From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: CHILL OUT
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:21:47 GMT

In article <00717820745@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>From article <BvBn33.6pJ@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, by brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder):
>> In article <00717615264@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>>>From article <Bv5M9r.MM6@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, by hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin):
>>>>>   Sometimes I feel that educators are so plagued by the
>>>>>political issues that they forget their main goal:  to educate
>>>>>our students.

>>>Nobody cares to read their history books nowdays.

>>That's because the purpose of history books is no longer to convey information
>>about history.  They are supposed to instill "racial pride", "universal
>>tolerance", "good citizenship", and "a feeling for history". Who needs to have

>This has been true for quite some time. I grew up in the early 70's using
>grade school history books from the late 50's/early 60's, and they were the
>exact same way -- they were supposed to instill "love of country" and
>"patriotism" and "moral values", rather than teach history.

I don't disagree that the state of history education has been bad for a long
time, but that doesn't excuse the horrid job that is currently done.

>Not to mention that the current Texas curriculum does not include any
>history at all at the elementary school level. 

That's inexcusable.  I suppose that was done in the name of improved
"relevance".

>Instead, it has a bunch of
>nonsense about "answer multiple choice questions about Texas geography with
>80% accuracy". I don't give a flying fleep about whether the kid can answer
>multiple choice questions. I have a kid in my class who can answer multiple
>choice questions all day without the foggiest notion about the geography of
>Texas. What I care about is whether the kid knows this stuff and can apply
>it. The application being important. What do you tell some inner-city kid
>who has never been two blocks outside his neighborhood? 

You teach him what a block is, what a mile is, what a county is, what the 
country is, what the world is, that a government is, how each of these 
relate to him, and why not being ignorant about history and geography is a
bad thing.  I doubt an inner city kid is much more ignorant of geography
and history than any other kid.  How many kids really travel a lot and know
where they are when they do?

>>>Nobody cares to look at
>>>eighty years of educational research, much of which is garbage but enough
>>>of which is valid to be a good guide to educational practice.

>> My experience is that almost all of it is garbage.  If everyone knows this,
>> how can you explain the fact that so much of it continues to be produced?

>Educational research continues to be produced for the same reason that
>physics research continues to be produced -- because we don't know
>everything there is to know about the universe. The universe including
>teaching kids, of course.

That sounds a bit naive.  Professors in schools of education (and new 
education PhDs have to do "research" to get their teaching positions).
The same is sometimes true for physicists, but at least some of them have
a clue about new discoveries.  Tell me, of the thousands and thousands of
educational research projects done over the last 30 years, how many have had
anything worthwhile to say?  How many have actually improved the educational
habits of teachers?  If so, how much?  Is it really a wise use of money to
spend money on this "research"?

>Surely you don't say that all physics research is garbage just because
>there are hundreds of physics papers published each year?

Of course not.  I think that some of it is useful because some of it has
useful results or at least identifies facts about nature unknown before.
I can't say the same about educationist research.  The quantity is 
irrelevant if the quality is bad.

>> Of course that's not what they call it in public, but can you tell me what
>> else you can call a process by which a student spends 13 years in school
>> and cannot read and write if it is not "warehousing"?  What do you call it?
>> "Education"?

>I'd call it incompetence on the part of the principal, is what I'd call it.

From what I have seen, principals generally do not have the power to do much
about teacher incompetence and stupid curricula.

>Any kid who has gotten through 13 years of school and learned nothing has
>been raped in the worst way, and any principal who allows this sort of
>thing to happen in his school needs to be immediately fired. 

No argument there.

>I've never attempted to say that I agree with the way the current
>educational system is organized. I don't. In fact, I have, in the past,
>advocated Pell-grant style vouchers and school-based control rather than
>the current setup.

I like the idea too, but I prefer the idea of a tax credit instead.  That
removes the illusion that it is state money what funds the school.  It is
more obvious to all involved that the money is coming from the parents when
there are checks with the parent's signature on them.

>>>For one thing, it is
>>>impossible to manage a classroom full of students who are being "merely
>>>warehoused". Or, as the saying goes, "idle hands are the Devil's tools."
>>>You must have the kids doing SOMETHING, or else it degenerates into mayhem.

>> Oh sure, they do SOMETHING.  They fill out work sheets,
                                              ^^^^ ^^^^^^
>  In my opinion, all worksheets should immediately be burned and replaced
>  with assignments that require at least full sentences (preferably
>  paragraphs and essays, depending upon the age of the child).

