Education in the United States, problems and solutions (long)

[bholdr]

Lehighguy's post about big issues got me rambling into my old educational philosophies, reminding me about some concepts that I haven't thought about in a long time. In this post I will attempt to discuss what I personally think needs to happen to the American educational system in order for the US to remain competitive in the coming generations, and to fix the various catastrophic problems that American schools face. Most, or all, of this post will be opinion- I do not have the time to research the studies that will back up my points, but you are, of course, welcome to post any that either support or disprove my positions. Also, everything here is from a layman's perspective, albeit an educated one. I am not a professional educator (though I have been paid to teach or tutor many different subjects), but I am well-versed in the problems that face the current educational system. Okay, on to the post... (which is, as always, all IMHO)

Premise:

The American educational system is broken. American students, from kindergarten to high school graduates, are no longer competitive with their first-world counterparts, in terms of standardized test scores, employability, and just plain competence. to fix the problem, we cannot simply raise standards, initiate voucher programs, and pay teachers more (though these things do help, they are responses to symptomatic things, and do not attack the root of the problems that we face). what we need to do is totally tear down and rebuild the prevailing educational paradigm and the current infrastructure in order to remain competitive.

Problems: (which are NOT being addressed)

A: Children in America are generally taught many, many things. among those things, however, is not 'HOW to learn'- that is, kids pretty much have to figure out on their own how to best assimilate and organize information on their own. Teachers also often cater only to a single learning style they‘re not taught HOW to teach, only what to teach- the model of a teacher lecturing at the front of the class is effective only for aural-sequential-learners with an external locus of control- more on that later.

B: Also, that which they are taught is often taught without any CONTEXT- they are taught how to make a graph, but not how to apply it, how to write a sonnet, but not WHY one would want to. They know that Columbus discovered the Americas, but they do not understand the economic factors that made his voyage not only possible, but inevitable

C: Schools, as we build them now, are currently horribly unhealthy learning environments- factories for the minds of children, assuming that all kids have equal capacities and potential. There are far to many kids at each school, they are fed poorly and supervised improperly. The very DESIGN of most modern schools (high schools in particular) inhibits learning and creativity.

Symptoms of the problems: (which ARE being addressed, though not effectively)

Aa: Otherwise intelligent students are not able to learn. Standardized test scores are miserable. Children do very little learning outside of school.

Ba: Some students excel in certain areas but fail in others. Other students are unable to learn at all. Of that which they Do learn, they are unable to apply much of it effectively.

Ca: Bullies, gangs, drugs, dangerous lifestyles, depression, over-medication, irresponsible sexual promiscuity, cliques, and, once again, an inability to learn effectively. Also, a tremendous waste of money.

Potential solutions

Ab: First, we need to change the way that the TEACHERS are taught, at the university level. There is far too much emphasis put on the material and nowhere enough put on understanding the psychology behind learning. I mentioned that, in most schools, students are taught only one way- the classic lecture/notes/test/pointless homework format, with maybe some hands on work rarely to break the monotony. This is disastrous. Some people are naturally visual learners, and learn best be seeing the subject matter presented in a visual manner, others are aural (hearing) and do quite well in the normal format. Still others are primarily kinesthetic learners- they have to touch and feel the subject matter in order to learn it- these students have the toughest time under the current structure. In addition to the aural/visual/kinesthetic axis of learning styles, there are others:
**Some students learn globally, others sequentially.
**Some students learn best when a teacher does the teaching, others learn best when the teacher serves merely as a guide to their learning. Obviously, those students with an internal locus of control are having a hard time being taught- they would rather LEARN.
**Some students naturally work better in groups than individually, others are the opposite
**some students 'test well' others do not, even though they may have a far greater practical command of the material
** there are more, but those are the big ones.

