Teachers are Dumbing Down Education
Deuteros
that the trainee teachers are the only group dumber than the PE students.
Except the trainee teachers themselves of course, who will bristle at the
suggestion. Of course they also bristle at the suggestion that they regard
themselves as the intellectual elite. Apparently someone who has a
government charter to tell other people what to think doesn't qualify as
the intellectual elite. Go figure.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20271476-12332,00.html
But some other university intellectual elites have produced a study which
shows that teachers are actually a pretty dumb lot.
In particular, it reports that the academic achievement of women entering
teaching has declined substantially.
You mean all those feminists who became teachers through affirmative action
aren't really that smart? Who'd have thought?
The study actually confirms what the rest of us have known all along. The
feminisation of the school curriculum alienated a generation of boys from
the education system, and did nothing for the girls beyond giving them a
sense of entitlement to affirmative action. Allowing the teachers unions to
run the education system has simply resulted in a slow deterioration of
teaching standards. And driving male teachers out of the profession through
affirmative action and subtle innuendos about men being pedophiles has been
a disaster.
But it's not like the teacher's unions don't have a solution to the
problem. They are demanding that teachers be paid more money. The argument
is that better, and smarter teachers will be attracted to the profession if
it pays more money.
Can you imagine any organization other than a union demanding more money
because they are doing such a poor job?
Of course the teachers unions have always fought the concept of
performance-based, or merit-based pay. Across the board pay rises have
always been the demand in the we-are-all-equal culture of the socialist-
rooted elites.
They have even resisted Little Johnny's demands for standardized report
cards. There have been many squishy arguments against this, usually based
around the notion that all children are different, and their needs can only
really be assessed and met by Trained Professionals (ie increasingly dumb
women teachers).
The real reason they are resisting the standardized report cards is because
it will create accountability. Teachers are terrified of actually having to
admit that they have only managed to get Junior's reading level up to the
bottom 20 percentile because then their teaching performance (or lack of
it) would be obvious, and parents would be able to compare schools and
might (horror of horrors) actually demand a choice in how their children
are educated. Next, parents might actually demand an education voucher
system.
Oh the horror, the horror.
It's ironic, that in the state education factories, in which the teacher's
unions have tried so hard to create uniformity, their argument against
standardized report cards is based on individuality.
It's also ironic that the favored slogan of the teacher's union is State
education: it's our future. Now that's horrifying.
Dave L. Renfro
> In particular, it reports that the academic achievement of women
> entering teaching has declined substantially.
>
> You mean all those feminists who became teachers through
> affirmative action aren't really that smart? Who'd have thought?
Since when did feminism and affirmative action have anything
to do with increasing the number of women in teaching? Teaching,
like nursing, has been a traditional "woman's job" for the past
hundred years, maybe longer.
Dave L. Renfro
Ray Fischer
>Anyone who attends a university where they train teachers will tell you
>that the trainee teachers are the only group dumber than the PE students.
Nah. There's you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Bob
> The
> feminisation of the school curriculum alienated a generation of boys from
> the education system,
I was a boy, now a man, and I never flet alienated while in public
school.
Sound as though you got a llittle penis problem.
> and did nothing for the girls beyond giving them a
> sense of entitlement
And what is wrong about feeling you are entitled to do something? I
think that is called FREEDOM and is also protcted in the constiturion.
Ya know theline, "the right to persue....." Are you some sort of pinko
commie or somthing
> Allowing the teachers unions to
> run the education system has simply resulted in a slow deterioration of
> teaching standards. And driving male teachers out of the profession through
> affirmative action.
I was a male K-3 teacher. Every principal I ever talked to said male
elementary teachers are extreamly sought after. In fact, males are more
likly to be hired over females given even sorta close qualificatoins.
> But it's not like the teacher's unions don't have a solution to the
> problem. They are demanding that teachers be paid more money. The argument
> is that better, and smarter teachers will be attracted to the profession if
> it pays more money.
Guess why I dont teach any more...........?
I never worked so hard for so little. It just did not make since to
teach when I could make twice as much in half the time.
