The illiteracy of the times
Michelle Hoyle
modemming, I was amazed at the level of English that was employed by many
of the younger denizens of the BBS community. These people seemed to have
no concept of what such devices as periods, semicolons, and commas were for.
On top of that, when queried as to why their English skills were so bad in
a medium that relied heavily upon *how* something was expressed to convey
meaning and emotion, they said that structure was not important; only
content was important. As long as people understood what you meant, they
contended, nothing else mattered.
I recently visited home in Edmonton, Alberta for the Easter holidays. My
younger brother, who is now 19, astounded me with his lack of verbal
English skills. I was further horrified when I happened to catch sight
of an "essay" that he wrote for his Grade 12 English course. My brother's
essay appalled me with his lack of capitalization and simple punctuation,
such as periods. He has an indordinate amount of difficulty with verb
tenses and would not have the faintest idea what to do with a comma if
it happened to hit him in the face.
I do not really understand how this is possible. This kid went to all of
the same schools that I did. How is it that I have managed to come out
of these schools with some sort of dexterity in my mother tongue, and he
has not? Confused, I queried my mother about the problem. She, too, was
aware of the problem and had gone to the school and demanded to know why
they were passing her son in English when he does not even understand
that you have to capitalize the words at the beginnings of sentences and
end sentences with periods. She was told that structure and grammar were
not important, but rather it was content that held their interest.
The university in Edmonton, the University of Alberta, requires students
to take an English competancy examination prior to receiving a degree.
Not much to my surprise, a great many students, who speak English as their
first language, are failing this test.
This whole issue sickens me. Obviously there is something wrong with
our education system if people are coming out of highschool and are
incapable of writing well enough to satisfy the minimum university
requirements. Obviously there is something wrong with our education
system if people, including teachers, believe that content is much more
important in English that the manner in which people express themselves.
Obviously there is something wrong with ourselves if we think that
it is okay for people not to be able to adequately express themselves in
a language that they have heard and utilised all of their lives.
Content over expression! The problem, I think, is growing worse over
the years. I noticed recently that the Canadian government has passed
legislation requiring government documents all to be in language that
the average public can understand -- simple two syllable words. This
is a symptom of the sickness endemic in our society. Instead of catering
to the sickness, we ought to try and cure it. What can we do? What
can you do?
Gerald Olchowy
>
>I recently visited home in Edmonton, Alberta for the Easter holidays. My
>younger brother, who is now 19, astounded me with his lack of verbal
>English skills. I was further horrified when I happened to catch sight
>of an "essay" that he wrote for his Grade 12 English course. My brother's
>essay appalled me with his lack of capitalization and simple punctuation,
>such as periods. He has an indordinate amount of difficulty with verb
>tenses and would not have the faintest idea what to do with a comma if
>it happened to hit him in the face.
>
>I do not really understand how this is possible. This kid went to all of
>the same schools that I did. How is it that I have managed to come out
>of these schools with some sort of dexterity in my mother tongue, and he
>has not? Confused, I queried my mother about the problem. She, too, was
>aware of the problem and had gone to the school and demanded to know why
>they were passing her son in English when he does not even understand
>that you have to capitalize the words at the beginnings of sentences and
>end sentences with periods. She was told that structure and grammar were
>not important, but rather it was content that held their interest.
>
Well, I'm setting myself up to be flamed...
but the reason most children in North America can't read is because
of the "whole language method" religion, for which we are using
entire generation of students as guinea pigs...the basic tenet of
this bold experiment is that you don't have to teach children to
read, they will learn to read by accident. (A brilliant theory
developed by educators...now we pay them not to teach children
to read, because it is something that children automatically
learn to do if we would just leave them alone).
Modern education deems that it is cruel and unusual punishment to
have children sound out words, or be forced to do any repetitive
drill such as forming grammatically-correct sentences, or God
forbid more than a few times tables at a time or be asked to
memorize anything.
Well, now I'm heading for cover...
Gerald
Andrew M. Dunn
>modemming, I was amazed at the level of English that was employed by many
>of the younger denizens of the BBS community. These people seemed to have
>no concept of what such devices as periods, semicolons, and commas were for.
One doesn't have to go "modemming" around the country to discover the
appalling lack of grammatical competence amongst Canadian-educated youth!
The newspapers are starting to fall prey to the decline, and most other
print media are specifically aimed at youth -- so, of course, they use
language appropriate to their target audience.
>On top of that, when queried as to why their English skills were so bad in
>a medium that relied heavily upon *how* something was expressed to convey
>meaning and emotion, they said that structure was not important; only
>content was important. As long as people understood what you meant, they
>contended, nothing else mattered.
>
>I do not really understand how this is possible. This kid went to all of
>the same schools that I did. How is it that I have managed to come out
>of these schools with some sort of dexterity in my mother tongue, and he
>has not? [ mother queried the school, which said: ] Structure and grammar
>were not important, but rather it was content that held their interest.
Then you do understand how this is possible! The schools haven't the
faintest interest in teaching grammar, or anything close to grammar.
They don't even try. As long as "communication" is maintained, they are
happy.
My parents were educated in England. As I passed through high school,
(in Brampton, Ontario during the period 1978 to 1982) they were
constantly amazed that virtually no grammar was taught, and that all
the "English" courses I took consisted solely of literary studies. I
seem to recall that I only had to write one essay per year!
My parents, as they explained it, took TWO English courses per year
in school -- one in English Grammar, and one in English Literature.
The two were separate, and both subjects were given equally important
treatment.
No such luck here...
>This whole issue sickens me. Obviously there is something wrong with
>our education system if people are coming out of highschool and are
>incapable of writing well enough to satisfy the minimum university
>requirements. Obviously there is something wrong with our education
>system if people, including teachers, believe that content is much more
>important in English that the manner in which people express themselves.
Yes, our education system is terminally flawed. That is where the
blame must be laid; that is where the decisions were taken over
curriculum which decreed the switch in focus to content, and decried
the emphasis on grammar.
>Obviously there is something wrong with ourselves if we think that
>it is okay for people not to be able to adequately express themselves in
>a language that they have heard and utilised all of their lives.
And this is _why_ the educators made the mistake they did... they
were merely mirroring public apathy over language and grammatical
issues. After all, they are supposedly elected to represent _us_ --
and they probably do this accurately.
Andy
--
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------:
: Andy Dunn (amd...@mongrel.uucp) ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn) :
: "AT&T thinks Usenet is an Underground organization" - are we really? :
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------:
Robert Dar-Woon
B.C.), and until I started learning a second language, I knew
diddly about [English] grammar and punctuation.
The second language being French, I learned about "verbes a
particules" which are much more prevalent in the English
language than the French language (sorry, but I don't know what
these verbs are called in English). An example of such of verb
is "to go", who's (whose?) sense depends on the article following
it (yeah, I know, dangling participle). "To go up", "to go in",
"to go down", "to go under". Each of these can be translated
differently in French.
By the same token, a francophone friend of mine knows every minute
detail about English grammer, having learned English as a
second language, but knows little about grammatical rules in her
mother tongue.
Weird.
--
Robert Dar-Woon Simon Fraser University
rdar...@sfu.ca Burnaby, B.C., V5A 1Z8, Canada
Socrates
>In article <hoyle.7...@sfu.ca> ho...@beaufort.sfu.ca (Michelle Hoyle) writes:
>>On top of that, when queried as to why their English skills were so bad in
>>a medium that relied heavily upon *how* something was expressed to convey
>>meaning and emotion, they said that structure was not important; only
>>content was important. As long as people understood what you meant, they
>>contended, nothing else mattered.
>
Was this not the original purpose of language? This is any language I am
talking about now, not just the English language. Say I have an idea or a
thought and I wish to convey it to you. I can do this with any number of
non-verbal methods, such as an icy stare when I am mad at you, or a large
grin when I am pleased. I also have the option of simply stating "I am mad
at you", or "I like what you just did" because I know that you understand
this method of communication as well. What is the importance of crossing
the t's and dotting the i's when the purpose of the language has been
satisfied?
To answer my own question I will say that the problem is not the fact that
the English language is evolving, but the fact that the ideas behind various
words are changing, resulting in all sorts of miscommunications. The
so-called "generation gap" would be the most obvious example of this.
Aha; so the school system is not lacking in teaching them English, or at
least we will assume so for the moment, but it is lacking in teaching them
to communicate their ideas. (This should be qualified by "to a wide variety
of persons, since I am sure teenagers have no trouble communicating with
other teenagers who speak the same lingo.)
>>This whole issue sickens me. Obviously there is something wrong with
>>our education system if people are coming out of highschool and are
>>incapable of writing well enough to satisfy the minimum university
>>requirements. Obviously there is something wrong with our education
>>system if people, including teachers, believe that content is much more
>>important in English that the manner in which people express themselves.
I agree with the first statement but both agree and disagree with the second.
People coming out of highschool should not only be able to satisfy the
minimum University requirements, but they should also be able to do the
same test orally, and with more than one intended type of audience.
On the other hand, the manner in which people express themselves should not
be rigidly defined, especially by a language as ambiguous as English. Some
ideas and thoughts can only be expressed in other languages so conforming
everyone to speak only exact and perfect English is putting a muzzle on
creative thought. How much difficulty would you have interpreting Shakespeare
without the liner notes? Yet that is English, just as what you and I speak
today is.
>>Obviously there is something wrong with ourselves if we think that
>>it is okay for people not to be able to adequately express themselves in
>>a language that they have heard and utilised all of their lives.
It is okay for them to do this if it is their choice. What is not okay is
for this choice to be made for them merely because they remain ignorant of
the fact that this situation exists.
>And this is _why_ the educators made the mistake they did... they
>were merely mirroring public apathy over language and grammatical
>issues. After all, they are supposedly elected to represent _us_ --
>and they probably do this accurately.
"Everyone gets the government they deserve." Hand over education to the
government and the same rule applies. This is a real Catch-22 situation.
How do you get better government? Educate the people to make more informed
decisions. How do you do this? Get a better government which will properly
overhaul the educational system.
Gary Merrill
|>
|> I recently visited home in Edmonton, Alberta for the Easter holidays. My
|> younger brother, who is now 19, astounded me with his lack of verbal
|> English skills. I was further horrified when I happened to catch sight
|> of an "essay" that he wrote for his Grade 12 English course. My brother's
|> essay appalled me with his lack of capitalization and simple punctuation,
|> such as periods. He has an indordinate amount of difficulty with verb
|> tenses and would not have the faintest idea what to do with a comma if
|> it happened to hit him in the face.
|>
|> I do not really understand how this is possible. This kid went to all of
|> the same schools that I did. How is it that I have managed to come out
|> of these schools with some sort of dexterity in my mother tongue, and he
|> has not? Confused, I queried my mother about the problem. She, too, was
|> aware of the problem and had gone to the school and demanded to know why
|> they were passing her son in English when he does not even understand
|> that you have to capitalize the words at the beginnings of sentences and
|> end sentences with periods. She was told that structure and grammar were
|> not important, but rather it was content that held their interest.
Ah, a kindred spirit! Just this year I published a rather lengthy piece in
the editorial section of the Raleigh _News_and_Observer_ complaining about
just such a problem. Later in the year my wife and I successfully brought
a legal action against our county school district concerning their teaching
of so-called "academically gifted" students. People (except other parents)
simply do not believe me when I tell them some of the things teachers have
said to me.
|> This whole issue sickens me. Obviously there is something wrong with
|> our education system if people are coming out of highschool and are
|> incapable of writing well enough to satisfy the minimum university
|> requirements. Obviously there is something wrong with our education
|> system if people, including teachers, believe that content is much more
|> important in English that the manner in which people express themselves.
|> Obviously there is something wrong with ourselves if we think that
|> it is okay for people not to be able to adequately express themselves in
|> a language that they have heard and utilised all of their lives.
|>
|> Content over expression! The problem, I think, is growing worse over
|> the years. I noticed recently that the Canadian government has passed
|> legislation requiring government documents all to be in language that
|> the average public can understand -- simple two syllable words. This
|> is a symptom of the sickness endemic in our society. Instead of catering
|> to the sickness, we ought to try and cure it. What can we do? What
|> can you do?
Yes. I believe the problem started to occur some time in the 70's in the
"educator" factories -- those departments that turn out English teachers.
(I in fact have confirming evidence for this from some professional writers
and older teachers.) Certain ideologies took hold that are expressed in the
kinds of astounding comments you report and that I too have heard.
With respect to what we can do, I feel that at this point I have done what
I can (my wife is convinced that only elminating a complete generation
of English teachers will have the required effect). I have published,
I have pleaded, I have sued, I have done the work in our home that should
have been done at school. But it is getting too late for my own children,
and more extreme measures had to be taken.
This year we placed my oldest child (11th grade) in a good private school.
He is bright but exhibited the same symtoms as your brother. By the end of the
first semester he could write *well*. During the second semester he was
writing *good* poetry -- something he had never done before. He has acquired
a rather startling and deep appreciation of Shakespeare. *Within a year*!
This is not a matter of class size or a matter of having classes containing
only bright kids. This is a matter of teacher competence and willingness to
work. And it is a matter of educational ideology. Being a product of (a good!)
public education myself, I did not think the day would ever come when
I felt compelled to place a child of mine in a private school. But next year
all three will be going there. The expense is staggering, but we felt that
it was essential to provide a good foundation at the middle and high school level.
--
Gary H. Merrill [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC 27513 / (919) 677-8000
sas...@unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Gary Merrill
|>
|> but the reason most children in North America can't read is because
|> of the "whole language method" religion, for which we are using
|> entire generation of students as guinea pigs...the basic tenet of
|> this bold experiment is that you don't have to teach children to
|> read, they will learn to read by accident. (A brilliant theory
|> developed by educators...now we pay them not to teach children
|> to read, because it is something that children automatically
|> learn to do if we would just leave them alone).
|>
|> Modern education deems that it is cruel and unusual punishment to
|> have children sound out words, or be forced to do any repetitive
|> drill such as forming grammatically-correct sentences, or God
|> forbid more than a few times tables at a time or be asked to
|> memorize anything.
|>
|> Well, now I'm heading for cover...
|>
|> Gerald
Come out from under that cover and stand up and be counted! You
have made both a correct and courageous statement. How about:
I don't like to teach the kids grammar directly. I
prefer that they pick it up from their reading.
-- A 10th grade English teacher of the
academically gifted.
I don't like to correct all the spelling and grammar
errors. The kids get depressed when they see all that
red on their papers.
-- A middle school language arts teacher.
I couldn't possibly grade like that! It would take
too much time.
-- Almost any teacher in middle or high school.
Why should I make it better? She almost never corrects
the assignments, and when she does the spelling and grammar
don't matter.
-- Almost any kid
These are *not* fabricated quotations.
Gary Merrill
|> In <1992Apr26.1...@mongrel.uucp> amd...@mongrel.uucp (Andrew M. Dunn) writes:
|> at you", or "I like what you just did" because I know that you understand
|> this method of communication as well. What is the importance of crossing
|> the t's and dotting the i's when the purpose of the language has been
|> satisfied?
This of course begs the question of whether the purpose of the language *can*
be satisfied without crosing the t's and dotting the i's (at least to a significant
extent).
|> To answer my own question I will say that the problem is not the fact that
|> the English language is evolving, but the fact that the ideas behind various
|> words are changing, resulting in all sorts of miscommunications. The
|> so-called "generation gap" would be the most obvious example of this.
|> Aha; so the school system is not lacking in teaching them English, or at
|> least we will assume so for the moment, but it is lacking in teaching them
|> to communicate their ideas. (This should be qualified by "to a wide variety
|> of persons, since I am sure teenagers have no trouble communicating with
|> other teenagers who speak the same lingo.)
You obviously haven't listened to a lot of teenagers who "speak the same
lingo."
|>
|> On the other hand, the manner in which people express themselves should not
|> be rigidly defined, especially by a language as ambiguous as English. Some
|> ideas and thoughts can only be expressed in other languages so conforming
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is a popular myth. I'd really like to see some evidence for it --
or even an indication of what would *count* as evidence for it.
|> everyone to speak only exact and perfect English is putting a muzzle on
|> creative thought. How much difficulty would you have interpreting Shakespeare
Another popular myth -- and one that is used to perpetuate the sorry state
of English instruction. I have yet to see a case in which insistence on a
student's learning correct grammar and usage could be argued to result in a
loss of creativity.
|>
|> It is okay for them to do this if it is their choice. What is not okay is
|> for this choice to be made for them merely because they remain ignorant of
|> the fact that this situation exists.
I think this last sentence (if I may use that description) is a fine example
of the problem we are discussing. After reading it several times I *still*
can't fathom its meaning. Yet I am sure the author "knows what he means."
There may even be other readers who "know what he means". But I wonder if
all those would agree on the meaning.
Ken Mcvay
>Then you do understand how this is possible! The schools haven't the
>faintest interest in teaching grammar, or anything close to grammar.
>They don't even try. As long as "communication" is maintained, they are
>happy.
This line of thinking is politically flawed, and must be terminated.
>Yes, our education system is terminally flawed. That is where the
>blame must be laid; that is where the decisions were taken over
>curriculum which decreed the switch in focus to content, and decried
>the emphasis on grammar.