These are clearly major things… but most teachers take a grand total of ONE or TWO classes in college to prepare them for dealing with the various learning styles- instead, they’re busy learning how to write a test, grade an essay, or organize a lesson plan, or they may be studying a subject in far greater detail than they will EVER have to teach it. Math teachers do not need to know how to do high-level calculus to teach algebra and geometry, and their time would be better spent trying to become better teachers than becoming better at math, for example. I would think that an ENTIRE year of school dedicated to learning about learning styles and how to adapt to and recognize them in students would not be too much to ask or our future educators, no?

Personally, I work for one of the best children’s ski schools in the world (imho), and we often are called to work with developmentally disabled students, students with ADHD, autisim, and other similar problems, children who‘s parents have described them as practically ‘un-teachable‘. well, in my experience, there is no such student, only teachers without the tools to adapt. Our pre-season instructor curriculum (which I now teach to the other instructors) dedicates approximately 35 hours of intense learning to targeted lesson planning and application- we call it “kid tech”- wherein we study learning styles, capacities, potential teaching formats, and so on and so forth. we then move on to “ski tech”- for a grand total of about 12 hours- we teach skiing, but we learn how to teach, not how to ski. Teachers in the American educational system (and the rest of the world, too, as far as I know) do the exact opposite, with miserable consequences. I can confidently state from personal experience that this is a far, far more effective method of teaching and learning than the standard ‘teach the subject’ paradigm.

Bb: CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. Who the hell cares if some dead dude once made a watch that kept time well enough to reveal longitude on ocean voyages? Nobody! But… did you know that the guy that did it was an eccentric rouge genius that had to fight the entire scientific community at the time to lay his claim to the biggest monetary academic prize in history? Wow… add a little context and things get interesting… (the book is “longitude” by Dava Sobel, if anyone’s interested- I highly recommend it to any student of history)

Right now, students are taught how to do math, but not how to apply it in their everyday lives, so it remains a boring abstraction to them. But, if a math teacher takes the time to show them how to apply the math… well, do you think they might learn a little more? What if they had to write an essay about the life and times of a famous mathematician, describing how that person came to the conclusions that they did, taking into account the social and economic pressures that their subject faced… now, all of the sudden, not only are they learning the math (and learning it better than they would just memorizing formulae and doing hundreds of ‘problems’), but they’re learning how to write, (and their writing is focused and has a purpose- to explain the math- that makes it far better and more interesting than just ‘pick something and write me a three page paper on it), and they’re learning history, and maybe some basic economics and geography, and… CONTEXT.

Context is at the core of ‘interdisciplinary learning’, which is a new educational paradigm that is slowly but surely beginning to be used in progressive universities and community colleges across the country. In an ID class, a student may receive, say, five credits of English and five of history, for a class that studies 19th century romantic literature, and also the lives and times of the authors. Context…ID learning SHOULD account for well over half of all lessons taught in public schools. Obviously, there are some subjects that will do better taught according to the current model- but I can’t actually think of one right now. Even metal shop could be combined with, say, chemistry, or drafting. History, English, math, and the other ‘core’ subjects can be almost universally applied to various subjects, and should be, since, for example, 99.9% of students will never write purely to write, but will be writing about things in their field, whatever that may become. Therefore, ID learning is not only a superior teaching method, but also better prepares students for real-life challenges. An ID class may often require a two-hour block of time for lessons and have larger class sizes, but that’s a good thing, as that means they also may support multiple teachers- all the better to be able to reach all the various learning styles, etc…

And get the parents involved in the learning process… if your class is learning about history, and a parent of one of the students is an antique dealer, get ‘em in there. If it’s math and a parent is an accountant, let them help the students learn, perhaps by having the parent come in and teach basic bookkeeping… if it’s politics, invite local leaders to hold a debate in front of the students… these are just examples.

Cb: Fer god’s sake, stop building big regional schools that cost a zillion dollars in land and construction costs. Build smaller schools, perhaps 500 students tops, maybe twenty teachers and a half-dozen staff. Trim the fat by cutting things that don’t really help students learn and grow as people, but have become institutionalized and are accepted as necessary now. No more phys-ed (in HS, not middle schools and elementary schools), no tax money paying for student dances, pep rallies, and the like. No more School sponsored sports that do not, in one way or another, support themselves. Also, though this is a little off topic, keep ADVERTISING and corporate interests the hell out of our public schools- it doesn‘t do a thing to help students learn, and probably hurts in the long run.