>
> Can you imagine any organization other than a union demanding more money
> because they are doing such a poor job?
Yep............................ the BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
They really fucked up the war and are still asking for more money. If
the bush adminstration was run like a business the CEO would be fired.
In the business world ya dont make that size a blonder and expect to
keep your job.
So did you just cut and past soem of Rush Limbaug's work or did you
really think of all that stuff your self?
Go sit in the corner and hold your penis til ya lean how to write.
bob
Samuel
Unfortunately public school teachers -- and college students in teacher
training -- do tend to be rather stupid and anti-intellectual. They
confuse conformity with education -- and this is what they try to
"teach." They are not very deep thinkers.
But quantitative testing proceedures will not improve the performance
of teachers in the classroom. I am becoming more and more convinced
that a proliferation of private schools would offer sufficient
diversity to improve the quality of education -- but I'm concerned that
this will also deepen the education gap of the poor.
Public schools suck, but we have to find a way to keep from screwing
the poor. It's a real problem. Those linear and quantitative tests and
teaching evaluations, however, will not improve the quality of
education or the minds of educators.
Dave L. Renfro
> Those linear and quantitative tests and teaching evaluations,
> however, will not improve the quality of education or the
> minds of educators.
What does it mean to say a test is linear? Also, if the tests
aren't quantitative, how can they be used to measure progress
or lack of progress?
Dave L. Renfro
R. Pierce Butler
news:1157899756.6...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
There was a rcent homework assignment that I saw from a 5th grader. In the
homework assignemtn they asked for the name of a planet that had a 28 day
year. The correct answer? There isn't one. I noted the error and sent a
note to the teacher. She got pissed off and said that she doesn't write
the questions. This is par for the course. I got into an arguement with a
teacher years ago when I was in 5th grade. She claimed that the earth
wobbled on it's axis and that is what causes the seasons. I corrected her
with evidence which put me on her "smart-ass" list.
Jerry Beeler
news:1157899756.6...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Unfortunately public school teachers -- and college students in teacher
> training -- do tend to be rather stupid and anti-intellectual. They
> confuse conformity with education -- and this is what they try to
> "teach." They are not very deep thinkers.
Pretty wide paintbrush there ...
Yours truly,
A public school teacher
John Baker
Well, actually the earth *does* wobble on its axis, and that does
affect the seasons. It's termed 'precession of the equinoxes.' As the
planet goes through each oscillation, the seasonal changes gradually
shift until at the halfway point in the cycle, roughly 12,000 years
from now, August will be the middle of winter. Then as the cycle
completes, the seasons gradually shift back to where they were at the
beginning. Then, of course, the whole thing starts over again. But
since it takes roughly 23,500 years to complete a single "wobble", the
effect is so gradual as to be inconsequential. It isn't something that
would be noticed in a single lifetime..or a dozen lifetimes.
The teacher was still wrong. <G>
>
>
Doc Smartass
news:Xns983A6C8D9F5F8m...@10.232.1.1:
> "Samuel" <clas...@excite.com> wrote in
> news:1157899756.6...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Deuteros wrote:
>>> Anyone who attends a university where they train teachers will tell
>>> you that the trainee teachers are the only group dumber than the PE
>>> students. Except the trainee teachers themselves of course, who will
>>> bristle at the suggestion. Of course they also bristle at the
>>> suggestion that they regard themselves as the intellectual elite.
>>> Apparently someone who has a government charter to tell other people
>>> what to think doesn't qualify as the intellectual elite. Go figure.
>>>
>>> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20271476-12332,00.
>>> htm l
Sheesh.
In 6th Grade, we had some child prodigy type in our science class. He
disrupted the class correcting the teacher--and went away within a few
days. Bastards should have hired him.