Scientific studies by, er, educators, have determined that teachers
can only function within a Politically Correct atmosphere. Ideally,
that means (1) teacher per student, enabling them to "bond" and
"relate." "Teaching" is an out-moded concept.
>And this is _why_ the educators made the mistake they did... they
>were merely mirroring public apathy over language and grammatical
>issues. After all, they are supposedly elected to represent _us_ --
>and they probably do this accurately.
The problem with teachers is that they receive their credentials from
other teachers. You're right - it's terminal.
--
|The court of Assizes sees no reason to question the opinion of this|
|expert, who is known in the scholarly world for his studies on the|
|National Socialist persecution of the Jews. The expert opinion he|
|has submitted is detailed, thorough, and therefore convincing. |
Russil Wvong
>>Obviously there is something wrong with ourselves if we think that
>>it is okay for people not to be able to adequately express themselves in
>>a language that they have heard and utilised all of their lives.
>
>And this is _why_ the educators made the mistake they did... they
>were merely mirroring public apathy over language and grammatical
>issues. After all, they are supposedly elected to represent _us_ --
>and they probably do this accurately.
I think I should point out that the need for literacy in day-to-day life
has declined over the last few decades. Letters, once the most important
medium of personal communication, have been replaced by the telephone.
Television has replaced reading as the most common form of entertainment.
Indeed, most children spend more hours watching television than they do
in the classroom.
Written communication remains important in the workplace, of course; but
I think most children don't really see the relevance of reading and writing
skills to their everyday lives. And it's pretty difficult (and frustrating)
to teach something to an audience which isn't interested; pretty pointless,
in fact. I think this is the root of the problem.
Many educators have been trying to change the curriculum to keep their students
interested, by de-emphasizing "boring" subjects like grammar, spelling, and
composition. I can't really blame them for that.
I think these efforts are misguided, though, since reading and writing skills
are at the heart of what schools should provide. Children can pick up verbal
skills and general knowledge of the world from television. But the knowledge
provided by television is shallow; it can't compete with the *depth* and
thoroughness of books, because of the nature of the medium. This is why
reading and writing skills remain crucial; and these skills can only be
learned inside the classroom.
More recently, computers within the home are becoming common; teenagers and
children are starting to use them. To use most computers, you need some
knowledge of how to read and write. It's possible that this will provide
more motivation for children to develop their literacy skills. On bulletin
boards, for example, there's considerable social pressure to use correct
grammar and spelling (via the infamous "spelling flames").
There's a couple of things that we can do to try to improve the situation.
One is to try to get teachers to place more importance on teaching reading
and writing in schools, through the usual political channels. Probably more
important, though, is making sure that our children realize the importance
of reading and writing.
--
Russil Wvong
rus...@idacom.hp.com
Hewlett-Packard, IDACOM Telecom Division
Edmonton, Alberta
Thomas Hood
here are a few quotes from a flyer produced by the company that
employs me:
"Our service and technical support are the highest in the industry."
And what are we high on?
"Our confidence in the Matrox Impression Family of True-Color Windows
Products is backed by a full two-year warranty against defects and
workmanship"
Another first: a warranty against workmanship, or should that be
a Full Two-Year Warrany Against Workmanship?
"Each Matrox Impression comes with manual(s) outlining installation
procedures and trouble shooting sections for both the hardware and
software."
Outlining trouble? Shooting sections?
"You can expect timely releases of our latest software drivers, including
both Windows 3.1 and Windows NT, more productivity-enhancing
software and even faster performance than ever before."
I'll bet you thought Windows 3.1 was written by Microsoft!
--
Thomas Hood th...@matrox.com
Gerald Olchowy
>
>The problem with teachers is their subservience to parents and school
>boards. Parents who know little about educational theory or practise
>are placed in a position to guide the directions of education, then
>whine when their policies (which can usually be classified as either
>"beat 'em daily, worked for me" or "don't pressure the little
>sugar-coated darlings") don't do the trick.
>
>Do you think any patient could survive a surgical procedure if anyone
>off the street who could muster 2,000 votes could direct an operation?
>Don't be surprised that our education system is a mess when it suffers
>in that way.
>
>Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating the abolition of democratic
>input into the education system. There comes a time, however, when you
>have to let trained professionals exercise their best judgment if you
>expect results.
>
The best judgement of "trained" professionals has come up with
the "whole language method"...which is creating a generation of
illiterates, and "new math"...which is creating a generation of
numerical illiterates. Memorization, repitition, and testing are cruel
and unusual punishment.
The problem with education is parental apathy, for failing to
demand value for the tax dollar from the people they elect, and
evidence that the "trained" professionals have any idea that
their new-fangled ideas work.
Gerald
Terence Michael Labach
> >And this is _why_ the educators made the mistake they did... they
> >were merely mirroring public apathy over language and grammatical
> >issues. After all, they are supposedly elected to represent _us_ --
> >and they probably do this accurately.
>
> The problem with teachers is that they receive their credentials from
> other teachers. You're right - it's terminal.
The problem with teachers is their subservience to parents and school
boards. Parents who know little about educational theory or practise
are placed in a position to guide the directions of education, then
whine when their policies (which can usually be classified as either
"beat 'em daily, worked for me" or "don't pressure the little
sugar-coated darlings") don't do the trick.
Do you think any patient could survive a surgical procedure if anyone
off the street who could muster 2,000 votes could direct an operation?
Don't be surprised that our education system is a mess when it suffers
in that way.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating the abolition of democratic
input into the education system. There comes a time, however, when you
have to let trained professionals exercise their best judgment if you
expect results.
- terry -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"La cerise americaine sur le gateau de merde."
- A French newspaper's description of Mickey Mouse and Euro-Disneyland
Robert Pearlman
|> talking about now, not just the English language. Say I have an idea or a
|> thought and I wish to convey it to you. I can do this with any number of
|> non-verbal methods, such as an icy stare when I am mad at you, or a large
|> grin when I am pleased. I also have the option of simply stating "I am mad
|> at you", or "I like what you just did" because I know that you understand
|> this method of communication as well. What is the importance of crossing
|> the t's and dotting the i's when the purpose of the language has been
|> satisfied?
|
There, I've conveyed my feelings. But while tearing you limb from
limb might express my emotions and perhaps even soothe them it's not
a great way to explain chess strategy or how to blanch almonds.
BTW, this paragraph is so much at odds with the rest of your post
that I'm at a loss to understand their conjunction.
About the accurate communication of information without words:
Hear in N.J. people have lost even the ability to point accurately.
Ask someone directions, make careful note of the direction in which
he points, then ignore it since it is not guaranteed to be within
90 degrees of the way to go.
Robert Pearlman
|> Yes. I believe the problem started to occur some time in the 70's in the
|> "educator" factories -- those departments that turn out English teachers.
|> (I in fact have confirming evidence for this from some professional writers
|> and older teachers.) Certain ideologies took hold that are expressed in the
|> kinds of astounding comments you report and that I too have heard.
This problem started long before the 70's. If you can get hold of a copy
of "Educational Wastelands" by Arthur Bestor (sometime in 50's) you'll
see that it goes back much earlier. Every single excuse made by the current
excusers was made in the 20's and 30's. As always, the main reason
less was taught was because "inner city" kids came from rotten families
and (in whisper, with wink) weren't bright enough to take in the classic
curriculum. Of course those were the Greeks, Italians and Jews.
On the other hand, don't miss Jonathan Kozol's "Savage Inequalities".
Lots of these kids and teachers are fighting with their hands and legs
tied.
Ken Mcvay
>The problem with teachers is their subservience to parents and school
>boards. Parents who know little about educational theory or practise
>are placed in a position to guide the directions of education, then
>whine when their policies (which can usually be classified as either
>"beat 'em daily, worked for me" or "don't pressure the little
>sugar-coated darlings") don't do the trick.
>Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating the abolition of democratic
>input into the education system. There comes a time, however, when you
>have to let trained professionals exercise their best judgment if you
>expect results.
I want to be up-front about my feelings here. I was married to a
teacher for 25 years, and fought with her constantly about the
problems I observed from that vantage point, including (but most
certainly not limited to) these:
1. Near-illiterate 4th. grade boy "passed" to 5th. grade because:
a. It would be socially difficult to keep him with 4th.
graders another year
b. His parents were alcoholics, so it wasn't his fault
he couldn't read
2. A teacher was clearly unable to teach his given subjects
effectively or efficiently. My three teen-age girls all complained
(not to dad, mind you, but to mom - the teacher). Mom agreed that
the staff member was generally considered incompetent by his peer
group, and, in some cases, abusive with students, most of whom were
female (he taught typing, office skills, etc.) Not one of the many
teachers I asked about this disagreed, and not one would support
his removal, since "it was his only livelihood," and "it would be
unprofessional" for other teachers to "turn against him."
3. An abusive and seriously troubled young man in the 4th. grade often
left my wife in tears. He disrupted her class so often, and so
seriously, that it was often flat impossible to get anything done.
"Fuck you, cunt!" was one of his favorite lines. After tolerating
this for six months, I got the little bastard thrown out of the
classroom so my wife could do her job, and the kid could get help
in an environment where others would not suffer the sheer
distraction of having him around.
In all the years my wife taught in Canada (about ten), she never once
failed to pass each and every student on to the next teacher - it
mattered not that they could not read - what was important was to be
socially and politically correct.
Phooey. The "professionals" are doing a rotten job. imho.
John Henders
>
>The problem with teachers is that they receive their credentials from
>other teachers. You're right - it's terminal.
>
grade 13 in Ontario, teachers were constantly harping on how we students
needed to learn how things worked in the "real world".
One day I realised that the typical high school teacher goes from
high school to university/teacher's college, the goes back to high
school. This led me to wonder what "real world" they meant.
Sorry if this is a bit of a drift from the illiteracy thread.
I actually agree with the teacher quoted earlier who said students
should learn grammer from reading books, however very few people
seem to read much any more.
--
There are a lot of intelligent people on the net that will go
ballistic when they are subjected to something stupid.
-- Larry Smith on the rec.arts.manga debate
jhen...@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca
Michael Hui
>
> I couldn't possibly grade like that! It would take
> too much time.
>
> -- Almost any teacher in middle or high school.
>
> Why should I make it better? She almost never corrects
> the assignments, and when she does the spelling and grammar
> don't matter.
>
> -- Almost any kid
>
>These are *not* fabricated quotations.
Bart Simpson would find much empathy with the above views!
I have been out of secondary school for too long. Is this what the
current state is like? It's one thing to have teachers grade a paper's
content according to the age and grade of the student, but it's quite
another to let grammar mistakes go by without correcting them!
>Gary H. Merrill [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
>SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC 27513 / (919) 677-8000
>sas...@unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Michael MY Hui my...@bnr.ca Ottawa Canada
Gary Merrill
|>
|> The problem with teachers is that they receive their credentials from
|> other teachers. You're right - it's terminal.
Yes, I'm afraid that this is the case. At least one of my children has
expressed an interest in teaching, and my response to him was "Fine, but
don't get a degree in education. Pick a discipline and get a degree in
*that*. Then do what is necessary to get teaching credentials."
The real problem is that at a certain point the "professional educators"
realized that they would have a lot more respect and wield a lot more
clout if the case could be made that there was a body of knowledge and
techniques in which they were *expert*. Since they weren't expert in any
of the recognized disciplines, they invented one. No longer was the
emphasis to be placed on the subject matter to be taught, but rather on the
act of teaching. Teachers are experts in teaching, and the rest of us are
not. So we don't have any right to criticize their techniques or lack
of success. They are *professionals*. (The currently favored term is
"educational practitioner". I have even heard an administrator make the
claim that "Someone who was, but is not now, a practitioner does not know
the problems practitioners face and cannot judge them." This was in
defense of a position against a proposal concerning teacher evaluation
and accountability.) This kind of approach works very well on the vast
majority of parents. The fact that my wife and I have over 20 years of
teaching experience in the humanities and sciences ranging from middle
school to postgraduate and medical school gives most teachers pause, but
they are amazingly resistent to actually thinking about what they are doing.
A friend (as the consequence of a dispute with her child's teacher over grading)
has just shown me some pages out of the teacher's version of a 4th grade
math text. *Nothing* is left for the teacher to do or to know. The book
contains page after page of detailed illustrations of examples and solutions
to problems along with copious text of the form "Now say, ...", "Next say
to your class, ...", etc. Pretty scary. The dispute arose because my
friend's daughter did a problem in a way different from the one in the text.
She used a correct and generalizable technique, but the teacher refuses (now
over a period of weeks) to give her any credit for it.
--
Chris Spindler
>is a symptom of the sickness endemic in our society. Instead of catering
>to the sickness, we ought to try and cure it. What can we do? What
>can you do?
My first response would be "turn off the television". My second response
(directed more to post-secondary institutions) would be "stop saying
it's not our responsibility, they should know that by now."
Mass media is contributing to the erosion of the language. Grammatical
errors made in newspaper articles, on the radio and on television are
propagated at an alarming rate. Another case of "It was in the papers,
it must be true."
The practice, maintained by the federal government and many newspapers, of
writing for the lowest common denominator pushes that standard down.
Instead of promoting a higher level of linguistic competence, this
approach caters to the lazy side of everyone's nature. A skill unused
will atrophy.
Another contributing factor, which I encountered while teaching 1st
year physics, is the attitude that it is someone else's responsibility
to ensure that the students have an adequate command of the language.
If a student cannot communicate their results effectively, then they
should be marked accordingly, not pardoned saying "it's just their
english, the math is correct."
There is no point to education without communication.
The last example was fairly specific but it does illustrate
the attitude which persists in scientific circles at the post-secondary
level.
Obviously I do not know what the solution is but the school system
is a good place to start. Now how do we reinforce those lessons ?
Chris Spindler
_________________________________________________________________
A.I.M. #VI0517 - - - - - - - - o Never ascribe to malice
550 Zephyr - - - - - - - - _/\_> what is easily explained
DoD #6371 - - - - - - - - O,> / O by stupidity.
_________________________________________________________________
--
Chris Spindler
_________________________________________________________________
Marie A Coffin
(Robert Pearlman) writes:
[deleted]
> This problem started long before the 70's. If you can get hold of a copy
> of "Educational Wastelands" by Arthur Bestor (sometime in 50's) you'll
> see that it goes back much earlier. Every single excuse made by the current
> excusers was made in the 20's and 30's. As always, the main reason
> less was taught was because "inner city" kids came from rotten families
> and (in whisper, with wink) weren't bright enough to take in the classic
> curriculum. Of course those were the Greeks, Italians and Jews.
>
> On the other hand, don't miss Jonathan Kozol's "Savage Inequalities".
> Lots of these kids and teachers are fighting with their hands and legs
> tied.
>
Yes, and while you're at it, read Richard Mitchell's _The Graves of Academe_.
You will be astonished (and, I hope, appalled) by the deep roots of the
current problem.
Marie
Louis Bertrand
Those readers of Michelle Hoyle's posting from SFU on the
erosion of children's language skills who believe that
eloquence is obsolete should take a few minutes to look up
the following essay:
The Authority Of Learning
Northrop Frye
in "On Education", a collection of essays, 1988
ISBN 0-472-10106-4
LB41.F79 1987
Fitzhenry & Whiteside
195 Allstate Parkway, Markham, Ontario, L3R 4T8, Canada
Dr. Frye, whom I had previously dismissed as an "old f--t",
starts with a look at the Newspeak of George Orwell's "1984".
The ramifications are surprising and put an alarming
perspective on the decline of the written word.
Blaming faceless culprits like the boards of education, the
teachers, or television achieves nothing.
I notice that in general North Americans are less articulate
than Europeans. Listening to news shows like "As It Happens"
on the CBC, I occasionally hear an interview with someone
whose first language is NOT english, expressing ideas with an
enviable fluency.
Could the answer be that language is inextricably linked
to culture? If our culture is fabricated in Hollywood
and Madison Avenue, then our language is bound to be
reduced to the bare bones needed to ellicit direct action
and voice simple wants.
Say, this wouldn't have anything to do with the whole
Culture vs. Language kerfuffle in Quebec, would it?
Ciao!
-- Louis
--
Louis Bertrand * Lynden, Ontario, Canada * (416) 648-8066
Signal Path Designs (Analog - Digital - Audio - Embedded uCs)
lo...@SignalPath.on.ca (new -- may not work yet)
louis%tro...@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (old -- still works fine)
John Lacey
> The problem with teachers is that they receive their credentials from
> other teachers. You're right - it's terminal.
sas...@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) replies:
>Yes, I'm afraid that this is the case. At least one of my children has
>expressed an interest in teaching, and my response to him was "Fine, but
>don't get a degree in education. Pick a discipline and get a degree in
>*that*. Then do what is necessary to get teaching credentials."
The problem cannot be in-breeding, per se. Go to any university, and
you will see that each discipline teaches its own. Clearly, for some
reason or other (many arguments might be supplied), education does not
attract many talented students.
I was not surprised to note that when you break down the scores on the
GRE by major, education majors do the worst on each part. Not just
overall scores, mind, but the lowest on each of the verbal,
quantitative, and analytic.
--
John Lacey, How can I do this? I don't know; and because I do
jo...@whale.cs.indiana.edu not know, I shall make the attempt. e e cummings
Tony Buckland
>In article <LABACH.92A...@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca> lab...@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) writes:
>>The problem with teachers is their subservience to parents and school
>>boards. Parents who know little about educational theory or practise
>>Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating the abolition of democratic
>>input into the education system. There comes a time, however, when you
>>have to let trained professionals exercise their best judgment if you
>>expect results.
