5 ms·

While I agree with most if not all of what was said in this piece I think there is something it misses on completely. While this is my opinion I believe it to b

While I agree with most if not all of what was said in this piece I think there is something it misses on completely. While this is my opinion I believe it to be true. Our schooling systems have there faults, large ones, but they are NOT the main issue. I firmly believe that any student who wants to learn will learn. Students have to WANT to do well. The way our society has (progressed?) over the last few decades this drive to do well has pretty much evaporated. Since probably after WW2. IDK if this is still the case but when i was in HS some 6-7 years ago i came into the start of "No Child Left Behind". We had the standardized tests, the passing grade was 30%. Students still failed, and these students were still allowed to progress to the next level. While I understand these baselines were increased this is still very shocking. In another example of rewarding failure we have sports, where we hand out trophies no matter the placing. This could not be further from reality where everything we do is base on our performance. We have to let our youths fail so that they can strive to improve and to do/be better. So long as we promote failure our school systems will never get better, because as much as it is the teachers and the system behind them it is up to each student to want to learn. More today then ever there is no excuse, with the internet and its practically infinite resources information is never more then a few seconds away. If a student wants to learn they can, teacher/no teacher and school/no school. But the students have to WANT to learn and be/do better.

betterunix 14y ago
"I firmly believe that any student who wants to learn will learn" Not if they are punished for it, and students in America are routinely [edit: punished] for any attempt to learn outside the confines of a narrow curriculum. Students routinely lose points for answers that are not based on what they were taught in class, even when their answers are correct and their techniques are logically sound. A student who is bored in class will be in big trouble if they skip class and spend their time learning independently. The problem is not that students do not wish to learn, but that our education fails to prioritize learning and actively discourages it. A student who wants to learn will be just as poorly served by the education system as a student who has no interest in learning. The only students who succeed are those who have mastered the art of compliance, as the primary purpose of American education is to produce compliant people.
- teach 14y ago
  "Students in America are routinely published for any attempt to learn outside the confines of a narrow curriculum." As a public school teacher, I strongly disagree with your opinion. I suspect your opinion has been formed based on a relatively small sample size. I'm sorry your experience was poor, but you simply don't have to data to implicate tens of thousands of schools. I do agree with one tiny piece of it, however: the biggest crime you can commit in an American public school is insubordination. No amount of intelligence or work ethic will save a student who refuses to do (or stop doing) what faculty and staff ask. I don't disagree with this policy because it's a simple matter of safety. My school employs slightly fewer than 200 faculty/staff. We have over 2000 students, most of whom are physically stronger. If students won't do what we ask them, it gets Lord of the Flies in a hurry.
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    How did we get from talking about learning outside the curriculum to students physically overpowering teachers? Such a blatant attempt to muddy the waters of the discussion does not help your position.
    - teach 14y ago
      I included the example that I did because betterunix's comment included two trigger phrases for me: "big trouble if they skip class" and "produce compliant people". I've been teaching CS for more than 15 years; the brilliant but unconventional student is literally who I work with all day. betterunix's choice of language brings to mind many dozens of students I've taught over the years. It's the "I'm smarter than them and I can see the Game is bullshit but they get rewarded for blindly following orders and I get in trouble if I want to learn" trope. (Apologies to betterunix if I've misjudged you, but I've seen it SO MANY TIMES I'm probably not wrong.) The thing is, yes, some of what students are being asked to do in public schools is bullshit. I try to minimize that in my own classroom, and I literally teach seminars to other teachers trying to convert them as well. But basic compliance is absolutely necessary. Your average public school is not a police state. Asking students to complete a worksheet, even if it utterly lacks value, is not a violation of their fundamental human rights, and you are not a brave free-thinker for "standing up to The Man." Schools absolutely DO NOT make a goal of "produc[ing] compliant people." It's just that the average student must comply in order for public schools to work at all. And if that's in place, then we can try to actually teach something worthwhile.
sequoia 14y ago
>I firmly believe that any student who wants to learn will learn. Well sure; people overcome all types of adversity to learn, produce, and excel in the world. A child from the ghetto may strive to succeed and go on to be a chess grand master, this does not mean that we should go building more ghettos to produce chess grandmasters. Learning despite misguided education policies will occur, but it's not a legitimate defense against criticism of the policies. So some kids don't have adequate "drive" or motivation. Should they be dismissed because of it? They are kids! Some kids need more encouragement and support, and we should be helping them succeed (truly succeed, not be socially promoted), not saying "well you aren't trying hard enough, you deserve to fail." Do not worry- they will get that plenty as an adult. The purpose of school is to prepare kids for adulthood, we shouldn't be dismissing them because they aren't prepared already. Another bone I must pick with your 'they they don't want to learn' argument comes in the form of an experience I had repeatedly while in school: Sequoia: I understand and have memorized the formula, but WHY does theorem XYZ behave thus? Teacher: Sequoia, that's a great question, but I've got 30 other students I'm trying to just get to the baseline- I really can't devote time to advanced discussion of this topic when some kids are struggling to just pass the test. Nowadays there are lots of highly accessible/usable online resources to address such students and I hope teachers are employing them, but the fact is that was not an environment that was conducive to learning regardless of the fact that I wished to learn more. Yes, I could have looked it up on my own but that's not an argument for school- I could look it up on my own without school. Saying "go learn it yourself" is tantamount to saying we don't need schools. EDIT: Changed double quotes to single to make clear that I'm paraphrasing "...any student who wants to learn will learn. Students have to WANT to do well ...over the last few decades this drive to do well has pretty much evaporated." with 'they they don't want to learn', not quoting directly. Sorry jug! The other uses of double quotes are legitimate: I'm not ascribing the statements to anyone in particular.
- wisty 14y ago
  My long comment includes stuff on rote learning. Basically, rote learning is undervalued by a lot of education experts. It's a great foundation for higher-order learning. The problem is, when you learn by rote you don't really learn why. It's a good hack to build a foundation, but it isn't worth much by itself. If No Child was getting kids up to a baseline, which created a foundation for later learning, it would be OK. They'd be able to read, write, and do arithmetic, which would let them tackle the big questions later on. Unfortunately, it's just a stepping stone for more rote learning. Most of them are never going to learn to use their knowledge in a flexible way (solving difficult unseen problems with it), they are just going to memorise the basic steps required to pass the test. It's like trying to build a house out of nothing but a foundation.

