I was of the opinion, all throughout my undergrad years that I was paying for the classes (even if scholarships did, they were mine) and my attendance was my business. If I wanted to only take the tests, I shouldn't be penalized for it.

It wasn't until I was on the other side of the educational fence that I learned better what was going on, a senior professor helped me understand that.

Around 75%, on average, of the costs of public education (on the collegiate level) rests on the state. Tuition and scholarships fund the rest. Ultimately, the tax payers are the ones that are paying the vast majority of the money for someone's education because that education is an investment in the future.

Someone may be entirely brilliant and fantastically gifted, but their class attendance and ability to show responsibility and dedication are things that justify the investment for the public. Those things are in place to protect the people that work hard to pay their taxes so that student can complete their education and benefit society. To shirk class and homework is to, effectively, waste their money.

Private college? They have their own rules. I can't speak intelligently about that. Their system, their justification.

Public universities and colleges? Even were I not part of the system, I wouldn't want a university to abolish homeworks and attendances and class participations and such... because I'm paying for that person's education, and I want to know that every precaution is being taken to make sure that people aren't wasting the money.

Take public high schools, next... so much higher a percentage is paid for by the people. Their rights, as well as the students' rights, are important. They're the ones footing the bill.

Enngh. Not another "tax-payer's money" asshole. Surely as a man in the public school system, you realize where the vast majority of that money goes.

The highest expense on a college campus is not the students, but rather the labratories, the equipment, and the experiments that the professors conduct. The research is what lies most important in many schools.

Students have expenses yes, but the exclusive expenses are only in terms of wasted professor's time, lecture hall costs, and professor salaries.

Perhaps, it's cause you had a major where attendance was important. A teacher's lectures were the basis of the final, not a book with equations and formulas. In the sciences, it's all more of a competence issue. The point of the lectures is domination of material and is set for those who don't. If one has dominated a subject on his own, his attendance in class is frankly, stupid and counterintuitive. He will glean nothing from his professor and only serve to take up space "for the taxpayers". Such time would be better spent by the student learning more in his textbooks, doing independant knowledge acquisition and so on.

Perhaps, it's because I'm a science major in a research university that I say this. Perhaps it's because my learning process is self-teaching (I'm actually inferior at learning something just by having someone else teach it). Perhaps, it's because I've seen people who would sooner burn homework than do it repeatedly ace finals and midterms. Perhaps it's because every professor I've worked with favors a midterm and final system with optional homework and a philosophy of self-dependance. I don't know. There's a lot of perhaps for why I advocate the system.

Attendance isn't the same as intelligence, repition not the same as competence. The state invests in public schools because (at least in the UCs) they are looking for an investment in competent future people, not mere good attendance drones. The former invent shit, the latter work good hours.

I don't force the kids I TA to come, I force them to show competence in their subjects, because without that they will fail despite how attentively they wasted taxpayer's money.

Mandatory attendance, bah.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Passing kids who aren't learning because you don't want to stigmatize them as failures, sets them up to fail throughout their lives.

The vast majority of these kids, will not succeed, even on a small scale, but will flounder in a bussiness world that isn't concerned with your being stigmatized. If you can't do the job, you don't get hired or you get fired. Your boss isn't oncerned with your psycological well being, he is concerned with keeping his job.

-Colly

Exactly. Children will be set up to fail if they are given the false impression for 12 years that *absolutly nothing is expected of them*. (and build the bad habits that go along with that attitude) They show up (or not) and the next year they advance. In reality, if you have that attitude, you *will* fail, and you will *be* a failer, no matter how smart, gifted, or amazing you are. My son is very smart, but he thinks (as does his dad) that it's enough for him to know something, that he doesn't need to proove it to anybody else, or demonstate that he knows what he's doing. That's incorrect.

Failer is a fact of life, nobody succeds without it. So rather than protecting children from it, we should be teaching them how to deal with it, and how to learn from it. otherwise, not to sound Darwinian or anything, but we *will* make ourselves extinct.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Oh no doubt!

Remember borrowing and carrying in math? Now they have one word for both functions (wtf? how confusing is that?) what makes it worse, is how are you supposed to help your kids with homework when they change the way it's done *simply for the sake of change*

If something is truly better, I'm all for it. But it seems like every school is into experimental this and experimental that for no reason at all. I'm 29, and when I was in HS, I still remember, everytime the teachers had a seminar or whatever the heck those things where called they went to, they tried some new thing out on us. One month it was pushing all of our desks together and facing each other, the next it was journalling. Give me a break. I didn't feel like a student, I felt like a guinee pig. It all seemed very fadish and 'trendy.' Puke.