>demand value for the tax dollar from the people they elect, and
>evidence that the "trained" professionals have any idea that
>their new-fangled ideas work.
Then the parents should demand value, while keeping their
semi-informed fingers out of how that value is delivered. Teachers
might be less tempted to embark on ill-advised widespread
experiments if they were held accountable for delivering what
they were supposed to deliver, and then the parents wouldn't have
to worry so much about the methods they use. How do you hold a
teacher accountable? The same way you hold other professionals
accountable. Deliver what you're supposed to deliver, by the
date specified, or you're out of here. Can my Johnny read?
No? Then seek a more suitable career. Yes? Then congratulations,
and here's your pay increment.
Tony Buckland
>Mass media is contributing to the erosion of the language. Grammatical
>errors made in newspaper articles, on the radio and on television are
It's "mass media are". Nothing personal; even Time is publishing
"milleniums" and the like these days. A question; do any of us work
in a newspaper office? I tend to assume that errors in newspapers
end up in print, instead of back on the reporter's desk marked in
blue pencil (or whatever the electronic equivalent of that kind of
feedback is), because cost-cutting prevents adequate editing. Is
this true? I'd hate to think that even seasoned editors no longer
recognize bad English when they see it.
Greg A. Woods
> My parents were educated in England. As I passed through high school,
> (in Brampton, Ontario during the period 1978 to 1982) they were
> constantly amazed that virtually no grammar was taught, and that all
> the "English" courses I took consisted solely of literary studies. I
> seem to recall that I only had to write one essay per year!
>
> My parents, as they explained it, took TWO English courses per year
> in school -- one in English Grammar, and one in English Literature.
> The two were separate, and both subjects were given equally important
> treatment.
>
> No such luck here...
I too was "forced" [:-)] to endure both English Grammar and English
Literature classes each year through my public and high school
education. I believe the curriculum in Saskatchewan still offers both
grammar and literature classes to all grades. I must say that I
didn't particularly like either class, and usually only did well
enough to get by. In hindsight I agree with my teachers that I would
likely have been able to do much better had I wanted to.
When I completed my high school studies in 1980, it was said
Saskatchewan had the highest standard of education of any province in
Canada. I did not think too much of this, assuming it was an internal
standard, and therefore could not easily be compared to other
education systems. However, that summer I was accepted to both the
University of Saskatchewan, and the University of Calgary. At the
time, the UofS had a minimum entrance requirement of an 80% average
grade. The UofC required only a 65% average.
I eventually chose to attend the University of Calgary. One of my
reasons for doing so was to avoid having to continue to take both
literature and grammar courses through my first two years! The UofC
required only that first year students pass an "effective writing
test," which entailed correcting some number of grammar errors and
writing a 500 word essay on any topic; all within the space of 2
hours. I do not recall the exact numbers, but I believe over 50%
failed the first attempt that year! Those who failed the second
attempt were required to enroll in a first-year English course, and so
many did that there were not enough seats to accommodate them all!
Today I find my writing skills are well honed by daily practice.
However, I do find I rely on the spelling checker and when doing any
serious writing I also make good use of the "Writer's Work Bench"
tools. I believe this is benneficial in the long run, though it does
have several negative connotations. Though it frightens me to do so,
when I look back at writing I did in high school and university, I'm
amazed that I achieved the grades I did!
--
Greg A. Woods
wo...@robohack.UUCP wo...@Elegant.COM VE3-TCP UniForum Canada & Elegant Comm.
(416) 443-1734 [home] (416) 595-5425 [work] Toronto, Ontario; CANADA
Gerald Olchowy
But testing students is cruel and unusual punishment and psychologically
damaging....or haven't you heard. Can Johnny read? Johnny will learn
to read well enough on his own. If you dare give Johnny a comprehension
test you risk scarring him irreparably for life.
Unfortunately, this is what many education "professionals" advocate...
notice that with these modern theories of education sort of leave
out feedback and accountability for results. The credo of
education "professionals"...trust us, we know what we're doing
with Johnny, and pay us...which of course is a lot like the credo
on many a TV preacher...and the school boards we elect.
Gerald
Michele A. Simond
>
>At the risk of offending the rule against advertizing on the net,
>here are a few quotes from a flyer produced by the company that
>employs me:
... and translators then have to make some sense
out of that. Sometimes, it is nearly impossible,
specially when the author of the orginal text doesn't
know how to explain what he/she meant and almost
accuses you of not knowing how to read.
:-)
--
Michele Simond ...... Traductrice ...... B.P.: mic...@catnix.UUCP
(514) 671-8820 OU : michele%cat...@cam.org
Gary Merrill
|>
|> The problem with teachers is their subservience to parents and school
|> boards. Parents who know little about educational theory or practise
|> are placed in a position to guide the directions of education, then
|> whine when their policies (which can usually be classified as either
|> "beat 'em daily, worked for me" or "don't pressure the little
|> sugar-coated darlings") don't do the trick.
There certainly is a great deal of truth in what you say about the views
of many parents. Frequently all they care about is that the kid gets
high grades -- never mind what he learns. However, there is a great
myth of "educational theory" that has lead to the widespread failure
of educational practice. The currently popular "theory" (a real misnomer,
if you look closely at it at all) is continually used to justify
practices that are repeatedly and demonstrably outrageous failures.
Gary Merrill
|> In article <1992Apr27.1...@unx.sas.com> sas...@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
|> >
|> > I couldn't possibly grade like that! It would take
|> > too much time.
|> >
|> > -- Almost any teacher in middle or high school.
|> >
|> > Why should I make it better? She almost never corrects
|> > the assignments, and when she does the spelling and grammar
|> > don't matter.
|> >
|> > -- Almost any kid
|> >
|> >These are *not* fabricated quotations.
|>
|> Bart Simpson would find much empathy with the above views!
|>
|> I have been out of secondary school for too long. Is this what the
|> current state is like? It's one thing to have teachers grade a paper's
|> content according to the age and grade of the student, but it's quite
|> another to let grammar mistakes go by without correcting them!
Well, here's a good measure of the situation: My children have been
in classes for the academically gifted in North Carolina for about
five years now. Each such course has a "Group Education Program"
drawn up by teacher and parents that describes the content of the
course, evaluation methods, how it is distinguished from "regular"
courses, etc. We have tried *repeatedly* to get the English
teachers to make a commitment in this context to (a) read and
correct each homework assignment (rather than simply "checking
it off" when a kid turns in some paper)) (b) at least *note* each
grammar and spelling error -- even if they do not use this to
assign a grade. They won't do it.
--
jeffrey chow
>
>I think I should point out that the need for literacy in day-to-day life
>has declined over the last few decades. Letters, once the most important
>medium of personal communication, have been replaced by the telephone.
>Television has replaced reading as the most common form of entertainment.
>Indeed, most children spend more hours watching television than they do
>in the classroom.
I firmly agree with Russil here. Television has become the entertainment
of choice for kids today. I also think that the educational programs on
television does more bad than good for the kids watching them. These programs
incorporate those 'neat' animations, sound, and other special effects
as part of the 'teaching' process. The TV 'asks' kids questions and then
the television camera homes in on the answer. No thinking involved! It
provides no real feedback for the children and serves to make classroom
learning really boring. No special effects and animation there, just a
teacher marking up a chalkboard.
The educational programs also gives parents an excuse for not teaching
their own kids themselves. I know one case where the parents sat
their children in front of hours of videotaped 'Seasame Street' (sp?) so
they could do other important things (clean the house maybe). It's just
irresponsible.
Television isn't called a boob-tube for nothing.
Jeff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Chow je...@ee.ubc.ca
Department of Electrical Engineering
University of British Columbia Home (604) 255-0291
2365 Main Mall HSN LAB(604) 822-9211
Vancouver, BC FAX1 (604) 822-5949
V6T 1W5 FAX2 (604) 822-9209
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Scobbie
[a whole screed of shat-inducing stuff --- aaagggghhhh!]
>Yes, I'm afraid that this is the case. At least one of my children has
>expressed an interest in teaching, and my response to him was "Fine, but
>don't get a degree in education. Pick a discipline and get a degree in
>*that*. Then do what is necessary to get teaching credentials."
Absolutely! The same goes for 'business studies' degrees.
>act of teaching. Teachers are experts in teaching, and the rest of us are
>not. So we don't have any right to criticize their techniques or lack
>of success. They are *professionals*. (The currently favored term is
>"educational practitioner". I have even heard an administrator make the
>claim that "Someone who was, but is not now, a practitioner does not know
>the problems practitioners face and cannot judge them." This was in
>defense of a position against a proposal concerning teacher evaluation
>and accountability.) This kind of approach works very well on the vast
>majority of parents. The fact that my wife and I have over 20 years of
>teaching experience in the humanities and sciences ranging from middle
>school to postgraduate and medical school gives most teachers pause, but
>they are amazingly resistent to actually thinking about what they are doing.
Well, as someone who knows their subject but does not know how to teach
I find your confidence comforting. I am going to have to learn how to
teach, as a professor, and it is patently the case that there are
good and bad ways of doing it. Go to a class by someone with a teaching
award sometime and observe. At the moment I feel that I can never achieve
that level, and most disconcertingly, that noone would care if I don't
even try. I agree with everything you've written on this topic,
just about, including the resistance of teachers to other who teach
expressing an opinion. The trouble is, they educate *our* children and
are on the defensive from day 1. When we say *we* know all about teaching,
they get more defensive. If we even hint that we can call their bluff,
forget dialogue. But that's hardly common to teachers, is it? :-(
I'm not looking forward to run-ins myself in the future. My brother in
law, an ex-physics teacher, has the odd run-in at his children's school.
But it's a small village school so it's not really a problem. Everyone
has more time, money and committment. Poverty, crime and uneducated
parents might not retard a child - might not - but the children of
educated middle class suburbanites definately get a boost. That's
bye-the-bye.
I'm depressed by bad teaching. But I'm in search of a theory of
teaching I can use in the classroom myself - it's the only way.
Education is an art in itself, a body of expertise, and we can't
just slagg off the education professionals en masse.
Jim
--
James M. Scobbie: Dept of Linguistics, Stanford University, CA 94305-2150, USA
sco...@csli.stanford.edu
Jim Scobbie
>In article <1992Apr28.1...@emr1.emr.ca> spin...@emr1.emr.ca (Chris Spindler) writes:
>>Mass media is contributing to the erosion of the language. Grammatical
>>errors made in newspaper articles, on the radio and on television are
>>propagated at an alarming rate. ...
> It's "mass media are".
Oh
No it
Isn't!
Nothing personal; even Time is publishing
> "milleniums" and the like these days.
I expect you write "a napron" rather than "an apron"
and eschew 'children' because it has two plural markers... :-) etc etc etc etc
Shannon Smith
> In article <hoyle.7...@sfu.ca> ho...@beaufort.sfu.ca (Michelle Hoyle) wr
> >
> >I recently visited home in Edmonton, Alberta for the Easter holidays. My
> >younger brother, who is now 19, astounded me with his lack of verbal
> >English skills. I was further horrified when I happened to catch sight
> >
> >I do not really understand how this is possible. This kid went to all of
> >the same schools that I did. How is it that I have managed to come out
> >of these schools with some sort of dexterity in my mother tongue, and he
> >has not? Confused, I queried my mother about the problem. She, too, was
>
> Well, I'm setting myself up to be flamed...
>
> but the reason most children in North America can't read is because
> of the "whole language method" religion, for which we are using
> entire generation of students as guinea pigs...the basic tenet of
> this bold experiment is that you don't have to teach children to
> read, they will learn to read by accident. (A brilliant theory
>
> Modern education deems that it is cruel and unusual punishment to
> have children sound out words, or be forced to do any repetitive
> drill such as forming grammatically-correct sentences, or God
> forbid more than a few times tables at a time or be asked to
> memorize anything.
>
> Well, now I'm heading for cover...
>
> Gerald
Quick! Over here! Behind this bunker! Hi, I'm Shannon. You may
remember me as the one who posted a couple of days ago about how
"alot" as *one* word was on a first-grader's list of spelling words.
We went down to have a chat with the teacher. She says that after a
day of thinking about it (it was bugging her), she decided to look it
up, and finding no "alot" in the dictionary she changed the spelling
word to "purple." *SIGHHHHHHHHHHHHH*
And no, they don't do drills there. I bought flashcards for my own
use at home. When flashcard drills are outlawed, only outlaws will
perform flashcard drills!
---
Shannon Smith ssm...@xocolatl.com
Bill Potter
(Tony Buckland) writes:
> In article <1992Apr28.0...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
golc...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
lab...@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) writes:
> >>The problem with teachers is their subservience to parents and school
> >>boards. Parents who know little about educational theory or practise
> >>Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating the abolition of democratic
> >>input into the education system. There comes a time, however, when you
> >>have to let trained professionals exercise their best judgment if you
> >>expect results.
> >demand value for the tax dollar from the people they elect, and
> >evidence that the "trained" professionals have any idea that
> >their new-fangled ideas work.
>
> semi-informed fingers out of how that value is delivered. Teachers
> might be less tempted to embark on ill-advised widespread
> experiments if they were held accountable for delivering what
> they were supposed to deliver, and then the parents wouldn't have
> to worry so much about the methods they use. How do you hold a
> teacher accountable? The same way you hold other professionals
> accountable. Deliver what you're supposed to deliver, by the
> date specified, or you're out of here. Can my Johnny read?
> No? Then seek a more suitable career. Yes? Then congratulations,
> and here's your pay increment.
Don't you think that in fact just the opposite of what you suggest
has in fact happened. Certainly in Britain upto about the '60s
teaching was a recognised as one of the professions and about
equal in status to the others. Teachers were well paid, generally
did what most of us would consider to be a good job and the profession
attracted many talented people. During the '70s and the '80s both
the status and the relative pay of teachers has fallen dramatically.
I don't expect that many PhDs enter the profession today yet only thirty
years ago the school I attended had 4. Maybe we ought to update the old
saying to be: Those who can teach won't; those who are prepared to work
for so little, do.
I'm damn certain I wouldn't take an over 50% cut in salary to stand
in front of a class of our brats and try to interst them in something
other than some kind of coloured Turtles or whatever is in today.
I think we (society) get the teachers we pay for, and our kids
get the resulting quality of education.
=============================================================================
Bill Potter : unido!pcsbst!billp : croft - n. - a piece of land
PCS GmbH : bi...@pcsbst.pcs.com : in the Highlands surrounded
D8000 Muenchen : You can't sink a RAINBOW : completely by regulations.
=============================================================================
Gary Merrill
|>
|> Well, as someone who knows their subject but does not know how to teach
|> I find your confidence comforting. I am going to have to learn how to
|> teach, as a professor, and it is patently the case that there are
|> good and bad ways of doing it. Go to a class by someone with a teaching
|> award sometime and observe. At the moment I feel that I can never achieve
|> that level, and most disconcertingly, that noone would care if I don't
|> even try. I agree with everything you've written on this topic,
A couple of points here ... I have known some recipients of teaching awards
who were in fact excellent teachers. I have known at least as many who were
lousy teachers, but who could put on a show and make their students *think*
they were learning something worthwhile. The criteria for teaching awards
(at least the ones of which I am aware) are not based on objective measurable
changes in students' understanding or abilities. Rather they are based on
the subjective impressions that students and perhaps other teachers have.
Frequently a significant component concerns whether the teacher is using the
newest theories and techniques.
Yes, there are good teachers and bad teachers. But I balk at the claim
that there are good and bad "ways". There is a wide range of personalities
and techniques among teachers, and most can be accommodated in "good teaching."
However, it is very easy for me to point out a list of features that bad
teachers seem to have:
Assign a substantial amount of homework, but then do
one of the following:
Fail to collect it.
Collect it and assign grades (frequently a grade
of either '+', '-', or "check"), but don't actually
read it and correct errors.
Put off the due date because x% of the class
didn't get it done on time.
(Better yet!) When you discover that x% of the
class didn't do the assignment, announce that you
won't collect it and that it won't count.
After you hand back an assignment, tell the students that
they have 5 minutes to examine it and then they must hand
it back in to be "filed". (This is a *very* rewarding
learning experience for the average student.)
Announce (and preferably document) your criteria of grading.
Then ignore these.
If you make a mistake in class, *never* admit it. This could
erode the students' confidence in you.
For science teachers: *Require* that each of your students
enter the science fair. Then be certain to have it judged by
someone of recognized competence -- such as the football coach
and the Home Ec. teacher. (You think I'm kidding?)
For English teachers: *Require* everyone in your class to keep
a daily journal (Very popular! One of the most highly worshipped
techniques of encouraging "creativity"!) Insist that *anything*
can be written. Never mind grammar. Never mind spelling. Never
mind coherence. Express yourself! Either never collect these, or
collect them and always assign A's. (No sane person would
actually want to read these anyway.)
Assign academic credit for non-academic activities such as: Halloween
costume, fund drives for the school, collection of food for the
poor and homeless. (Do this frequently. It has the effect of
"leveling the playing field" for those students who are not
particularly good at academics.)
