Yes - we have more self-involved people, lots more unfit people having children which sets forth a child not having the proper foundations to succeed in life and in turn puts forth the cycle for the child to grow up in such an environment and emulate it for their own children. Education and teaching come under scrutiny more because they are expected to not only teach, but to become moral leaders and baby sitters because the families are dropping the ball.
I disagree that there are more families in moral decline and dropping the ball with regard to being supportive of education then there were in the past. When put in historical context, the problems related to education have been defined due to the change in societies expectations around education and what's acceptable. If you look over the last 20 years, the drop-out rate has been decreasing significantly as a result of raised expectations by communities, teachers, and school systems. If you go back far enough, it was widely accepted that someone could drop out of school around the 8th grade or so in order to work on the farm and this wasn't a problem.
Therefore, the problem arises when the expectation is set the everyone should graduate from high school. If you had this expectation 80 years ago, you would see the same lack of support (or whatever you want to call it) from families. In the past, the expectation was dropped in response to the family system that the student was in, now the expectation is raised, which clashes with certain families who aren't supporting this for a myriad of reasons. So, parents aren't necessarily worse than they were in the past, in fact there could be fewer parents proportionately that fit the definition of "bad parents" (however that gets defined).
I agree with your premise, but I think it's doesn't exactly sync with reality. Albeit expectations have been raised, many more people are swept through the system, so the dropout rate may not be exact. Also and more importantly, regardless of graduation rates or not, testing has clearly shown in most basic subjects (math, history, reading levels) that our results have been declining as well in comparison to the rest of the world which tells us although people are graduating, the results of "education" are not successful and have been lowered even though the expectation of graduation and move ahead in life had higher hopes. ie..something is a miss as these two concepts are in direct opposition of one another which leads me to believe the drop out rates and graduation rates are far less significant. It's more important to see what kind of people we are producing in society as a result of education in comparison to just saying, congrats, you passed. Also, something that hasn't been mention is the size of the population which makes me wonder about the numbers of people passing through the education system ...ie, exponentially increased failures at the output of education system.
Yes - we have more self-involved people, lots more unfit people having children which sets forth a child not having the proper foundations to succeed in life and in turn puts forth the cycle for the child to grow up in such an environment and emulate it for their own children. Education and teaching come under scrutiny more because they are expected to not only teach, but to become moral leaders and baby sitters because the families are dropping the ball.
I disagree that there are more families in moral decline and dropping the ball with regard to being supportive of education then there were in the past. When put in historical context, the problems related to education have been defined due to the change in societies expectations around education and what's acceptable. If you look over the last 20 years, the drop-out rate has been decreasing significantly as a result of raised expectations by communities, teachers, and school systems. If you go back far enough, it was widely accepted that someone could drop out of school around the 8th grade or so in order to work on the farm and this wasn't a problem.
Therefore, the problem arises when the expectation is set the everyone should graduate from high school. If you had this expectation 80 years ago, you would see the same lack of support (or whatever you want to call it) from families. In the past, the expectation was dropped in response to the family system that the student was in, now the expectation is raised, which clashes with certain families who aren't supporting this for a myriad of reasons. So, parents aren't necessarily worse than they were in the past, in fact there could be fewer parents proportionately that fit the definition of "bad parents" (however that gets defined).
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
but wasn't the entire article about the fact that cooperation can and does work? saying we operate within a very cooperative educational system is just patently untrue. Finland doesn't use standardized tests, don't fail students, pay their teachers and they compete at the highest level.
I think the term "cooperation" is a misnomer and is being applied as if it's the opposite of competition, which is obviously not the case. Since I knew you meant anti-competition by cooperation, I went along with your meaning too in my last post... but, the truth is the word is inappropriately used here. For example, you can engage in competition and there can be cooperation involved. They aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, in order to "grade" or "compare" Finland to any other educational system, that is a form of "competition".
On to your point, I agree that we don't operate in a very cooperative system. However, I do believe we're moving more and more towards a very "un-competitive" system (once again - I thought that's what you meant by the word cooperation). That said, I believe we have layers of what is hoped to be a cooperative environment. Since America is so large, this turns into bureaucracy and red tape. The major issue is incentives.
As I stated in my last post, part of the problem with the educational system is parenting. Parents don't believe the problem could be their child; in general, they think their child should never "fail" (which it seems you state is a good thing in your post above). So, they blame the teacher when their child gets poor grades. The teacher shares a portion of the blame. Some teachers focus on keeping their job above teaching. Sometimes, this involves grade inflation or dumbing down. Further, in many cases, teachers continue the anti-competition mantra through unions and beliefs that the best teachers shouldn't be rewarded and the worst teachers shouldn't be fired. Finally, the system itself results in problems because it's a giant bureaucracy, particularly in America. This may not be a problem in a tiny country, but it is here. Standards shouldn't come top down in a bureaucratic way. Competition would never encourage that. Regardless, the system doesn't necessarily have incentives to properly monitor performance. In fact, monitoring performance may not make anything better, unless monitoring would allow for real improvements to take place. But, then we get back to unions and teacher rewards/punishments.