To me, these teqniqes are fine if you need to address a problem with something not working in your classroom (ie, how to get students to read, or whatever) but they don't need to try out every new idea, everytime they hear about it. Do successful businesses run this way? Changing there routines and procedures everytime they read about a new idea? If I had a boss like that, I'd look for a new job.

I think that the reason schools don't "fail" kids anymore is to cover up their own misgivings in the way that they educate. For example:

My oldest daughter, 12, I had held back in 2nd grade. We had moved to a new school district which was much more advanced than the one she previously attended. She was very far behind in what they were teachig at the new school, so I held her back to give her the extra time needed to "catch up". Now, she has went to this school since the end of her first grade year. She has learned their system of doing things. In math she has learned a long, round about way of getting to the answer, which may be a good thing or may not. She has struggled with it at every turn. When I show her how I learned it she catches on much faster and is able to achieve the correct answer, however, she has to show her work and how she got to the answer, which does not jive when she uses the "old fashioned" method I showed her.

Anyway, after 5 years of learning the schools way of doing things, this year they have a new system. The kids who have struggled to learn the old one and who are finally just catching on are thrust back into struggles with their work trying to learn a new way of doing things..again.

My point, schools are not making learning easy for the kids. Teach them to read, write, add, and subtract. Teach them the things we learned without making it so complicated. Of course there are new things that must be learned in todays age, computers for example.

So, in my opinion, schools don't "fail" the kids because then that would say that the schools themselves are failing to educate them properly. What's wrong with the "old way", the way we learned things. Does it make us any less smart because of the way we learned it. I think not, so why keep changing things?


Alexis

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Failure

Simply put, the current Eductional System is creating more "failures" than it is preventing with "peer promotion" and it's corollaries.

I definatly agree with that.

What if we used the same standard here on lit? Writers are sensative, and we don't want to hurt there feelings or there self esteem. So lets find an author who isn't particularly skilled and boost his self esteem by telling him how great his work is. In fact, lets suggest that he is so great, he should submit for publication. Will this help him to not be a failer? or will it garentee his failer? Of course when he's rejected, we can boost him up by saying that he is too brilliant for comercial success or that he's ahead of his time or some such crap, but will that really help him have a better life?

 

[sweetnpetite]

hours.

I don't force the kids I TA to come, I force them to show competence in their subjects, because without that they will fail despite how attentively they wasted taxpayer's money.

Mandatory attendance, bah.

I agree. Students don't owe it to taxpayers to attend classes. If anything, they owe it to taxpayers to get the education they are there for. My taxdollars are supposed to be paying for higher education, not babysitters for 19 and 20 year olds. What relavance is it to a taxpayer if a person who doesn't need to sit in a seat, sits in a seat? Is that what my money is for, making people sit in seats? Rediculous! If they don't show up, that's one less seat we have to buy, or one more student who can use it.

 

[rgraham666]

Thanks people. This makes me feel so much better.

So there I am, nine years old, reading at grade 13 level, trying hard, flunking everything, and sitting listening to my principal tell my mom, "Rob can't be taught."

And most people here seem to think that's cool.

No wonder I've got a bad attitude.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Lucifer_Carroll
Students have expenses yes, but the exclusive expenses are only in terms of wasted professor's time, lecture hall costs, and professor salaries.

That's one way of looking at it, what is materially wasted. But, as the system is one of investment, its no different than stock holders wanting periodic and comprehensive reports on the progress of their company--even if the CEO is saying "oh, we just need to show you the report at the end of the year, that's all that matters". No, really it isn't.

He will glean nothing from his professor and only serve to take up space "for the taxpayers". Such time would be better spent by the student learning more in his textbooks, doing independant knowledge acquisition and so on.

His attendance is an indication of what sort of person is using their money. If he is unable to attend class, even if its because he's somehow brilliant, or complete homeworks he may feel are beneath him, etc... then that is a very important piece of character information about what sort person is spending their money. Most any professor will say, I believe, "If you're not in class, participating and attending, I don't know where you are in the course"... the professor's knowledge of where one is, in progress, is the stock holder's report.

One could be doing very well. One could be doing very poorly. The ambiguity is a waste of money on an investment.

Attendance isn't the same as intelligence, repition not the same as competence. The state invests in public schools because (at least in the UCs) they are looking for an investment in competent future people, not mere good attendance drones. The former invent shit, the latter work good hours.

Attendance, however, is the same as attendance... in school and in a later job. The state invests as a way to improve its future. Even something as small as attendance is incredibly valuable. I know of very few employers (and I own my own advertising company) who would pay the hot-shot over the reliable guy. Its an investment. I want every indication its a good one, not a fly-by-night operation.