There are three essential components to good teaching (I like to think
that I speak ex cathedra here as a student of many years, a teacher
for at least a decade, and a parent who now has children in middle and
high school):
Competence in the subject matter.
(*Nothing* substitutes for this.)
Common consideration of your students in terms of
fairness and objectivity.
(This is why students in fact prefer a tough but
fair teacher over an easy but flaky one.)
Common sense.
(Never fail to ask yourself how *you* would feel
if you were a student in the given situation.)
A good teacher will have each of these. Look at any bad teacher and you
will see that he lacks at least one (usually all, to some degree).
|>
|> I'm depressed by bad teaching. But I'm in search of a theory of
|> teaching I can use in the classroom myself - it's the only way.
Please! You don't want a "theory" of teaching. The current theory
amounts to this:
John Dewey + contemporary psycho-babble = theory of education
|> Education is an art in itself, a body of expertise, and we can't
|> just slagg off the education professionals en masse.
Oh yes I can. Remember, I've been there. I was regarded as an
excellent teacher. Students and faculty were quite annoyed when
I left. Education is *not* an "art" and it is *not* a "body of expertise".
This is the myth of the "education professional" that has been sold
(often quite successfully) to much of the American public. This is a
*fictional* profession, a discipline with no substance.
I have a *great* respect for good teachers. But anyone who uses
the terms "educational professional" or "educational practitioner"
has already passed over into never-never land.
I doubt you are convinced by this. However, I predict that when you
start teaching and you see your own children being "taught" (I would
guess that despite your reference to "our" children you don't in fact
have any -- or any of school age, right?) then your view will change.
(I think your view of the value of grammar and its enforcement will
change as well. Then you'll know that you're *old*.)
Thomas Hood
>th...@pluton.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>>
>>At the risk of offending the rule against advertizing on the net,
>>here are a few quotes from a flyer produced by the company that
>>employs me:
>>[...]
> ... and translators then have to make some sense
> out of that. Sometimes, it is nearly impossible,
> specially when the author of the orginal text doesn't
> know how to explain what he/she meant and almost
> accuses you of not knowing how to read.
... and people who point out the grammatical flaws get called to the
V.P.'s office to be told to never again speak publically on the matter,
as just happened to me.
So hey gang, forget what I said about Matrox. Nobody here but geniuses.
--
Thomas Hood th...@matrox.com
Pat.Ch...@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
> In article <1992Apr27....@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca>, kmc...@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>
> > The problem with teachers is that they receive their credentials from
> > other teachers. You're right - it's terminal.
>
> sas...@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) replies:
>
> >Yes, I'm afraid that this is the case. At least one of my children has
> >expressed an interest in teaching, and my response to him was "Fine, but
> >don't get a degree in education. Pick a discipline and get a degree in
> >*that*. Then do what is necessary to get teaching credentials."
>
> The problem cannot be in-breeding, per se. Go to any university, and
> you will see that each discipline teaches its own. Clearly, for some
> reason or other (many arguments might be supplied), education does not
> attract many talented students.
> --
> John Lacey, How can I do this? I don't know; and because I do
> jo...@whale.cs.indiana.edu not know, I shall make the attempt. e e cummings
I wonder if some teachers are not just hiding behind a load of heifer
dust (*We dare not correct Chris's work because he/she will suffer
major trauma if he/she sees all those red marks...*) because they are
not that confident about their own knowledge?
Hands up all those who have seen teachers mangling the spelling of
words. It's not unusual to see school reports and newsletters littered
with faulty grammar and poor spelling.
I have seen a teacher *correct* an already correctly spelled word.
If we start lowering our standards on something as fundamental as
literacy and numeracy, where will it all end? Maybe we will end up
like the cavemen?
--
********************************************************
* The floggings will continue until morale improves *
* * * Pat.Ch...@bbs.actrix.gen.nz * * *
* Pat Churchill, Wellington, New Zealand - Godzone *
Mark Slagle
> courses, etc. We have tried *repeatedly* to get the English
> teachers to make a commitment in this context to (a) read and
> correct each homework assignment (rather than simply "checking
> it off" when a kid turns in some paper)) (b) at least *note* each
> grammar and spelling error -- even if they do not use this to
> assign a grade. They won't do it.
----
Sounds bad. What reasons do they offer? Any reasons?
--
----
Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059
sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com Sunnyvale, CA 94088
408-756-0895 USA
Jim Scobbie
>courses, etc. We have tried *repeatedly* to get the English
>teachers to make a commitment in this context to (a) read and
>correct each homework assignment (rather than simply "checking
>it off" when a kid turns in some paper)) (b) at least *note* each
>grammar and spelling error -- even if they do not use this to
>assign a grade. They won't do it.
That is completely disgraceful.
:-(
We used to have errors noted, but no marks deducted (in secondary
schools). I don't think it did anyone any harm. I make sure to
underline what I consider to be vocabulary errors or awkward locutions
in work I correct, but grades are assigned on content. If the work was
dreadful I would try to persuade the student to get remedial help.
Science students here at Stanford have written-English advisers to
help them. If the work is so bad that I'm unsure as to the content,
I'm afraid the benefit of the doubt has a short half-life --- I mean
that I eventually fail to give credit for possibly correct answers.
The names of people, countries, principles, chemicals, theories,
etc etc etc --- the actual content of the course --- should be
spelled correctly. Content needs to be correct, after all.
Michael Hui
>We went down to have a chat with the teacher. She says that after a
>day of thinking about it (it was bugging her), she decided to look it
>up, and finding no "alot" in the dictionary she changed the spelling
>word to "purple." *SIGHHHHHHHHHHHHH*
What if the teacher answered that her pupils are the vanguards of
modern language, and whatever she gives them, that's it!
That's what they'll learn!
I say you should look for more fundemental grammatical errors the
teacher should have corrected but didn't. Slangs and colloquial
expressions are minor offenders. In the real world, it is more
important to clearly express your views than to get the spelling
right 99.9% of the time.
John Lacey
>I have seen a teacher *correct* an already correctly spelled word.
Oh, heavens, I've seen university professors do that. I've done it
myself. Mistakes, or or even errors in judgement, these are
understandable, and forgivable. We need to be a little more careful
in our criticism.
We have seen in this thread that essentially the same problem occurs
in many nations with differing administrative systems. I think the
problems lie with the teachers and the parents. Our teachers are
arguably our most poorly educated college graduates.
Added to that we have parents who are not interested in their
children's education, but rather, that they get to the next grade, or
graduate from high school, or get a degree. We also have parents who
essentially view the schools are (often) free day-care.
Where is the flaw in the system? I think it lies in values. We need
to recall Mark Twain, and hold education more important than
schooling. We don't need to teach our children to explore the world.
They already do that by themselves. We just need to help them.
Don't even think about getting me started about television .... )
Socrates
to Andrew Dunn. I was the original poster so I will respond to it.)
In <1992Apr27.2...@unx.sas.com> sas...@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>In article <1992Apr27.1...@alias.com>, kpi...@alias.com (Socrates) writes:
>> this method of communication as well. What is the importance of crossing
>> the t's and dotting the i's when the purpose of the language has been
>> satisfied?
>This of course begs the question of whether the purpose of the language *can*
>be satisfied without crosing the t's and dotting the i's (at least to a significant
>extent).
Actually in the original posting the first half of this paragraph provided an
extreme example of how the purpose of the language could be satisfied without
using language at all. You may disagree that the primary purpose of language
is communication, but communication is definitely possible without use of
language and by extension it is possible with improper or incomplete use of
language.
>> Aha; so the school system is not lacking in teaching them English, or at
>> least we will assume so for the moment, but it is lacking in teaching them
>> to communicate their ideas. (This should be qualified by "to a wide variety
>> of persons, since I am sure teenagers have no trouble communicating with
>> other teenagers who speak the same lingo.)
>You obviously haven't listened to a lot of teenagers who "speak the same
>lingo."
Why do you say this? Is this saying that the slang words teenagers are using
mean totally different things to different people? Certainly many words have
multiple meanings but that is true of many common English words as well.
>> On the other hand, the manner in which people express themselves should not
>> be rigidly defined, especially by a language as ambiguous as English. Some
>> ideas and thoughts can only be expressed in other languages so conforming
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>This is a popular myth. I'd really like to see some evidence for it --
>or even an indication of what would *count* as evidence for it.
Okay, how about the Oriental concept of Chi/Ki? In English terms this can
be described as an internal power that originates in an area of the body
called the Hari, which is physically located a couple of inches below the
navel. I have been studying it for years and there is no adequate way of
representing the concept in English.
In more general terms the fact that translations between French and English
often do not have the same literal meaning is an indication of different
thought processes underlying each.
>>everyone to speak only exact and perfect English is putting a muzzle on
>>creative thought. How much difficulty would you have interpreting Shakespeare
>Another popular myth -- and one that is used to perpetuate the sorry state
>of English instruction. I have yet to see a case in which insistence on a
>student's learning correct grammar and usage could be argued to result in a
>loss of creativity.
If it's counter-examples you want then try reading some poetry. Highly
creative thought in motion, but in many cases grammatical constructs are
ignored or mutilated.
>> It is okay for them to do this if it is their choice. What is not okay is
>> for this choice to be made for them merely because they remain ignorant of
>> the fact that this situation exists.
>I think this last sentence (if I may use that description) is a fine example
>of the problem we are discussing. After reading it several times I *still*
>can't fathom its meaning. Yet I am sure the author "knows what he means."
>There may even be other readers who "know what he means". But I wonder if
>all those would agree on the meaning.
Actually your response provides a better example of lacking
communication. You read something you did not understand, but instead
of trying to clear it up with the author you point to it as an example
of bad communication. Communication is a two-way street. I would
certainly not have the gall to claim that everything that comes out of
my mouth (or keyboard) will be perfectly and uniformly understood by my
entire audience. Let me clear up the last paragraph. I was assuming a
background knowledge that most people probably do not share.
People have a right to make choices, even stupid ones. This includes
the right to use improper English. That is okay. If, however, they are
totally unaware that English has proper and improper uses that is not okay.
It seems to me that this is the situation that exists today in the school
system. Nobody is willing to put the red pen to paper and point out
problems, so the student is unaware that there are any.
This is reinforcing the "unconscious incompetents". These are people
that are not only ignorant of something but are also ignorant of their
ignorance. This type of person is far too abundant in our society.
Taking your point one step further, having proper grammatical
constructs may be a good basis for mutual communication but it by no
means guarantees it. I have refrained from attacking your posting from
a logical point of view because it would not address the point, but you
might want to go over what you have been saying purely from an
analytical point of view. Your ideas certainly have merit, but viewed
by a logician they are apt to be dismissed as having no content.
Gary Merrill
|>
|> Don't you think that in fact just the opposite of what you suggest
|> has in fact happened. Certainly in Britain upto about the '60s
|> teaching was a recognised as one of the professions and about
|> equal in status to the others. Teachers were well paid, generally
|> did what most of us would consider to be a good job and the profession
|> attracted many talented people. During the '70s and the '80s both
|> the status and the relative pay of teachers has fallen dramatically.
|> I don't expect that many PhDs enter the profession today yet only thirty
|> years ago the school I attended had 4. Maybe we ought to update the old
|> saying to be: Those who can teach won't; those who are prepared to work
|> for so little, do.
|>
|> I'm damn certain I wouldn't take an over 50% cut in salary to stand
|> in front of a class of our brats and try to interst them in something
|> other than some kind of coloured Turtles or whatever is in today.
|>
|> I think we (society) get the teachers we pay for, and our kids
|> get the resulting quality of education.
I don't really want to disagree with what you have said explicitly, but
I am leery of the view that the primary problem centers around teacher
pay. There are simply too many obvious counterexamples to this.
The private school which my eldest child now attends has a pay scale
*lower* than the surrounding public school systems. The school spends
*less* per student than the surrounding public school systems. Both
of these statistics were quite a surprise to me. Some classes are smaller
than typical public school classes, but at least as many are larger.
Most of the teachers at this school have a master's degree, and a few
have a Ph.D. I do not believe that *any* have degrees in education!
This school provides a fantastic education. Looking at it objectively,
what's the difference between this school and the public schools that
have failed my children? Well, here are some significant differences:
1) The private school does not provide non-academic
services such as before-school or after-school
child care.
2) The private school does not even have a lunch program.
Everybody (including faculty) bags it. In fact, lunch
time is a major opportunity for faculty and students to
meet informally.
3) The private school does not tolerate kids with behavior
problems.
4) The school is not "top heavy" with administration and does
not have n+1 "guidance" counselors. (It has three counselors:
a) A college counselor who provides a *solid*
program of information and support.
b) A curriculum counselor.
c) A standard Mr. Goodvibes "guidance" counselor ala
virtually all public school counselors.)
The school does not devote a great deal of time pulling its
students out of classes for various goofy programs cooked up
by the guidance counselors.
5) In contemporary public schools you get attention only if
you have some currently popular problem: drug abuse,
behavior problem, alcohol abuse, weird family problems, etc.
In the private school, each student has a faculty advisor
who keeps close tabs on student progress and provides advice
and guidance to *every* student in his care. They aren't
oppressive about this, but they are there when needed and
the students know this. In the public high schools attended
by (two of) my children, the kids have *never* been advised
about possible career choices or what courses they should
or might want to take.
In fact, this private school looks much like the public school *I*
attended.
In addition, my children have in fact had *several* excellent teachers in
the public schools (most often in mathematics, a couple in English, a couple
in science, and one in French). Pay does not really seem to be the
primary problem here.
Gary Merrill
|> >In article <1992Apr29.1...@unx.sas.com>, sas...@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
|> > courses, etc. We have tried *repeatedly* to get the English
|> > teachers to make a commitment in this context to (a) read and
|> > correct each homework assignment (rather than simply "checking
|> > it off" when a kid turns in some paper)) (b) at least *note* each
|> > grammar and spelling error -- even if they do not use this to
|> > assign a grade. They won't do it.
|>
|> ----
|> Sounds bad. What reasons do they offer? Any reasons?
Usually not. They don't feel they have an obligation to offer reasons. They
are professionals and are exercising their professional judgment.
Robert Osborne
> Sorry if this is a bit of a drift from the illiteracy thread.
> I actually agree with the teacher quoted earlier who said students
> should learn grammer from reading books, however very few people
> seem to read much any more.
When I was in junior high and highschool I used to read, on average, 4
books a week. My spelling and grammer were simply horrible. I could
read, however, and was intelligent enough to have some real thoughts
about what I was reading so my lack of writing skills was ignored.
I'm still suffering for that idiotic 'He reads so he'll pick up the
grammer' approach to teaching (as you can probably tell :-).
Then I went to university and got a real shock. I went from being an
average writer to being the best in the class, and it wasn't because I
improved. In grade 13 I wrote as many essays in physics as most of my
classmates had written in english.
Canada has a serious problem and everybody is ignoring it because
"We're still doing better than the US".
Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or rob...@isgtec.com
Lyndon Swab
John> Pat.Ch...@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
John> We have seen in this thread that essentially the same problem occurs
John> in many nations with differing administrative systems. I think the
John> problems lie with the teachers and the parents. Our teachers are
John> arguably our most poorly educated college graduates.
Alright, I can't just sit here any more - I have to bite.
Just what is it that you people are looking for? My wife is a teacher
in Ottawa (in a board that was *not* on strike). She has a BSc., an MSc.
in micro-immunology and a B.Ed. Even with three degrees she is very
fortunate to have a teaching job. A fellow graduate (and a good friend)
with an MA. in history has had to supply teach for the last two years - no
jobs. In Canada, it is tough to get into education, and the people who do
are generally very well educated. Especially with the current downturn
in the economy, it is even impossible to get into a university B.Ed program.
Is my wife atypical? Well, I don't know many of the teachers at her
school, but the physics teacher has a PhD., and the music teacher is a
performing singer (with the award winning Cantata Singers of Ottawa).
But yes, I do know one teacher who IMHO is a flake :-).
Are they good teachers? Well, that is subjective, and I suppose that
every Canadian will have a different opinion on that. But I can say that
they do *care* about the quality of education. My wife spends two to
three hours every evening and four to eight hours per weekend marking,
preparing lessons, looking up labs that would be "fun" for the kids, etc.
I really wonder how many of the parents are spending that much of their
free time with their kids.
Do they make a lot of money? Well, I'm an engineer, and I make a hell of
a lot more than my wife. I get paid time and a half for the little bit of
overtime that I work - teachers get nothing. I don't have to deal with
problems of underfunding, school boards who simply want to build empires,
and parents who think that I'm useless. I don't have to deal with drug
abuse, prostitution, child abuse, extortion, ... on a *daily* basis.
(Yes, this stuff *really does* happen. Our teachers are educators,
confidants, social workers, psychologists, and babysitters. In fact,
they are everything that parents today are not (flame retardant clothing on).
All in all, I think we need to stop demanding so much from everyone else
(teachers and politicians included) and accept the responsibility of changing
things ourselves. Maybe our kids aren't turning out the way we want
because we are failing as parents. Maybe we didn't turn out the way our
parents wanted us to.
Just my opinion.
Lyndon
P.S. By the way, John, I had no intention of flaming your article. I agree
with most of what you said.
--
Lyndon Swab ls...@bnr.ca, (613) 763-7165, ESN 393-7165
Jim Scobbie
>|> I'm depressed by bad teaching. But I'm in search of a theory of
>|> teaching I can use in the classroom myself - it's the only way.
