|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I'm always shocked at how strongly SA threads about education cling to "trade schools" as a panacea for education reform. Like yeah, it seems like a neat thing some specific school districts could have that could fit in their needs but it just seems so not like a general solution. It seems like the DeVos solution though: stop universal public education and just send kids to different schools that don't have the same standards for things like literacy and math or special ed or anything. 1) Parents want their children to receive an education that prepares them to live on their own, and schools today just don't even attempt that. Life lessons that 18 year olds desperately need are just not available. Classes that prepare you for jobs other than "go to college" are missing. Trade oriented and otherwise practical education are solutions to these problems. 2) Schools as an institution need to be supported. Overworked under-budgeted teachers will perform poorly. Poorly maintained structures probably creates a stress effect that inhibits learning. This doesn't necessarily stop any individual kid from learning any individual fact, but the school level results can be observed. Obviously correctly funding schools solves this, it's just a question of how. 3) Nationwide scores may suck globally (I haven't looked at them recently). This again doesn't really stop a school or student from being successful. You don't need to be writing intelligent analysis of Shakespeare to succeed at being a good member of society, but if nationally our students are for some reason worse at writing intelligent analysis of Shakespeare than the rest of the world, that's pretty suspicious, and forcing schools nationwide to start reading Romeo and Juliet isn't the solution. I honestly don't know the solution here, or if it's a problem even worth solving. If Americans as a society just don't culturally value reading classics maybe that's ok. Or maybe the Department of Education should host a bunch of live plays to boost interest. Regardless I'm pretty confident any solution will have a pretty attenuated value to any individual student (and therefore individual parents aren't likely to care), but that's ok if the aggregate is valuable, and the Department of Education doesn't answer to parents anyways. quote:I also don't get what percent of the population is expected to go through these schools in these plans. Like if it's 1 in 10,000 kids or something that that will be a huge boon for that kid, but if we restructure all of society to make 1 in 4 kids plumbers or something that goes no where.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
twodot posted:Much like advertising, the goal isn't really "student takes plumbing unit -> student becomes plumber", but rather to make these roles visible in their education as viable careers. If someone takes carpentry and their three friends are taking shop, electrics, and plumbing, and their all talking about their projects, then the goal has been achieved. If you are talking some added electives in shop or electronics or whatever, rad. Do that for sure. The place my stomach gets real sour is when a group of kids is being failed by their awful underfunded and poorly staffed school and people come up with the idea of "these kids aren't being provided what they need to reach the standards of basic education? I know! lets remove standards of education and I don't know, some guy can maybe come in and teach them plumming or something"
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 20:50
|
|
twodot posted:I see at least three levels to look at problems, and the solutions for each level are probably going to be unrelated, even if solutions at one level have knock on effects elsewhere. I agree, but I also think part of the problem is we spend far less on people outside of the education system than countries that do better in education, while we spend more per student than they do. It's such a huge difference for a child's education when their parents can actually feed and shelter them and the child doesn't have to feel the anxiety of not knowing whether they can eat or not, and schools aren't the place to solve that problem. also http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/devos-protest-at-washington-school/ quote:(CNN)Protesters briefly blocked Education Secretary Betsy DeVos as she tried to enter a public school on Friday morning.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If you are talking some added electives in shop or electronics or whatever, rad. Do that for sure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I get what you're saying. It's like the old Newt Gingrich plan of letting the kids be the janitors. No, an underfunded school shouldn't give up on teaching and instead train kids to sweep floors. But everyone is talking about postsecondary, so I don't think it fits. Like if someone wanted to draw up a plan where a kid got a normal education and then IN ADDITION to that also got some practical job training then maybe that would be cool. But it really sucks how many people, even fairly liberal people on D&D feel like the solution to the problem with universal education is to make it less universal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:I think the schools have done a lot to alienate the trades, too. Schools used to serve as a pipeline to the trades. Shop class, automotive class, carpentry class, even electronics class. Where did they go and why? The schools used to work hand-in-hand with the trades. At some point, this alliance fell apart. It's really hard to find a good trades teacher who knows what he's doing. When