-Cut the size of the average high school in half and you make it much easier to police and eliminate many of the social problems facing our youth- drugs, gangs, violence, and so on. Restructure disciplinary procedures so that they may have some chance of HELPING the student that gets into trouble, instead of simply expelling them and moving them to what is probably going to be yet another school that will eventually expel them, too. That’s got to be great for a kid’s psychological well being, eh?

-Also, we must stop building big, depressing, modernist (le courbisur [sp?] was a shortsighted hack of an architect- modernism is the death of individuality and creative thinking) buildings. Build school campuses in such a manner that they promote and facilitate learning, not so they stifle it. More color, more light, better design, etc…

-Teach life skills in high school or even earlier. How much of a difference to this country would it make if EVERY single student was required to demonstrate that they know how to balance a checkbook? Change a tire and check a pilot light, work on the internet, etc? Or how to write a polite letter? Or at least how to put on a damn condom (well, we‘ll hold off on asking them to demonstrate that one).


*****

These are only a partial list of the problems and potential solutions to them facing the nation’s youth in our public (and private) schools. There is no panacea, no standard of accountability or law that will effect the necessary changes. It will take a long time, probably a generation at least, IF everyone agrees on a direction and strives for it. It will be massively expensive, but is hugely +EV in the long run, and bordering on a national necessity, and not to mention just plain better for the children.

This post may come off as being written by someone that couldn't deal with the current system. Nothing could be farther than the truth. I was one of the lucky ones, and my HS years were remarkably well adjusted- I went to all the dances and got my letter, had girlfriends and went to the parties… but I saw the system destroy some of the smartest and most talented people I knew- I had three friends attempt suicide in HS, and one get killed, many fell to drugs, a couple have AIDS, some are just losers that never got a chance or a solid educational foundation. I honestly feel that if their learning environments had been healthy and supportive, instead of impersonal and destructive, things may have been different for many of them. (btw, I’ve been thinking about all these things since I was 17- when, frustrated with it all, I dropped out of school and finished my education in community college)

Thoughts? (other than, 'good god, man, you wrote all this for a poker board?')

there will be no test.

[lehighguy]

Your post was spot on. My charter school functioned on many of the same principles you talked about. We had no sitting foward lecture courses, all classrooms were small 3-5 person tables with rolling chairs. Usually the professor would go over a concept for 20 min or so, then they would spend the next 40 min walking around the room talking to students that had questions. It was a mix of self/group work and lecture format. Students scheduled thier own classes in 20min mods and there were a lot of electives.

Classes tried to be as real world applicaable as possible. In design class we learned how to use design a product, use computer modeling, make a prototype, and the more successful ones actually sold thier inventions. In video class many students learned to use video editing and graphics tech so well they had thier work featured at trade shows. There are many other examples I could give, but the emphasis was always on turning out something concrete that affected the real world.

Every Wendsday we did projects, and senoir year we got internships. This was great as it gave us a chance to get out into the real world and learn how it worked.

A lot of the changes you talked about were made in my school. I wish all schools around the country ran like mine did.

I disagree that you corporations don't have a place in schools. If you mean when a school has Pepsi day in order to raise funds the superintendent will just steal anyway, then yes. In my school corporations were a valuable part of our functionality. Many corporations gave us grants and equipment because we helped serve them in some capacity. Teachers often taught corporate employees nights and weekends(which helped keep thier skills up to date) and in exchange we could use the equipment during the week. Many corporations gave us grants so students and teachers could do research for them. The relationship functioned much like graduate work in college. You helped do the work for a professors research project and you learned during the process. The company and the professor get the work done. Everyone wins.