In my opinion, the cure to all this would start with blowing up the Department of Education. They do nothing well, are an old, tired and unadaptive government sect, and just add to this bureaucratic mess. This would leave educational decisions to made at the more local/personal level and, in doing so, not have to adhere to national or federal rules, etc. I think this would help in a number of areas - like encouraging teachers to be good teachers rather than well-liked teachers, and would eliminate much of the top down problems. The family dynamic (personal responsibility) may not change with this right away, but it would be forced to adapt over time... because unreasoned complaints to teachers would be turned back quickly.
?? I don't think this was meant in a violent manner, but merely a symbolic statement to start over. The poster made it clear with lots of info bout making changes.
In my opinion, the cure to all this would start with blowing up the Department of Education.
Reported.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
?? I don't think this was meant in a violent manner, but merely a symbolic statement to start over. The poster made it clear with lots of info bout making changes.
In my opinion, the cure to all this would start with blowing up the Department of Education.
Reported.
I disagree. In these days and times you would think someone would be smart enough to choose their words more carefully. Especially when it comes to a politically charged topic. This type of rhetoric is dangerous.
That's a vast over-reaction and unnecessary. You took one sentence (a few words) out of 3 paragraphs which were well articulated bout changes they felt were necessary to the Dept of Education. You took that one comment out of context - perhaps if it stood alone, I could see your point, but considering the rest was included, I find it way out of line.
I find it funny in our society that that people have become so fearful and/or hyper-sensitive, the simple act of using words or speech, that somehow creates the actions they describe. Making a comment is just words, calling someone a negative name is words; but thinking that automatically equates to the action or taking those words out of context just means you're over analyzing, witch-hunting or just so leery of society, it's beyond low and sad. This is what Orwell discusses in 1984 as well...which is quite a pathetic statement about our society and culture.
I disagree. In these days and times you would think someone would be smart enough to choose their words more carefully. Especially when it comes to a politically charged topic. This type of rhetoric is dangerous.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
"Here in America," Sahlberg said at the Teachers College, "parents can choose to take their kids to private schools. It's the same idea of a marketplace that applies to, say, shops. Schools are a shop and parents can buy what ever they want. In Finland parents can also choose. But the options are all the same."
and herein lies the problem, one we have here in australia as well... not every parent can choose which school to send their little darlings to. here in australia, or should i say new south wales, you must send your child to the local school. though you can apply to send your child to an 'out of area' school there must be a valid reason, such as closer to parents workplace... that kind of thing. and even then theres no guarantee cause the school has to have room for your 'out of area' child and your need must be greater than some other parent. sibling precedence can play a part as well. you simply can not send your child to any school you desire. if you live in a low socio economic area you cant bypass the local school purely because you know of one that is better staffed, has better resources, has less 'problems'. oh hang on a minute yes you can, you can send you child to a parochial school, an independent school or a bank account draining private school which chances are youre helping to fund to an extent anyway cause the government funds them to an extent too. as you can imagine i do not see this as a choice.
Post edited by catefrances on
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
That's a vast over-reaction and unnecessary. You took one sentence (a few words) out of 3 paragraphs which were well articulated bout changes they felt were necessary to the Dept of Education. You took that one comment out of context - perhaps if it stood alone, I could see your point, but considering the rest was included, I find it way out of line.
I find it funny in our society that that people have become so fearful and/or hyper-sensitive, the simple act of using words or speech, that somehow creates the actions they describe. Making a comment is just words, calling someone a negative name is words; but thinking that automatically equates to the action or taking those words out of context just means you're over analyzing, witch-hunting or just so leery of society, it's beyond low and sad. This is what Orwell discusses in 1984 as well...which is quite a pathetic statement about our society and culture.
I disagree. In these days and times you would think someone would be smart enough to choose their words more carefully. Especially when it comes to a politically charged topic. This type of rhetoric is dangerous.
Just words? I'm surprised. I've seen some very interesting things here on the train and have learned a great deal. I would say I was a little bit taken aback when I read the disscussed post. This was the first time I have ever read a threat of violence here on the train. It wasn't just some random sentence. It was the first sentence of his final paragraph/opinion. Threats should be taken seriously. In fact someone ought contact the proper authorities in cases like this.
That's a vast over-reaction and unnecessary. You took one sentence (a few words) out of 3 paragraphs which were well articulated bout changes they felt were necessary to the Dept of Education. You took that one comment out of context - perhaps if it stood alone, I could see your point, but considering the rest was included, I find it way out of line.
I find it funny in our society that that people have become so fearful and/or hyper-sensitive, the simple act of using words or speech, that somehow creates the actions they describe. Making a comment is just words, calling someone a negative name is words; but thinking that automatically equates to the action or taking those words out of context just means you're over analyzing, witch-hunting or just so leery of society, it's beyond low and sad. This is what Orwell discusses in 1984 as well...which is quite a pathetic statement about our society and culture.