our auto guy retired we had all of two applicants, and one turned the job down when he heard the salary. The other guy was like 22 and left after a year for an industry job that paid better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like if someone wanted to draw up a plan where a kid got a normal education and then IN ADDITION to that also got some practical job training then maybe that would be cool. But it really sucks how many people, even fairly liberal people on D&D feel like the solution to the problem with universal education is to make it less universal. One of the problems a lot of students have that kills school for them is they ask "What's the point of this? When am I ever going to use this?" A lot of schools have cut everything but core to the bone, and act like kids just need math, reading, and writing. I don't think the people advocating for trade school programs and shop electives are saying that should take the place of the core of education; instead, those programs can allow students to see the purpose of education. Someone mentioned how one culinary program was integrating advanced chemistry. Any program can be integrated with the core subjects, and it'll actually benefit the core subjects because students will see the purpose of what they're learning. Learning about rectangular prisms in math might seem useless, but if the kid needs to use volume formulas in their woodshop project, all of a sudden it makes sense, and the purpose leads to more effort leads to better results. A lot of elementary schools have cut science, but one of the teachers I work with used to work in a STEM school where they used science in class to show why students needed to be able to read, do math, and write, and by integrating the subjects, students did better in all the core subjects. Another example was a Mexican-American studies program at a high school in Arizona. The optional class was able to discuss the history of indigenous people, Mexican culture, and tie it to historical and modern social justice (examining, for example, the founding fathers from a critical lens). The program was wildly successful, because it increased attendance of at-risk kids, boosted grades in other classes, and gave kids who didn't see the purpose of education a reason, and therefore, the motivation to grow and do better. The connection of education to the "real world" helps befit kids immensely, and so, if implemented properly, shop classes, culinary classes, etc. all would be a huge boon to schools. The case study of the Tuscon MAS program (and if you haven't seen Precious Knowledge, I would recommend it--preview here) also helps expose school reformers for the frauds they are. The program drastically increased grades, graduation rates, and college attendance--all things school reformers claimed they cared about--but the program was banned because a bunch of xenophobic state legislatures got scared kids might think for themselves or have scary ideas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
5. Role of schools (sports, health services, sex ed, childcare, etc) Frankly, I'm getting pretty disgusted how the public is expecting schools to serve in every role for students but at the same time hobble the system when they disagree with what the school is teaching. Sex ed is a good example. Comprehensive sex ed is a public health priority that could reduce many issues including STD transmission, pregnancies, etc...yet substantial portions of the country are doing abstinence only education, if at all. And for religious reasons...not even research verifiable reasons, it's blatantly because of religious beliefs. Never ceases to amaze me how the public wants schools to solve problems yet won't give us the ability to do so...
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
It's just a trap, no one wants to actually do any of that stuff, they just want someone to blame for not doing it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Isn't it more of a political thing? I mean, the parts of the country that do abstinence-only education and stifle sex ed tend to be the conservative, heavily religious areas. With our public schools ultimately being run by elected officials, can you truly argue that the public doesn't want these religious beliefs reflected in the school system?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Anyone seeing politics directly having an impact on their students? Thursday's Day Without Immigrants actually had a fairly significant impact on DISD attendance rates, and there were walkouts followed by anti-Trump protests today in a bunch of Dallas-area high schools. These are schools with majority Hispanic populations. There's a lot of anger and fear that I'm seeing, although it ultimately is tempered with uncertainty. The students don't know what to do with it. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2017/02/17/kids-walk-immigration-dallas-isd-trustee-wants-remind-schools-safe-places
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
I've been watching where the new federal budget targets are going...so far it's not promising. They are looking to cut the NEA, NEH, CPB, Americorp and more. The Americorp part in particular is disturbing because it will cut all sorts of programs for schools including Math Corps tutors, Promise Fellows, and other tutor/mentor programs that are funded through Americorp. That's going to hit a lot of districts, especially rural/urban ones. So far the released memos indicate a very conservative plan for budgeting with increased spending to military and infrastructure...personally I think it's a load of BS. But for schools it's going to mean tighter budgets are ahead...