I don't force the kids I TA to come, I force them to show competence in their subjects, because without that they will fail despite how attentively they wasted taxpayer's money.

Mandatory attendance, bah.

I require attendance precisely the same way in my day job as my company. There is no difference. My handing my employees a paycheck is my investment in their ability to produce better business for me and part of that is coming to work on time, when required, as scheduled. No buts. My classes are the same. I accept that emergencies happen, but the taxpayers are paying their way and they will conduct themselves competantly and responsibly in my classroom.

Mandatory attendance, one of the best ways to ensure quality return on investment.

 

[Weird Harold]

So there I am, nine years old, reading at grade 13 level, trying hard, flunking everything, and sitting listening to my principal tell my mom, "Rob can't be taught."

And most people here seem to think that's cool.

I didn't check your profile for your age, but if you're old enough to be hear, there has been lot of progress made in identifying and compensating for learning disabilities since you were nine.

If you're my age, then there has been more than just "a lot" of progress since 1958.

You don't say what your "learning disability" was, but it doesn't sound like you would be a candidate for "retention" if it were properly applied, given what is now known about dyslexia and other problems that didn't even have names in 1958.

Still, if you were "trying hard, flunking everything," then you should NOT have been promoted until the problem was identified and you stopped "flunking everything."

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thanks people. This makes me feel so much better.

So there I am, nine years old, reading at grade 13 level, trying hard, flunking everything, and sitting listening to my principal tell my mom, "Rob can't be taught."

And most people here seem to think that's cool.

No wonder I've got a bad attitude.

Rg, no one thinks it's cool.

But, consider, what woul dhave happened if you were socially promoted? Even though you knew you weren't getting it? If no one even noticed you had a problem, because you rperformance is meaningless anyeay, you are going up to the next leve whether you learn or not.

You would have graduated with a nice diploma, knowing exactly what you had managed to teach yourself and learn through hearing. No one would have labled you a failure, but I wonder if at 18 after years of being moved up when you were silently frustrated by not grasping it if you would consider it protecting your psyche or just not giving a damn? Would you have figured out that the world outside school didn't work that way, or would you have just come to expect that you would get promoted and taken care of no matter how much you put into it? Would you have expected the folks who ran bussinesses to congratulate you on your "creatvieness" and overlooked your inablility to grasp concepts? That's what these kids are getting. A hug, a lolipop, a pat on the shoulder and a diploma, without a freakin clue that they are about to meet the real world and be totally unprepared to cope.

Suppose they get to sixth or seventh grade, taught by teachers who don't want to embarass them and don't know jack. If they run into a good teacher with some common sense, how is she supposed to tell apathy from a learning problem? By teaching first grade material and seeing if maybe some of those who are behind pick it up while others just don't give a shit? And why should they give a shit? They are going to eigth grade after this year, wheter they get up off their rumps or just coast. Are we expecting kids now to be more mature than their teachers and do what needs to be done rather than take the free ride?

Would it surprise you to know that the Union up here vehemntly opposes testing of teachers? Probably not if you have seen the reports that many of them are functionally illiterate themselves. Graduated through their highschool without learning anything.

The irony of it all is leftist liberals sit and wonder aloud how anyone could be so ignornat or apathetic as to allow BWG a second term, without ever ralizing their own efforts to protect children from having to learn has fostered the very ignorance and apathy they are agast at.

-Colly

 

[rgraham666]

I wasn't 'not grasping it'.

My learning disability is a mild motor control problem. Writing long hand legibly is a nearly impossible task for me. Even typing, after almost thirty years of doing it, is not easy.

Back when, all marks pretty much came from written stuff; tests mostly. It was a 50/50 thing whether I could get enough legible stuff down to pass. Usually I didn't.

Now you would think they would wonder why half my questions weren't answered. But no, half the questions not answered is the same as half the questions answered incorrectly. They really had no idea whether I was 'grasping it'.

So let's take a look at me in Grade Four, which was the year I gave up all hope of succeeding in school.

At home, the best I could hope for was nothing. I learned to cherish silence from my father. Any speaking to me consisted of 'toughening me up'. Teaching me that 'it's a tough world out there and you better get used to people being cruel. It's for the best.' My mom did try to ameliorate that, but the second we got caught, we each got an extra measure of 'toughening'.

At school, I made sure I sat in the middle of an outer row of desks. That's the farthest point from the teacher's desk and front of the class, so I was less likely to get 'attention'. And it cut down the sight lines from the rest of the class keeping the rain of rubber band launched paper clips, snotty kleenexes and wads of chewing gum to a minimum.