I also disagree that the school shouldn't promote sports, cultural activities, and other after school programs. I know a lot of kids that kept on the straight and narrow just to stay on sports teams. It gave them a sense of community and drive. The skills you learn on a sports team are often applicable to real life situations. When they wouldn't let our soccer team travel to states because it would "interfere with thier schoolwork" it cause immense damage. It destroyed thier moral and will to learn for a good while. Things like teamwork, practice, communication, execution, etc. are an important part of the workplace. Many of the most successful people on my trading floor played sports in high school and college and considered it an essential part of thier learning experience. The same could be said of music, theatre, and other clubs and hobbies. Wanting to stay on the chess team and win states helped me do well in English junoir year. I think it's better to let principles, teachers, and parents decide what programs are beneficial to students lives and developement.

Your right that we need a totally different paraigm in the American education system. However, I don't see that happening as long as the forces that want to protect the status quo are in power: superintendents + high level admin, school boards, and the teacher's union. In order to break thier hold on power you have to attack it at the source, by giving parents the option of school choice.

[natedogg]

Vouchers are the only answer. Even your ideas, which sound good, cannot possibly be right for everyone.

Some parents may not want their child to attend a school that has sports programs and some may feel that school isn't school without sports programs. Some may feel that a big crowded school is a good social environment, and some may not. Some may feel that rote memorization is an important part of learning, and some may not. And then there's the obvious issue of reality vs. superstition -- oops I mean science vs. religion.

There is no way for a central planning approach to work for everyone. If we have one comprehensive rule that says, for example, "no art class in high school", or "everyone must take P.E.", we are bound to infuriate many parents.

The answer is to let every parent decide what they want for their kids and then enable them to act on it. To do otherwise is nothing short of agreeing that the state has more right to direct your child's education than you do.

And the only way to let parents decide is some sort of voucher system. Our current system is such that only the rich can decide what's best for their childern. Everyone else must simply accept whatever crap the state has to offer.

Also, home and self-schooling will grow rapidly with advancements in online education, which adds a new dimension to the whole issue. What happens when your child can get high quality chemistry instruction for free (or at least cheaply) online? Why would you risk sending him to an unacceptable school environment with teachers who
spend most of their time disciplining instead of teaching?

Just pocket the voucher and stay home. No voucher? Still worth it. Maybe you want to send your kid to school part time because you think the socialization is important, but all of his college prep classes are done at home online.

Online education, both structured and self-directed, is honestly going to revolutionize how we approach education in this country.

natedogg

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
We had no sitting foward lecture courses, all classrooms were small 3-5 person tables with rolling chairs. Usually the professor would go over a concept for 20 min or so, then they would spend the next 40 min walking around the room talking to students that had questions. It was a mix of self/group work and lecture format. Students scheduled thier own classes in 20min mods and there were a lot of electives.


[/ QUOTE ]

yes, these are some good examples of a functioning learning environment.

[ QUOTE ]
Teachers often taught corporate employees nights and weekends(which helped keep thier skills up to date) and in exchange we could use the equipment during the week.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is fine, my concern is that the students should not be exposed to advertising in their schools.

[ QUOTE ]
Many corporations gave us grants so students and teachers could do research for them. The relationship functioned much like graduate work in college. You helped do the work for a professors research project and you learned during the process. The company and the professor get the work done. Everyone wins.


[/ QUOTE ]

well, i disagree with this fairly strongly. the motivation of the company and the goals of the school are not the same (education vs profit), and i'm assuming that the students were not grad students and probably weren't capable or involved in making decisions about which companies that work for and the potential about the moral implications of such work. this is actually a problem that i have with some private schools.

more tommorow, it's late.

[lehighguy]

Perhaps if you were there it would make more sense.

A company might want to design a product, make a webpage, do some statistical analysis. The professor would take on the job and his students would help him. The students learned a lot doing it. I never got the feeling anyone was being exploited. Most entry level people have to do work for little material compensation, instead thier compensation is in the form of taining and experience which they hope to use in the future. This was much the same.

Yes, advertising should be out of schools.

[ACPlayer]

In your vision:

1. How are schools funded?
2. What is the basis for admission to these smaller schools?
3. How do you get parents involved when both parents work full time? In many of the third world countries with high parental involvement there is only one working parent.