My Big Dumb 11th Grade English Teacher was a doddering old wreck who kept
scribbling notes on my writing assignments--"Write bigger! I can't read
this!" (I usually replied with "Get better glasses," since the papers
went into a file and were handed back at the end of the year). At the end
of 11th Grade, Mrs. Wreck lost one of my papers and insisted that it'd
never been turned in. She gave me a few days to do the assignment--but I
refused, pointing out that she'd graded me on it (it was in her grade
book) and ended up being failed for it. The Gordon Rule in Florida
requires "x" amount of words per year in English classes, regardless of
the quality of the writing. I "failed" the class because I was 1,000
words short or somesuch garbage. I wish I'd had the backbone back then to
raise hell about it. Instead, I blew it off, took the GED exam at the end
of 12th Grade, passed it easily, and moved on.
--
Doc Smartass
The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of
words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the
people who must use the words. - Philip K. Dick
Jenny6833A
The word "tend" is present and well placed, so I don't think the
generalization is objectionable. I'd add that the lack of 'deep
thinkers' doesn't concern me. Up-to-date subject knowledge, teaching
skills, and the abiltiy to relate to students are the keys.
Looking back at my 7th thru 10th public school career, I recall just
one excellent teacher and one I'd consider good. Most of the rest were
drones who knew little and cared less. The remainer couldn't find
their whatzits with either hand. Then, for 11th and 12th, I went to a
(secular) private school. One teacher (the PE teacher/coach) was
hopelessly inept in every respect, one was merely good, and all the
rest were just plain excellent.
I saw a comparison of college majors to SAT scores once. The Education
majors were at the bottom of the barrel, but had a high graduation
rate. I don't know if that's still true.
Nonetheless, averages don't tell the whole story. There are some
excellent public school teachers out there. I suspect there'd be more
if the system didn't beat so many of them down.
My kids experience in public middle and high school has been better.
These have been supposedly 'elite' schools in an upscale community,
which may or may not make a difference. In any event, they've had to
suffer some incompetents, but the proportion of good and excellent
teachers has been a lot higher than when I was a kid.
FWIW
Jenny
L. Raymond
> "R. Pierce Butler" <spam...@google.com> wrote:
>> "Samuel" <clas...@excite.com> wrote:
>>> Public schools suck, but we have to find a way to keep from screwing
>>> the poor. It's a real problem. Those linear and quantitative tests
>>> and teaching evaluations, however, will not improve the quality of
>>> education or the minds of educators.
>> There was a rcent homework assignment that I saw from a 5th grader.
>> In the homework assignemtn they asked for the name of a planet that
>> had a 28 day year. The correct answer? There isn't one. I noted
>> the error and sent a note to the teacher. She got pissed off and said
>> that she doesn't write the questions. This is par for the course. I
>> got into an arguement with a teacher years ago when I was in 5th
>> grade. She claimed that the earth wobbled on it's axis and that is
>> what causes the seasons. I corrected her with evidence which put me
>> on her "smart-ass" list.
I attended public school in Houston and except for history classes
taught by the sport coaches all the teachers were perfectly competent,
well trained in their areas and with the exception of one chemistry
teacher, good at actually teaching the material. Granted there are bad,
poorly trained teachers just as there are bad, poorly trained people in
all jobs. But I think the main problem these days are those
standardized tests for which teachers have to prepare the students, plus
there is such an increase in paper work and administrative duties each
teacher has to manage that there is less and less time available to work
on lesson plans.
And let's not forget stupid parents. A few weeks ago there the local
news covered a meeting of parents and administrators at one school. A
woman was complaining that her kid was in the sixth grade but reading at
a third grade level so the teacher needed to be fired. I found myself
wondering just what exactly is preventing her from spending 30 minutes a
day helping her child read. I know for a fact I have my Dad to thank
for my ability to learn. He taught me to read before I ever attended
kindergarten. I think I was in first grade when he took down random
volumes of the encyclopedia and had me read out loud from them.
> In 6th Grade, we had some child prodigy type in our science class. He
> disrupted the class correcting the teacher--and went away within a few
> days. Bastards should have hired him.
You remind me of a time in high school biology when we had a student
teacher. He obviously didn't know how to deal with us and he kept
treating us like we were in junior high or younger. At one point he
actually gave us construction paper and we were supposed to cut out all
the parts of a cell and then glue them on our little cell template. In
an honors class, no less. Anyway, I didn't notice on of my pieces blew
off the table and when he looked at mine he said, "The mitochondria is
missing. Where is your mitochondria?" I said I'd show him mitochondria
if he'd show me his, and danged if I didn't get a bad mark for that.