At recess I stayed far way from the other kids with my back to a wall paying very close attention to what's going on around me. Because if I didn't I often got my head bounced off the same wall.

I've realized that the thing I'm most going to be judged on is the thing I am least able to do.

So what's the answer? 'Fail him. Obviously he doesn't grasp the concepts properly.'

One of the points in my original post that I tried to make is that people in charge have a responsibility to make sure that the people under their care are used to their best ability.

We don't expect a 13 year old with a weight problem to play in the NBA. It would also be silly to expect NBA players to be breakthrough physicists.

And that's what simply 'failing' a kid is, an abrogation of responsibility. If we make no attempt to figure out why a child isn't learning, repeated attempts to teach them with a method that isn't working has a low, very low, chance of success.

As Robert Townsend put it, "A child learns to walk by falling down. If you beat him every time he falls down, he'll never care much for walking."

Sorry, folks. This thread has re-opened a suppurating wound on my soul. Forgive me if I rant a bit.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I’m writing this as I take a break from grading my first hourly exam in Organic Chemistry. If you’ve never taught a course, you have no idea how emotional it can be grading test papers, how your heart rises and falls as it goes over these kids' work. You exult every time someone does well, and it breaks your heart when you see kids getting things wrong that you thought for sure you’d explained to the best of your ability. You’re astonished and crushed that some of them didn’t get it. Why didn’t they ask you about it in class or afterwards? Why didn’t they just ask for a little more explanation? Just raise their hands and ask you to go over something they weren't clear about? You looked at their faces in class, looking for that vacant stare, that awkward fidget that tells you communications are down but you didn't see it. You were sure they understood.

There are kids who just aren't trying, but then there are kids who are working at it but just not getting it. The temptation to skew the grading to make sure that everyone does well is pretty intense, and it’s really not that hard to do if I wanted to. (I've learned ways to shift the class average +/- 10 points by the way I grade tests) But would I be doing them a favor if I did that? Should I say “Well, you got it wrong, but at least you tried”? Is that fair to the kids who busted their asses to master the material?

Should I pick out the kids who I think might have a learning problem and grade them on a separate curve? I’m pretty sure there are several kids who have real problems, based only on their handwriting. What should I do about them?

In the end, it seems fairest to be as strict and objective as I know how to be. The kids who did badly will just have to face the fact, and I’ll feel like a real asshole, but the kids who do well will feel as though they’ve earned something and that their efforts paid off.

If anyone knows a better way of doing this, then I’d love to hear it, because it's not easy from this side of the desk either.

---dr.M.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I wasn't 'not grasping it'.

My learning disability is a mild motor control problem. Writing long hand legibly is a nearly impossible task for me. Even typing, after almost thirty years of doing it, is not easy.

Back when, all marks pretty much came from written stuff; tests mostly. It was a 50/50 thing whether I could get enough legible stuff down to pass. Usually I didn't.

Now you would think they would wonder why half my questions weren't answered. But no, half the questions not answered is the same as half the questions answered incorrectly. They really had no idea whether I was 'grasping it'.

So let's take a look at me in Grade Four, which was the year I gave up all hope of succeeding in school.

At home, the best I could hope for was nothing. I learned to cherish silence from my father. Any speaking to me consisted of 'toughening me up'. Teaching me that 'it's a tough world out there and you better get used to people being cruel. It's for the best.' My mom did try to ameliorate that, but the second we got caught, we each got an extra measure of 'toughening'.

At school, I made sure I sat in the middle of an outer row of desks. That's the farthest point from the teacher's desk and front of the class, so I was less likely to get 'attention'. And it cut down the sight lines from the rest of the class keeping the rain of rubber band launched paper clips, snotty kleenexes and wads of chewing gum to a minimum.

At recess I stayed far way from the other kids with my back to a wall paying very close attention to what's going on around me. Because if I didn't I often got my head bounced off the same wall.

I've realized that the thing I'm most going to be judged on is the thing I am least able to do.

So what's the answer? 'Fail him. Obviously he doesn't grasp the concepts properly.'

One of the points in my original post that I tried to make is that people in charge have a responsibility to make sure that the people under their care are used to their best ability.

We don't expect a 13 year old with a weight problem to play in the NBA. It would also be silly to expect NBA players to be breakthrough physicists.

And that's what simply 'failing' a kid is, an abrogation of responsibility. If we make no attempt to figure out why a child isn't learning, repeated attempts to teach them with a method that isn't working has a low, very low, chance of success.

As Robert Townsend put it, "A child learns to walk by falling down. If you beat him every time he falls down, he'll never care much for walking."