I disagree. In these days and times you would think someone would be smart enough to choose their words more carefully. Especially when it comes to a politically charged topic. This type of rhetoric is dangerous.
FiveB247x: I wouldn't worry about arguing your point here; although I don't post with the frequency of some here, over the past 6 months I come in occasionally and do post. My point of view is not the majority opinion, which is fine... I'm pretty much a libertarian. That doesn't really matter. Anyway, this individual "CH156378" doesn't like what I have to offer and uses any chance he can to try show that, but unfortunately does so in a immature manner (at least in my opinion). If he/she actually offered alternative ideas, I think that would certainly add to the debate. But, this is another example that he/she doesn't really wish to do such.
In conclusion, you're absolutely right. I would never advocate violence and obviously did not mean blow up literally, but rather meant it as a term meaning quickly dismantle or do away with quickly legislatively... personally, I think it's very 3rd grade that I would have to explain this and know for certain that PJ staff would agree.... hence why his/her reporting will do nothing, but make him/her look silly. In fact, I'm quite sure every single person who disagrees with my point of view in this thread would quickly say that CH156378 acting irrationally for bringing this up, particularly if they read the post in full context.
Now back to the point of my post and not this side-tracking...
Just words? I'm surprised. I've seen some very interesting things here on the train and have learned a great deal. I would say I was a little bit taken aback when I read the disscussed post. This was the first time I have ever read a threat of violence here on the train. It wasn't just some random sentence. It was the first sentence of his final paragraph/opinion. Threats should be taken seriously. In fact someone ought contact the proper authorities in cases like this.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I agree with your premise, but I think it's doesn't exactly sync with reality. Albeit expectations have been raised, many more people are swept through the system, so the dropout rate may not be exact. Also and more importantly, regardless of graduation rates or not, testing has clearly shown in most basic subjects (math, history, reading levels) that our results have been declining as well in comparison to the rest of the world which tells us although people are graduating, the results of "education" are not successful and have been lowered even though the expectation of graduation and move ahead in life had higher hopes. ie..something is a miss as these two concepts are in direct opposition of one another which leads me to believe the drop out rates and graduation rates are far less significant. It's more important to see what kind of people we are producing in society as a result of education in comparison to just saying, congrats, you passed. Also, something that hasn't been mention is the size of the population which makes me wonder about the numbers of people passing through the education system ...ie, exponentially increased failures at the output of education system.
It's often repeated that our students are falling behind when compared to students in other countries, but I'm not so quick to accept that. I'm slow to trust some countries that are more likely to administer the tests to higher functioning students rather than a more valid, random sample. I think what politicians reference when
referring to American students do poorly when compared to other countries is the TIMSS test, which only measures math and science, not reading or history, and only at the 4th and 8th grade level (maybe there's other testing that I'm not aware of). Here are the links for the testing results from 2007:
Math: http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results07_math07.asp
Some of the countries ahead of the U.S. seem to make sense, some I'm not so sure (Kazakhstan?). Other countries you can decide where your trust level is.
I think the term "cooperation" is a misnomer and is being applied as if it's the opposite of competition, which is obviously not the case. Since I knew you meant anti-competition by cooperation, I went along with your meaning too in my last post... but, the truth is the word is inappropriately used here. For example, you can engage in competition and there can be cooperation involved. They aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, in order to "grade" or "compare" Finland to any other educational system, that is a form of "competition".
On to your point, I agree that we don't operate in a very cooperative system. However, I do believe we're moving more and more towards a very "un-competitive" system (once again - I thought that's what you meant by the word cooperation). That said, I believe we have layers of what is hoped to be a cooperative environment. Since America is so large, this turns into bureaucracy and red tape. The major issue is incentives.
As I stated in my last post, part of the problem with the educational system is parenting. Parents don't believe the problem could be their child; in general, they think their child should never "fail" (which it seems you state is a good thing in your post above). So, they blame the teacher when their child gets poor grades. The teacher shares a portion of the blame. Some teachers focus on keeping their job above teaching. Sometimes, this involves grade inflation or dumbing down. Further, in many cases, teachers continue the anti-competition mantra through unions and beliefs that the best teachers shouldn't be rewarded and the worst teachers shouldn't be fired. Finally, the system itself results in problems because it's a giant bureaucracy, particularly in America. This may not be a problem in a tiny country, but it is here. Standards shouldn't come top down in a bureaucratic way. Competition would never encourage that. Regardless, the system doesn't necessarily have incentives to properly monitor performance. In fact, monitoring performance may not make anything better, unless monitoring would allow for real improvements to take place. But, then we get back to unions and teacher rewards/punishments.
In my opinion, the cure to all this would start with blowing up the Department of Education. They do nothing well, are an old, tired and unadaptive government sect, and just add to this bureaucratic mess. This would leave educational decisions to made at the more local/personal level and, in doing so, not have to adhere to national or federal rules, etc. I think this would help in a number of areas - like encouraging teachers to be good teachers rather than well-liked teachers, and would eliminate much of the top down problems. The family dynamic (personal responsibility) may not change with this right away, but it would be forced to adapt over time... because unreasoned complaints to teachers would be turned back quickly.