--
L. Raymond
Alan Lichtenstein
And on what do you base your assertions on? and for the purposes of
this discussion exactly what do YOU think 'education' is? and what are
your credentials for supporting your assertions?
> But quantitative testing proceedures will not improve the performance
> of teachers in the classroom. I am becoming more and more convinced
> that a proliferation of private schools would offer sufficient
> diversity to improve the quality of education -- but I'm concerned that
> this will also deepen the education gap of the poor.
How would YOU evaluate teacher performance in the classroom? What
training and expertise have you had to do so? Exactly how would the
proliferation of private schools improve the quality of education?
> Public schools suck, but we have to find a way to keep from screwing
> the poor.
Why, in your uninformed opinion do public schools 'suck?'
It's a real problem. Those linear and quantitative tests and
> teaching evaluations, however, will not improve the quality of
> education or the minds of educators.
Quantitative examinations will insure that the teaching faculty is
qualified, at least according to subject matter. Evaluations are only
as good as the evaluator. Good evaluators give good and insightful
evaluations. Poor evaluators do likewise on the other end. Are you
making the assertion that the evaluators as a group 'suck?'
Herman Rubin
Samuel <clas...@excite.com> wrote:
>Deuteros wrote:
...................
>Unfortunately public school teachers -- and college students in teacher
>training -- do tend to be rather stupid and anti-intellectual. They
>confuse conformity with education -- and this is what they try to
>"teach." They are not very deep thinkers.
>But quantitative testing proceedures will not improve the performance
>of teachers in the classroom. I am becoming more and more convinced
>that a proliferation of private schools would offer sufficient
>diversity to improve the quality of education -- but I'm concerned that
>this will also deepen the education gap of the poor.
>Public schools suck, but we have to find a way to keep from screwing
>the poor. It's a real problem. Those linear and quantitative tests and
>teaching evaluations, however, will not improve the quality of
>education or the minds of educators.
Public schools have declined badly; to some extent, SOME of
the honors courses can help in undoing some of the damage.
I believe it was "toto" who stated she enjoyed most
teaching the honors geometry course; this course used to be
mandatory for going to even a fair college, but is taken
only by a small number of those going to college now.
Academic private schools will be supporting bright poor.
At this time, we cannot provide a good education for all,
no matter what we do. We cannot just fire the incompetent
teachers, even if this were legal; we need the baby-sitters.
There are some academic private schools in poor areas.
And not all parents even care if their children get a good
education; getting a fair one suffices for them. They
would rather have a good football team than a good education
for their children.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Herman Rubin
I do not see that a quantitative test measures progress or
its lack. At the present time, and probably this cannot be
eliminated, a test measures a combination of things, which
may well need to be separated.
For example, I think that everyone needs to understand
variables, numbers, logic, and proofs. They need to be
able to formulate problems. However, not all need to be
proficient in arithmetic or in solving problems, and also
need not be good in producing proofs.
Users of mathematics need the first but not the second,
and mathematicians need mainly the second, but I doubt
it can be done without the first. Anyhow, that is not
the problem; what we have now is teaching how to solve
problems which may or may not be appropriate, and which
the person will try to use when the correct formulation
does not fit. This is rife in statistics.
Knowing how to add without knowing when is like putting
a pea-shooter in the hands of an idiot. Going further
in this direction raises the firepower.
Herman Rubin
I believe, from what you have posted, that you could teach
good courses with high standards, at a considerably higher
level than you are now doing. There are others who would
be willing and able to do so. Alas, these are in the
minority.
You cannot succeed in doing that if you were presented,
as is the case now, with students of vastly differing
abilities. This is not just the case in the higher
grades, but even in kindergarten.
Herman Rubin
Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>Samuel wrote:
>> Deuteros wrote:
.................
> It's a real problem. Those linear and quantitative tests and
>> teaching evaluations, however, will not improve the quality of
>> education or the minds of educators.