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Anyone seeing politics directly having an impact on their students? Yeah, I had some kids out because of that. A lot of students and parents are pretty terrified of the new administration. They're worried they or their family members might be deported, and that's true even for those who are here legally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
So it's only been ten days since this thread went up and 70% of voters think education is horribly hosed... I think it's very interesting to see how people are responding to this. It always seems to be that people are outraged about schools, yet anything to actually help them is just being soft on teachers, teacher's unions, insert latest conservative target here.... Can people really not put two and two together that by improving social services, dealing with poverty, and improving education....it would help the entire country? Instead people get roped into the doomsday media reporting that we need even more military spending when we already outspend the next 10 largest countries... totally boggles me...
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Yeah, I had some kids out because of that. A lot of students and parents are pretty terrified of the new administration. They're worried they or their family members might be deported, and that's true even for those who are here legally. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like if someone wanted to draw up a plan where a kid got a normal education and then IN ADDITION to that also got some practical job training then maybe that would be cool. But it really sucks how many people, even fairly liberal people on D&D feel like the solution to the problem with universal education is to make it less universal. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Feb 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I think a mandatory class on how to clean things and basic home maintenance would be great. Also, personal finance. I also think they should learn things for the sake of learning, like arts and the humanities. Really, your reading, writing, arithmetic does not need to be immediately applicable to anything to be a great help in life. You're learning empathy, critical thinking, and logical reasoning by studying these subjects. Those classes would be super impractical. Who would teach them? How would you get kids to buy into them? Home Ec covers a lot of this stuff, but also covers a lot more like cooking, sewing, hospitality, etc that help kids get interested and involved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
You just answered your own question. Your goal wouldn't be to make a boring horrible class.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Oxphocker posted:So it's only been ten days since this thread went up and 70% of voters think education is horribly hosed... I think it's very interesting to see how people are responding to this. It always seems to be that people are outraged about schools, yet anything to actually help them is just being soft on teachers, teacher's unions, insert latest conservative target here.... I got curious on what opinions from the general population look like on how to improve education, and found this: (Source: Gallup)  
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:You just answered your own question. Your goal wouldn't be to make a boring horrible class. So Home Ec mandatory for all students basically?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Sure. I mean the bar is "more interesting to kids than algebra."
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Sure. I mean the bar is "more interesting to kids than algebra." That's an odd way to put it, because as soon as you require something in the curriculum, it diminishes the appeal quite a bit. Generally, the motivational issue in a classroom is down to the 5-10% of the kids who hate the poo poo out of the subject so bad, their attitude affects the other kids in the room. It helps a little that Home Ec works a lot differently than their other classes, but not enough to offset the effect of making it mandatory instead of an elective IMO. That said I think you're right that there would be a net benefit to kids to make them take it, just not as much as it might seem if it is a required class. Best would be to say "ok for your Home Ec core class you have a choice of cooking, hospitality, or sewing and fashion design" and make sure each class included some basic Home Ec stuff in addition. It would likely require an extended school day to give kids Home Ec AND core classes AND PE/electives, but extended school day is way better for the kids anyway so let's do it. Wish that's how easy changing poo poo was...extended school day WOULD be great for kids. But would require a humongous investment to pull off. One of the biggest problems at least at my school would be admin presence. We have a principal and an AP and that's it. They already spend like 80 hours a week at school. If they had to spend 100 hours a week covering an extended school day and supervising/evaluating a bunch more teachers (to cover all the extra periods from extended school day), I'm pretty sure they'd die. That doesn't even get into the issue of having space for specialized stuff like Home Ec classes. Home Ec needs weird stuff like stoves, sinks, dishwashers, sewing machines, and washing machines. That kind of stuff does not easily fit into regular classrooms and needs specialized space. If you're serving a whole school with Home Ec, you need a LOT of space - like half a given school would need to be set aside for Home Ec.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Looking back on college, I have to say there is some truth in the "lazy teacher" myth. It's an anecdotal sampling, obviously, but let's be academic and call it "ethnography". I've got 8 total. 6 are just burnouts who couldn't crack their major so they ended up opting for the teaching route. 