betterunix 14y ago

"I firmly believe that any student who wants to learn will learn" Not if they are punished for it, and students in America are routinely [edit: punished] for any attempt to learn outside the confines of a narrow curriculum. Students routinely lose points for answers that are not based on what they were taught in class, even when their answers are correct and their techniques are logically sound. A student who is bored in class will be in big trouble if they skip class and spend their time learning independently. The problem is not that students do not wish to learn, but that our education fails to prioritize learning and actively discourages it. A student who wants to learn will be just as poorly served by the education system as a student who has no interest in learning. The only students who succeed are those who have mastered the art of compliance, as the primary purpose of American education is to produce compliant people.

teach 14y ago
"Students in America are routinely published for any attempt to learn outside the confines of a narrow curriculum." As a public school teacher, I strongly disagree with your opinion. I suspect your opinion has been formed based on a relatively small sample size. I'm sorry your experience was poor, but you simply don't have to data to implicate tens of thousands of schools. I do agree with one tiny piece of it, however: the biggest crime you can commit in an American public school is insubordination. No amount of intelligence or work ethic will save a student who refuses to do (or stop doing) what faculty and staff ask. I don't disagree with this policy because it's a simple matter of safety. My school employs slightly fewer than 200 faculty/staff. We have over 2000 students, most of whom are physically stronger. If students won't do what we ask them, it gets Lord of the Flies in a hurry.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  How did we get from talking about learning outside the curriculum to students physically overpowering teachers? Such a blatant attempt to muddy the waters of the discussion does not help your position.
  - teach 14y ago
    I included the example that I did because betterunix's comment included two trigger phrases for me: "big trouble if they skip class" and "produce compliant people". I've been teaching CS for more than 15 years; the brilliant but unconventional student is literally who I work with all day. betterunix's choice of language brings to mind many dozens of students I've taught over the years. It's the "I'm smarter than them and I can see the Game is bullshit but they get rewarded for blindly following orders and I get in trouble if I want to learn" trope. (Apologies to betterunix if I've misjudged you, but I've seen it SO MANY TIMES I'm probably not wrong.) The thing is, yes, some of what students are being asked to do in public schools is bullshit. I try to minimize that in my own classroom, and I literally teach seminars to other teachers trying to convert them as well. But basic compliance is absolutely necessary. Your average public school is not a police state. Asking students to complete a worksheet, even if it utterly lacks value, is not a violation of their fundamental human rights, and you are not a brave free-thinker for "standing up to The Man." Schools absolutely DO NOT make a goal of "produc[ing] compliant people." It's just that the average student must comply in order for public schools to work at all. And if that's in place, then we can try to actually teach something worthwhile.

sequoia 14y ago

>I firmly believe that any student who wants to learn will learn. Well sure; people overcome all types of adversity to learn, produce, and excel in the world. A child from the ghetto may strive to succeed and go on to be a chess grand master, this does not mean that we should go building more ghettos to produce chess grandmasters. Learning despite misguided education policies will occur, but it's not a legitimate defense against criticism of the policies. So some kids don't have adequate "drive" or motivation. Should they be dismissed because of it? They are kids! Some kids need more encouragement and support, and we should be helping them succeed (truly succeed, not be socially promoted), not saying "well you aren't trying hard enough, you deserve to fail." Do not worry- they will get that plenty as an adult. The purpose of school is to prepare kids for adulthood, we shouldn't be dismissing them because they aren't prepared already. Another bone I must pick with your 'they they don't want to learn' argument comes in the form of an experience I had repeatedly while in school: Sequoia: I understand and have memorized the formula, but WHY does theorem XYZ behave thus? Teacher: Sequoia, that's a great question, but I've got 30 other students I'm trying to just get to the baseline- I really can't devote time to advanced discussion of this topic when some kids are struggling to just pass the test. Nowadays there are lots of highly accessible/usable online resources to address such students and I hope teachers are employing them, but the fact is that was not an environment that was conducive to learning regardless of the fact that I wished to learn more. Yes, I could have looked it up on my own but that's not an argument for school- I could look it up on my own without school. Saying "go learn it yourself" is tantamount to saying we don't need schools. EDIT: Changed double quotes to single to make clear that I'm paraphrasing "...any student who wants to learn will learn. Students have to WANT to do well ...over the last few decades this drive to do well has pretty much evaporated." with 'they they don't want to learn', not quoting directly. Sorry jug! The other uses of double quotes are legitimate: I'm not ascribing the statements to anyone in particular.

wisty 14y ago
My long comment includes stuff on rote learning. Basically, rote learning is undervalued by a lot of education experts. It's a great foundation for higher-order learning. The problem is, when you learn by rote you don't really learn why. It's a good hack to build a foundation, but it isn't worth much by itself. If No Child was getting kids up to a baseline, which created a foundation for later learning, it would be OK. They'd be able to read, write, and do arithmetic, which would let them tackle the big questions later on. Unfortunately, it's just a stepping stone for more rote learning. Most of them are never going to learn to use their knowledge in a flexible way (solving difficult unseen problems with it), they are just going to memorise the basic steps required to pass the test. It's like trying to build a house out of nothing but a foundation.