Sorry, folks. This thread has re-opened a suppurating wound on my soul. Forgive me if I rant a bit.

It's so strange, you see failing kids who don't perform as an abrogation of responsibility. I see passing them as the abrogation of responsibility. Rather than faceing another year with them, or the possibility you aren't teaching correctly, or the possibility he is LD, just pass him along to the next teacher. Maybe they will give a shit. And by sixth grade, the kid doesn't stand a chance. He's going to continue to flounder and continue to pass, right up till he graduates. And then what?

College? Good luck, college profs aren't going to pass him if he dosen't do the work. And unless you find an absolute gem, they aren't going to teach him what he should have gotten in highschool.

Job options? Depends really, if there is still heavy industry he might get a job on an assembly line or in some other basically unskilled profession.

Trade school? It's an option if he/she happens to have some innate aptitude for working with their hands.

Most likely? Petty crime, janatorial, or low level peon at Mcdonalds.

Do you know any 25-30 year olds still working as a fry cook at McDonalds rg? I know two of them. I am willing to bet, if you asked either one, they would have far prefered some stigmatization in grade school to the stigma of being 30 and making less than 18 year old college students who work the register during the summer.

One is slightly dyslexic, she is now attending RCC in a class that is set up for adults with learning disabilities. She hates it, hates the class work and frustration, but she's passing and at least has some hope now of bettering herself. The guy is the kind almost everyone knows, good fellow, would give you the shirt off his back, not stupid by any means, but ignorant and illiterate and more or less content to stay that way.

Without getting on my high horse, this whole town is basically ignorant. Those who are ignorant and lucky run the bussineses their parents left to them, they at least have been taught to run them. Those who aren't lucky work for DPW, the State, or in the mills across the river. The very lucky work for DCE on West Point. That's what you aspire to here, a federal job on the point. The richest folks in town are in the Drug bussiness. There are a couple of dealers, but the majority make thier cash ferrying drugs from here down to the city.

And those rare few who get out of our multi-million dollar schools, with teachers making 60K and a principal making 75K, with a clue? They get the hell out of dodge and never come back. I can count the educated professionals in this town using my fingers. A doctor, a lawyer, a dentist, My roomate, 2 plastic surgeons, one neurosurgeon and an investment broker. Of them, only my roomate was born here. Her saving grace was that her mother cared enough to get up at 5:30 every morning and drive her nearly an hour and a half to catholic school. Then catholic highschool, then a catholic college. Sadly all three of those schools are now closed.

I see the results of social promotions every day Rg. It isn't just an abrogation of responsibility, it's a crime against those kids. But you aren't stealing their wallets or thier car keys, you're robbing them of their future promise. And that's a crying shame.

-Colly

 

[Guest]

I so appreciate Mab's post. I work with teachers, very good ones, and they all anguish over grading and passing. It's a topic of discussion among committees, deans, provosts and the president (I've attended many such meetings). As far as I can tell, at least at my university, fairness and 'the right thing' are the focus of grading; the students here are the focus of everything. We also have a staff member who evaluates and then identifies LD students, and all faculty are instructed in how to help them, including special handling of exams and guidelines for the giving of homework assignments. They are even taught how to identify LD students, some who only find out they have a disability by this process. I wish this were so for all schools.

Perdita

 

[Weird Harold]

I wasn't 'not grasping it'.

My learning disability is a mild motor control problem. Writing long hand legibly is a nearly impossible task for me. Even typing, after almost thirty years of doing it, is not easy.

Back when, all marks pretty much came from written stuff; tests mostly. It was a 50/50 thing whether I could get enough legible stuff down to pass. Usually I didn't.

Now you would think they would wonder why half my questions weren't answered. But no, half the questions not answered is the same as half the questions answered incorrectly. They really had no idea whether I was 'grasping it'
...
Sorry, folks. This thread has re-opened a suppurating wound on my soul. Forgive me if I rant a bit.

I can understnd your aversion to going back to "old school" eductional methods and can even agree with your point to some extent. You suffered under some very poor teachers and administrators and an educational system that offered no alternative evaluation methods.

Still, your bad experience is NOT typical and even in the 1950's and 1960's would not have been grounds for holding you back in the school system I went through.

Today, I don't know of any school system that doesn't offer alternative evaluation methods for students who have problems with testing -- whether it's a physical problem with writing the answers or a psychological problems with tests.

Social Promotion and other methods of "ignoring" problems such as yours isn't the answer, though, and sometimes holding a student back is the proper corrective action for a problem sutdent's failure to learn.