>Please! You don't want a "theory" of teaching. The current theory
>amounts to this:
> John Dewey + contemporary psycho-babble = theory of education
In <1992Apr29.1...@unx.sas.com> sas...@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
[lots of good points about what makes a good and a bad teacher]
>A good teacher will have each of these. Look at any bad teacher and you
>will see that he lacks at least one (usually all, to some degree).
Obviously a misunderstanding. I don't want to know the "current" theory
of trendy teaching - I need a theory of teaching I can use myself. Now,
you warn me off educationalists... and then produce your *own* theory
of what it takes to be a good and a bad teacher. Now, it so happens I
agree with your theory :-). We all need a framework, and we can't just
go round inventing them as we go along. This is as true in education
as it is in anything. If there are good and bad ways to educate, as
you suggest, we need the professionals to steer us towards the good ways,
not to get rid of the professionals.
Your thoughts on how to teach seem like common sense to me. They are
part of what I would make my own personal theory of teaching.
Just below you doubt you convince me - well you don't convince me to
close down all the teacher training colleges.
>I doubt you are convinced by this. However, I predict that when you
>start teaching and you see your own children being "taught" (I would
>guess that despite your reference to "our" children you don't in fact
>have any -- or any of school age, right?) then your view will change.
>(I think your view of the value of grammar and its enforcement will
>change as well. Then you'll know that you're *old*.)
'our' as in 'all our'. No, thank god, none yet of my own. Plenty big
family though, the biggest education disaster in which, to my mind,
is that they are not being taught Gaelic. This is in Scotland. Our
teachers need to have a degree, by the way, and teaching credentials.
A Scottish u-grad degree approaches a USA MA/MSc.
--------------
And you're absolutely right about old age being a trigger of
grammatical pedantry. Language change is an excellent example of
something beyond our control. It hurts when usage changes despite
our protestations, revealing our powerlessness, and it really hurts
when the bloody *standards* change outwith our control.
Jim Scobbie
>Just what is it that you people are looking for?
perfection I think :-)
You bring up the points that there are many teachers unemployed. This
is true in my experience, that friends had touble getting jobs, and
I don't think it is ability-based.
The pay is sickening low, in the UK anyway.
Our local paper publishes crime figures. Of the half dozen assaults
a couple of weeks ago, three were in --- *in* --- the local high school,
two of them during the day. I live in an extremely rich area, next to
an extremely poor (and violent) one, East Palo Alto. The High School
borders both areas. I simply cannot believe that schools in the USA have
metal detectors to stop kids carrying guns to school, yet it is true
(New York? Washington?).
Stupid educational theories are part of the problem.
Gary Merrill
|>
|> All in all, I think we need to stop demanding so much from everyone else
|> (teachers and politicians included) and accept the responsibility of changing
|> things ourselves. Maybe our kids aren't turning out the way we want
|> because we are failing as parents. Maybe we didn't turn out the way our
|> parents wanted us to.
My kids are turning out just fine in any number of respects. I do not feel
that I am failing as a parent, and there is no other evidence to support
this. On the other hand, there is *substantial* evidence to support the
claim that by and large *teachers* are failing. (I have already posted
much evidence of this sort.) We are not talking here about how kids
"turn out", but whether (on an objective basis) teachers are generally
doing the job they are supposed to do. There are still a number of good
teachers. But there are a *lot* of bad ones. The approach that goes
"Let's not blame the teachers. It's as much our fault as theirs." or
"It's society's fault." is simply a refusal to see the facts. I know
what good teaching is (I used to do it and I see it from *some* of my
children's teachers). I know what bad teaching is as well. I encounter
it (indirectly through my children) every day. And I have encountered it
directly and repeatedly in my dealings with teachers and their administrators.
Gary Merrill
|> (The entire article this posting was responding to was attributed incorrectly
|> to Andrew Dunn. I was the original poster so I will respond to it.)
|>
|> In <1992Apr27.2...@unx.sas.com> sas...@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
|> >In article <1992Apr27.1...@alias.com>, kpi...@alias.com (Socrates) writes:
|>
|> >> this method of communication as well. What is the importance of crossing
|> >> the t's and dotting the i's when the purpose of the language has been
|> >> satisfied?
|>
|> >This of course begs the question of whether the purpose of the language *can*
|> >be satisfied without crosing the t's and dotting the i's (at least to a significant
|> >extent).
|>
|> Actually in the original posting the first half of this paragraph provided an
|> extreme example of how the purpose of the language could be satisfied without
|> using language at all. You may disagree that the primary purpose of language
|> is communication, but communication is definitely possible without use of
|> language and by extension it is possible with improper or incomplete use of
|> language.
Okay, so why should my kids spend all that time in school?
|> >> Aha; so the school system is not lacking in teaching them English, or at
|> >> least we will assume so for the moment, but it is lacking in teaching them
|> >> to communicate their ideas. (This should be qualified by "to a wide variety
|> >> of persons, since I am sure teenagers have no trouble communicating with
|> >> other teenagers who speak the same lingo.)
|> >You obviously haven't listened to a lot of teenagers who "speak the same
|> >lingo."
|>
|> Why do you say this? Is this saying that the slang words teenagers are using
|> mean totally different things to different people? Certainly many words have
|> multiple meanings but that is true of many common English words as well.
I say this because if you actually listen to such conversations you discover that
frequently there is a great deal of miscommunication and misunderstanding.
|> >> On the other hand, the manner in which people express themselves should not
|> >> be rigidly defined, especially by a language as ambiguous as English. Some
|> >> ideas and thoughts can only be expressed in other languages so conforming
|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >This is a popular myth. I'd really like to see some evidence for it --
|> >or even an indication of what would *count* as evidence for it.
|> Okay, how about the Oriental concept of Chi/Ki? In English terms this can
|> be described as an internal power that originates in an area of the body
|> called the Hari, which is physically located a couple of inches below the
|> navel. I have been studying it for years and there is no adequate way of
|> representing the concept in English.
|>
|> In more general terms the fact that translations between French and English
|> often do not have the same literal meaning is an indication of different
|> thought processes underlying each.
And how exactly do you reach and support this conclusion? How, for example,
do I have access to the French "thought processes" except through language
in the first place? And how do I determine that we are not dealing with
"the same literal meaning"? And if I can do that, am I not thereby able to
express the difference at issue?
|> >>everyone to speak only exact and perfect English is putting a muzzle on
|> >>creative thought. How much difficulty would you have interpreting Shakespeare
|> >Another popular myth -- and one that is used to perpetuate the sorry state
|> >of English instruction. I have yet to see a case in which insistence on a
|> >student's learning correct grammar and usage could be argued to result in a
|> >loss of creativity.
|>
|> If it's counter-examples you want then try reading some poetry. Highly
|> creative thought in motion, but in many cases grammatical constructs are
|> ignored or mutilated.
Have you really missed my point here, or is this an ignoratio elenchi? Poets
in general have been taught correct grammar and usage. Their art is in knowing
when and how to deviate.
|> >> It is okay for them to do this if it is their choice. What is not okay is
|> >> for this choice to be made for them merely because they remain ignorant of
|> >> the fact that this situation exists.
|>
|> >I think this last sentence (if I may use that description) is a fine example
|> >of the problem we are discussing. After reading it several times I *still*
|> >can't fathom its meaning. Yet I am sure the author "knows what he means."
|> >There may even be other readers who "know what he means". But I wonder if
|> >all those would agree on the meaning.
|>
|> Actually your response provides a better example of lacking
|> communication. You read something you did not understand, but instead
|> of trying to clear it up with the author you point to it as an example
|> of bad communication. Communication is a two-way street. I would
|> certainly not have the gall to claim that everything that comes out of
|> my mouth (or keyboard) will be perfectly and uniformly understood by my
|> entire audience. Let me clear up the last paragraph. I was assuming a
|> background knowledge that most people probably do not share.
|>
My failure to understand you has nothing to do with background knowledge and
everything to do with the hideous syntactical atrocities of your sentence.
It's nice if pronouns can be seen to have fairly clear antecedents.
|> Taking your point one step further, having proper grammatical
|> constructs may be a good basis for mutual communication but it by no
|> means guarantees it. I have refrained from attacking your posting from
|> a logical point of view because it would not address the point, but you
|> might want to go over what you have been saying purely from an
|> analytical point of view. Your ideas certainly have merit, but viewed
|> by a logician they are apt to be dismissed as having no content.
Mighty charitable of you. However, I *am* a logician. A partial bibliography:
"A Free Logic With Intensions As Possible Values of Terms",
G. H. Merrill, _Journal_of_Philophical_Logic_ 4 (1975).
"Formalization, Possible Worlds, and the Foundations of Modal Logic",
G. H. Merrill, _Erkenntnis_ 12 (1978)
"What A Sentence Says", G. H. Merrill,
_Philosophical_Studies_ 35 (1979)
"Marginal Notes on the Theory of Reference",
G. H. Merrill, _Grazer_Philosophische_Studien_, 9 (1979)
and about 15 others I won't list. I haven't been doing that stuff of late,
but I don't think I've lost it entirely. If you want to try cheap shots,
you'd better know exactly what the target is.
Gary Merrill
|> Scobbie said:
|> Obviously a misunderstanding. I don't want to know the "current" theory
|> of trendy teaching - I need a theory of teaching I can use myself. Now,
|> you warn me off educationalists... and then produce your *own* theory
|> of what it takes to be a good and a bad teacher. Now, it so happens I
|> agree with your theory :-). We all need a framework, and we can't just
|> go round inventing them as we go along. This is as true in education
|> as it is in anything. If there are good and bad ways to educate, as
|> you suggest, we need the professionals to steer us towards the good ways,
|> not to get rid of the professionals.
|>
|> Your thoughts on how to teach seem like common sense to me. They are
|> part of what I would make my own personal theory of teaching.
Now Jim, you need to make a distinction here. Given my somewhat bizarre
background I almost *always* use the term 'theory' in a fairly strict sense.
I think you were using it in a looser sense. I have produced what might
be called "guidelines" or "heuristics". This is quite different from what
contemporary "educationists" (their term) mean by a "theory of education."
I don't really want to get rid of "professional" teachers. I do want to
get rid of "professional educationists". I don't want to get rid of plumbers,
but if someone felt it necessary to invent a discipline dealing with the
"theory of plumbing" which had little or no empirical foundation and which
was then imposed in such a way that one could hardly become a plumber without
kowtowing to such a "theory", then I would want to get rid of such people.
Surely you have been in academia enough to know that you cannot exist
professionally in the university without publishing new and original research.
But suppose that in the area of teaching, the regular old methods really
*do* work best. Well, you can't publish *that*. You *have* to have something
new -- however goofy it is and whatever the consequences may be. If it
doesn't work so well, that's okay. Others will publish against it and the
whole thing becomes self-perpetuating. You won't get those juicy grants with
a project showing that kids learn to spell best by memorizing lists of words.
Is this a cynical view of the education industry? Maybe. Is it an inaccurate
one? I'm afraid not. Have you ever *read* any of those journals? Or any teacher
magazines? Next time you're in the library, look at a few.
John Lacey
>The pay is sickening low, in the UK anyway.
Please don't start this. Pay has almost nothing to do with it.
Several people have mentioned, in this thread and many before this,
that often schools with lower pay scales, and lower per-student
spending, outperform schools that spend more.
Also, low pay for teachers is *not* the rule. In Ohio (my home
state), for example, teachers come in just above average in terms of
starting salaries after college. This from a group that as I have
said several times, isn't lighting up the classroom when they are in
the chairs.
The trend over the past centuries, and coming to full bloom in this
one, has been a decline in the relative scholastic abilities of
teachers with respect to their students. I think this is the heart of
the matter, and we need to find out why this is happening.
Violence in schools is a reflection of violence in general. I don't
think that's really related to literacy.
Charles E Thorne
At least in the United States, teaching is not what most would call a
profession. Medicine is a profession, law is a profession, but teaching
is not. If you are unhappy with your doctor or lawyer, you can select
another one. If you're unhappy with your children's teachers, you can
complain to the school board--but will they listen.
One solution that's been proposed, is that we go to an open system
whereby each parent could send their child anywhere in the district (or
even State). Thus the good systems (which would be paid for those they
teach) would get better, and the bad systems would collapse.
James Davis Nicoll
complaints is that there is a large amount of pressure, once one has a
certain number of years of experience, to accept a 'promotion' 'up'
out of teaching, into admin. Is this peculiar to KW, and is it
contributing to educational problems, by implying admin types
are 'better' than teachers?
James Nicoll
Mother Nature
> I firmly agree with Russil here. Television has become the entertainment
>of choice for kids today. I also think that the educational programs on
>television does more bad than good for the kids watching them. These programs
>incorporate those 'neat' animations, sound, and other special effects
>as part of the 'teaching' process. The TV 'asks' kids questions and then
>the television camera homes in on the answer. No thinking involved! It
>provides no real feedback for the children and serves to make classroom
>learning really boring. No special effects and animation there, just a
>teacher marking up a chalkboard.
> The educational programs also gives parents an excuse for not teaching
>their own kids themselves. I know one case where the parents sat
>their children in front of hours of videotaped 'Seasame Street' (sp?) so
>they could do other important things (clean the house maybe). It's just
>irresponsible.
>
> Television isn't called a boob-tube for nothing.
I heard of a study done on the verbal language skills of children who
watched more than several hours of television per day compared to children
who spent those several hours communicating with other children and
adults. Apparently the children who watched TV had much worse language
skills than the children who where actually interacting verbally with
other people.
I'd be inclined to believe this, I remember babysitting for one particular
family. Their 3 kids (age 1, 5, 9) watched at least 4-5 hours of TV per
day. The 4 year old had very poor language skills. His vocabulary was
very small, and he couldn't pronounce words very well (I spent several
frustrating hours before his sister told me that "bookses" was really
"breakfast"). This is compared to several other children I have looked
after of varying ages who watched no more than an hour or so of television
per day.
I didn't watch much television at all when I was a child (3hour/week
average) and I consider myself to have excellent language skills. I was
way ahead of most children in my age group in vocabulary and reading
skills. I might mention that while I learned the basics of reading
through school, I learned the joy of reading on my own at about 8 years
old, and I haven't looked back since.
Gaea
ga...@zooid.guild.org (Mother Nature)
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Canada
Mark Slagle
[...in a list of differences between public and private schools...]
> 3) The private school does not tolerate kids with behavior
> problems.
----
This one touches on, but does not do justice to, the more
general statement of difference. Private schools get to
choose the students they teach, and reject those they don't
want. Besides making comparisons of results difficult, this
makes private schools a more congenial environment for teachers
and explains why they don't need to pay quite as much as the
public schools. Still, it seems likely that paying teachers
more would tend to improve the quality of teaching over time.
But I am sure that you are correct in saying that this is not
the only factor, or even the most important one.
Interested parties should have a look at the article on
schools in the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly. It's
a good, thought provoking article, except for the author's
call for more spending in the final paragraph. He argues
that the problem with our schools is probably incurable
without abandoning our whole sense of what a school is.
Nothing less than a radical rethinking of education is
required.
Terence Michael Labach
> Our local paper publishes crime figures. Of the half dozen assaults
> a couple of weeks ago, three were in --- *in* --- the local high school,
> two of them during the day. I live in an extremely rich area, next to
> an extremely poor (and violent) one, East Palo Alto. The High School
> borders both areas. I simply cannot believe that schools in the USA have
> metal detectors to stop kids carrying guns to school, yet it is true
> (New York? Washington?).
>
> Stupid educational theories are part of the problem.
Bullshit.
The one time a student attacked me (when I was teaching high school) had
nothing to do with "educational theories". It had a lot more to do with
drug use and addiction. Educational theories certainly didn't cause
THAT problem and if you think they did I suggest an intensive remedial
course in political economy.
I'd like to know where these "theories" that all of you are railing
against come from - they certainly have nothing to do with anything I
learned in my education program (which I entered after taking my B.Sc.).
I learned the importance of planning, mastery of subject material, and
discipline - and how those items were as applicable to students as to
teachers. I learned adolescent and group psychology, hierarchies of
learning ability, and how to create an environment in which students
could learn. I learned that multiple choice exams are largely useless
and that I would be working long hours to fulfill the role expected of
me as a teacher.
Imagine my amazement when I read here that I was taught to be lazy, to
sugar-coat the simplest possible lessons for my precious darlings, to
never, ever fail anyone, and to be a slave to some "stupid educational
theory" that I've never heard of.
One of the groups participating in this debate is not resident on planet
Earth.
- terry -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is our duty to attack unsparingly the miserable system which would
make all civilization end in a society of rich and poor, of slaves and
slave-owners."
- William Morris
John Alsop
>
>The problem with education is parental apathy, for failing to
>demand value for the tax dollar from the people they elect, and
>evidence that the "trained" professionals have any idea that
>their new-fangled ideas work.
>
What I find really scary is that the teachers themselves can't even spell
correctly.
My son's last report card had three spelling/grammatical errors.