I completely agree.

>> they engage in role playing, they have group discussions,

>Uhm -- what's wrong with role-playing? I've found role-playing to be quite

You are talking about practice and experimentation.  When I refer to role-
playing I am referring to cases where the students study "eskimo culture"
and then act out what a seal hunt is like (some are leaders, some carve the
meat, others cook the blubber, others just watch and eat).  This teaches
nothing.  It is just a way of wasting time.

>In my opinion, any classroom which does not contain a large amount of this
>sort of "play" is a classroom where no learning is taking place.

Role-playing and practice and experimentation are different things. 
You are experimenting if you write a test program.  You are role-playing
if you pretend to be Alan Turing.

>Group discussions are the same way. When you and I are on the job, when we
>hit a snag we don't go crying to a professor or supervisor. No. We go hunt
>up a co-worker who might be able to help. 

Sure, and that person teaches you.  The thing that gets me is "discussion
groups" where students with no skills or knowledge in an area are asked to
"share their feelings".  For example, a group of 4th graders might be asked
to have a discussion group where they "discuss" their feelings about nuclear
war.  They probably know little about geopolitics, or economics, or communism,
of nuclear physics, or military strategy, yet, the class time is considered 
better spent having the kids listen to other ignorant children, than listening
to a knowledgable adult.

>In the end, we have to decide: is
>the desired outcome of education knowledge, or grades? If knowledge, then
>group discussions are a great way to find out what each kid doesn't know,
>and a great way to re-teach the concepts that the kids don't have.

Feedback is a great thing, but discussion groups are not the best way to 
get it.

>> they have field trips, and class  projects, and school assemblies,
>> and pep rallies, and driver education, and > a thousand other things.
>>What they DON'T do is bother with education.

>I see. And how long has it been since you've been in a school, and which
>school was it? 

I guess it has been abou 4 years, but I read a lot about education and I
discuss education with teachers I know as often as I can.

>How do you know this with such certainty? I repeat: they
>*DO* bother with education. They just don't have a clue how to do it,

My experience is mainly that there are two kinds.  Those with desire and
no clue, and those who have burned out and no longer care.

>usually, and thus do it "the way it 'spozed to be" rather than the way that
>the research says we ought to do it.

Just what research might that be?

>> Would you accept this kind of attitude and behavior among physicians?  Car
>> manufacturers?  What do you think the results of this kind of incompetence
>> would be in those cases?  those are pretty lame excuses.  If they can't do
>> their jobs, they should be fired.  It's too bad the unions won't allow it.

>I agree perfectly. What do you think I've been saying? Do you think I've
>been excusing the behavior? No. 

I did get that impression.  I'm glad you cleared it up.

>I've been saying that you're wrong when you
>say they don't care. They do care. They just don't have a clue. But you,
>dear sir, seem to be similarly clueless. What would you suggest past
>"firing the teachers"? My own particular bias would be towards eliminating
>the "public school" as such, with its central heirarchy and state
>regulation, and go to a decentralized system with schools run by parents
>and principals. 

That's a pretty good first step.  I think there is a lot more to be done
with regard to goals, attitudes, curricula, etc.  Actually, I am writing a
book on exactly that subject.

>By the way, the unions are no problem down here in Texas. You can basically
>fire a teacher any time you want to with no problem. Most principals don't
>bother. Which says a lot about school administration.

That's pretty amazing.  In Michigan where I am from, a tenured teacher is
practically impossible to fire unless they commit some gross crime (like raping
a student or something).

>>>> their best to see that the bright cannot learn more than the stupid, what

>>>Nobody TRIES to assure that the bright cannot learn more than the stupid.

>> My experience has been that they exert a considerable effort toward that
>> end.

>Perhaps you should read Diane Ravitch's history of American education
>before you jump to conclusions. 

I look at it, but I didn't think it looked worth reading.  What is your 
evaluation?

>The current structure of American schooling
>basically jelled in the 1920's and 1950's, two eras when schools were
>overwhelmed by the demand for education and had little ability to deal with
>high or low achievers due to simple overcrowding and staff burnout. Nobody
>goes out of their way to give high or low achievers a bad education. 

But they DO go out of their way to try to turn high-achievers into
mediocre students (to "fit in better").

>>>That's just how the system is organized. I am of the opinion that it is
>>>impossible to do anything else within the current educational system, which
>>>has no place for mentorships and semi-independent study.