Going back to a "one size fits all" system that doesn't allow for different ways of learning and different methods of evaluating students is not a viable solution. Too much has been learned about "learning disabilities" and alternative teaching methods to literally go back to "old school" methods and standards.

But the "old school" methods and standards DID work for the vast majority of students even if it failed to meet the needs of a minority of students like you.

The current system is failing to educate far more students than the old system ever did because it has "thrown the baby out with the bathwater."

My youngest brother started school in the early 70's in the same school sysem I went through -- after they had firmly adopted the philosophy of "social promotion," but before problems like dyslexia were identified or well known. He is just as vehemently against the "new school" and "Social promotions" as you are about the "old school" because he knows that he was just shuffled through the system without any attempt to actually teach him.

FWIW, my nephew's teachers hate my brother because my nephew has some behavioral problems and associated learning disabilites. My brother is constantly on the teacher's case about how they're dealing with with them and has gotten at least one fired for ignoring the problems.

My brother has forced several changes in class assignments for my nephew to insure that he's always with a teacher who understands the problems and can adapt to them.

I'm sorry that you didn't have parents whowould fight for your education like my brother fights for my nephew and had teachers like the one my brother got fired.

All of us have opinions about how schools should do things that are based on what we experienced in school, but we all have to realize that OUR experiences were unique to us and the specific school systems and teachers we had contact with.

What worked for us as individuals has to be evaluated in the context of what will work best for the greatest numbers of students. The school system I went through worked for the majority of students while it also failed to meet the needs of significant minority.

By the time my youngest brother went through the same schools twelve years later, it was failing to adequately educate a much larger percentage of students while trying to meet the needs of the minority that it had it had been failing before.

About twenty years later, my daughters graduated from a school system that had the advantge of the lessons learned by school systems like my home-town and the disadvantage of teachers who contemporaries of my youngest brother and suffered through the first edition of "feel-good" schooling. That system did better at educating the extremes of ability -- the very good students and the learning disabled, but it still fails to adequately educate the vast majority.

Now, a dozen years later, the system my daughters graduated from has changed yet again and is slowly closing the gap in the middle ground, but it's still failing to adequately educate most of the "average" students who can't qualify for either the "Advanced" programs or "Special Needs" programs.

My granddaughters have the advantage of parents who are involved in their education -- both at home and at school -- and both qualify for a "Magnet School" program that meets their needs for a challenging curriculim.

Sadly, the majority of students don't have those advantages and are still suffering along in a system that isn't doing it's job of preparing them for survival in the real world.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Thanks people. This makes me feel so much better.

So there I am, nine years old, reading at grade 13 level, trying hard, flunking everything, and sitting listening to my principal tell my mom, "Rob can't be taught."

And most people here seem to think that's cool.

No wonder I've got a bad attitude.

I do *not* think it's cool. It was handled very badly. They where wrong, they gave up- same as if they had passed you without regard, they just did it in a different way.

On the other hand, perhaps you can't be *taught*, perhaps you are one who must learn things on your own. And perhaps you are a better person for it. (just a thought) [Or perhaps your principal was just an idiot. ]

hugs and appologies for any hurt feelings.

sweet.

 

[rgraham666]

Final words

It's been interesting folks. But I don't think any of us are going to change the other's minds.

So my original thesis still stands.

I don't believe failing a kid will help much unless we know exactly why they're not meeting our standards.

There are myriad reasons a child doesn't do well. Learning disabilities, bad home life, problems fitting in, bullying, cultural differences, etc., ad infinitum. Perhaps it might even be that our standards are wrong. If we don't take all possibilities into account, we resemble the generals of the First World War. Their tactics consisted entirely of artillery barrages and then throwing massive numbers of men at the enemy. It didn't work. So they would try again and again. The only difference is they would try bigger next time. The only result was higher casualty lists. Repeating a mistake shows a marked lack of intelligence.

And I still maintain that the industrial method is a poor paradigm for education. It is efficient, no doubt about that. And it is mildly effective, but large numbers of our kids are not being educated.

Perhaps we ought to look more closely at what it is we want to accomplish and see if our methods of teaching are moving us towards that goal.

But simply 'failing more kids' is a simplistic answer. And like all simplistic answers a cop-out.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Final words

So my original thesis still stands.

I don't believe failing a kid will help much unless we know exactly why they're not meeting our standards.

I've no argument with this point. Where we differ is that I belive that there are resaons and circumstances where retention is the best solution and you apparently believe that it's never appropriate.

And I still maintain that the industrial method is a poor paradigm for education. It is efficient, no doubt about that. And it is mildly effective, but large numbers of our kids are not being educated.

