Cooperation not Competition...

FiveB247x

I think you're pulling my leg now, and someone ought to call the authorities for improper touching..haha

Anyways, back to the topic at hand. Our dysfunctional educational system.

CH156378 wrote:

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.

Go Beavers

FiveB247x wrote:

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

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.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

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).

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

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).

Go Beavers wrote:

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.

Go Beavers wrote:

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.

Go Beavers wrote:

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.

Kat

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.

FiveB247x

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?

Kat wrote:

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.

MayDay Malone

FiveB247x wrote:

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?

Kat wrote:

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.

inlet13

Kat wrote:

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....

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.

UpSideDown

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

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

:roll:

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

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.

catefrances

UpSideDown wrote:

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

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

:roll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W0JrK63DtU

pandora

RW81233 wrote:

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.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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.

polaris_x

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 ...

gimmesometruth27

polaris_x wrote:

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

cincybearcat

CH156378 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

In my opinion, the cure to all this would start with blowing up the Department of Education.

Reported.

Seriously? Did you tell your mommy too? Jeez.

polaris_x

yeah ... what the cuss!?? ... i have to agree with inlet, may day and cincy ... i don't like that ...