>Quantitative examinations will insure that the teaching faculty is
>qualified, at least according to subject matter. Evaluations are only
>as good as the evaluator. Good evaluators give good and insightful
>evaluations. Poor evaluators do likewise on the other end. Are you
>making the assertion that the evaluators as a group 'suck?'
If subject matter scholars could test teachers to the
standards that they would want for those teaching their
children, the failure rate would be enormous. What do
YOU think would happen?
The same holds for grading prospective teachers. Flunking
most of them at one school would only mean that other
schools, with even lower standards, would get them.
So the teacher candidates can get by with weak courses,
graded weakly as well.
Alternatively, the candidates would take the "subject
matter" from people in the school of education, who are
the ones causing the problem now.
Frank Clarke
<ee2fgp$2p...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>
>Knowing how to add without knowing when is like putting
>a pea-shooter in the hands of an idiot. Going further
>in this direction raises the firepower.
In other words: if you're asking the wrong questions, all the answers will be
irrelevant.
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
Frank Clarke
<1157919283.5...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>My kids experience in public middle and high school has been better.
>These have been supposedly 'elite' schools in an upscale community,
>which may or may not make a difference. In any event, they've had to
>suffer some incompetents, but the proportion of good and excellent
>teachers has been a lot higher than when I was a kid.
I second the motion. I once had to defend my daughter from a vendetta by her
English Honors teacher -- whose first language was Spanish. The vendetta came
about because my daughter had the temerity to suggest that "it's" is -not- the
possessive of "it", but rather a contraction for "it is".
And this was in one of the 'flagship' high schools in Pinellas County, FL...
Alan Lichtenstein
> In article <fOOdnc_ba416HJnY...@rcn.net>,
> Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
>>Samuel wrote:
>>
>>>Deuteros wrote:
>
>
> .................
>
>
>> It's a real problem. Those linear and quantitative tests and
>>
>>>teaching evaluations, however, will not improve the quality of
>>>education or the minds of educators.
>
>
>>Quantitative examinations will insure that the teaching faculty is
>>qualified, at least according to subject matter. Evaluations are only
>>as good as the evaluator. Good evaluators give good and insightful
>>evaluations. Poor evaluators do likewise on the other end. Are you
>>making the assertion that the evaluators as a group 'suck?'
>
>
>
> If subject matter scholars could test teachers to the
> standards that they would want for those teaching their
> children, the failure rate would be enormous. What do
> YOU think would happen?
First of all, Herman, my question had little to do with testing, but
rather with the poster's very likely uninformed prejudices regarding
educational evaluation and the factors which contribute to the 'success'
or lack thereof of the educational process.
As far as YOUR comment is concerned, if we used YOUR elitist standards,
there'd be NOBODY to teach anyone. Especially when you measure YOUR
standards against current salaries.
So now, my elitist friend, you have your answer.
> The same holds for grading prospective teachers. Flunking
> most of them at one school would only mean that other
> schools, with even lower standards, would get them.
> So the teacher candidates can get by with weak courses,
> graded weakly as well.
There is no doubt that majors in 'Education' are among the less
academically talented individuals at universities. Studies with data
have been introduced in this NG and others verifying that status.
However, are you suggesting that since these candidates are so
academically untalented, that perhaps they should not be even permitted
to gain higher education? Because, Herman, SOMEONE has to be at the
bottom of the academic barrel. And regarding your other comment about
these candidates simply going to another school, are you suggesting that
many of these schools be forced to close, thereby precluding that option?
Maybe Purdue would be one of those. And then, Herman, you could get a
job teaching high school, which given your elitist attitudes and
peculiar 'theories' on education, would get you fired for incompetence
in short order.
And maybe that wouldn't be so bad. Then, Herman, you could practice
your libertarian philosophies and get a REAL job.
> Alternatively, the candidates would take the "subject
> matter" from people in the school of education, who are
> the ones causing the problem now.
In most schools of Education with which I am familiar, teaching
candidates for subject area disciplines take their subject area
disciplines from those respective Departments. If these people are
passed,then it is on the dime of those subject area professors.