--
John Alsop
Sea Change Corporation
6695 Millcreek Drive, Unit 8
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5N 5R8
Tel: 416-542-9484 Fax: 416-542-9479
UUCP: ...!uunet!uunet.ca!seachg!jalsop
Terence Michael Labach
jo...@spinner.cs.indiana.edu (John Lacey) writes:
> The trend over the past centuries, and coming to full bloom in this
> one, has been a decline in the relative scholastic abilities of
> teachers with respect to their students. I think this is the heart of
> the matter, and we need to find out why this is happening.
Is this "trend" (I'd like to see some statistics on it) meaningful when
mass formal education of the young is a relatively recent development?
It certainly hasn't been the rule for "past centuries".
- terry -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gorp: Well, Mr. Dallas, we've heard your smut masquerading as songs and we've
heard how teen prostitution, pregnancy, drug use, cults, runaways,
suicide and poor hygeine are sweeping this nation. We though you might
like to share with the committee any particular CAUSES you might see for
those latter problems..."
Dallas: I dunno. Maybe the proliferation of narrow, suffocating zealotry
masquerading as parenting in this country.
- _Bloom County_, from the Senate Hearings on "Porn Rock"
Terence Michael Labach
sas...@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
> In article <LABACH.92A...@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca>,
> lab...@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) writes:
>
> |>
> |> The problem with teachers is their subservience to parents and school
> |> boards. Parents who know little about educational theory or practise
> |> whine when their policies (which can usually be classified as either
> |> "beat 'em daily, worked for me" or "don't pressure the little
> |> sugar-coated darlings") don't do the trick.
>
> There certainly is a great deal of truth in what you say about the views
> of many parents. Frequently all they care about is that the kid gets
> high grades -- never mind what he learns. However, there is a great
> myth of "educational theory" that has lead to the widespread failure
> of educational practice. The currently popular "theory" (a real misnomer,
> if you look closely at it at all) is continually used to justify
> practices that are repeatedly and demonstrably outrageous failures.
I may have missed your postings on this, but I'm like to know what this
"educational theory" that you are unhappy with is. The "theories" that
are complained about in this debate seem to have no relation to what I
learned in my (80s vintage) teacher training about educational practise.
I can certainly see why people would be upset when teachers are lazy and
incompetent, but I and my classmates were taught how to teach. I'd
think more problems come from the failure to apply the results of
educational research and theory to the classroom than overapplication of
that theory; ignoring the non-educational problems faced in the schools
- drugs, abusive parents, etc. which can destroy the best-laid plans of
any teacher to help students learn. (Just for the record, we were not
taught any Grand Unified Theories of teaching.)
I wonder if the teacher training system is more different between the US
and Canada than I thought.
Gary Merrill
|> I may have missed your postings on this, but I'm like to know what this
|> "educational theory" that you are unhappy with is. The "theories" that
I'm afraid that I can't go into too much detail here without going back to
some journals, teacher's magazines, etc. I don't really have the heart to do
this, and so I hope you will be at least somewhat satisfied with some
directional hints I can give.
First, let's not put too much weight on use of the term "theory". I would as
soon use "view" or "ideology" except that whatever these things are, they
are invoked in a justificatory and explanatory way with repsect to classroom
practice. When challanged, teachers will appeal to these "theories" (which
are purportedly supported by "studies") in the same way.
Usually these theories have the form:
Children (or students in general) don't learn X best by doing Y, but
rather by doing Z.
For example:
Children don't learn the mechanics of English by being taught it
directly, but rather they absorb it from their reading.
Children don't learn to multiply best by memorizing multiplication
tables, but by doing specific examples and problems.
Giving list of spelling words to memorize is not an effective way
to teach spelling.
In many of these theories there is a high density of armchair psychology and
psycho-babble:
If a child's errors in composition are marked on his assignment,
this will cause a loss in self esteem. (So it is best not to
remark on such errors.)
Below is an example based on the kind of ideology to which I refer: in this
case an ideology concerning what is important in writing and how writing is
to be "taught". This is a verbatim reproduction of a handout to my son's 9th
grade honors English class. This describes the primary (and so far as I could
tell, only) technique used in the course to teach writing.
I offer it at this time without further comment. I will not remark at this time
on how well this succeeded or to what degree the promises, threats, and commitments
in it were realized. Any grammar, usage, or style errors you may detect are not
mine but are the author's:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOURNAL
-------
PREMISE: Writing satisfies a basic human need for self expression and self-exploration.
PREMISE: Freedom of expression is crucial to full development of the writing urge.
PREMISE: Repeated, prolonged translation of experience into language nourishes
the power of a growing writer.
THESE THINGS I BELIEVE
Every day, the instant the bell stops ringing, journal time begins. Journal time is
a silent time, a time we spend alone even though we are here together. You will not
leave your seat or talk to me or anyone else during this time!! I will tell you
when journal time is over. It is a silent writing time just like prayer time at
church, at weddings, and at funerals. You are doing two things during this time:
WRITING AND THINKING. During journal time, you are required to give attention to
your journal. Some of you are going to be very angry with me because I will be an
absolute witch about it. No mercy. Be forewarned.
The following are guidelines that you should remember:
1. Journals should be written in a spiral notebook or looseleaf notebook that will
accompany you EVERYDAY of class (Another reason to have a sturdy notebook). This
notebook will be for your journal ONLY.
2. Each entry MUST be *Dated*, and *Coded*.
Code: X = private, do not read (fold page over)
R = read
RC = Read and comment
3. I will always give you different topics and prompts, although you are ALWAYS free
to write about your own thoughts on ANY subject.
4. I don't expect you to labor over handwriting and neatness, but I do expect to be
able to read it. Although your journal WILL NOT be graded for grammar, spelling, and
punctuation, do remember that these things are the tools that will help you
communicate. Make them work for you.
5. You will have one grade on your journal for the entire six-weeks. This grade
will be based on (1) my observations during journal time (2) a journal evaluation
form that I will ask you to complete, and (3) entries that you select for me to
read. Remember that, yes, I can count and there aren't many tricks for getting
around doing a journal that haven't already been tired.
Here are some tips that work if you have trouble getting started:
*Write continually. If you can't think of anything, write about your writer's
block.
*Write spontaneously. Write whatever you are thinking. Don't worry about what my
opinions might be.
*When you start to write in your journal, start with whatever is in your head and
see where that leads you. It WILL lead you somewhere if you have the patience to
follow.
Finally, your journal is kind of like a little box where you stick all sorts of
odds and ends, bits and pieces of your thinking and your daily life. You keep
them there so they won't get lost, trash and treasure all together. Then, from
time to time, you go back, pick and sort through what you've put in the box, see
what catches your attention and shines. Those bits that shine, you can take out
of the box and examine. These become the basis for future writing.
ENJOY!!!
--------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Scobbie
>Now Jim, you need to make a distinction here. Given my somewhat bizarre
>background I almost *always* use the term 'theory' in a fairly strict sense.
>I think you were using it in a looser sense.
Yup. I have a theory of soup.
>Surely you have been in academia enough to know that you cannot exist
>professionally in the university without publishing new and original research.
>But suppose that in the area of teaching, the regular old methods really
>*do* work best. Well, you can't publish *that*. You *have* to have something
>new -- however goofy it is and whatever the consequences may be.
And that isn't just true in education either. It is a general problem.
With subjects where one merely has to find new facts, you can avoid
inventing something new and wrong --- the trouble is that the new-and-true
things are tivial.
Don't get me on to "progress", please. :-)
>Next time you're in the library, look at a few.
wilco
Jim Scobbie
>In article <1992Apr30....@Csli.Stanford.EDU> sco...@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Jim Scobbie) writes:
>> Our local paper publishes crime figures. Of the half dozen assaults
>> a couple of weeks ago, three were in --- *in* --- the local high school,
>> two of them during the day. I live in an extremely rich area, next to
>> an extremely poor (and violent) one, East Palo Alto. The High School
>> borders both areas. I simply cannot believe that schools in the USA have
>> metal detectors to stop kids carrying guns to school, yet it is true
>> (New York? Washington?).
>>
>> Stupid educational theories are part of the problem.
>Bullshit.
Let me try again, with an added 'only'.
>> Stupid educational theories are ONLY part of the problem.
or with some emphasis:
>> Stupid educational theories are *part* of the problem.
Maybe you missed my previous articles, but I should have made it clearer
that I don't hold the view:
(1) refusing to mark bad spelling causes violence in schools
but rather
(2) the problems in schools are not limited to bad teaching theories.
I doubt even the people railing most strongly against teachers here
would hold to (1). I was reminding them of the rather obvious (2).
>Imagine my amazement when I read here that I was taught to be lazy, to
>sugar-coat the simplest possible lessons for my precious darlings, to
>never, ever fail anyone, and to be a slave to some "stupid educational
>theory" that I've never heard of.
>One of the groups participating in this debate is not resident on planet
>Earth.
I'm glad you're here, but you're attacking the wrong person. i.e. me :-)
And I think the people you *are* attacking are indeed on this planet.
Just. ;-)
Ken Mcvay
>>> Then the parents should demand value, while keeping their
>>> semi-informed fingers out of how that value is delivered. Teachers
>>> might be less tempted to embark on ill-advised widespread
>>> experiments if they were held accountable for delivering what
>>> they were supposed to deliver, and then the parents wouldn't have
>>> to worry so much about the methods they use. How do you hold a
>>> teacher accountable? The same way you hold other professionals
>>> accountable. Deliver what you're supposed to deliver, by the
>>> date specified, or you're out of here. Can my Johnny read?
>>> No? Then seek a more suitable career. Yes? Then congratulations,
>>> and here's your pay increment.
>One solution that's been proposed, is that we go to an open system
>whereby each parent could send their child anywhere in the district (or
>even State). Thus the good systems (which would be paid for those they
>teach) would get better, and the bad systems would collapse.
How about developing a comprehensive national testing system, covering
K-12. Teachers would then be paid according to the quality of the
product they produced - if their class's average fell, so would their
salary :-)
--
The Old Frog's Almanac === kmc...@oneb.almanac.bc.ca
"There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey." (John Ruskin)
Ken Mcvay
>My son's last report card had three spelling/grammatical errors.
When one of my daughters was attending a grade school in Peachland,
B.C., her report card contained a brief (15 lines) paragraph from the
teacher, in which she explained that my daughter's spelling wasn't up
to snuff. The paragraph had multiple errors in spelling, which I
circled in red ink. I told her I'd sign my daughter's card when her
father signed her paragraph, signifying his knowledge of his
daughter's poor progress.
That was, of course, back in the days when report cards actually
reported something... the last one I saw for my 10-year-old
granddaughter didn't tell me what classes she was in, or show any
grades... it did, however, contain a lot of teacherese, all of which
was quite correct politically. sheesh.
Ken Mcvay
> Sorry if this is a bit of a drift from the illiteracy thread.
>I actually agree with the teacher quoted earlier who said students
>should learn grammer from reading books, however very few people
>seem to read much any more.
Can someone tell me about literacy rate stats (if avail.) from 1950 to
1992? Ditto the school drop out rates?
I have the gut feeling that while there are most certainly competent,
dedicated professional teachers out there, for the most part the
result of the profession's efforts is massive illiteracy.... am I
wrong?
Marie A Coffin
(Ken Mcvay) writes:
>
> How about developing a comprehensive national testing system, covering
> K-12. Teachers would then be paid according to the quality of the
> product they produced - if their class's average fell, so would their
> salary :-)
>
> --
> The Old Frog's Almanac === kmc...@oneb.almanac.bc.ca
> "There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
> little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
> price only are this man's lawful prey." (John Ruskin)
Has anyone else noticed that whenever the subject of incompetence (in grammar,
mathematics or whatever) crops up, more frequent testing is inevitably
suggested? Ken, at least, wants to _do_ something with the test results,
but testing is usually suggested as a _solution_ to the problem. Am I the
only one bothered by the inherent illogic of this?
Marie Coffin
Marie A Coffin
> 1992? Ditto the school drop out rates?
>
> --
> The Old Frog's Almanac === kmc...@oneb.almanac.bc.ca
> "There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
> little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
> price only are this man's lawful prey." (John Ruskin)
I'm sure these statistics are available (although I have no idea where you'd
find them), but I'm also sure that they are meaningless. What's your definition
of literacy? Whatever it is, I doubt if it coincides with the schools'
definition, which they keep changing anyway. I'd bet the schools have changed
the meaning of 'literate' a dozen times or more in the 42-year span
you cite. In any case, the base population was changing, perhaps drastically,
throughout this time, so even if you and the schools could agree on 'literate'
and you could show that the rate fell, it wouldn't mean much.
Sorry, I think your question is a good one, but from a statistical point of
view, it's a nearly impossible one to answer. This unfortunate fact is the
incompetent teacher's best defense, and don't think they haven't used it.
Marie Coffin
Eamonn McManus
>Has anyone else noticed that whenever the subject of incompetence (in grammar,
>mathematics or whatever) crops up, more frequent testing is inevitably
>suggested? Ken, at least, wants to _do_ something with the test results,
>but testing is usually suggested as a _solution_ to the problem. Am I the
>only one bothered by the inherent illogic of this?
This is an interesting point. I happen to have handy a copy of the
British newspaper _The Independent_ for 24 April, which has a report
from the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women
Teachers' Conference (sic):
Tests were taking away valuable teaching time, the conference was told.
Robin Cooper, of the executive, said there was already evidence of a
decline in reading skills since the national curriculum and testing
of seven-year-olds was introduced. He said that some teachers
worked more than 60 hours a week and they were being pressured to
test children at a higher level than they were capable of.
"Our colleagues in early years are very upset at what the testing of
seven-year-olds is doing to their children," he said.
Sorry about the lack of relevance to alt.usage.english. This is a bit
distant from my usual haunts.
,
Eamonn
Pat.Ch...@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
for the local distributors. One of the things discussed was the whole
concept of conversing with a computer. Already it is possible to give
a computer spoken menu commands. And written text can be turned into
speech. Not so easy to turn speech into text, but that can't be far away.
Maybe we will soon have a generation of kids who dictate their essays
to a computer which will then convert the spoken word to a text file.
Another programme will *read* the essay aloud.
Nice to think a side development will be a programme to check a child's
reading :-)
--
********************************************************
* The floggings will continue until morale improves *
* * * Pat.Ch...@bbs.actrix.gen.nz * * *
* Pat Churchill, Wellington, New Zealand - Godzone *
Gary Merrill
What is even funnier is a situation in which it is determined that the
standardized tests used for a number of years are no longer satisfactory
(well, they *do* result in very low scores) and must be replaced by
tests that are *better* in some way. This is being done in North Carolina
where the CAT (California Achievement Test) will be replaced by a home-
grown test in the near future. Then I'm sure that our children will score
higher and we will see a great improvement in teaching as measured by these
tests.
Or take the response of local (to me) school systems when confronted with
the appalling performance of students on SAT tests. Should they analyze their
students' performance to determine where the weaknesses might be in teaching
(as though this is some mystery!)? No. Should they review their
standard courses and evaluation procedures that allow students to get high
grades in courses and perform abysmally on standard tests? No. Obviously
if you want your students to perform well on the standard tests, then you
should institute a course *for* those tests. Yes! An SAT course as part of
the standard high school curriculum! Brilliant! Innovative! A number of
people are spending their money on private course of just this sort. Why
not provide such a course *in school*?
I seem to have begun ranting again. I did want to make the point that what
Ken is suggesting is a way of using tests of students to *evaluate teachers*.
as opposed to introducing additional tests to somehow solve the failure of
instruction. While I agree that a missing essential element in all of this
is teacher accountability, it really is difficult to formulate a procedure
that is both objective and fair in evaluating teachers. (Not impossible,
but difficult. Of course most teachers object strongly to any such evaluation.)
My own suggestion (offered some time in the past now, during a philosophy
deparatment meeting dealing with teaching evaluation and effectiveness) was
the following:
1. For each course, the teacher develops a description of what it
is intended a student should learn in the course (skills,
memorized stuff, etc.). A faculty committee approves the
appropriateness of the description (this imposes *some* degree
of objectivity) on this "content" description.
2. The teacher makes up a pre-test/post-test intended to measure
the degree to which the goals in 1 have been met. Again broader
approval is required of this test to ensure appropriateness.
(Please note that such a test need not be short answer, multiple
choice, or fill in the blanks. Were I doing it for, for example,
a course in formal logic I would include certain types of
derivations and proofs as well as more conceptually oriented stuff.
Other types of courses would require an essay oriented test.)
3. At the start of the course, the pre-test is administered, corrected,
and filed.
4. At the end of the course, the post-test (same test) is administered.
For each student, the results are compared.
This approach gives the individual teacher a great deal of control over both
the form and content of the evaluation method. Yet it does offer *some* checks
and balances -- if faculty are willing to insist on standards for themselves
at all!
This at least would give a measure (in a not totallly subjective manner)
of what the student has learned from *this* course in *this* subject taught
by *this* teacher. Of course my colleagues (who were very busy paying much
lip service to "teaching excellence") would have none of it, preferring to rely
on the time honored system of teaching evaluations made out by students at the
ends of courses -- the results of which are very easy to manipulate.
Tony Buckland
>In article <1992May02.0...@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca>, kmc...@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca
>(Ken Mcvay) writes:
>> How about developing a comprehensive national testing system, covering
>> K-12. Teachers would then be paid according to the quality of the
>Has anyone else noticed that whenever the subject of incompetence (in grammar,
>mathematics or whatever) crops up, more frequent testing is inevitably
>suggested? Ken, at least, wants to _do_ something with the test results,
>but testing is usually suggested as a _solution_ to the problem. Am I the
>only one bothered by the inherent illogic of this?