Kinda surprised to see you repeat cliches spun from conservative media and mouthpieces:
1) parents "think their child should never fail". Was there a golden age in our past where nearly all parents accepted failing grades as the child's fault, but now parents don't accept that? Believe me, there a plenty of kids getting failing grades, getting grounded, getting held back, and some even still get told that they will amount to nothing.
2) "everyone gets a trophy". Giving every kid a trophy has been going on for more years than you've been alive (guessing you're 29). Saying this contributes to a sense of entitlement is just an attempt to create an answer for challenging behavior from others. Did you play sports when you were younger? Don't worry, they're still getting their ass chewed and running stairs like the old days. Conservatives have such misguided theories on human behavior that they think are true, and then therefore create poor policy as a result. This would be one of them.
3) "competition and individual responsibility is the answer". Saying the solution to problems in schools can be done in only one sentence is a bit simplistic. Do you mean competition between students or teachers? First off, there's always the problem of measuring that. Some kids do respond well to competition with grades. Many do not. Like in the OP, what's best is an individualized approach. The typical conservative "accountability" encourages standardized testing, less local control, and more bureaucracy. Things they claim they are against.
4) You want to get rid of the dept. of Education? I think you're overstating the DOE's role. Most educational decisions are made at a state and local level. Complaints about teachers will decrease with an individualized approach to the child's education. But, more individualization will cost money, and we all know that "just throwing money at the problem won't fix it" (not your quote).
Kinda surprised to see you repeat cliches spun from conservative media and mouthpieces:
1) parents "think their child should never fail". Was there a golden age in our past where nearly all parents accepted failing grades as the child's fault, but now parents don't accept that? Believe me, there a plenty of kids getting failing grades, getting grounded, getting held back, and some even still get told that they will amount to nothing.
No, there was no golden age where parents accepted failing grades as the child's fault. But, my point was this problem is becoming more and more pervasive in the U.S. I firmly believe that less blame was placed on the teacher (by the parents) and more focus on the failing student... 20/30/40 years ago and beyond. The parents also had less reason to believe it was the teacher fault (which brings about the issues with the expansion of the Department of Education and the red tape and bureaucracy attached).
2) "everyone gets a trophy". Giving every kid a trophy has been going on for more years than you've been alive (guessing you're 29). Saying this contributes to a sense of entitlement is just an attempt to create an answer for challenging behavior from others. Did you play sports when you were younger? Don't worry, they're still getting their ass chewed and running stairs like the old days. Conservatives have such misguided theories on human behavior that they think are true, and then therefore create poor policy as a result. This would be one of them.
Thanks for guessing my age. Let's just say you're fairly close, close enough. But, I did not grow up with every kid getting a trophy and I played a ton of sports when I was younger. Winners got the trophy. Losers did not. Was this great at the time for the losers? No, but it taught them real life lessons. In work, sometimes another person gets the sale. In sports, if you don't practice, it's harder to win. And when you compete in a sport, the goal is to win the game. Sure, it's an added plus to just have fun playing... but, you don't go out there to just play with no care of winning... otherwise, why would you even try to score points? In fact, I'd argue competition makes it more fun and more challenging. If no one cares about winning, you won't get as good. For example, I don't think Michael Jordan got so good at basketball because he didn't care about winning or wasn't competitive. And I'd say he was the best basketball player ever.
3) "competition and individual responsibility is the answer". Saying the solution to problems in schools can be done in only one sentence is a bit simplistic. Do you mean competition between students or teachers? First off, there's always the problem of measuring that. Some kids do respond well to competition with grades. Many do not. Like in the OP, what's best is an individualized approach. The typical conservative "accountability" encourages standardized testing, less local control, and more bureaucracy. Things they claim they are against.
Sure, you're right it is a bit simplistic. But, so is "cooperation not competition" the title of this thread. But, for some reason, you make no comment on that being too simplistic. Why?
I mean competition between the student and the grade system. In other words, you want to get a 4.0 average. There's not a problem in measuring that if teachers have incentives to grade accurately. I also mean competition amongst teachers... and competition amongst schools.
Just because George Bush was for federal programs like No Child Left Behind, does not make it really conservative or a right-leaning policy. News flash - GWB wasn't really a conservative on a lot (if not most) of issues.
4) You want to get rid of the dept. of Education? I think you're overstating the DOE's role. Most educational decisions are made at a state and local level. Complaints about teachers will decrease with an individualized approach to the child's education. But, more individualization will cost money, and we all know that "just throwing money at the problem won't fix it" (not your quote).
Yep. I'd get rid of the Dept. of Ed. That's fine that you think I'm overstating it. I don't agree. I think it's a bureaucracy that does little right. I disagree that more individualization and less bureaucracy will cost more money. I'd say eliminating a large governmental oversee-er with thousands upon thousands of staff (who make wages) would save money.
