|
08 Dec 12 - 11:58 AM (#3449263) Subject: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,999 "A new school curriculum which will affect 46 out of 50 states will make it compulsory for at least 70 per cent of books studied to be non-fiction, in an effort to ready pupils for the workplace." Telegraph article containing the story. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 12:28 PM (#3449271) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: pdq A "student" should be given two years of high school. If they have a reasonable aptitude for academics, they should go on to the second two years. The rest should be transferred to trade schools where they learn carpentry, farm work, electronic asssembly, truck driving or other skills of their choice. Both groups should be taught paractical skills including balancing a check book and filling out a Federal Tax form. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 12:46 PM (#3449281) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Greg F. That's right, PeeDee - ship the proles off to be farm laborers at below minimum wage. You seem to be lodged in the 1870's, and one part of your anatomy seems also to be lodged in another part. By the way, who determines what a "reasonable aptitude" is, and who does the analysis of the proles? The government you're constantly whining about? |
|
08 Dec 12 - 12:51 PM (#3449283) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Jack the Sailor Whoever is suggesting this change ought to be taught the difference between a reference book and one that is written to be reac the whole way through. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 12:55 PM (#3449285) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: pdq In California, half the "students" cannot read a newpaper, at least not one in English. In Nevada, over half the "students" drop out. Exposing them to high literature is at least premature, perhaps pointless. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 01:11 PM (#3449295) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Rapparee Please, PD, don't be such an ass. If their parents don't care if their children read or learn the kids won't. If the parents aren't involved in the children's education then, in my opinion, they're guilty of child neglect. My family was poor, and from age 5 on I was fatherless because he was killed in a job site accident. But he read anything he could get his hands on and so did my mother. More, it was decided that all four of their children would graduate from college. We did, and two of us went on to earn graduate degrees. This was in the face of immense family pressure "not to get those kid's hopes up about college" and "let them get started at the Works." Dude, I know quite a few kids who grew up in the same situation and who graduated from college and have made more than their share of marks in the world. And I know of others who were "college tracked" who ended up successful electricians and carpenters. NO!!! Four years of high school and required graduation, with concentrations in history, math, chemistry, physics, biology, literature, and two year of a language other than English. By the way, while Nevada has the lowest percentage of students completing high school, the figure for graduation is 61.9%. This means that "over half the "students" drop out" is at odds with the facts. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 01:19 PM (#3449303) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,Eliza As a lifelong teacher, I find this most interesting. The key point in the article is the Arkansa teacher's question about a well-rounded education versus teaching for a job. The film Dead Poets' Society dealt with this very ably. I can't imagine how one could 'teach' a list of plants or insulation standards. Teachers will come to resemble Mr Gradgrind. (Dickens' 'Hard Times') I do hope America won't go down the same road as the National Curriculum here in UK. I taught for many years (fortunately) with complete freedom to teach what I chose from a broad structure. Then the straitjacket was donned. I ended up with a class of delightful eight year-olds and was forced to present The Depression and The Abdication to them. We should rather have been having fun dressing up as Knights of Old or Victorian chimney sweeps. 'English' now consists of Literacy Hour, involving dipping into short texts and extracts, a practice I deplore. The Authorities need to decide exactly what it is they define as Education. Children aren't factory fodder. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 01:29 PM (#3449310) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: pdq No, Rapper, you stop being such an ass and learn something. I doubt you have not been to a high school in Los Angeles County in recent years. The main goal of "students" there is to survive. Exposing them to J. D. Salinger is pointless when the teacher says "read this" and the students says "oh yeh, make me!". |
|
08 Dec 12 - 01:36 PM (#3449312) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: sciencegeek where did they get this info from? I didn't see the normal types of crediting sources... I will say that our biggest problem with education of late is the trend for indoctrination, than teaching kids to reason and think for themselves. And don't get me started on multiple choice testing... |
|
08 Dec 12 - 01:46 PM (#3449317) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,999 "where did they get this info from? I didn't see the normal types of crediting sources..." That's part of the reason I posted that article link. I'm trying to find out how much truth there is in it. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 01:58 PM (#3449321) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Jack the Sailor Consider that if PDQ considers Catcher in the Rye and To Kill a Mocking Bird "high literature" it may explain a lot about his lack of clear and rational thinking on this forum. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 02:07 PM (#3449323) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: pdq Another thread destined to prove that there are no grownups left on Mudcat. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 02:30 PM (#3449338) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: pdq "How to track high school graduation rates has been a contentious issue for years, with states using different methods to come up with a number. Balfanz cited that as a reason why the report does not include the names of the dropout factories. He said they will be included in a future report once all states are consistently reporting data. States are now required to use the same method to compute graduation rates based on a Bush administration rule issued in 2008. Nevada stood out for its low graduation rate of 56 percent, a decline of more than 15 percentage points from 2002 to 2009, the largest of any state, the report said...." From here: http://www.lvrj.com/news/report-nevada-stands-out-for-low-graduation-rate-143288706.html I believe the number is from dropout who left in a given year. For youngsters who were enrolled at sometime in their four years of high school age, dropout rate is more than 50%. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 03:01 PM (#3449356) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Ebbie If a child hears only rap, then rap will be either the choice to 'sing' or the child will refuse to sing at all. If a child knows only Harlequin novels, say, that will be the child's reading material – or the child will refuse the written word. If the only lifestyle known is multi-generational welfare, then welfare will be considered the norm. Exposure to diversity is essential if there is to be progress. In anything. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 03:09 PM (#3449360) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Greg F. Another thread destined to prove that there are no grownups left on Mudcat. YOU certainly haven't posted anything to refute that statement, PeeDee. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 03:21 PM (#3449369) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: pdq I used the term High Literature to describe the book mentioned in the initial post. For a couple of Mudcatters who are "thick as a brick"... from here: http://greatliteraryworks.blogspot.com/2009/07/high-literature-vs-popular-literature.html High Literature vs Popular Literature Written by son of rambow on Monday, July 06, 2009 In "Popular Literature" class—when I was a student at American Studies Gadjah Mada University majoring 'American Literature and Culture'—my classmates and I used to have lively discussion on "dichotomy" of popular literature—often considered as low quality literature—versus high-brow literature. Why should this dichotomy exist? Who has privilege to decide which kind of literature is considered pop and which is high? And why should some people feel that they have that privilege? Some literary critics said that when a work was produced only to follow what public wanted to read—just for fun or entertainment, no "deep meaning" under the surface of the story—then it would be categorized into "pop literature". In addition to that, people also said the work was only for commercial's need, because the writer needed money when writing. On the contrary, when a work was produced not only to follow public's needs, it was written more to fulfill the writer's ambition to communicate "something important" to readers, so that the work had "deep meaning", then the work could be categorized into "high-brow literature". However, when talking about Jack London's works, who would say that his works do not have deep meaning whereas London himself said that he wrote them only formoney? Literary critics even classified London's works into high-brow literature. Besides that, critics said that the parameter of high-brow literature was when one work deserved to be included into canon. The canon here usually refers to "big anthologies" such as Norton Anthology, Heath Anthology, etc. Again, I want to ask, who has privilege to select which works to be included into those anthologies? {shortened-see link} |
|
08 Dec 12 - 03:40 PM (#3449380) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: pdq Then again, people like Bobert consider Zap Comix and Fritz the Cat to be High Literature. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 04:04 PM (#3449402) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: gnu pdq... Date: 08 Dec 12 - 03:40 PM That is a troll post. It's also obnoxious and shows your low level of civility and intelligence. "No grownups?" I know of at least one that isn't. I'd say you should alologize, but spoiled children seldom do. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 04:07 PM (#3449403) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Q (Frank Staplin) The article in the Telegraph is typical of English tabloid inaccuracy. It refers to "Common Core Standards" adopted in Pennsylvania "and other states." The organization (website linked below) claims adoption by all but five states. I have a notion that the school bureaucrats in each state are kneading the "standard" to suit their own ideas. The "standards require" 50 percent non-fiction in grade schools by 2014 and growing to 70 percent in grade 12. Jami Reese, a teacher at Somersat High, calls the "standards" exciting. The "standards require science teachers to read from scientific journals, newspapers, essays, etc." as well as from textbooks. (Gee- Jimmy Falwell enters the classroom). Sounds like something drempt (dreamed) up by educators who lack any knowledge of science. Read all about this stuff here- http://www.corestandards.org/ Standards designed to be "robust and relevant to the real world." Just another cowplop pancake some educators are trying to sell. The idea will crater after a mess is made of pre-university teaching. (Don't them gits with a degree in edjicashun make you puke?) |
|
08 Dec 12 - 04:07 PM (#3449405) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: pdq Another post by someone who has nothing to contribute. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 04:13 PM (#3449413) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Bettynh Well, the Common Core Standards are here. There are no recommended books at all, just reasonable-sounding things like "a kindergarden graduate should be able to open a book, recognize that letters on a page represent words, and begin to name letters." Not exactly controversial. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 04:15 PM (#3449416) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: pdq My post was a "tie" with Q. Not aimed at him. Obviously intended for one of several other posters who regularly violate the official policy against hateful personal attacks. Perhaps the powers that be on Mudcat will just be honest and delete all rules about civility? |
|
08 Dec 12 - 04:16 PM (#3449418) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Just hewing to the standards of the initiator of this thread. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 04:33 PM (#3449441) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Q (Frank Staplin) "To appropriately cite the Common Core State Standards, use the following: Authors: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. --------------- Publisher: National Governors Association Center for Besr Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, D. C." Youall can download the standards Here: http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards Whoopee! |
|
08 Dec 12 - 04:58 PM (#3449455) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Henry Krinkle School is a waste of time and money. Give them shovels and wheelbarrows. =(:-( D) |
|
08 Dec 12 - 05:19 PM (#3449466) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Greg F. Just hewing to the standards of the initiator of this thread. Bruce initiated the thread, Q, and his standards are just fine. Pee-Dee began his usual spoiled brat, 2-year-old pissing around in the SECOND slot. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 05:55 PM (#3449492) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,Lighter > Who has privilege to decide which kind of literature is considered pop and which is high? An all too familiar question. Everybody has the privilege. If you're in a literature classroom, the teacher has the privilege because its his job. Until proven otherwise, it's reasonable to assume the teacher knows more about his subject than the student. The minute you're out, however, you can read and discuss whatever the hell you want. Shakespeare, by the way, wrote for money. As did Jack London and most other famous literary names you could mention. (Emily Dickinson didn't want to. Jane Austen and Count Tolstoy didn't have to.) "High" literature earned its reputation because enough readers found enough significance in it over a long enough time to make other people want to read it too. If you can find that kind of meaning in, say, "Forty Shades of Gray," go to it. No one will stop you. And maybe you can persuade others that it's really there. But if you can't, I wouldn't advise writing a paper on it for a "literature" class. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 06:07 PM (#3449503) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Richard Bridge People pontificating on education ought to be aware of the difference between tabloid and non-tabloid newspapers. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 06:18 PM (#3449507) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Greg F. ARE there any non-tabloid papers these days? |