1 is totally devoted and just loves the poo poo out of kids and is amazing. 1 is also totally devoted and loved the poo poo out of kids which is why they are now in safely kept away from kids in jail. That's not that far off from most careers. A small percentage wants it and is all about it. Most just kinda fell into it and are making it work. And on the opposite extreme, some are trying to exploit it for some creepy reason (real or imagined). The 6/8 people that fell into it. These people talk about a "passion for education" but they obviously don't give a loving poo poo. They are just trying to get through their day like everybody else. So what?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Looking back on college, I have to say there is some truth in the "lazy teacher" myth. It's an anecdotal sampling, obviously, but let's be academic and call it "ethnography". Yeah, the problem with the teaching profession is that it's the easiest profession to get into off of a college education but it also pays poorly which means people who could be doing something else probably won't do teaching. The glut of teachers makes it a very hard field to get into unless you're committed to it early. I'm not sure the problem is "teachers are bad" though. Most people in any profession are indifferent to their work. It's always very strange to me that people who talk like that's a problem think the solution is reducing teacher pay, increasing their working hours, and removing/reducing their benefits. If you want quality personnel, you have to pay for it. It's the same as in any other industry. If you can't afford that, you need to improve the management and make the tasks easier. Someone's gotta get paid. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 12:54 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
Evidently the proposed Ohio budget has a line in it that would require all teachers to serve an unpaid internship with a local business in order to renew their certification.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I think a mandatory class on how to clean things and basic home maintenance would be great. Also, personal finance. I also think they should learn things for the sake of learning, like arts and the humanities. Really, your reading, writing, arithmetic does not need to be immediately applicable to anything to be a great help in life. You're learning empathy, critical thinking, and logical reasoning by studying these subjects. There are already classes like this in many schools...it's called Shop, and Home Ec, and Econ, and... and.. The hard part of this is that only large high schools are capable of funding such classes because until you get to around +400 students, you're really just trying to cover the basics and maybe a few extras. Certain types of classes are WAY more expensive to pull off because of space requirements, equipment, supplies, etc...like Shop and Home Ec, both are very specialized and expensive to have without charging fees (which a lot of students can't afford). The second problem to this is finding licensed teachers to fill those positions...Industrial tech and Home Ec teachers are really hard to find because there's not a lot of programs that offer those degrees anymore and most people don't want to go into them because job options are limited. So when schools post for an opening, they are lucky to get 1-2 people applying and often times it's older teachers who wanted to retire like 5 years ago, but want to keep these programs running because they believe in the value. The last problem is exactly what was mentioned, "Your goal wouldn't be to make a boring horrible class." yeah...with some kids you could be in a handstand with your hair on fire and they would say they are still bored and that you're the worst teacher ever. Much of the issue has to do with society's view of education...that it's supposed to be entertainment. Getting educated actually takes some effort and yet teachers are considered horrible if they don't get 100% engagement? There needs to be a wholesale shift on the attitude about education and we've seen examples of this, in this very thread: quote:Looking back on college, I have to say there is some truth in the "lazy teacher" myth. It's an anecdotal sampling, obviously, but let's be academic and call it "ethnography". So for one...you're talking about college, not elementary/secondary school. In college, it's not their job to be your entertainment. Come to think of it, that applies to elem/secondary...but that's another thing. Next, anecdotal isn't evidence...for all we know, you're a douchebag of a student and it's just your skewed perception being relayed to try and make a point? Though I do agree that there's a range of engagement in any career, education is no exception to that and I remember teachers and professors that I wasn't impressed with. However, I also know that +90% of how I did was because of my own actions...not that of the teacher. There are only a few examples I can think of that I could clearly pin on the instructor - had a professor that taught American Government, worked on a city council, so you would think it would be good? However, he had zero instructional skill, talked the whole time about stories on the city council but it had nothing to do with what he tested on so there was a complete disconnect and no way to study on what was actually going to be tested. I truly don't think it's a case of 'teachers are bad'. I think that's been way overblown by a population expecting entitlement and a media that only conveys bad stories about teachers, which really ends up being less than 1% and probably isn't any different than any other profession. Plus the idea that teaching is somehow easier to get into and get through...I'd really be curious to see if the people saying that have actually gone through the process themselves or if they are just parroting the popular perception? It's a lot more involved than most realize and it's no surprise we're seeing less people going into education and more people leaving the profession