Can you get your point across without advocating violence, because that's not ok here. If you had said, "dissolving the institution" it wouldn't be a problem. Please edit your post to avoid the locking of this thread. Thank you.
Kat I understand your point about violence and such, but this is ridiculous. Next time someone says "throw the baby out with the bathe water", should we actually assume someone is throwing away a child and call child protective services? This is absurd. Are we actually going to lower the bar so far to hang on every single word taken out of context with no application of common sense and perspective? Have we all lost our minds?
Can you get your point across without advocating violence, because that's not ok here. If you had said, "dissolving the institution" it wouldn't be a problem. Please edit your post to avoid the locking of this thread. Thank you.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Kat I understand your point about violence and such, but this is ridiculous. Next time someone says "throw the baby out with the bathe water", should we actually assume someone is throwing away a child and call child protective services? This is absurd. Are we actually going to lower the bar so far to hang on every single word taken out of context with no application of common sense and perspective? Have we all lost our minds?
Can you get your point across without advocating violence, because that's not ok here. If you had said, "dissolving the institution" it wouldn't be a problem. Please edit your post to avoid the locking of this thread. Thank you.
Totally agree.
Kat lock this thread so nobody can ever read that red-lettered warning that should have never been issued.
TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.
And to the INSTIGATOR that reported that, you should be banned for wasting mods time and general stupidity.
This place isn't even worth coming to anymore....
Most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on here. Ever.
Can you get your point across without advocating violence, because that's not ok here. If you had said, "dissolving the institution" it wouldn't be a problem. Please edit your post to avoid the locking of this thread. Thank you.
I get that no one should advocate violence... but...
...are you serious? Did you read what I wrote? I did not advocate violence. Re-read it in full context. It was a clear figure of speech. In fact, the politician I support has used those words before....
I think you should just lock the thread. If one can't make a figure of speech, which is obviously the case when reading my post in full context, then why bother even posting anywhere on PJ.com? That troll who reported this simply does not like my political point of view or the candidate that I support.
Regardless, I'm sure no one has used similar figures of speech when discussing sports in AET (sarcasm). If figure of speech "taken completely out of context" are forbidden here, the mods are going to have a rough job of locking thousands of threads if they actually try to enforce that rule "fairly". I know you're just doing your job, but this is pretty ridiculous.
Middle class and rich America don't want to lend a helping hand to others in healthcare..
Do you really think they would allow an equal footing in education.
Get real
It's a nation of me first and the give me give me
Sure, you're right it is a bit simplistic. But, so is "cooperation not competition" the title of this thread. But, for some reason, you make no comment on that being too simplistic. Why?
In most of your responses, you're essentially saying these things are true because you think them to be true. Is there any real evidence to support you claims outside of observation? I don't think it's a good thing to make conclusions about how the entire country is functioning based on observations alone.
The sports and competitive analogy is interesting when applied to schools. There's individual sports and team sports. The team sports require 'cooperation' for the team to do well. While individuals will compete with other individuals within the team (i.e. school) for grades, college acceptance, etc. and this may motivate them to do better, but I don't see the school itself getting anything when beating out other schools if it functions higher. I think that our country does better (i.e. team, in a large sense) when schools (now individuals for the sake of discussion) cooperate.
Middle class and rich America don't want to lend a helping hand to others in healthcare..
Do you really think they would allow an equal footing in education.
Get real
It's a nation of me first and the give me give me
Those same people often claim to be religious. The weird part, and this isn't always true, is that conservatives claim to listen to god but participate in things that wouldn't be considered very christian/catholic. Conversely, liberals, often disavow god or organized religion but behave in ways that would seem more consistent with what religion teaches (loving thy neighbor and respecting others for who they are, etc.).
you are correct that is not always true
hey saw a wonderful piece on the morning news
very heartwarming about a local girl who had an aneurysm
and is slowly coming back over the years, learning to walk etc
and is now back in public school.
Beautiful story about the Principal a wonderful Christian man which has raised much money
for her recovery through local churches and performing himself.
Quite a talented man in his own right
and all the wonderful teachers this child and others have experienced.
Our educators go the extra mile for the kids and just don't get the kudos for it.
It's all about caring, some do some don't.
Sure, you're right it is a bit simplistic. But, so is "cooperation not competition" the title of this thread. But, for some reason, you make no comment on that being too simplistic. Why?
In most of your responses, you're essentially saying these things are true because you think them to be true. Is there any real evidence to support you claims outside of observation? I don't think it's a good thing to make conclusions about how the entire country is functioning based on observations alone.
The sports and competitive analogy is interesting when applied to schools. There's individual sports and team sports. The team sports require 'cooperation' for the team to do well. While individuals will compete with other individuals within the team (i.e. school) for grades, college acceptance, etc. and this may motivate them to do better, but I don't see the school itself getting anything when beating out other schools if it functions higher. I think that our country does better (i.e. team, in a large sense) when schools (now individuals for the sake of discussion) cooperate.