|
08 Dec 12 - 07:24 PM (#3449535) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Bee-dubya-ell IMHO, tracking kids with less than stellar academic aptitudes into trade schools is anathema to the spirit of the US educational system. Kids should be allowed to take the trade school route if that's what they desire, but forcing them to do so is an entirely different matter. If it's patently obvious that a kid despises regular school, he should be encouraged to consider trade school, but some administrator deciding what direction a kid's education should take without considering the kid's desires is simply not how things are done in the US. If the kid wants to be a C student in regular school instead of learning to be a plumber, it's his right to do so. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 07:35 PM (#3449542) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: pdq Actually, that is the plan I would suggest if decisions on schools were left to me. BTW, both my parents were career school teachers. Two years of high school as we have now, then an option to go to trade school if he/she wants. Some kids have no intentions of learning so the teacher and the other students suffer. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 07:53 PM (#3449548) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Henry Krinkle They disrupt the class. Bully the teacher. Ruin everything for everybody. And laugh about it. =(:-( D) |
|
08 Dec 12 - 07:57 PM (#3449552) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,Lighter PS: Not every work of "high literature" can or will speak to every reader. In fact, probably only a minority of them will speak to any individual. That doesn't make them any less great taken all together. But the idea that every intelligent middle-schooler must/ ought to be swept up by "The Scarlet Letter" or "Silas Marner" is nonsense. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 08:04 PM (#3449555) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: pdq Yep, even if the teacher is reading to the kids. It doesn't take more than a few pages of Deerslayer or Beowulf before out come the spitwads! |
|
08 Dec 12 - 10:49 PM (#3449573) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST Crock O Bull What sort of "fiction" do California students find in: mathematics history economics science Even if the remaining subject area....language arts (which includes speaking and writing and literature) read 100% fiction (and they DO NOT) students reading in grades aged 12 to 18 FAR exceeds 70%. Typical Mudcat BS ... typical of the five trolls that live in the lower Mudcat outhouses. California requirements excell those of 97% of the world...and their rigorous r FULL teaching credential (unlike states like Iowa) has universal acceptance in all 50 |
|
08 Dec 12 - 10:59 PM (#3449577) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: artbrooks I suspect that I shall wait until I read about this change in US instructional standards in something other than a link to a UK tabloid before I get upset about it. |
|
08 Dec 12 - 11:37 PM (#3449588) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,999 http://www.ccsso.org/documents/2012/common_core_resources.pdf Pages 14 and 15 at that site contain links that will likely clear this up (for me). Thank you for the info making it possible for me to find that site. I found it difficult to believe the article as linked to in the opening post, so I asked here. That may have been a mistake, but that's as it is. Many thanks. |
|
09 Dec 12 - 12:37 AM (#3449597) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Henry Krinkle Make children earn the right to go to school. Don't just give it to them. =(:-( )) |
|
09 Dec 12 - 05:09 AM (#3449646) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: JohnInKansas The original article linked may be typical journalism for the source, and isn't a whole lot different from many other sources. It quite obviously "sensationalizes" the "news" by picking a single nit to pluck at, and unfortunately it completely distorts, mostly just by omission, the actuality. The "new curriculum" is very little different from any other of the attempts to organize goals to be achieved in teaching. It recites a lot of "good things" that should happen, and perhaps will have some influence in providing more consistent performance across participating schools. The "nit" picked out, that "factual" texts outnumber fiction and literature should be an expected result for anyone even vaguely familiar with the possible variations in what may be appropriately taught to the students. In literature, as in most other established fields, there are well known selections that have been traditionally accepted as things "everybody should know," so the list of recommended texts, while fairly broad, is significantly shorter than the list of texts applicable to other things that may be taught, but with each of the "other" applicable to fewer students. The cited example of "insulation codes" is perfectly appropriate for those who choose, or who are directed to, a particular "trade school" course of study, but very few students actually will need that one. Others who are learning different trades will require tin bending, mop swinging, coal dynamiting, pickandshoveling, and other "trade school" texts through Java programming and HTML5 (if it ever becomes a standard). The very large list of "factual" resources is because there is a lot of variation in the more narrowly defined courses of study in the alternate classes provided for those who want or need them. There are a very large number of such courses possible, but with relatively few students taking each course. It is thus necessary, to provide guidance "if you teach this you should use this book" for highly diverse and fragmented fields - and hence a whole lot of different texts/materials appropriate to the diversities there. There is NO DEMAND that every teacher, or every student, must use every text. Recommended texts are given as guidance for which texts/resources should be used for the particular classes for which they're appropriate. Since there are a lot of possibilities for what may be taught, there are a lot of source materials , but with many of the materials applicable only to a few. There is much more variety in the "trade oriented" courses than in the more generic "general eductation" curricula, with a need for many more texts/materials of limited use. It's quite obvious that the reporter who produced the article was "trade school trained" in "media management" or something similar, which unfortunately is a very popular course for those who choose not to follow a path toward literacy - apparently much the same in the UK as in the US. In both places, they could probably use better texts ... John |
|