The logic is implicit: if teachers' salaries depended on the quality
of the product they produced, they would be motivated to work harder
at producing it. Those incapable of doing so would reflect on
their falling salaries and contemplate other careers; those
fettered by systems of teaching based on silly theories would revolt
against them. Testing accompanied by salary-adjustment feedback is
to teaching what the market is to investing: the mechanism of
selection (in the evolutionary sense).
investing
Evan Leibovitch
lab...@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) writes:
>The problem with teachers is their subservience to parents and school
>boards. Parents who know little about educational theory or practise
>are placed in a position to guide the directions of education, then
>whine when their policies (which can usually be classified as either
>"beat 'em daily, worked for me" or "don't pressure the little
>sugar-coated darlings") don't do the trick.
I have to disagree, based on the time I spent covering a major
Metropolitan school board for a newspaper some years ago.
It is my experience, though there are certainly exceptions, that most
trustees start their jobs clueless and it goes downhill from there. They
are great at making grandstand shows at budget or contract negotiation
time; but when it comes to educational policies, they are generally easily
intimidated by the professional educators (the ones who don't teach anyone)
on Board payroll.
Those trustees who take on the educational establishment of their staff
and challenge their underlying principles and assumptions, are rare indeed.
--
Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
ev...@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them?
Charles E Thorne
>In article <1992Apr30....@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cth...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
>>>> Then the parents should demand value, while keeping their
>>>> semi-informed fingers out of how that value is delivered. Teachers
>>>> might be less tempted to embark on ill-advised widespread
>>>> experiments if they were held accountable for delivering what
>>>> they were supposed to deliver, and then the parents wouldn't have
>>>> to worry so much about the methods they use. How do you hold a
>>>> teacher accountable? The same way you hold other professionals
>>>> accountable. Deliver what you're supposed to deliver, by the
>>>> date specified, or you're out of here. Can my Johnny read?
>>>> No? Then seek a more suitable career. Yes? Then congratulations,
>>>> and here's your pay increment.
>>One solution that's been proposed, is that we go to an open system
>>whereby each parent could send their child anywhere in the district (or
>>even State). Thus the good systems (which would be paid for those they
>>teach) would get better, and the bad systems would collapse.
>How about developing a comprehensive national testing system, covering
>K-12. Teachers would then be paid according to the quality of the
>product they produced - if their class's average fell, so would their
>salary :-)
This has been proposed for years but the teachers associations (unions-
whatever) have always opposed testing--even to gauge their level of
success. In Columbus we bus students across the metropolitan area to
achieve "racial equality"--why not do some busing for "educational equality"?
Almost anything that related success of the product to pay would be an
improvement (I understand that currently 30% of the high school graduates
are functionally illiterate).
Rheal Nadeau
teachers, the school boards, the parents... I wonder if this
isn't a symptom of a deeper social problem.
Those of us born after WW-II were raised with the idea that life
should be easy - that we would just naturally get all that we
needed (and our needs keep getting redefined - now people "need"
CD players and air-conditioning in their cars). What has been
lost is the idea that you get nothing for nothing - that while
technology may make it easier to get certain things, in the
end SOME work is needed.
Much of the discussion has seemed to assume that education is
something we GIVE our children - that they are somehow passive
recipients of the knowledge we give them. But this isn't the case -
education is something you acquire.
So maybe the solution isn't to tinker with the school system, to
create new tests or rules. Maybe the solution to this problem (and
so many others) is to recognize that some things just take effort -
that to get an education, we HAVE to work - it's not just the
teachers' jobs to educate us, but our job to learn!
I consider myself reasonably well-educated, and that this is something
I have done myself (with help from schools, books, mentors). And the
process continues - looking for new information, and checking on
stuff I'm supposed to know. (My dictionaries, for example, are
never far from my terminal!)
The Rhealist (Rheal Nadeau) | Bell-Northern Research
Internet: nad...@bnr.ca | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
BNR neither endorses nor censors my views | (613) 763-4266
Gary Merrill
|> There's been a lot of talk blaming our educational woes on the
|> teachers, the school boards, the parents... I wonder if this
|> isn't a symptom of a deeper social problem.
This phrase always makes me cringe because it most often is a clue
that the writer is about to direct attention away from a rather
obvious problem and into the realm of "we're all at fault" or "it's
society's fault".
|> Those of us born after WW-II were raised with the idea that life
|> should be easy - that we would just naturally get all that we
I certainly wasn't raised with this idea, and while I'm not going
to play "true confessions" here, most people would not feel that
my life was "easy" (at least relative to the society in which I
am embedded).
|> Much of the discussion has seemed to assume that education is
|> something we GIVE our children - that they are somehow passive
|> recipients of the knowledge we give them. But this isn't the case -
|> education is something you acquire.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, but while clearly there is a hefty responsibility on the student
(and the student's parents), all that is for naught if there is no
teacher or if the teacher is not doing the appropriate job. Too often
now this is the case. The view that the student must be active and
responsible is one I endorse wholeheartedly (having been a teacher
myself). But it frequently is used in an attempt to absolve the
teacher of a fundamental responsibility in the educational process.
I have heard a teacher say (to a group of parents), "You are the
primary teacher. I am only the secondary teacher." My reaction
was that this was an interesting view. Perhaps then I should be
getting the primary salary. This view is simply wrong. When I
taught I was *the* primary teacher. Same for my wife. Parents
should be prepared to give support and aid, but they *can't* serve
as the teacher -- they don't have the *time* (and usually they
don't have the education or practical experience).
Another popular move in elementary and middle school circles today
is the "They learn more from each other than they do from teachers."
Really? Then let's stop paying the teachers and start paying the
kids. This ideology is used to implement mixed grades (e.g., a
mixed class of fifth and sixth grade students) where the kids learn
in groups by "teaching each other." Such an approach was recently
taken in my daughter's school. (We did not participate.) Parents
were *required* to make a commitment to coming to school and acting as
teacher assistants. This kind of involvement was to greatly enhance
the educational process by making it more "pro-active". It was a
miserable failure. I know parents who were very committed to this
approach and devoted a lot of time to the program, and they are *very*
disillusioned (actually, "mad as hell" describes some of them since
they feel the kids have been cheated out of a year of school.)
|> So maybe the solution isn't to tinker with the school system, to
|> create new tests or rules. Maybe the solution to this problem (and
|> so many others) is to recognize that some things just take effort -
|> that to get an education, we HAVE to work - it's not just the
|> teachers' jobs to educate us, but our job to learn!
While you and I can "acquire" education, you can't expect a 5- or
10-year old kid to do that. Relatively few high school students
can be expected to do it. They *need* teaching -- and not by their
parents who have just come home from a full day's work at some
*other* job.
|> I consider myself reasonably well-educated, and that this is something
|> I have done myself (with help from schools, books, mentors). And the
|> process continues - looking for new information, and checking on
|> stuff I'm supposed to know. (My dictionaries, for example, are
|> never far from my terminal!)
And just when did you start this process? Before or after you learned
to read? Really, I do agree with your view that in education you get
back what you put in, but kids can't do it by themselves. For one thing,
they need to be taught how to learn. For many it is not second nature.
Charles E Thorne
>There's been a lot of talk blaming our educational woes on the
>teachers, the school boards, the parents... I wonder if this
>isn't a symptom of a deeper social problem.
>Those of us born after WW-II were raised with the idea that life
>should be easy - that we would just naturally get all that we
>needed (and our needs keep getting redefined - now people "need"
>CD players and air-conditioning in their cars). What has been
>lost is the idea that you get nothing for nothing - that while
>technology may make it easier to get certain things, in the
>end SOME work is needed.
>Much of the discussion has seemed to assume that education is
>something we GIVE our children - that they are somehow passive
>recipients of the knowledge we give them. But this isn't the case -
>education is something you acquire.
I'll agree with what you're saying, but we must also realize that
the world (and the requirements to obtain employment) are changing
also. It used to be that if you had a propensity to read and study,
you probably did well in school, and went on to college. If you
didn't do as well in school, you could get a job working in a factory.
Now the good factory jobs are few and far between. The new jobs are
in the service industries (which require a higher degree of literacy).
With 30% of our high school graduates being functionally illiterate,
the good jobs aren't available to them. With many jobs requiring
computer literacy, this also requires schools (and teachers) to be
computer literate--but have the schools (and teachers) changed?
>So maybe the solution isn't to tinker with the school system, to
>create new tests or rules. Maybe the solution to this problem (and
>so many others) is to recognize that some things just take effort -
>that to get an education, we HAVE to work - it's not just the
>teachers' jobs to educate us, but our job to learn!
There's also a problem that our teachers spend so much time baby sitting
and settling fights (many of their students come from families where there
is only one parent (who works)--or both parents work, and the teachers
have no time to even answer questions.
Charlie
Rheal Nadeau
educational system? What are our expectations? What are the failures?
We have seen a lot of discussion about students who can't read, or
can't write properly (and I'm one of those people who believe spelling
and grammar and syntax do matter). Are there really more than before?
It's been years since I've been at school, so I can only judge by
my daughters' primary school (the girls are in grades 1 and 4).
And both have learned to read, both come home with homework. The
eldest is currently memorizing her multiplication and division
tables, the youngest is learning the addition table. So I do not
feel the education system has failed them. (What's more, the girls
do generally enjoy the process, though not always when it's time
to do the homework. :-) )
Of course, we're not typical - one of those families it's harder to get
people to stop reading than to switch off the television. And we do
spend time with the girls, making sure the homework gets done - I'm
sure not all parents bother (or have the time) to do this.
Is this school exceptional, or is the education system not quite as
bad as has been implied in this thread? (Of course, there are those
who leave school no wiser than they went in, just as there are those
who do profit. Where is the failure, for those students who don't
learn? Are we asking too much, when we expect our schools to teach
those who aren't interested, aren't motivated, for whatever reason?)
Christopher Browne
>In article <1992May06.1...@bmerh2.bnr.ca>, nad...@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>|> There's been a lot of talk blaming our educational woes on the
>|> teachers, the school boards, the parents... I wonder if this
>|> isn't a symptom of a deeper social problem.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>This phrase always makes me cringe because it most often is a clue
>that the writer is about to direct attention away from a rather
>obvious problem and into the realm of "we're all at fault" or "it's
>society's fault".
The problem is, when adults talk about education, they think back to
their own education. (My grade 8 was "only" 12 years ago. It's still
far enough away for my purposes here...)
Unfortunately, there have been a LOT of changes in society since then.
Between the EXTENSIVE levels of family breakup, other increases in
fragmentation, and increases in the effects of drugs and TV on kids,
the classes of today are virtually unrecognizable when compared to
what they were even ten years ago.
I think that the phrase "deeper problem in society" is really a flag
that indicates that we're about to discuss something of which us Old
Folks have no direct knowledge, or for which our instincts may direct
us wrong.
>|> Those of us born after WW-II were raised with the idea that life
>|> should be easy - that we would just naturally get all that we
>I have heard a teacher say (to a group of parents), "You are the
>primary teacher. I am only the secondary teacher." My reaction
>was that this was an interesting view. Perhaps then I should be
>getting the primary salary. This view is simply wrong. When I
>taught I was *the* primary teacher. Same for my wife. Parents
>should be prepared to give support and aid, but they *can't* serve
>as the teacher -- they don't have the *time* (and usually they
>don't have the education or practical experience).
What they are talking about is the fact that teachers wind up filling
in as "surrogate parents." There's a lot of parents out there that
are expecting the schools to do things that are typically "parent
stuff."
An example: teaching things like morals. Parents seem to want to
offload that onto teachers - since it is something that is "taught."
Parents are not comfortable about telling the kids about sex, so that
gets offloaded onto the school system. Perhaps the school SHOULD have
a part in it, but parents DEFINITELY ought to have a part in it.
--
Christopher Browne
cbbr...@csi.uottawa.ca
University of Ottawa
Master of System Science Program
Mark Slagle
> The logic is implicit: if teachers' salaries depended on the quality
> of the product they produced, they would be motivated to work harder
> at producing it. Those incapable of doing so would reflect on
> their falling salaries and contemplate other careers; those
> fettered by systems of teaching based on silly theories would revolt
> against them. Testing accompanied by salary-adjustment feedback is
> to teaching what the market is to investing: the mechanism of
> selection (in the evolutionary sense).
This logic is valid only in the case that what you want to
produce is children who perform well on standardized tests,
and only to the extent that test results reflect the quality
of learning. These conditions have not been met. The proposal
sounds good on the surface, perhaps, but is as unlikely to have
the desired result as posted numerical speed limits have on
controlling reckless driving. Maybe it will help some, maybe
it will make the problem worse. Just because you can measure
it doesn't mean it's what you want to measure.
Mark Slagle
> Really? Then let's stop paying the teachers and start paying the
> kids. This ideology is used to implement mixed grades (e.g., a
> mixed class of fifth and sixth grade students) where the kids learn
> in groups by "teaching each other." Such an approach was recently
> taken in my daughter's school. (We did not participate.) Parents
> were *required* to make a commitment to coming to school and acting as
> teacher assistants. This kind of involvement was to greatly enhance
> the educational process by making it more "pro-active". It was a
----
I make it a personal rule not to engage in any process which
is "pro-active". But hey, live and let live, other can play
if they want. Just one thing, though. Just what does this
"pro-active" mean, anyway?
Bayla Singer
by our school systems.
I stopped at a roadside convenience store where the power had gone out, and
so the cash registers had ceased to announce the correct change. The high
school graduate behind the counter had *extreme* difficulty making change
from a ten dollar bill, after a $2.74 purchase. My suggestion that she
count up from the purchase, giving me a penny to make $2.75, a quarter to
reach $3, two singles to make $5, and a 5 to bring the total to ten, was
met with an attractively blank stare of incomprehension. *Sigh*
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident, merely the latest in a
long series.
--bayla
Dort, wo man Bucher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen.
Wherever books are burned men also, in the end, are burned.
Heinrich Heine [1797-1856]
Gary Merrill
|>
|> There's also a problem that our teachers spend so much time baby sitting
|> and settling fights (many of their students come from families where there
|> is only one parent (who works)--or both parents work, and the teachers
|> have no time to even answer questions.
|>
|> Charlie
|>
I know that this certainly is true in some cases -- perhaps mainly
in dense urban environments. However, in my children's classes
it simply is not true that the teacher's time is spent in this
manner. With all of the various "social" problems that confront
teachers, there still is a broad problem in the educational system
that is not caused by such social problems. I get concerned that
whenever anyone points out this fundamental problem of *teaching*
the response is to refer to "conditions" or "social problems"
that face teachers. This does not address a very real problem
that is independent of these others.
Charles E Thorne
>Actually, reading this thread, I've been wondering. How bad IS our
>educational system? What are our expectations? What are the failures?
>We have seen a lot of discussion about students who can't read, or
>can't write properly (and I'm one of those people who believe spelling
>and grammar and syntax do matter). Are there really more than before?
>It's been years since I've been at school, so I can only judge by
>my daughters' primary school (the girls are in grades 1 and 4).
>And both have learned to read, both come home with homework. The
>eldest is currently memorizing her multiplication and division
>tables, the youngest is learning the addition table. So I do not
>feel the education system has failed them. (What's more, the girls
>do generally enjoy the process, though not always when it's time
>to do the homework. :-) )
>Of course, we're not typical - one of those families it's harder to get
>people to stop reading than to switch off the television. And we do
>spend time with the girls, making sure the homework gets done - I'm
>sure not all parents bother (or have the time) to do this.
Of course there are good school systems, good teachers, good students
and good parents. There are, however, many systems, teachers, students
and parents who don't fall in this category.
At the present time in the U.S., it's estimated that there are 35 million
functionally illiterate people. About 30% of our high school gradutes
are functionally illeterate and another 25% drop out before completing
high school. It's also interesting to note that about 35 million people
in the U.S. are below the poverty level and about that number have no
health insurance.
Many of our students not only finish high school, but go on to college--
about half of those eligible to attend college actually start. One of
the major complaints of college instructors these days is the illiteracy
of their incoming students. They not only don't understand what they're
doing, they actually have no idea what they don't know, or how to find
out. They don't study English or math in high school.
In this day and age, where the typical job (above the poverty level)
requires an average education (including computer literacy), we have
more and more people who can't compete in the world.
Our well educated people live in the suburbs and see that their children
are educated, but vast numbers are not in that system.
If it doesn't get better--it obviously gets worse.
Gary Merrill
|>
|> What they are talking about is the fact that teachers wind up filling
|> in as "surrogate parents." There's a lot of parents out there that
|> are expecting the schools to do things that are typically "parent
|> stuff."
|>
|> An example: teaching things like morals. Parents seem to want to
|> offload that onto teachers - since it is something that is "taught."
|> Parents are not comfortable about telling the kids about sex, so that
|> gets offloaded onto the school system. Perhaps the school SHOULD have
|> a part in it, but parents DEFINITELY ought to have a part in it.
Of course I agree with almost all of your observations. But if you
look at the history of how the schools come to do these things it
frequently is *not* because of pressure from parents, but rather because
administrators, social workers, teachers, and (primarily) counselors
have decided that such services should be provided *whether parents want
them or not* and whether or not there is any evidence that they help the
children.