No, I'm saying things that I believe. You say things you believe. We don't believe the same things. That's that.
I agree that team sports do require cooperation for the team to do well. That's why I said in a previous post that the original poster is not right to try to imply that competition and cooperation are mutually exclusive. He used the word "cooperation". I always thought that was a silly word to use as a term to describe an alternative approach to competition.
As far as your point on the gains for a "school itself getting anything"... I'd say they get to remain alive (in a competitive sense). Further, if it was real competition, the teachers would probably be paid more and the school would make more money because there would be higher demand to go there. In order to keep up, other schools would need to figure out ways to compete with that school, or else they could cease to exist in the long run.
So, I'd simply change one word to your last sentence and "I'd say that our country does better (ie team, in a large sense) when schools compete".
I know you don't agree with me. I don't really think going back and forth will do any good here.
Since the 1980s, the main driver of Finnish education policy has been the idea that every child should have exactly the same opportunity to learn, regardless of family background, income, or geographic location. Education has been seen first and foremost not as a way to produce star performers, but as an instrument to even out social inequality.
haha ... i wouldn't be surprised if impeachment hearings were ordered if a US president suggested the same thing ...
Since the 1980s, the main driver of Finnish education policy has been the idea that every child should have exactly the same opportunity to learn, regardless of family background, income, or geographic location. Education has been seen first and foremost not as a way to produce star performers, but as an instrument to even out social inequality.
haha ... i wouldn't be surprised if impeachment hearings were ordered if a US president suggested the same thing ...
haha of course, in america, the mere suggestion of such IS socialism
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Comments
I disagree that there are more families in moral decline and dropping the ball with regard to being supportive of education then there were in the past. When put in historical context, the problems related to education have been defined due to the change in societies expectations around education and what's acceptable. If you look over the last 20 years, the drop-out rate has been decreasing significantly as a result of raised expectations by communities, teachers, and school systems. If you go back far enough, it was widely accepted that someone could drop out of school around the 8th grade or so in order to work on the farm and this wasn't a problem.
Therefore, the problem arises when the expectation is set the everyone should graduate from high school. If you had this expectation 80 years ago, you would see the same lack of support (or whatever you want to call it) from families. In the past, the expectation was dropped in response to the family system that the student was in, now the expectation is raised, which clashes with certain families who aren't supporting this for a myriad of reasons. So, parents aren't necessarily worse than they were in the past, in fact there could be fewer parents proportionately that fit the definition of "bad parents" (however that gets defined).
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I think the term "cooperation" is a misnomer and is being applied as if it's the opposite of competition, which is obviously not the case. Since I knew you meant anti-competition by cooperation, I went along with your meaning too in my last post... but, the truth is the word is inappropriately used here. For example, you can engage in competition and there can be cooperation involved. They aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, in order to "grade" or "compare" Finland to any other educational system, that is a form of "competition".
On to your point, I agree that we don't operate in a very cooperative system. However, I do believe we're moving more and more towards a very "un-competitive" system (once again - I thought that's what you meant by the word cooperation). That said, I believe we have layers of what is hoped to be a cooperative environment. Since America is so large, this turns into bureaucracy and red tape. The major issue is incentives.
As I stated in my last post, part of the problem with the educational system is parenting. Parents don't believe the problem could be their child; in general, they think their child should never "fail" (which it seems you state is a good thing in your post above). So, they blame the teacher when their child gets poor grades. The teacher shares a portion of the blame. Some teachers focus on keeping their job above teaching. Sometimes, this involves grade inflation or dumbing down. Further, in many cases, teachers continue the anti-competition mantra through unions and beliefs that the best teachers shouldn't be rewarded and the worst teachers shouldn't be fired. Finally, the system itself results in problems because it's a giant bureaucracy, particularly in America. This may not be a problem in a tiny country, but it is here. Standards shouldn't come top down in a bureaucratic way. Competition would never encourage that. Regardless, the system doesn't necessarily have incentives to properly monitor performance. In fact, monitoring performance may not make anything better, unless monitoring would allow for real improvements to take place. But, then we get back to unions and teacher rewards/punishments.
In my opinion, the cure to all this would start with blowing up the Department of Education. They do nothing well, are an old, tired and unadaptive government sect, and just add to this bureaucratic mess. This would leave educational decisions to made at the more local/personal level and, in doing so, not have to adhere to national or federal rules, etc. I think this would help in a number of areas - like encouraging teachers to be good teachers rather than well-liked teachers, and would eliminate much of the top down problems. The family dynamic (personal responsibility) may not change with this right away, but it would be forced to adapt over time... because unreasoned complaints to teachers would be turned back quickly.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Reported.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I disagree. In these days and times you would think someone would be smart enough to choose their words more carefully. Especially when it comes to a politically charged topic. This type of rhetoric is dangerous.