09 Dec 12 - 07:10 AM (#3449689) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: VirginiaTam I trained to be a teacher and spent some years substitute teaching in an economically well off school system. 2 different teaching assignments included reading a piece of literature and watching a film made on said piece, class discussion and written assignments of critical comparison of film to the written story. Experience 1: Remedial English class of about twenty, 15 to 18 year olds also enrolled in the school system's trade school. I was warned by teacher friends it would be a difficult assignment because the students were not academically inclined and some were trouble makers. The students were a delight, engaged in the assignment and polite. Experience 2: Advanced level English. Only a dozen 16-17 year olds. I was told I was fortunate as this class holds the cream of the school. They were lazy, socially impaired, spoiled rotten brats. They refused to do the work set by their own teacher, gossiped about and sniped at each other like dysfunctional siblings and gave me no end of grief. If I had been given a technical manual to teach in those classes, I somehow doubt the outcome would be different, but how much less rich would the education be for those Remedial English students who were participating on every level? Teachers need to be given the scope to be creative and make the material taught as interesting and accessible as possible. This was becoming increasingly more difficult in mid to late 1990s when I took my teacher degree and started teaching. Standards of Learning (SOLs as they were then called) and the budget of the school were major factors in how much or little a teacher could do. BTW, it is not on to make a statement like Then again, people like Bobert consider Zap Comix and Fritz the Cat to be High Literature. and then whine about people not being civil. Do you own a mirror? |
|
09 Dec 12 - 07:24 AM (#3449691) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Henry Krinkle I enjoyed Zap Comix, Fritz, Mr. Natural, The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers, etc. immensely as a young teen. School bureaucracy caused me to lose interest in education. =(:-( )) |
|
09 Dec 12 - 08:58 AM (#3449714) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: sciencegeek Virginia... before I went into state service, I got my teaching certification and did my student teaching in the more affluent high school where 16 year old kids drove expensive new cars to school, sold drugs to each and had little or no respect for anyone whose paycheck relegated them to the 99 percenters... The teachers and administrators were merely servants or lackeys... talk about the sense of entitlement... yet, with two working parents... they were still latchkey kids... just with $$$. |
|
09 Dec 12 - 09:03 AM (#3449717) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Henry Krinkle A shovel and a wheelbarrow, geek. =(:-( )) |
|
09 Dec 12 - 10:25 AM (#3449748) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: pdq My crack about Zap Comix and Bobert was humor. I'm sure he has no problem with it. |
|
09 Dec 12 - 11:38 AM (#3449772) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: JohnInKansas Virgina Tam - The point that you seem to be missing is that there's nothing in the new curriculum that would ever require you to use a technical reference in a typical Advanced English Class. The tech manual cited - insulation standards - merely tells teachers presenting a class on building construction which reference on insulation is recommended when they teach that part of how to put a building together. Teachers of advanced English seldom teach nailing, wrenching, riviting, or welding, but other teachers who do teach those subjects also need guidance. Conversely, there is nothing preventing you from using a technical document from the approved list if you included segment on writing technical English if there was a reason for including that particular skill in your English class (although that particular need would be rare?). Assuming that you weren't a skilled nail bender, it would be helpful to know what tech books would be most similar to what students, who at the same time or later might be in a trade-oriented course of study, would be likely to see again. For some students, a course on "International English"1 would be more useful than "Advanced English" but I've never seen it taught in a public school and it would be of value only to a very select few students. 1 International English, in this context, is a specific vocabulary of a few hundred words, used (if one follows the regulations) in maintenance and operating manuals for (mostly military?) equipment that might be deployed among non-English speaking (and/or ESL) workers. It's very difficult to teach native English speakers to write it correctly but reasonably simple to teach almost anyone, in any language, to read it "adequately," or for someone to translate it to a local language. (Recollection is that there are/were separate specifications for a 200 word and for an 800 word vocabulary, although the "word sets" may vary from time to time.) John |
|
09 Dec 12 - 11:46 AM (#3449774) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Greg F. My crack about Zap Comix and Bobert was humor. I'll remind you of thet PeeDee next time you're whining on about someone being uncivil to poor little you. |
|
09 Dec 12 - 11:55 AM (#3449777) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Bill D The issue of curriculum & books is way more complex than that... 2 years ago in Texas from that article... "Because the Texas textbook market is so large, books assigned to the state's 4.7 million students often rocket to the top of the market, decreasing costs for other school districts and leading them to buy the same materials." Many other articles on this... Google |
|
09 Dec 12 - 12:22 PM (#3449790) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,999 '"A new school curriculum which will affect 46 out of 50 states will make it compulsory for at least 70 per cent of books studied to be non-fiction, in an effort to ready pupils for the workplace."' What I finally see is erroneous about that headline remark is this: at least 70% of the books used in schools since education became formalized have been non-fiction. |
|
09 Dec 12 - 01:26 PM (#3449813) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,Lighter The influence of the huge Texas market on the quality of American schoolbooks has been notorious for over thirty years. For example, Texans don't care much for science textbooks that accept evolution. They admire books that suggest that Washington and Jefferson held strong Christian beliefs. |
|
09 Dec 12 - 02:24 PM (#3449824) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Greg F. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of the collective censorship, suppressions, distortions and anti-intellectualism in general that have been foisted upon U.S. students by ignorant, football-worshipping fundagelical arseholes in Texas. Should be no problem to look this up with a search or two- this abuse, as Lighter says, is hardly new. |
|
09 Dec 12 - 02:40 PM (#3449830) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,Lighter Fortunately Texas has little influence over university-level texts. That's why Rick Santorum doesn't want kids to go to college. (Well, Bible colleges and tiny right-wing schools would be OK.) |
|