early because the economics of it don't make sense. The job conditions, pay, and public treatment of teachers is insane and lots of people see the reality of it and leave the profession because it's not worth the abuse. I have a coworker that took a teaching job in China, only teaches half the day and it making twice what he was making here. Can't blame him for taking the job... Personally, I'm looking to eventually transition to a district position in school business/operations because I'm tired of having no life and making crap wages for the amount of time I'm putting in. I love teaching and helping students, but that only goes so far and I'm getting to the point of burning out because I'm working multiple jobs for the school on half pay just to make the budget work out. It's not sustainable to ask anyone to do that for long. The greatest example of this is just recently with DeVos being named education secretary...it really goes to show where the values are being placed when someone who is for privatizing education is now leading the public education system. In talking to my cohort members at different districts, they are all seeing the same things - fewer applicants, smaller budgets, more data collection and reporting, less support for basic programs, etc. It's pitting districts against each other for enrollment and not actually solving any of the issues that are mostly driven by poverty. Reading from my alumni newsletter where the fundraising foundation was able to fund +100k of new equipment and then some while I'm working at a school that is barely staying open...you can't say that there isn't inequity in the system that is causing many of these problems. Yet, the Gallup poll says the highest concern is getting better teachers? Heh... 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Oxphocker posted:I truly don't think it's a case of 'teachers are bad'. I think that's been way overblown by a population expecting entitlement and a media that only conveys bad stories about teachers, which really ends up being less than 1% and probably isn't any different than any other profession. Plus the idea that teaching is somehow easier to get into and get through...I'd really be curious to see if the people saying that have actually gone through the process themselves or if they are just parroting the popular perception? It's a lot more involved than most realize and it's no surprise we're seeing less people going into education and more people leaving the profession early because the economics of it don't make sense. The job conditions, pay, and public treatment of teachers is insane and lots of people see the reality of it and leave the profession because it's not worth the abuse. I have a coworker that took a teaching job in China, only teaches half the day and it making twice what he was making here. Can't blame him for taking the job... Personally, I'm looking to eventually transition to a district position in school business/operations because I'm tired of having no life and making crap wages for the amount of time I'm putting in. I love teaching and helping students, but that only goes so far and I'm getting to the point of burning out because I'm working multiple jobs for the school on half pay just to make the budget work out. It's not sustainable to ask anyone to do that for long. I think another big problem is that, while most teachers aren't bad -- the vast majority are competent at their jobs -- everyone has, hopefully, a few exceptional teachers that, for whatever reason, they really connected with and enjoyed having as teachers. So if that's where you set the bar for "good" then, yeah, most other teachers are going to seem bad. The thing is that "that teacher" was probably a different teacher for everyone, because having that sort of exceptional connection is simply not feasible between a teacher and all of their students. So, yeah, occasionally you're going to have to put up with a competent teacher who you're mostly indifferent to, and that's okay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Oxphocker posted:However, I also know that +90% of how I did was because of my own actions...not that of the teacher. There are only a few examples I can think of that I could clearly pin on the instructor Oxphocker posted:It's pitting districts against each other for enrollment and not actually solving any of the issues that are mostly driven by poverty. When you post stuff like this, you are undermining a lot of the rest of what you post in this thread. America spends more money on education per student than almost all first world countries, but isn't doing that well in a lot of the education metrics. Does this mean that increasing education funding will not actually noticeably improve student outcomes? Should the US be spending more money on expanding other parts of its welfare state instead of spending more money on teachers and schools? silence_kit fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:When you post stuff like this, you are undermining a lot of the rest of what you post in this thread. America spends more money on education per student than almost all first world countries, but isn't doing that well in a lot of the education metrics. Does this mean that increasing education funding will not actually noticeably improve student outcomes? Should the US be spending more money on expanding other parts of its welfare state instead of spending more money on teachers and schools? Not really...the approach that US education has taken since 2001 is that of accountability and competition amongst schools. It's applying the same ideas that the business world uses of forcing innovation in a sink or swim environment without realizing that there are some major flaws to that philosophy (schools don't get to choose their products and they aren't allowed to charge what it would really take to change things). Personally I think it's a conservative plan to privatize public schools into areas that can afford it and schools that are basically left