I find it funny in our society that that people have become so fearful and/or hyper-sensitive, the simple act of using words or speech, that somehow creates the actions they describe. Making a comment is just words, calling someone a negative name is words; but thinking that automatically equates to the action or taking those words out of context just means you're over analyzing, witch-hunting or just so leery of society, it's beyond low and sad. This is what Orwell discusses in 1984 as well...which is quite a pathetic statement about our society and culture.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
"Here in America," Sahlberg said at the Teachers College, "parents can choose to take their kids to private schools. It's the same idea of a marketplace that applies to, say, shops. Schools are a shop and parents can buy what ever they want. In Finland parents can also choose. But the options are all the same."
and herein lies the problem, one we have here in australia as well... not every parent can choose which school to send their little darlings to. here in australia, or should i say new south wales, you must send your child to the local school. though you can apply to send your child to an 'out of area' school there must be a valid reason, such as closer to parents workplace... that kind of thing. and even then theres no guarantee cause the school has to have room for your 'out of area' child and your need must be greater than some other parent. sibling precedence can play a part as well. you simply can not send your child to any school you desire. if you live in a low socio economic area you cant bypass the local school purely because you know of one that is better staffed, has better resources, has less 'problems'. oh hang on a minute yes you can, you can send you child to a parochial school, an independent school or a bank account draining private school which chances are youre helping to fund to an extent anyway cause the government funds them to an extent too. as you can imagine i do not see this as a choice.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Just words? I'm surprised. I've seen some very interesting things here on the train and have learned a great deal. I would say I was a little bit taken aback when I read the disscussed post. This was the first time I have ever read a threat of violence here on the train. It wasn't just some random sentence. It was the first sentence of his final paragraph/opinion. Threats should be taken seriously. In fact someone ought contact the proper authorities in cases like this.
FiveB247x: I wouldn't worry about arguing your point here; although I don't post with the frequency of some here, over the past 6 months I come in occasionally and do post. My point of view is not the majority opinion, which is fine... I'm pretty much a libertarian. That doesn't really matter. Anyway, this individual "CH156378" doesn't like what I have to offer and uses any chance he can to try show that, but unfortunately does so in a immature manner (at least in my opinion). If he/she actually offered alternative ideas, I think that would certainly add to the debate. But, this is another example that he/she doesn't really wish to do such.
In conclusion, you're absolutely right. I would never advocate violence and obviously did not mean blow up literally, but rather meant it as a term meaning quickly dismantle or do away with quickly legislatively... personally, I think it's very 3rd grade that I would have to explain this and know for certain that PJ staff would agree.... hence why his/her reporting will do nothing, but make him/her look silly. In fact, I'm quite sure every single person who disagrees with my point of view in this thread would quickly say that CH156378 acting irrationally for bringing this up, particularly if they read the post in full context.
Now back to the point of my post and not this side-tracking...
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Anyways, back to the topic at hand. Our dysfunctional educational system.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
It's often repeated that our students are falling behind when compared to students in other countries, but I'm not so quick to accept that. I'm slow to trust some countries that are more likely to administer the tests to higher functioning students rather than a more valid, random sample. I think what politicians reference when
referring to American students do poorly when compared to other countries is the TIMSS test, which only measures math and science, not reading or history, and only at the 4th and 8th grade level (maybe there's other testing that I'm not aware of). Here are the links for the testing results from 2007:
Math: http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results07_math07.asp
Science: http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results07_science07.asp
Some of the countries ahead of the U.S. seem to make sense, some I'm not so sure (Kazakhstan?). Other countries you can decide where your trust level is.
Kinda surprised to see you repeat cliches spun from conservative media and mouthpieces:
1) parents "think their child should never fail". Was there a golden age in our past where nearly all parents accepted failing grades as the child's fault, but now parents don't accept that? Believe me, there a plenty of kids getting failing grades, getting grounded, getting held back, and some even still get told that they will amount to nothing.
2) "everyone gets a trophy". Giving every kid a trophy has been going on for more years than you've been alive (guessing you're 29). Saying this contributes to a sense of entitlement is just an attempt to create an answer for challenging behavior from others. Did you play sports when you were younger? Don't worry, they're still getting their ass chewed and running stairs like the old days. Conservatives have such misguided theories on human behavior that they think are true, and then therefore create poor policy as a result. This would be one of them.
3) "competition and individual responsibility is the answer". Saying the solution to problems in schools can be done in only one sentence is a bit simplistic. Do you mean competition between students or teachers? First off, there's always the problem of measuring that. Some kids do respond well to competition with grades. Many do not. Like in the OP, what's best is an individualized approach. The typical conservative "accountability" encourages standardized testing, less local control, and more bureaucracy. Things they claim they are against.
4) You want to get rid of the dept. of Education? I think you're overstating the DOE's role. Most educational decisions are made at a state and local level. Complaints about teachers will decrease with an individualized approach to the child's education. But, more individualization will cost money, and we all know that "just throwing money at the problem won't fix it" (not your quote).