09 Dec 12 - 03:59 PM (#3449856) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,mg There is no curriculum that is going to work for all students. Society needs skilled workers --whether or not it can supply them with jobs in the field. A community needs electricians, plumbers, CNAs, accountants, paralegals, car repairers, hair cutters etc. If there is no employment, as exists in some areas, the community still needs the skills and they can be bartered. So skill distribution is a very important benefit of occupational education. The answer that I have heard, I believe by a former secretary of Labor, is to put every student through occupational education. For one thing, they can help earn their way through college. For another, there will be less looking down on other students, some of whom are poor at academics and brilliant at welding for example. There should be an expectation that every single student will graduate with saleable job skills and a recognized set of skills. For those who drop out early, there should have been more entry level skills taught...custodial, food service etc. in the earlier grades. And the problem with reading Shakespear?? is not the reading of it...some students might need more abridged versions, or to watch a video as well as reading etc.. I think the problem is to make them write about it and analyze it. I personally never figured any of that stuff out..could not figure out what English majors extracted from it..so just have them read it in some classes, and skip the overanalysis part..have a class discussion on it, tell them what some experts have to say and move on. |
|
09 Dec 12 - 09:08 PM (#3449962) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Q (Frank Staplin) No system of education, "common core" or whatever it's called, can be a success without these ingredients: Well-trained and dedicated teachers. Freedom to teach and learn without imposed religious and social constraints. Ability to vary content to meet the needs of a non-homogeneous group of students. Otherwise it's sink or swim. Sufficient money to provide the tools, books, equipment and physical plants needed. As pick and shovel and "shop girl" employment succumbs to automation and internet shopping, those unprepared for the future economy will be unemployed and on relief, a drain on society as a whole. |
|
09 Dec 12 - 11:39 PM (#3449988) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Songwronger That greatliteraryworks article is interesting. Most of what we regard as great literature was written for money. Shakespaere, like someone mentioned. Eugene O'Neill comes to mind. All stage plays are written with production in mind. So writing for money doesn't rule out a work being great. As far as deeper meaning being the mark of great literature, who determines what deeper meaning is? I've always liked sci-fi because it can examine things like mixed marriages in a roundabout way. Instead of a negroid/caucasoid marriage, you can have a Reptilian/Human marriage and still deliver a tolerance message. You can bury messages in sci-fi. Comedy, too. Court jesters can get away with kidding a tyrant while a straight-faced critic would be executed. |
|
10 Dec 12 - 08:09 AM (#3450076) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,Eliza I agree with much of what Q says. Skilled teachers, and the freedom to adapt the curriculum to one's students' needs is very important. A gifted teacher can prepare study plans without reference to a straitjacket of a National Curriculum. Especially at Primary level, the main aim is to engender joy and enthusiasm for learning, plus the basic skills to do so. I always found teaching to be a bit like entertainment. The 'audience reaction' influenced one's next move. 'Keep 'em interested'. Even old Shakespoke can be made fascinating by an imaginative and enthusisatic teacher. I was much blessed as a teenager to have Mr Shears, who made it all come alive. Once the young become bored, you've more or less had it. Very interesting idea from Guest mg, to have every student cover occupational training. Could be a good thing. It would give equal status to technical subjects and specialisation could be delayed until the student had decided on his/her vocation later on. |
|
10 Dec 12 - 12:34 PM (#3450168) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,Stim Songwronger hit the nail on the head when he said: "As far as deeper meaning being the mark of great literature, who determines what deeper meaning is? I've always liked sci-fi because it can examine things like mixed marriages in a roundabout way. Instead of a negroid/caucasoid marriage, you can have a Reptilian/Human marriage and still deliver a tolerance message. You can bury messages in sci-fi. Comedy, too. Court jesters can get away with kidding a tyrant while a straight-faced critic would be executed." mg's idea about occupational training is important, or we'll end up with a world full of eloi and morlocks, and we know where that goes... |
|
10 Dec 12 - 02:13 PM (#3450212) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: pdq In the United States, most people equate "education" with a "liberal arts" education. Liberal arts majors are prepared for jobs like teacher, lawyer, government paper-pusher, entertainer or politician. Science and engineering majors are in demand in industry. In fact, it is often quite difficullt to find qualified people to teach science, even at the high school level. It isn't a knock on the reading of great books to suggest that the balance in our education system is now away from science, math and job preparation. Japan and China are kicking out butts in those areas. |
|
10 Dec 12 - 02:37 PM (#3450223) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Greg F. So, PeeDee: what do China and Japan spend on education compared to the US? And are educators in those countries subject to the same crap salaries and constant denigration and slander that's their lot in the U.S.? |
|
10 Dec 12 - 03:41 PM (#3450237) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,Stim Actually, PDQ, a lot of those Chinese students come to the US for their education, and the numbers are increasing fast. Number of Chinese Students in US dramatically expands Indian and Korean students are coming here in record numbers too(you can google that yourself). The Japanese have tapered off a lot, reflecting the fact that Japan is losing it's clout in the world economy. Actually, though it is highly unfashionable to say it, an American Education is a valuable commodity in the world market, and more than half a million students from around the world come here every year and pay top dollar for it. They bring a lot of spending money with them, too. |
|
10 Dec 12 - 04:03 PM (#3450240) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: pdq Actually, there is an obvious flaw in that reasoning. The youngsters we are talking about on this thread are the K-12 pupils in our public education system. The students you are talking about are college level. It's the old "apples'n'oranges" bit. Stanford University is not unusual in having a trust fund and a great deal of private money to support it. Very few of its students are going to come from East LA even though both are in California. |
|
10 Dec 12 - 04:29 PM (#3450250) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,999 "The youngsters we are talking about on this thread are the K-12 pupils in our public education system." That's correct in a sense, PDQ. However, international tests are done in grades 4, 8 and 12. There is one other international test administered students who are 15-year-old so when international test scores get confused with what's happening specifically in US education, the difference becomes one of apples and vineyards. |
|
10 Dec 12 - 04:41 PM (#3450253) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Greg F. So, PeeDee- ya gonna answer my questions, or just keep running off at the mouth? |