Bob LeChevalier
>I saw a comparison of college majors to SAT scores once. The Education
>majors were at the bottom of the barrel, but had a high graduation
>rate. I don't know if that's still true.
It never was true. The SAT numbers represent what kids said that they
were going to major in, when they attended college. A low percentage
of those who said that they were going to major in education actually
did attend college and major in education, with the result that the
SAT scores of those who actually got an education degree being as high
as most other non-science majors.
Of course, education majors primarily teach the lower grades. Your
high school math teacher was probably not an education major.
>Nonetheless, averages don't tell the whole story. There are some
>excellent public school teachers out there. I suspect there'd be more
>if the system didn't beat so many of them down.
The best and brightest can get much higher pay in private industry.
lojbab
Herman Rubin
Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>Herman Rubin wrote:
>> In article <fOOdnc_ba416HJnY...@rcn.net>,
>> Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>>>Samuel wrote:
>>>>Deuteros wrote:
.................
>> If subject matter scholars could test teachers to the
>> standards that they would want for those teaching their
>> children, the failure rate would be enormous. What do
>> YOU think would happen?
>First of all, Herman, my question had little to do with testing, but
>rather with the poster's very likely uninformed prejudices regarding
>educational evaluation and the factors which contribute to the 'success'
>or lack thereof of the educational process.
>As far as YOUR comment is concerned, if we used YOUR elitist standards,
>there'd be NOBODY to teach anyone. Especially when you measure YOUR
>standards against current salaries.
Wrong. If we get people who understand the subjects,
instead of those who memorize and do routine, and
drop the "objective" tests, we could get many more.
We have to get them away from the dumbing down process
and allow them to think. I was teaching back when the
returning GIs were called "damned average raisers".
Remember that this group included many who did not go
to college for financial reasons before.
>So now, my elitist friend, you have your answer.
There are lots of competent people who understand
subject matter but have not taken, or are unwilling
to take, education courses, and who want to teach.
If we change the curriculum, many of those who now
are dumbed down and go to teach will not be dumbed
down, and will be able to understand.
>> The same holds for grading prospective teachers. Flunking
>> most of them at one school would only mean that other
>> schools, with even lower standards, would get them.
>> So the teacher candidates can get by with weak courses,
>> graded weakly as well.
>There is no doubt that majors in 'Education' are among the less
>academically talented individuals at universities. Studies with data
>have been introduced in this NG and others verifying that status.
>However, are you suggesting that since these candidates are so
>academically untalented, that perhaps they should not be even permitted
>to gain higher education?
Those capable of a decent higher education will be able
to get a FAR better education than they now get.
Because, Herman, SOMEONE has to be at the
>bottom of the academic barrel.
The bottom can be raised. Mathematically illiterate
people are now going to college, when first graders
who will ever have the ability to speak mathematics
can be taught the language. Those same children,
after the public schools have had their way, seem
to be no longer so capable.
And regarding your other comment about
>these candidates simply going to another school, are you suggesting that
>many of these schools be forced to close, thereby precluding that option?
>Maybe Purdue would be one of those.
No, I am suggesting that course standards be absolute.
And I have no problem with someone needing to take
courses meeting twice as long to get the information
in a course, but not more credit.
And then, Herman, you could get a
>job teaching high school, which given your elitist attitudes and
>peculiar 'theories' on education, would get you fired for incompetence
>in short order.
A high school which groups by age, yes. One which wants
its students to learn, no problem.
>And maybe that wouldn't be so bad. Then, Herman, you could practice
>your libertarian philosophies and get a REAL job.
I can easily retire now.
>> Alternatively, the candidates would take the "subject
>> matter" from people in the school of education, who are
>> the ones causing the problem now.
>In most schools of Education with which I am familiar, teaching
>candidates for subject area disciplines take their subject area
>disciplines from those respective Departments. If these people are
>passed,then it is on the dime of those subject area professors.
But what would happen if the failure rate in those courses
went up to 80%? The educationists would scream that the
subject departments are putting bars in the way of producing
teachers, and right now the NEA has more than 10% of the
delegates to the Democratic conventions.