to rot...because 'social Darwinism am I rite guyz...hurr hurr'. In comparing US schools to schools around the world there are several factors to weigh: 1. What kind of social safety net does the society have? (Finland would be the top example of this, by creating policies around equity, they ensure everyone is on equal footing with basic needs taken care of, if the US had a social safety net like Finland we'd go from about 25th in the world to about 6th. I've read several studies where they account for the income disparity and it's very eye opening exactly how damaging that is to US education) 2. How much does the society value education? (This is where many Asian countries like China, Korea, and Japan surpass the US, because there is societal/family pressure to do well in school and not dishonor the family. The downside is that it creates a rote memorization system that limits creative thinking which is where many US schools excel) 3. How are teachers treated as professionals? (Again another area where Finland excels is treating teachers as actual professionals with the support, pay, and conditions to go along with it. US teachers put in way more classtime than Fins do and yet are burning out much faster because there is no time to do the job well because we keep cramming more people in with less time to work with them.) So long story short...we're not spending enough on education, but it's in the way we are spending that needs to be looked at. Social safety nets need to be more comprehensive to ensure children are not in poverty and not able to meet basic needs in order to even have a decent shot in school. The schools themselves need to stop spending millions on useless testing and actually plow those funds back into teaching staffs so they can actually do a good job. Instead we're pitting school against each other to fight for enrollment and expecting them to do more with less and less...it's not a winning combination.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Oxphocker posted:Not really...the approach that US education has taken since 2001 is that of accountability and competition amongst schools. It's applying the same ideas that the business world uses of forcing innovation in a sink or swim environment without realizing that there are some major flaws to that philosophy (schools don't get to choose their products and they aren't allowed to charge what it would really take to change things). You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. On one hand, you are saying that teachers serve an important function to society, and so it is absolutely vital that we attract more and better talent to teaching, pay teachers more, and so on. But on the other hand, you are saying that 90% of student educational outcomes have nothing to do with the teacher, and instead are due to factors outside of teachers' control and that trying to evaluate teachers' performance is a waste of time and money because the teacher has little effect on educational outcomes anyway. Don't you see the contradiction here? You are arguing that teachers are simultaneously valuable and also not that valuable. Oxphocker posted:The schools themselves need to stop spending millions on useless testing Is this a major cost? How does it compare to all of the other costs of public education? silence_kit fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:When you post stuff like this, you are undermining a lot of the rest of what you post in this thread. America spends more money on education per student than almost all first world countries, but isn't doing that well in a lot of the education metrics. Does this mean that increasing education funding will not actually noticeably improve student outcomes? Should the US be spending more money on expanding other parts of its welfare state instead of spending more money on teachers and schools? Throwing more money at the welfare state, historically, hasn't done much to improve student outcomes or combat poverty in the poorest parts of the country. Look at the results of many of the Great Society programs. The problems faced by our urban and rural underclasses today go far beyond the schools, but we tend to focus in on the schools as the solution to all of these problems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
It has to be both things at once. A great school isn't going to help if a student is living in poverty, under constant stress, and hungry all the time, and there can be no path away from welfare reliance without good educational institutions. Throwing a whole bunch of money at just one side of that equation, and then throwing your hands up when it doesn't make things better, is obviously not a solution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. On one hand, you are saying that teachers serve an important function to society, and so it is absolutely vital that we attract more and better talent to teaching, pay teachers more, and so on. But on the other hand, you are saying that 90% of student educational outcomes have nothing to do with the teacher, and instead are due to factors outside of teachers' control and that trying to evaluate teachers' performance is a waste of time and money because the teacher has little effect on educational outcomes anyway. Don't you see the contradiction here? You are arguing that teachers are simultaneously valuable and also not that valuable. He said 90% of HIS educational outcomes were about himself and not his teacher. It's weird that you think that "not 100%" means "0%"