|
10 Dec 12 - 06:13 PM (#3450285) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,Stim The K-12 pupils in our public education system are the ones who fill most of the seats in American Colleges and Universities. |
|
10 Dec 12 - 06:44 PM (#3450296) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: pdq Your point about there being 500K Chinese students in our colleges and universities is fine, but it seems hard to connect that to the merits of high schoolers reading Catcher in the Rye. I doubt that any of those Chinese students know the difference between J. D. Salinger and Pierre Salinger. |
|
10 Dec 12 - 06:59 PM (#3450301) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Stringsinger Everyone should be entitled to free education. A well rounded education includes the humanities, (art, literature, music) and not just dry blueprints to make a young person a cog in a corporate wheel. I think the Gates are really off the mark here, but they are biased in favor of their respective talents. I don't care what grades a person receives as long as they are exposed to real education which entails learning how to think for yourself and appreciate the subtleties of life. Americans are being dumbed down by Neil Bush and the new textbook purveyors and I certainly don't agree that those who do well in trades should be limited to that education. A car mechanic has the ability to appreciate intellectual pursuits or the fine arts and this is evident in other countries other than the rubber stamp educational methods in the U.S. At the same time, a musician should learn to change a flat tire, balance their checkbook or negotiate a contract. This compartmentalization in education is obnoxious and condescending. Under a socialist model, education could be made available to all. |
|
10 Dec 12 - 07:44 PM (#3450326) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: pdq The point about science fiction having merit should deserve a "second". Authors Gene Roddenbury, Isaac Asimov, Jules Verne and H. G. Wells were all hyper-intelligent and used the writing to help people negotiate some complex issues. |
|
10 Dec 12 - 07:58 PM (#3450330) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,999 Isaac Asimov wrote approximately 400 books in his life. Many of them were sci-fi, but he also wrote science books in a way that kids could understand. Thanks to Isaac Asimov I was able to get a glimpse into chemistry that I wasn't smart enough for in high school--I was in the 'Arts' stream--read bo-bo class, or at least that's what we called it. Asimov's journeys through the human body helped me understand anatomy and how the body works. He wrote a concordance to the complete works of Shakespeare and another for the Bible--old and new testaments. His limericks are fun to read, and his ability to explain the most difficult of subjects made him a fantastic teacher. He held a doctorate in biochemistry, and is AFAIK the only author to have books in all ten categories of the Dewey Decimal System. |
|
11 Dec 12 - 04:34 AM (#3450422) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,Eliza I have always thought that 'success' of pupils in Korea, Japan, China etc is measured by their excellent ability at maths, reading and writing. This (I suspect) is because they are drilled mercilessly like robots, until they're perfect. Homework is relentless. I have also heard that some Japanese students commit suicide in despair if their marks aren't high enough. Is this really the type of education we want for our young people? And how does one measure the 'success' of an education anyway? Tests aren't enough. I would suggest that the enrichment of the person's experiences, love of learning, curiosity about the world, wisdom and enlightenment must all play a part in a 'good' education. It also is non-finite, and one continues to learn all ones life. Maybe none of this fills places at the factory bench. Tough! |
|
11 Dec 12 - 09:24 AM (#3450474) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,999 Warren Pryor by Alden Nowlan When every pencil meant a sacrifice his parents boarded him at school in town, slaving to free him from the stony fields, the meagre acreage that bore them down. They blushed with pride when, at his graduation, they watched him picking up the slender scroll, his passport from the years of brutal toil and lonely patience in a barren hole. When he went in the Bank their cups ran over. They marvelled how he wore a milk-white shirt work days and jeans on Sundays. He was saved from their thistle-strewn farm and its red dirt. And he said nothing. Hard and serious like a young bear inside his teller's cage, his axe-hewn hands upon the paper bills aching with empty strength and throttled rage. |
|
11 Dec 12 - 09:50 AM (#3450484) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,Stim GUEST 999-I learned a lot of from Isaac Asimov when I was growing up, and wondered, then and now, we were using textbooks that were boring and hard to understand. PDQ-My point was just informational. I personally think "Catcher in the Rye" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" are great books. I am not actually very happy with our schools, because I think we spend too much and get too little, which I tend to blame politicians and administrators for more than I blame teachers. Eliza-I have a friend who taught in China more than 20 years ago, and he says that Chinese education is very much focussed on memorization, and the society traditionally has valued structure and order. Our emphasis interpretation and creativity, and especially "Thinking outside the box" are new to them. |
|
11 Dec 12 - 09:59 AM (#3450488) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,Stim If my friend had given his students "Warren Pryor"(and he might have), they would have simply memorized it. It would not have occurred to them to them to analyze or interpret it. That's why he(and many other American teachers) had been hired. |
|
11 Dec 12 - 10:24 AM (#3450497) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Jeri Scoring standardized tests that get dissed by people who talk about schools "teaching to the test", I'm not sure whether it means the people who complain would rather it was all about memorization. The test scores are based on comprehension, and the highest scores would go to the kid who "gets it". I think doing well in school, by any standard, involves understanding. |
|
11 Dec 12 - 11:07 AM (#3450511) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,999 Good points, Stim. Many years back when I taught some special needs students I wanted to help the kids learn to use calculators. Staff consensus was that I should teach them how to add, subtract, etc., without calculators. I asked how long the school had been trying to do that with these kids (who by this time were young teenagers). I pointed to one of those adage posters that gets tacked on school walls. It read, "The height of insanity is doing what you've always done while expecting to get different results." We got the calculators. Expectations of graduate high school students have changed over the years. Publicly-funded education is 'by definition' always behind the curve when it comes to teaching skill sets in specific disciplines. We can see that in areas where technology out-strips the abilities of any schools to keep pace. Computers, programming, graphic design, biology with reference to genomes, mathematics with reference to string theory and multidimensional calculation, etc. The trades have been affected by technological advances: laser sights to level drop ceilings, nail guns, calculators, etc. At some point we have to consider what is driving what. Should schools become part of an assembly line that produces students to order? Do we measure the worth of education based on whether students can 'slip in' to certain university courses or jobs? If so, then critical viewing should become part of every schools curriculum because in 60 years television has changed society. It went from being an entertainment/information source to whatever it has become today. What's the solution? I don't know. |