Both the "old school" methods (in use through 1960 or so) and the "new school" methods (in increasing use since 1960 or so) fail to educate "large numbers of kids."

The question is, "Which system fails MORE kids?"

I believe it's the "new school" method -- which includes but is not exclusively identified by the principle of "social promption" -- which is truly failing more kids.

Neither system is perfect but Home Schooling or a formalized version of the one-on-one tutoring Home Schooling provides isn't a practical solution either. The goal of educating EVERY child is a pipe dream because there simply aren't enough teachers or enough dollars to accomplish that goal.

If I had to choose between the two systems, I'd choose "Old School" because fewer kids were left uneducated by that system than the current system.

Luckily, I don't have to choose because the "science" of education has come a long way since 1960 and no knowlegeable teacher or administrator would let someone like you fall through the cracks -- even if we returned completely to "Old School" standards of "achieve or fail."

Today there are many options for the "learning disabled" and "Gifted Students;" both within and outside of the public school systems. The most successful of the options outside of the public schools systems don't subscribe to the "social promotion" theory and force students to demonstrate achievement of goals before passing them on to the next "level."

The main problem is making the alternatives available to ALL students who need them instead of just those whose parents can afford them.

 

[fifty5]

Re: Selection at 11+ and other tests

... Is he a failure? He (and his wife and children) are blissfully happy. Only the utilities who supply them get angry.

Og

All laud and honour to your relative, Og. To me, Mathematics is alpha to psi (the one just before omega), but I still leave the family finances to my wife - and we're heavily in the black!

My opinion is that education is a success when it leads out all and every individual talent of each person, whether that be manual, artistic, or 'scientific' (for want of a better single word).

Curricula that don't allow teachers to bring out the best in every student (as opposed to training every one of them towards some bureaucratic specification) simply don't do justice to students at large.

f6 (Opinionated as usual!)

 

[fifty5]

I have failed once in high school and countless times in life. If nothing else, the chance to fail teaches children that life goes on, you go on, you do it again and you get it right.

Or go somewhere else. That's valid too.

And if 'failure' means 'getting it wrong' then I not only agree with you, but would go further: that's almost always a much more effective learning experience than simply 'getting it right'. That's a major problem with 'criterion based assessment': students quite frequently get some exercise right by accident (or just 'parrot fashion') - learn nothing... and get a pass grade. That isn't education, it's just russian roulette in reverse!

f6

 

[fifty5]

If anyone knows a better way of doing this, then I’d love to hear it, because it's not easy from this side of the desk either.

---dr.M.

Doc, there are better ways. The trouble is that they need a less 'efficient' teaching system - less of the organised work per day from both students and teachers. Given that, instead of just marking, one can give feedback about why - and provide remedial explanations and so on.

Twice I was priveliged enough to teach under that kind of regime.

Once was being in charge of a 'Computer Workshop'. My only contractual requirement was to be present, so I could allocate my time purely according to individual student need (and, to a slightly lesser extent, willingness to learn). Similarly, student time in the workshop wasn't strictly scheduled, so students could spend as much time there as they wanted (within finite limits).

Some just needed me to show them how to achieve the word-processing enhancements required by IT courses. Others needed me to explain statistics, or the use of the square root of minus one in engineering. And I got everything imaginable between those extremes. The total volume gave me time to deal with everything that came along, though some had to wait their turn.

The other time was as a tutor for the Open University. The relevant regs mostly limited how many students were allocated to each tutor. After that, the time spent on marking/feedback was the tutor's own affair ('whole class' teaching was less than 10 hours a year). In consequence, marking assignments could be treated primarily as a teaching exercise, with assessment being a by-product. It wasn't uncommon for my 'marks' to be longer than a student's submission.

In both cases, when assessment was required, I could be purely objective - had they or had they not met the specified criteria - but each tick or cross was a minor part of the whole thing, which was to help each student with the problems that assessment (or some exercise performed in the workshop) revealed. And in both cases, 90% plus of my time was spent dealing with individuals in a 1-to-1 interaction.

That's fucking expensive - either for the institution or for the teacher (I once worked out my OU pay in terrms of cash-per-hour, and it was significantly below the minimum wage, but, while I could afford the time, boy did I enjoy it!)

Yet another example is a local primary school near here. The education authority wanted to close it down, but overwhelming public opposition kept it open. It has a total of about 50 pupils, split over 3 year groups. Oh what a surprise: almost every kid that leaves there does well!

Inefficiency can pay enormous dividends! (Ask the oil industry how many wells are 'successful'. Last time I heard, 9 out of 10 were 'dry'.)