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It has to be both things at once. A great school isn't going to help if a student is living in poverty, under constant stress, and hungry all the time, and there can be no path away from welfare reliance without good educational institutions. Just looking at welfare and school funding as a panacea for poverty is fundamentally flawed. We've tried throwing money at both ends of that equation, and it doesn't work. Automation in particular has led to major structural changes in the economy of the United States. Education can be a path to good employment, but if you're starting with serious disadvantages, competing for good employment can be nearly impossible. Some regions of the country also simply don't have much to offer in the way of decent employment. Beyond that, if the best and brightest of a community do manage to get scholarships and get the necessary higher education to attain good jobs, they typically escape from the high poverty ghetto areas ASAP and don't look back - stripping those communities of positive role models that can stabilize the social structure of an area. Never mind further issues like selective enforcement of the War on Drugs against the most vulnerable communities - taking even more opportunities away from those that already have the least access to them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Hawkgirl posted:It's weird that you think that "not 100%" means "0%" I don't think that. You don't see the contradiction in arguing that teachers are incredibly important to the education of children, are highly under-valued, and on that basis should be paid more, and in the same breathe arguing categorically that teachers shouldn't be evaluated on the basis of their students' performance, since how well the students do is largely out of their hands? One argument seemingly undermines the other. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:You don't see the contradiction in arguing that teachers are under-valued, and on that basis should be paid more, and in the same breathe arguing categorically that teachers shouldn't be evaluated on the basis of their students' performance, since how well the students do is largely out of their hands, and they have little effect on students' performance? It seems like you are being deliberately obtuse, but you're having a logical breakdown here. There are enormous and complicated factors that go into student performance. Teacher quality is one of these factors. Good teachers can do a lot for struggling students, but they can't overcome all or even most of the problems introduced by poverty. Obviously, pay can influence the quality of worker that you get - this goes both ways. If you truly want to close achievement gaps and see students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds perform at the same level as more privileged kids, you need to address multiple factors. If you think that cutting teacher pay or cutting education funding is going to help anything, you are obviously mistaken. It is one part of a complex puzzle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:There are enormous and complicated factors that go into student performance. Teacher quality is one of these factors. Good teachers can do a lot for struggling students, but they can't overcome all or even most of the problems introduced by poverty. Obviously, pay can influence the quality of worker that you get - this goes both ways. Obviously the wealth of the students' parents and teacher quality both matter. Since you are willing to grant that teacher quality is important, you would agree with me and disagree with Oxphocker that it doesn't make a lot of sense to categorically oppose evaluation of teachers' performance on the basis that teachers' performance has little effect on student outcomes. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Obviously the wealth of the students' parents and teacher quality both matter. Since you are willing to grant that teacher quality is important, you would agree with me and disagree with Oxphocker that it doesn't make a lot of sense to categorically oppose evaluation of teachers' performance on the basis that teachers' performance has little effect on student outcomes. Again, you are being deliberately obtuse. If you grant that socioeconomic status has a huge impact on student performance, then evaluating teacher performance on the basis of student performance on standardized tests makes little sense. That is, however, the direction that teacher evaluations have been shifting toward. Does this make sense as the main measure of teacher quality to you? The result of tying teacher pay or job security to standardized test performance of the students does not encourage the best teachers to go work in schools that are low performing as a result of socioeconomic factors, but rather to encourage all teachers to look for jobs in areas where socioeconomic factors guarantee that students will be successful on standardized tests.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Obviously the wealth of the students' parents and teacher quality both matter. Since you are willing to grant that teacher quality is important, you would agree with me and disagree with Oxphocker that it doesn't make a lot of sense to categorically oppose evaluation of teachers' performance on the basis that teachers' performance has little effect on student outcomes. The problem is that "evaluation of teachers' performance" is an axe often wielded by people who will find no public school and no public expenditure acceptable at all. See the recent mess when DeVos toured a perfectly successful school and described it afterwards as struggling and in a holding pattern.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
What if we just brought back the good paying factory jobs and made education a moot point. Not everybody needs to have a college degree. Is knowing about the Battle of Hastings or how to take a derivative really that important for most people?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
Shbobdb posted:What if we just brought back the good paying factory jobs and made education a moot point. Not everybody needs to have a college degree. Is knowing about the Battle of Hastings or how to take a derivative really that important for most people? Well, gee, why didn't anybody think of that? Just bring the good jobs that don't require education back! You nailed it, man.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:23
|
|