A lot of your ideas are implemented in some of the better private schools where the parent ponies up tens of thousands of dollars to send the child to that school. However, these schools will reject children if they feel that the child is not smart enough for them -- interviews, tests etc.

[jaym96822]

Great point about vouchers, but there is another issue to consider. I live in a state with some of the worst public schools in the nation (due mainly to a centralized school system and the strong teachers' union). The result? One of the highest private school attendance rates in the nation and some of the best schools in the country.

In Hawaii at least, bad public schools quite possibly created exceptional private schools. Without poorly performing public schools, the best students and most involved parents would have no incentive to concentrate in specific high-performing private schools.

[lehighguy]

I can't answer for OP on the first two, but your third statement is factually incorrect.

In many third world countries you are MORE likely to find both parents working. Especially amongst the poor because the poor have a much higher rate of dual-income households. In countries with high parental involvement (Asia, India) this is based on a conscious decision by the parents to look after thier children despite the fact that they have far less time to do so.

Parental involvement can't be regulated by the government. If parents don't want to be involved cause they don't give a damn about thier kids you can't make them give a damn. That kid is screwed no matter what educational system you impletement. The best we can do is make it easier for parents that actually want to be involved to do so.

As for your last sentence I've made numerous posts about my high school and the other charter schools I've worked for. Charter schools around the country have provided superior education often with a fraction of the funding regular school district get. They can do this because they are run correctly, and they are run correctly because they need to be in order to attract students.

If you don't want to read any of my posts about my experiences then at least glance at this article in todays NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/op...07tierney.html

[ACPlayer]

High parental involvement in other countries is a combination of:

1. One working parent households. I dont have facts to back this up (so i could be wrong), but I do believe that in the US middle classes there are more two parent households than in asia, where women are still supposed to be homemakers.
2. A desire to move on up. A desire that is lost around here. Welfare, parental wealth (available for inheritance perhaps), parental drive for own careers, generally an easier life. Hardship makes for great desires and provides that fire in the belly thing.

If you don't want to read any of my posts about my experiences then at least glance at this article in todays NYT:

Again with the pouty thing!!? THanks for the link. Did they teach you in school not to draw conclusions from experiental data?

If you want to think about vouchers, consider not what the voucher (which is a transfer of tax dollars collected for a public school system to a private entity) does for the person who can "escape" but how it effects the children left behind in the schools that the money is supposedly intended for. It would make more sense to simply argue that the public schools should be closed down and the tax money not collected at all. Vouchers are a way to close the public schools down one step at a time, while building parochial madrasas (ok, perhaps I went a bit overboard with that the madrasas bit -- sue me [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]).

If you believe in publicly funded schools which are built on the basis that all children must have access to "free" schools then you cannot support vouchers and must work to fix the school system. if you dont think that all children must have access to "free" schools then just abolish the school system and be done with it. Dont take my property taxes that are collected to meet the first objective and then transfer that money to private and (especially) parochial schools.

[vulturesrow]

Good post but I think the problem goes a bit deeper. In my mind the failures of the public education system have three sources.

1. Federal funding and control of education leads to a one size fits all mentality, you address this issue very well.
2. Lack of emphasis on education in society. Who are kids heroes today? Athletes, musicians, and actors. We, as a society need to be far more active in publicly lauding intellectual and people who have real, positive effects on society.
3. Last but certainly not least, the breakdown of the basic social unit, the nuclear family. Just about every study out there shows a direct correlation between family situation and school performance. As a corollary to that, the dwindling acceptance of baseline moral values for a society. This leads to poor family situations and also the rise of the "do what makes you feel good" mentality is harmful to egendering the discipline that every person needs to have to be successful in life, education included.

Funnily enough, ACPlayer, one of the most ardent liberals on this board, probably addressed this better than anyone else. How we regain ground on these issues is a tough question and frankly I think we may have missed the boat on it less a wholescale cultural revolt against the tawdriness that our children get blasted with on daily and every hourly basis.