For the country's, nay, the world's, sake, lets double taxes so that education (and health and...) can be funded generously enough to be inefficient! (And at the same time, treble the funding of the inspectorate, so that they have time to evaluate - and help - in depth, not just according to a bureaucratic tick-chart.)

f6

 

[rgraham666]

I know I said that I wouldn't post here again. Sue me.

There is an enormous difference, in my opinion, between effectiveness and efficiency. And neither one is always the same as good.

As a reminder, let's remember that The Holocaust was efficient.

 

[Weird Harold]

Doc, there are better ways. The trouble is that they need a less 'efficient' teaching system - less of the organised work per day from both students and teachers. Given that, instead of just marking, one can give feedback about why - and provide remedial explanations and so on.
...
For the country's, nay, the world's, sake, lets double taxes so that education (and health and...) can be funded generously enough to be inefficient! (And at the same time, treble the funding of the inspectorate, so that they have time to evaluate - and help - in depth, not just according to a bureaucratic tick-chart.)

f6

I can only repeat what I said above:

Neither system is perfect but Home Schooling or a formalized version of the one-on-one tutoring Home Schooling provides isn't a practical solution either. The goal of educating EVERY child is a pipe dream because there simply aren't enough teachers or enough dollars to accomplish that goal.

 

[fifty5]

I can only repeat what I said above:

Sure, but does one try to approach the impossible, or go willingly down the low cost route?

f6

 

[Weird Harold]

Sure, but does one try to approach the impossible, or go willingly down the low cost route?

f6

I prefer starting with realistic solutions before chasing pipe-dreams that aren't within reach.

Universal one-on-one tutoring may be realistic and practical at some time in the future but it's fr from realistic or practical solution now -- and what the educational system needs is practical answers to the problems it has now.

For starters, we need enough trained, qualified, and motivated teachers to fill the needs of the current system -- which is only a fraction of the teachers required for your proposal.

Individualized tutoring also avoids the issue that "School" is about more than facts and figures.

The "socialization" inherent in "attending school" is one of the big arguments against Home Schooling. Home Schooled students are consistently better educated than public school students when it comes to "facts and figures", but many of them have no social skills at all.

School is many children's first contact with "Society" -- both other children and authority figures other than their parents. In effect, School is everyone's first "job" and first chance to learn how to cope with co-workers and bosses.

The socialization aspect of "school" is an important, if often ignored, part of the problem with education.

 

[fifty5]

I prefer starting with realistic solutions before chasing pipe-dreams that aren't within reach.

Universal one-on-one tutoring may be realistic and practical at some time in the future but it's fr from realistic or practical solution now -- and what the educational system needs is practical answers to the problems it has now.

For starters, we need enough trained, qualified, and motivated teachers to fill the needs of the current system -- which is only a fraction of the teachers required for your proposal.

Individualized tutoring also avoids the issue that "School" is about more than facts and figures.

The "socialization" inherent in "attending school" is one of the big arguments against Home Schooling. Home Schooled students are consistently better educated than public school students when it comes to "facts and figures", but many of them have no social skills at all.

School is many children's first contact with "Society" -- both other children and authority figures other than their parents. In effect, School is everyone's first "job" and first chance to learn how to cope with co-workers and bosses.

The socialization aspect of "school" is an important, if often ignored, part of the problem with education.

Hi Harold,

It seems to me that you make 2 points there:

One is about socialisation - I agree wholeheartedly, so no need to go further.

The other is about 1-to-1 teaching, and its practicability.

My own experience is at 'FE' level - post-16. At that stage, 1-to-1 is practical: I've seen it done and I've done it myself. However, I don't mean all the time. At that stage, it is perfectly possible to make the general learning experience (in at least some subjects - my own experience was with Computing, but I've also seen it work with Maths) based on paper, or hyper-text material. A single teacher can then deal, in sequence, with several students individually, picking up problems and difficulties on a 1-to-1 basis. Honestly, this isn't pie-in-the-sky, it's within reach. It does depend on an employing authority that isn't funded purely on efficiency-based criteria. The general teaching/learning materials have to be produced - and refined - outside the pure class time. And results have to be judged upon students' aspirations, not only against exam results.

The above is also dependent upon student motivation - so it can't be applied without thought to school pupils who attend because they have no option (though even there, there can be some application).

The bottom line (IMHO) is that funding based solely upon a 'one teacher for a big class' isn't generous enough to get the best results. Deliberately building in a degree of "inefficiency" can give a far more effective education.

It will cost more, but not as much as what you seem to think I meant (a 1-to-1 student-staff ratio). All I'm saying is that cost-efficient and cost-effective aren't identical. Allowing some slack can be a very good thing.

f6