>> What makes you think that bright students need independent study?

>Because that's the only way I've ever learned anything? I don't know. Why?

I learned about the same way, but that is not because it was such a great and
easy task.  It was because teaching myself was the only alternative to
the non-teaching the education system offered.

>I know that at college I did a lot of independent study even though I was
>supposedly with other "bright" people. Structured coursework simply drives
>me crazy. I don't like it.

I disliked much of the "structured work" I was forced to do too, but I blame
it more on the poor quality of the work than the idea of structured work
itself.  In fact, the few really good teachers I have had over my 19 years of
education were quite "structured".

>> What they need is education.

>I'm confused. If education implies the aquisition of knowledge, and it is
>possible for a very bright kid to learn to his potential via mentorship and
>semi-independent study -- what's the problem?

That's just the point.  I think that having no teacher is better than 
having a bad one if that is the only option, but a better option would be to
have a GOOD teacher.

>> They are just able to go through more material more quickly.

>Hooboy. You can tell that you're not a teacher.

>The difference between "bright" kids and "dull" kids is NOT just the rate
>at which they go through material. The primary difference is their ability
>to *THINK*.

Sure, and that ability allows them to learn more quickly.  Rate is not
the ONLY difference, but it is ONE difference.

>Bright kids, in my experience, can draw conclusions from related facts and
>otherwise do high-level inferencing skills.

True enough.  They also can digest material more quickly.

>"dull" kids, on the other hand, can do no such thing. 

Actually, I think that this is a very common misconception.  I have found that 
slower kids very often are perfectly capable of thinking, but teachers do 
their best to prevent the kids from having an opportunity to practice.

>You can condition a
>dull kid via behavioral methods to be a "good reader" (i.e., be able to
>read prose and regurgitate it). But teaching him to actually draw
>conclusions based upon what he has read...

I completely disagree!  It's hard to teach much of anything by behavioral 
methods, and kids who do poorly in school appear perfectly capable of thinking
in non-school areas.  I blame the teachers for teaching a lot of implicit 
and explicit lessons of anti-intellectualism.

>Needless to say, the bright kid doesn't need just more of what the dull
>kid gets. He needs a DIFFERENT education.

True up to a point.  I think that BOTH need an education which demands 
thinking.  Getting an unthinking education is a contradiction in terms
don;t you think?

>> Of course working alone apart from the influence of teachers IS better than
>> being in a class that bores the student into oblivion, but it is NOT a good
>> education.

>Uhm, what is this "good education" that you're talking about? I'm confused.
>You've used the term over and over again, and never operatively defined it.

Well, I should be publishing a few hundred pages explaining exactly that at
some point.  It's not something I can express ina sentence.

>> Actually, since brighter kids are usually easier to teach,

>WHAT!!!??? You, dear sir, have obviously *NEVER* taught!

On the contrary, I have taught kids of various skill levels and I definitely
find the brighter kids much easier and more enjoyable.  I have heard the
other opinion expressed before, but usually by people who are not 
comfortably ahead of their students intellectually.

>Bright kids will rip your guts out and hang you to dry. Bright kids will
>challenge you until your tongue is hanging out and you're panting for
>mercy. Bright kids will give you sleepless nights and frantic days as you
>scurry hither and fro trying to find a challenge for them.

Actually, I have never really had a hard time coming up for challenges for
such kids.  As long as you can dish it out faster than they can gulp it
down, they love it and it's no problem.

>What reality do you live in, anyhow? It certainly isn't mine! Most teachers
>will run in terror if given the opportunity to teach "gifted and talented"
>students. 

They certainly do.  Do you think that the bright kids don't know that?
What sort of implicit lesson do you think such cowardly attitudes toward
strong intellects teaches them?  Seeing a teacher cower in fear from an
intelligent student is one of the most disgusting attitudes I can think of.

>The work of teaching them is tremendously reinforcing -- they
>learn in leaps and bounds, and it's always great to see your hard work
>paying off -- but it is *HARD*. Much harder than teaching "dull" kids, who
>might challenge you physically but never intellectually.

Personally, I find teaching dull kids much harder.  If nothing else, they
are much more difficult to motivate and they have been taught a lot of bad
mental habits by other teachers which I end up having to undo.  This applies to
teaching adults too.  When I was in grad school I taught a class full of 
high school teachers and the less bright ones had learned a lot of little
"tricks" for getting by without learning anything.  When I made it clear that 
I wasn't willing to accept such work, they pouted and threw tantrums.  I can
imagine how they treated THEIR students!