Typically (in my experience) the schools do this social engineering stuff
at least as poorly as they have come to do the academic stuff, and they
spend incredible amounts of time on it. (I have in mind here such things
as sex education, drug abuse education, etc.) From my experience of
talking to kids (and I do talk to kids -- both my own and their classmates),
they regard it as a waste of time and a joke. The amount of time my
kids have spent in elementary and middle school being yapped at by some
Ms. Goodvibes about "conflict resolution" or "self esteem" or other such
trendy issues is staggering. I don't know of *any* parents who think
such time is well spent. But someone has a social agenda they can easily
push in the schools.
On the other hand, you are quite correct that parents frequently abdicate
responsibilities. It does not follow that our public schools should take
up that slack. Even if you feel that somehow "government" has a
responsibility here (and I will not now enter an argument concerning
government-taught morals and values), the schools appear to be a particularly
poor place to implement such a thing. I don't believe that I have any
especially clever solution to the obvious problems that some communities
have, but I do see a rather definite problem in *teaching* that I think
we *can* solve in a straightforward way.
John Alsop
>mathematics or whatever) crops up, more frequent testing is inevitably
>suggested? Ken, at least, wants to _do_ something with the test results,
>but testing is usually suggested as a _solution_ to the problem. Am I the
>only one bothered by the inherent illogic of this?
As I understand it, the case against standardized tests is as follows:
1. they don't take into account kids backgrounds (i.e disadvantaged kids
don't do as well as middle-class kids)
2. they cause teachers to "teach to the test" instead of "really
teaching"
3. the stigma of doing poorly on a test is damaging to kids
self-esteem, with numerous bad consequences
To the above arguments, those in favour of testing would reply:
1. may be true, but the whole point of the testing is to identify
those who are having problems, so that something can be done
to help them
2. is not obviously true, but even if it is, it may not be a bad
thing if the test accurately measures the desired knowledge and
skills
3. is probably only true for those who do really badly. Again, by
being identified, they can at least be helped.
It seems to me that the major problem with the current system is that the
problems don't come to light soon enough. By the time someone has
finished high-school, its really too late to teach them how to read. If
testing can identify the problem back in grade 2, so that something can be
done about it, then I'm all for it.
Anyone from the "anti-testing" camp care to rebut the above?
--
--
John Alsop
Sea Change Corporation
6695 Millcreek Drive, Unit 8
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5N 5R8
Tel: 416-542-9484 Fax: 416-542-9479
UUCP: ...!uunet!uunet.ca!seachg!jalsop
Andrew M. Dunn
>I make it a personal rule not to engage in any process which
>is "pro-active". But hey, live and let live, other can play
>if they want. Just one thing, though. Just what does this
>"pro-active" mean, anyway?
Proactive is the opposite of reactive. It means, loosely, dealing
with a situation effectively by planning for it and guiding it, rather
than responding to the effects of the situation, usually after the
fact.
In effect, "make sure it ain't broke, so you don't have to fix it"! :-)
Andy
--
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------:
: Andy Dunn (amd...@mongrel.uucp) ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn) :
: "AT&T thinks Usenet is an Underground organization" - are we really? :
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------:
John Curtis
found the talk to be quite enlightening. I have decided it was time to
contribute my two cents worth.
IMHO, the problem in the educational system is more than any one of the things
discussed thus far. It is an amalgam of all the things talked about, and a few
more.
I have a friend who is a teacher and my wife is certified to teach (both in the
Texas school system). In my discussions with them, they seem to agree with most
of the points, but also put in another idea. First of all, the problem begins
way back in elementary school (about 4th grade?). If parents don't communicate
effectively, their children don't communicate effictively - except when
prompted to do so by their teachers. Thus, "proper" English becomes a second
language for them.
I took a year of Spanish back in High School. I am intelligent and have a
better than average memory (IMHO of course :-)). I can recall how to construct
sentances and repeat a few phrases - and that's it. I think that this is the
case for the students who don't have proper english at home.
Granted, there is a BIG problem with the administration in the school systems
(at least in Texas). Non-educators are dictating what is to be taught and how
it should be taught. I really liked the analogy (earlier in this thread) about
a surgeon's practice being controlled by a city council vote!
There is also a problem with "laziness" in the teachers. Where this stems from
could be a separate discussion.
Finally, I think that "grammer" should only be "graded" when a student is
writing for English classes. When their communication is unclear, the grade
should fall. Where a problem in grammar is detected, a note might be made, but
no grade modification occurs. However, in English classes (assuming that
grammar is being taught at all) should hammer the students for things like
punctuation, capitalization, and content organization!
I definitively think that being able to communicate effectively comes from
having a knowledge of how to use the English language. I am constantly
reminding my teenager of the fact that his pronouns have no antecedents and I
usually have no idea who "They" are (or "it" or "him" or whatever).
John
James Davis Nicoll
Material deleted
>I definitively think that being able to communicate effectively comes from
>having a knowledge of how to use the English language. I am constantly
>reminding my teenager of the fact that his pronouns have no antecedents and I
>usually have no idea who "They" are (or "it" or "him" or whatever).
This is, I believe, due to a peculiarity in the structure of the
teenager brain. The linguist centers of teenagers appear prone to certain
malfunction (Insertion of the phrase 'y'know', for example), and this
only becomes worse after certain humane procedures are committed, ah,
performed on them. Some biochemical thingie, I don't doubt. Anyway, it
clears up when the acne does.
Surgury won't cure them, but it lets me while away the hours until
the parole board meets again...
James Nicoll
Patrick Smith
|educational system? What are our expectations? What are the failures?
The February 1992 issue of Scientific American contained an
interesting article discussing the discussing the academic
achievement of the children of refugees from Southeast Asia
(in the American school system). It seems that, on average,
these children do better than the overall averages for
American students. This despite their many disadvantages.
The authors attribute this mainly to cultural differences.
--
Patrick Smith
uunet.ca!frumious!pat
pat%frumio...@uunet.ca
Gary Merrill
|>
|> It seems to me that the major problem with the current system is that the
|> problems don't come to light soon enough. By the time someone has
|> finished high-school, its really too late to teach them how to read. If
|> testing can identify the problem back in grade 2, so that something can be
|> done about it, then I'm all for it.
I think your summary of the positions is pretty accurate. The point I find
most annoying is the "self esteem" argument. The consequence of this approach
is the *terrible* blow to self esteem that occurs late in high school when
the SAT is encountered, or post high school when the job market is encountered.
Of course by that time the teachers who worked so hard at not damaging the
student's self esteem are safely many years in the past.
Robert Pearlman
teachers saying: My job is to make kids feel good about
themselves.
I don't know about other peoples' kids, but mine do not
like false praise, and they do not like people who falsesly
praise them. I consider this a good trait and I encourage
it. Part of their self-esteem is that they esteem their own
honesty highly.
Emory F. Bunn
>
>As I understand it, the case against standardized tests is as follows:
>
> 1. they don't take into account kids backgrounds (i.e disadvantaged kids
> don't do as well as middle-class kids)
>
> 2. they cause teachers to "teach to the test" instead of "really
> teaching"
>
> 3. the stigma of doing poorly on a test is damaging to kids
> self-esteem, with numerous bad consequences
>
>To the above arguments, those in favour of testing would reply:
>
>
>Anyone from the "anti-testing" camp care to rebut the above?
>--
I wouldn't call myself "anti-testing," but I'll gladly assume the label
"anti-standardized-testing." My objection to those multiple-choice,
fill-in-the-bubbles horrors is not any of the above, although the above
arguments have some validity. I simply think that multiple-choice tests
only test certain kinds of academic achievement, and not the most important
ones at that. For example, it is impossible to design a multiple-choice
test to determine whether or not a student can write a coherent paragraph,
but IMHO that is one of the most important things our schools should
be teaching. Multiple-choice tests are also poorly suited to test a
student's ability to solve complex problems involving many steps of reasoning.
These tests are optimized for discovering how many facts a student knows,
not for determining higher-level academic abilities.
I think that an educator who argues against any sort of testing of
students is on extremely shaky ground. However, it seems to me that
one can argue persuasively that the multiple-choice test should be greatly
demoted in importance in our schools.
Guy R Thomas
> The point I find
>most annoying is the "self esteem" argument. The consequence of this approach
>is the *terrible* blow to self esteem that occurs late in high school when
>the SAT is encountered, or post high school when the job market is
>encountered.
>Of course by that time the teachers who worked so hard at not damaging the
>student's self esteem are safely many years in the past.
>--
After reading through this thread for a few days I am left with the feeling
that there is some weight to be placed on the self esteem argument, but not
in the way that it has been applied in the past, and this reinterpretation
will perhaps lead to a deeper problem that the "societal problem" school
are strugling at.
I sense a trend towards a homogenization of ability that devalues success
in school. It is this trend that attempts to direct 52% of the population
away from the "hard" sciences. Who of us remember the time when we first
realized that we were in some ways more able than others in some area
and made to feel excluded because of this. What decides this peer pressure?
Where do the children learn that excelence is to be quashed in favour of
the familiar?
Pat.Ch...@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
> In <1992May8.1...@unx.sas.com> sas...@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
> > The point I find
> >most annoying is the "self esteem" argument. The consequence of this approach
> >is the *terrible* blow to self esteem that occurs late in high school when
> >the SAT is encountered, or post high school when the job market is
> >encountered.
> >Of course by that time the teachers who worked so hard at not damaging the
> >student's self esteem are safely many years in the past.
> >--
>
> After reading through this thread for a few days I am left with the feeling
> that there is some weight to be placed on the self esteem argument, but not
> in the way that it has been applied in the past, and this reinterpretation
> will perhaps lead to a deeper problem that the "societal problem" school
> are strugling at.
>
> Guy
> gth...@unixg.ubc.ca
>
>
> >Gary H. Merrill [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
> >SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC 27513 / (919) 677-8000
> >sas...@unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
My 13-y-o son has a whole lot more *self esteem* now his mild learning
disability has been diagnosed for what it is (a difficulty in
processing spoken information if it is handed out in too large chunks).
With a little extra tuition he can now spell correctly, his maths has
improved and he is now a good average student. He feels much more
cheerful now others can read his work because he can spell his words.
The only subject he struggles with is French. "He veel never be a
linguist" says his teacher. Fair enough.
It just occurred to me I have not heard my son call himself *dumb,
stupid, a right idiot* for a long time now :-)
Gary Merrill
|> In <1992May8.1...@unx.sas.com> sas...@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
|> > The point I find
|> >most annoying is the "self esteem" argument. The consequence of this approach
|> >is the *terrible* blow to self esteem that occurs late in high school when
|> >the SAT is encountered, or post high school when the job market is
|> >encountered.
|> >Of course by that time the teachers who worked so hard at not damaging the
|> >student's self esteem are safely many years in the past.
|> >--
|>
|> After reading through this thread for a few days I am left with the feeling
|> that there is some weight to be placed on the self esteem argument, but not
|> in the way that it has been applied in the past, and this reinterpretation
|> will perhaps lead to a deeper problem that the "societal problem" school
|> are strugling at.
|>
|> I sense a trend towards a homogenization of ability that devalues success
|> in school. It is this trend that attempts to direct 52% of the population
|> away from the "hard" sciences. Who of us remember the time when we first
|> realized that we were in some ways more able than others in some area
|> and made to feel excluded because of this. What decides this peer pressure?
|> Where do the children learn that excelence is to be quashed in favour of
|> the familiar?
|>
|> Guy
|> gth...@unixg.ubc.ca
A perceptive observation. The trend towards homogenization is at least
partly a result of the emphasis on competition as being bad. At work
here also is a rather odd ideology of "equity" along the lines of
"I'm OK. You're OK." Indeed, this past year my daughter was subjected
explicitly to this. The counselors who vend this pap seem unable to
distinguish between "We all deserve the same respect and rights as human
beings' and "We all have the same skills and abilities." So they
feel that in order to inculcate the former they must at least provide
the illusion of the latter.
--
Bruce Becker
you are comparing apples to donuts
if your kids end up having enough self-esteem
to be able to make such an evaluation then
they are lucky
many are not so fortunate, and the inducements
to self-abasement in this life are many and
powerful. If teachers identify this problem
and address it head on then they are performing
an extremely valuable function - since they are
better placed than most to do so, this is a
form of responsible community concern that
deserves high praise indeed
--
,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario
a /i/ Internet: b...@becker.gts.org Uucp: ...!lsuc!becker!bdb
`\o\-e "Could someone please explain the jury process?"
_< /_ "1. move the trial to a redneck community. 2. select from there"
Robert Pearlman
Becker) writes:
|> if your kids end up having enough self-esteem
|> to be able to make such an evaluation then
|> they are lucky
|>
|>
|> many are not so fortunate, and the inducements
|> to self-abasement in this life are many and
|> powerful. If teachers identify this problem
|> and address it head on then they are performing
|> an extremely valuable function - since they are
|> better placed than most to do so, this is a
|> form of responsible community concern that
|> deserves high praise indeed
|>
|>
If we're talking about teachers attacking the problem head on there's
no disagreement. Far too many attack it sideways.
Not: "your color/religion/ancestry make you neither more
nor less valuable, and anyone who tells you different is a fool and a
coward. Unfortunately there are a lot of fools and cowards about. This
means that you've got a hard path ahead of you, so you'd best learn what
you can as fast as you can". That would be straight on. Too often we
get: "Your good or bad learning makes you neither more nor less valuable."
We agree: the kid who's done badly at arithmetic is not a rotten kid -- he's a kid
who's done badly at aritmetic. With sympathy and extra attention he's got
a chance to learn what he was supposed to learn. But how tell him that
he should learn it, since being good at arithmetic will not make
people esteem him any more?
His teacher wants him to learn arithmetic so in fact he's pleased her less than
a kid who's done well at it. But this can't be mentioned or implied. How
pretend it isn't true? Only by pretending that everything taught
in school is of no value to the people teaching it! Whether it's English,
judo, manners, hygeine -- OK if you do and OK if you don't, we're all
God's creatures and he loves us all the same.
That's God's job. Teachers are supposed to prefer some behavior to
others -- they're supposed to prefer learning to staying ignorant. If a
teacher tells the kids they should think as well of themselves if they
learn a lot or if they learn a little there are only a few possible outcomes:
1) The kids believe her and grow up ignorant. Self-esteem due for bad
drop soon.
2) The kids smell the con and despise the teacher.
3) What's supposed to happen: the kids believe the teacher and learn anyhow.
How often does it happen? Why should it happen?
I suspect that Bruce Becker is one of those fortunate people who generate
natural respect. The military calls it "Command Presence" (actually that's
different but similar). Such people are great teachers because the kids want
their approval. If all teachers were like that there would be a lot less
ignorance. But they make poor setters of teaching policy because they don't
realize that others lack this asset -- or if they do they consider that a
culpable weakness.
How is a teacher without command presence to encourage kids to learn if
he can't say that it's better to learn? To be sure, he
can say that a kid who doesn't learn is "just as good" as one who does,
but still it's better to learn. Who will believe him? Will he believe it?
Will the horse learn to sing?
Robert Pearlman
ken buckland
> My own suggestion (offered some time in the past now, during a philosophy
> deparatment meeting dealing with teaching evaluation and effectiveness) was
> the following:
>
> 1. For each course, the teacher develops a description of what it
> is intended a student should learn in the course (skills,
> memorized stuff, etc.). A faculty committee approves the
> appropriateness of the description (this imposes *some* degree
> of objectivity) on this "content" description.
>
> 2. The teacher makes up a pre-test/post-test intended to measure
> the degree to which the goals in 1 have been met. Again broader
> approval is required of this test to ensure appropriateness.
> (Please note that such a test need not be short answer, multiple
> choice, or fill in the blanks. Were I doing it for, for example,
> a course in formal logic I would include certain types of
> derivations and proofs as well as more conceptually oriented stuff.
> Other types of courses would require an essay oriented test.)
>
> 3. At the start of the course, the pre-test is administered, corrected,
> and filed.
>
> 4. At the end of the course, the post-test (same test) is administered.
> For each student, the results are compared.
>
> This approach gives the individual teacher a great deal of control over both
> the form and content of the evaluation method.
> Yet it does offer *some* checks
> and balances -- if faculty are willing to insist on standards for themselves
> at all!
>
> This at least would give a measure (in a not totallly subjective manner)
> of what the student has learned from *this* course in *this* subject taught
> by *this* teacher. Of course my colleagues (who were very busy paying much
> lip service to "teaching excellence") would have none of it,
> preferring to rely on the time
> honored system of teaching evaluations made out by students at the
> ends of courses -- the results of which are very easy to manipulate.
Charles Murray, in "In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government" (or maybe
it was "Losing Ground"), proposes something very similar. He also suggests
using the pre-test as a screen for students who have insufficient skills for
the course - although they can acquaint themselves with the background and
rewrite the test as many times as they want. He claims that a big advantage
of such screening is that it keeps trouble-causers out of the class. He was
arguing for a school structure where groups of kids were not moved about as
a "class", but where courses were offered in the manner of a university.
"Nobody cares what the good kids are trying to do anymore."
- comment of teenage Black male relayed on MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour
Ken Buckland
ke...@ee.ubc.ca