|
11 Dec 12 - 11:42 AM (#3450518) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,Stim Jeri- the problem with "standardized tests" in the Orwellian world of "No Child Left Behind" is that test scores are being used to evaluate the effectiveness of schools and teachers. This doesn't seem like a problem(it didn't to the politicians who set it up), but the "East LA" kids that PDQ mentioned above don't bring reading, writing, and math skills from home like the kids in, say Palo Alto(where Stanford University is). That means that a teacher in the "good school" doesn't have to work very hard for scores in the highest percentiles, while the teacher in the "bad school" has to work really hard to get kids into the "Basic" range. Teaching is a one-on-one enterprise. A good teacher knows when a student is ready to move on, and when they need more instruction. A student won't learn faster because legislation requires it, or because an administrator promises it. |
|
11 Dec 12 - 12:06 PM (#3450528) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,999 If standardized tests results are ever to be improved across the nation, people better take a good look at the co-relation between family income and test results by students, schools, districts and states. We may be testing the wrong things. |
|
11 Dec 12 - 12:14 PM (#3450531) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,Eliza 999, thank you so much for that very moving poem. It made me a little sad, as I was desperate to be a nurse, and my parents, striving to climb socially from their working-class backgrounds, were determined that I should go to University and become a middle-class professional of some sort. I shall always be grateful to them in many ways, and I did become a teacher (my sister a doctor). But I feel to this day I'd have been blissfully happy as a Nurse in developing countries, under eg Medecins Sans Frontieres. Which shows that each pupil is an individual with his/her own potential and ambition. Finding out what these are and helping them to achieve their destiny in life is what education really is. A tall order! |
|
11 Dec 12 - 01:22 PM (#3450562) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,Stim The sad thing is that people have been looking at the correlation between poverty and educational achievement for a long time. People don't really want to deal with it. |
|
11 Dec 12 - 01:29 PM (#3450565) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,999 Thank you, Eliza. |
|
11 Dec 12 - 01:41 PM (#3450567) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,999 Poverty's role in bad U.S. test scores August 12, 2012 Pittsburgh Post Gazette Educators are always interested in improving teacher evaluation, and Anne Faigen's comments ("Evaluating Teachers Is Not So Easy," Aug. 5 Forum) are helpful. Her essay also, unfortunately, contributes to the impression that there is a crisis in teacher quality in the United States. Our international test scores are low, we're often told, and the problem is bad teaching. Hence, we need better methods of evaluating teachers. Our international test scores are unspectacular, but the reasons are not related to teacher quality (or parents or unions or schools of education): Middle-class American students who attend well-funded schools rank at the top of the world on international tests. The problem is poverty: Our average test scores are mediocre because the United States has such a high level of child poverty, the second highest among economically advanced countries (23 percent). Study after study shows that poverty has a devastating effect on school performance. The current obsession with teacher quality and evaluation of teachers should be replaced with an obsession to protect children from the impact of poverty: Make sure all children are well-fed, have proper health care and have access to reading material. STEPHEN KRASHEN Los Angeles The writer is professor emeritus of the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. |
|
11 Dec 12 - 02:34 PM (#3450583) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,Stim SAT Scores and Family Income For those who don't have time to check, basically, it shows that, in math, reading, and writing, and overall, the higher the family income, the higher the SAT score. |
|
11 Dec 12 - 03:22 PM (#3450596) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: pdq There is a strong correlation between family income and success in school. That is not the case with the amount of money spent on education. "The most recent figures available from the U.S. Department of Education show that in 2000 the average tuition for private elementary schools nationwide was $3,267. Government figures also indicate that 41 percent of all private elementary and secondary schools -- more than 27,000 nationwide -- charged less than $2,500 for tuition. Less than 21 percent of all private schools charged more than $5,000 per year in tuition. According to these figures, elite and very expensive private schools tend to be the exception in their communities, not the rule." New Jersey schools average about $14,000 per pupil each year and are some of the lowest rated schools in the country. |
|
11 Dec 12 - 04:09 PM (#3450623) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,mg I have worked in many low-income schools and I can tell you that teacher quality is a huge factor. Just because more prosperous communities do better means nothing from a research point of view. They can hire and retain "better" teachers for the types of kids they have. Some of the teachers I worked with would have been fine in higher income schools, with students from their own socioeconomic and racial "class"..I put it in quotes but we are still a class society. Not every student can learn every thing. Not every teacher can teach every student. Not every student can learn much from every teacher. A prime consideration is a match of student to teacher. In the first place, too many are women. Half the students are boys. Something almsot never talked about..and this research is pretty old and might have to be refreshed or disputed...is that people tend to sort themselves out into about six to eight occupational categories..that is, they are going to be reasonably satisfied and successful if they get into the right category..now, some will be dental hygenists and some will be dentists. Some will be construction workers and some will be civil engineers..but if they are in the right category they will probably be OK. Here is the problem..most people are in what at least used to be in the "realistic" category..that produces the people who build things, who fix things..who are very hands on, probably good with tools etc. Very few teachers are in that category. Most are in more of a social type category. They mean well..but they see the world differently than most of their students. You have boys who learn differently than girls and you have them taught by women teachers. You