No, there was no golden age where parents accepted failing grades as the child's fault. But, my point was this problem is becoming more and more pervasive in the U.S. I firmly believe that less blame was placed on the teacher (by the parents) and more focus on the failing student... 20/30/40 years ago and beyond. The parents also had less reason to believe it was the teacher fault (which brings about the issues with the expansion of the Department of Education and the red tape and bureaucracy attached).
Thanks for guessing my age. Let's just say you're fairly close, close enough. But, I did not grow up with every kid getting a trophy and I played a ton of sports when I was younger. Winners got the trophy. Losers did not. Was this great at the time for the losers? No, but it taught them real life lessons. In work, sometimes another person gets the sale. In sports, if you don't practice, it's harder to win. And when you compete in a sport, the goal is to win the game. Sure, it's an added plus to just have fun playing... but, you don't go out there to just play with no care of winning... otherwise, why would you even try to score points? In fact, I'd argue competition makes it more fun and more challenging. If no one cares about winning, you won't get as good. For example, I don't think Michael Jordan got so good at basketball because he didn't care about winning or wasn't competitive. And I'd say he was the best basketball player ever.
Sure, you're right it is a bit simplistic. But, so is "cooperation not competition" the title of this thread. But, for some reason, you make no comment on that being too simplistic. Why?
I mean competition between the student and the grade system. In other words, you want to get a 4.0 average. There's not a problem in measuring that if teachers have incentives to grade accurately. I also mean competition amongst teachers... and competition amongst schools.
Just because George Bush was for federal programs like No Child Left Behind, does not make it really conservative or a right-leaning policy. News flash - GWB wasn't really a conservative on a lot (if not most) of issues.
Yep. I'd get rid of the Dept. of Ed. That's fine that you think I'm overstating it. I don't agree. I think it's a bureaucracy that does little right. I disagree that more individualization and less bureaucracy will cost more money. I'd say eliminating a large governmental oversee-er with thousands upon thousands of staff (who make wages) would save money.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Totally agree.
Kat lock this thread so nobody can ever read that red-lettered warning that should have never been issued.
TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.
And to the INSTIGATOR that reported that, you should be banned for wasting mods time and general stupidity.
This place isn't even worth coming to anymore....
Most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on here. Ever.
I get that no one should advocate violence... but...
...are you serious? Did you read what I wrote? I did not advocate violence. Re-read it in full context. It was a clear figure of speech. In fact, the politician I support has used those words before....
http://www.thedailyactivist.com/social-issues-ron-paul/
...did he mean it literally? Come on.
I think you should just lock the thread. If one can't make a figure of speech, which is obviously the case when reading my post in full context, then why bother even posting anywhere on PJ.com? That troll who reported this simply does not like my political point of view or the candidate that I support.
Regardless, I'm sure no one has used similar figures of speech when discussing sports in AET (sarcasm). If figure of speech "taken completely out of context" are forbidden here, the mods are going to have a rough job of locking thousands of threads if they actually try to enforce that rule "fairly". I know you're just doing your job, but this is pretty ridiculous.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
:roll:
In most of your responses, you're essentially saying these things are true because you think them to be true. Is there any real evidence to support you claims outside of observation? I don't think it's a good thing to make conclusions about how the entire country is functioning based on observations alone.
The sports and competitive analogy is interesting when applied to schools. There's individual sports and team sports. The team sports require 'cooperation' for the team to do well. While individuals will compete with other individuals within the team (i.e. school) for grades, college acceptance, etc. and this may motivate them to do better, but I don't see the school itself getting anything when beating out other schools if it functions higher. I think that our country does better (i.e. team, in a large sense) when schools (now individuals for the sake of discussion) cooperate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W0JrK63DtU
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
hey saw a wonderful piece on the morning news
very heartwarming about a local girl who had an aneurysm
and is slowly coming back over the years, learning to walk etc
and is now back in public school.
Beautiful story about the Principal a wonderful Christian man which has raised much money
for her recovery through local churches and performing himself.
Quite a talented man in his own right
and all the wonderful teachers this child and others have experienced.
Our educators go the extra mile for the kids and just don't get the kudos for it.
It's all about caring, some do some don't.
No, I'm saying things that I believe. You say things you believe. We don't believe the same things. That's that.
I agree that team sports do require cooperation for the team to do well. That's why I said in a previous post that the original poster is not right to try to imply that competition and cooperation are mutually exclusive. He used the word "cooperation". I always thought that was a silly word to use as a term to describe an alternative approach to competition.
As far as your point on the gains for a "school itself getting anything"... I'd say they get to remain alive (in a competitive sense). Further, if it was real competition, the teachers would probably be paid more and the school would make more money because there would be higher demand to go there. In order to keep up, other schools would need to figure out ways to compete with that school, or else they could cease to exist in the long run.
So, I'd simply change one word to your last sentence and "I'd say that our country does better (ie team, in a large sense) when schools compete".
I know you don't agree with me. I don't really think going back and forth will do any good here.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
haha ... i wouldn't be surprised if impeachment hearings were ordered if a US president suggested the same thing ...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Seriously? Did you tell your mommy too? Jeez.