>Are you sure you're still on this planet? Did you accidently step through
>Dr. Strange's door to another dimension? Hmm...

I'm on Earth.  I just didn't learn teaching by going to teaching school.

>In my opinion, if we're going to say that the high school diploma means
>something, we might as well define what it means educationally and then
>give it out whenever the kid masters that material.

Would you apply this to grade-level material too?  For example, if a kid
was not ready to graduate from high school yet, but was ready for work 3 years 
ahead of his chronological grade level, should he be advanced?  I think
so.

>> Why not just put all of the smartest kids in the school together and have
>> one teacher do one lesson plan for them?

>You've obviously *NEVER* dealt with gifted and talented students from a
>teacher's point of view. 

Wrongo.  I have taught various kinds of kids over the years.  It is not hard to
teach intelligent students as long as you are smarter than they are.  If 
you aren't, you are right, they'll eat you alive.

>Each one is wildly individualistic. Their
>abilities in no way match. 

So are other kids.  They just get away with it more because they are not as
intellectually independent.  As I said, I have little problem teaching bright
kids as long as I know more abou the subject matter than they do.

>One might be great in math and practically
>illiterate in English. 

But their general ability is sufficient to allow progress in all areas.
Why not just put the math genius in the math genius class and if he 
doesn't know much geography, put him in a normal class for that subject.

>In a word: Get a clue.

I have plenty of clues, than you.

>There's solutions out there. But the one you offered, though a time-worn
>one, isn't a particularly good one when it comes to educating genius.

So you don;t think that having teachers present accelerated materials to 
smart kids accomplishes anything good?  By what logic can you conclude
otherwise?

>>>The question is, "what knowledge do we test?". And to what level of
>>>competence? >

>> Gee, every other profession in the economy seems to have no problem determining
>> who is competent and who is not.

>Huh?

>I came into teaching from the computer industry. I can assure you that half
>the folks I met in the field were incompetent for the job they were doing.

I wonder where you were working?  I have seen some incompetent folks in the 
business, but they are pretty quickly weeded out in my experience, not given
tenure.

>They were there because they snow-jobbed the engineering manager, or were
>related to the owner of the business, or whatever. But I've seen no more
>cases of incompetence in teaching than I did in the computer business.

What planet are YOU on?  What kinda weeds have YOU been smoking?

>In any event: the National Teacher Exam purportedly says whether a teacher
>is "competent" or not. It is a simple test of knowledge.

That's like saying that the Teamsters know who is a good truck driverf.

>The last time somebody supported a VOLUNTARY certification for computer
>professionals, they almost burned the house of the person who supported
>such a "demeaning" thing.

But we aren't an incompetent mob working for a huge centralized bureaucracy.

>>>I didn't need a degree in Physics to do this, though. What I did
>>>need was the ability to put it into kid language, and the ability to listen
>>>to his questions and try to clarify things as much as possible.
>> that is certainly a good skill to have, but if the only thing a kid ever
>> learns is a "kid version" of the knowledge in school, when does he ever get
>> a chance to learn the real thing?

>In Physics class, obviously. Do you expect me to suddenly veer into
>Newtonian physics in the 4th grade during a lesson on Texas geography? 

I did not say that one ought to ignore the kid's context.  My point was that 
education involves the enlarging of that context and therefore cannot occur
if explanations are careful to never add any concepts.  Clearly,
the complex mathematics of physics would be a bit hard for most 4th graders,
but you could introduce some of the simple mathematical concepts 
quite easily (especially if he's a bright 4th graders).  I once taught the
basics of trigonometry to a 5th grader in about two hours and a few days 
later (when the teacher I worked for yelled at me for "confusing" the poor child
(a charge for which she could present no evidence other than his ability to
use simple trig functions, which are clearly not in the scope of the course.

>> A great many educators I have observed
                                 ^^^^^^^^
>Observed? Where? (I say that only because you're so obviously clueless
>about effective teaching that the teachers you observed must be absolutely
>terrible -- I don't want to go anywhere NEAR there).

I did some work in a university education school (computer work) and I got 
a great view of what was going on then.  I also have taught in some 
"enrichment" sumer camps for kids 11-18, and I have taught high school
teachers when I was in grad school.  In additon, I have read widely on
the subject of education, and I plan to writ that book I mentioned too.

--Brian
Newsgroups: misc.education