have the Mr. Fix-it type of students, many of them boys, taught by female teachers who would be great at teaching them poetry if they were inclined, but can not teach them how to build and sell a picnic table in wood shop. You have (things are better now than they were I hope) white, retirement age, female teachers teaching, one hopes, inner city, poverty-stressed, semi-orphaned children. So some very good teachers who could be matched with appropriate children, who might be 1/4 of the population, will do very well. Most will not, and most will not see or agree that there is a match problem when it is staring them in the face. I have two master's degrees in education and I won't work in the area unless it is in occupational education of some type. I just have too much disparity with the teachers and principals etc...although I am the exact one who could work with their potential welders and engineers and nurses with very good results..but they drive people out who would be a good match for the potential dropouts and the underachievers. Sorry..I will try to help once I retire but it is an uphill battle I don't have the energy to pursue. |
|
11 Dec 12 - 04:45 PM (#3450644) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST Hate to do this this, PDQ, because I think you've got a good point there, but the cost of private school is way more than you've got listed--this article, quotes statistics from the National Association of Independent Schools, who say the average is $22,000 per year. Private School Financial Aid Religious schools, or, as they like to call them, Parochial Schools, are much less--depending on where you are,Catholic schools can run around $5k for elementary and $10k for secondary. Quaker Schools, which have about the best reputation, run considerably more(and tend to have a very low percentage of Quakers). The money spent on schools, and the money spent on education are not the same thing. The largest expense in our school district is transportation. Teacher'pension funds are a huge expense(not necessarily against this, just pointing it out). The cost of actual instruction is pretty close to that of building and property maintenance. I think education is really important, but I also think that we need to get some of those Walmart people involved to help get the costs down where we can afford them. |
|
11 Dec 12 - 04:54 PM (#3450648) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,999 PDQ, the co-relation I (and others) spoke of is not the amount of money spent on education. It refers to poverty in the home and test results. |
|
11 Dec 12 - 05:33 PM (#3450675) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: pdq I agreed with that stsement in the first line of the post. Here are some newer numbers on private school costs: http://www.capenet.org/facts.html I can't find an article right now but Red Bankm New Jersey is over $20,000 per student. |
|
11 Dec 12 - 07:08 PM (#3450708) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,mg You can't wait to get rid of poverty to improve education. You have to educate children where they are, at what level they are. Some people can do this; most are probably not great at it. First of all, there is something that used to be called direct education. It requires an extra person in the classroom, like an instructional assistant, but it has kindergarteners reading at probably 4th grade levels. It works. I have seen it. I have seen the children read. No reason not to do that with most children who need it..some don't need it and some will not work well with that kind of instruction..but if you have a poverty-stricken school I would start with that. You need good or perhaps excellent trades and pre-professions and all sorts of guidance and instruction on how to prepare for college or further technical schools in the high schools. In junior high you need to be teaching them skills that would at least lead to minimum wage jobs and you can..they can cook, they can clean, they can be learning about computers surely. They can work with hand tools. They can sew. They can build things. They want to. THey evolved to do these things and get very frustrated when they don't get to. Boys probably worse than girls.. You can provide routes out of poverty through occupational education. Skills can be sold. A student who had serious cooking classes in middle school can get a job more easily than one who has not. A student who has had a couple of years of pre-nursing training can probably get a job to work her way through nursing school. THey can graduate with less debt. There are tons of work study jobs..or were..more than were students to fill them in colleges I have worked at. You need school nurses. They are practical, intelligent people. You need a principal who takes charge of discipline and does not say oh the vice principal is in charge of that and I will do the loftier stuff. You need home economics and you need shop and you need typing and computers and some highly technical stuff. We need to produce students who can survive bad economies, bad parenting, terrible tragedies like Sandy..would you rather have kids in your neighborhood who knew some home construction and some mass cooking and some health care if you had a situation like Sandy or would you rather that they were made to read Catcher in the Rye until they "got it." Would you rather have a daughter who could repair her own and your cars? It is not only what is good for the students. It is what is good for their families, their communities. And remember, if they are old enough to drop out of school, they are possibly old enough to have children. They need to be better prepared. They need to be told poverty can be gotten out of, although they might have to move, which is tough. They need to be taught a lot about alternative energies and electricity..if there are no jobs they should rewire every home on their reservation if needed. They should be able to construct homes. Some do. These are not very high-reaching goals. We used to routinely do it. The wrong people are in charge. |
|
11 Dec 12 - 09:04 PM (#3450748) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,Stim Here's an article that compares the amount of money states spend and compares it to a ranking of the quality of education How Much States Spend on Their Kids Really Does Matter. In spite of the articles title, the results that they show don't actually show that states that spend more provide better education. Massachussetts spends the $13k, and, according to them, has the best schools. New Jersey spends $17k, and comes in 4th. However, Colorado, which is in the bottom 10 on spending, at $9k, is in the top ten on quality of education. Wyoming spends the most per pupil, ant about $18k, but comes in at 29. Some other things are obviously going on. |
|
12 Dec 12 - 03:55 PM (#3451058) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: Bettynh Here are a couple links for your consideration: Sir Ken Robinson Salman Kahn Both are TEDtalks, a favorite form of entertainment for me. Certainly, computers are and will be changing the way schools work. Do you think the idea that each child should be given a computer (or tablet) is a good idea? I'm not talking logistics at the moment. My guess is that within 5 years tablets will be cheaper than textbooks. Certainly for math/technical subjects, the Kahn Academy model makes a lot of sense. |
|
12 Dec 12 - 08:42 PM (#3451181) Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools? From: GUEST,999 Thanks for those links, Bettynh. I loved Robinson's presentation. |