You sound like the Chemistry professor who passed a star
football player. The exam consisted of two questions, with
50% a passing score. The first question was, "What is the
formula for water?" This question was failed. The second
question was, "Do you know the formula for sulfuric acid?"
To this, the student answered, "No.", which was correct.
Serial Killfiler
wrote:
>In particular, it reports that the academic achievement of women entering
>teaching has declined substantially.
Of course it has. Teaching is a low-pay, low-prestige career and most
women would rather make more money in private sector or high powered
professional jobs than stoop to doing ill-paid, ill-respected public
service work like teaching.
>You mean all those feminists who became teachers through affirmative action aren't really that smart? Who'd have thought?
In 14 years I have NEVER met a single PS teacher who could fairly be
called a feminist. Those types go into higher ed, where they can
lecture and publish papers about whatever. Probably the last place a
hardcore feminist cares to be is in a dirty, overcrowded classroom
filled with ill-mannered, underbathed, baggy-panted adolescent boys.
>The study actually confirms what the rest of us have known all along. The
>feminisation of the school curriculum alienated a generation of boys from
>the education system, and did nothing for the girls beyond giving them a
>sense of entitlement to affirmative action. Allowing the teachers unions to
>run the education system has simply resulted in a slow deterioration of
>teaching standards. And driving male teachers out of the profession through
>affirmative action and subtle innuendos about men being pedophiles has been
>a disaster.
What a load of crap. Women do not run the state boards of education
and the legislatures, which create these absurdly overloaded school
curriculums. Our unions are not powerful enough to "run" a damn
thing. They can only react-- usually ineffectually -- to the
politically motivated agendas of the state boards, the legislatures,
and the local districts. And if male teachers are being driven out--
an assertion that you have provided no actual evidence for-- it's the
probably the pay. In many areas you can't do much for your family
with a teacher's paycheck, and that is a main reason people avoid or
quit teaching jobs.
>But it's not like the teacher's unions don't have a solution to the
>problem. They are demanding that teachers be paid more money. The argument
>is that better, and smarter teachers will be attracted to the profession if
>it pays more money.
>
>Can you imagine any organization other than a union demanding more money
>because they are doing such a poor job?
You have provided no evidence of any such thing. You are just spewing
gas.
>Of course the teachers unions have always fought the concept of
>performance-based, or merit-based pay. Across the board pay rises have
>always been the demand in the we-are-all-equal culture of the socialist-
>rooted elites.
There is no way for the people who enter my classroom at most twice
annually to evaluate how effectively I do what I do. And the public
isn't going to pay for extra pencil-pushers to implement such a scheme
fairly. It has failed everywhere it's been tried because it becomes a
political bat for clubbing those the admin doesn't like and rewarding
suckups. The bonuses and raises given for advanced degrees and
National Board certifications are a far better idea.
>They have even resisted Little Johnny's demands for standardized report
>cards. There have been many squishy arguments against this, usually based
>around the notion that all children are different, and their needs can only
>really be assessed and met by Trained Professionals (ie increasingly dumb
>women teachers).
I have never heard of any proposal for a standardized report card. I
have never read of any such proposal in any of the many
education-related and news publi
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Serial Killfiler
>Unfortunately public school teachers -- and college students in teacher
>training -- do tend to be rather stupid and anti-intellectual. They
>confuse conformity with education -- and this is what they try to
>"teach."
The last thing a person of intellectual bent would be happy doing is
playing battle of the wills with 30+ spoiled, irritating, irregularly
bathed adolescents in a dirty, shabby classroom for hours a day. Nor
do such people happily volunteer to spending even more hours running
copies and doing mind-numbing paperwork.
K12 teaching is public service work, and only a person who feels
rewarded by that aspect of the job will ever be happy and effective in
the classroom. Intellectuals typically seek out research work. There
is a vast difference between a research environment and the
gym-sock-smelling hormone-filled chaos school teachers work in every
day.
>They are not very deep thinkers.
90% of the people in this country wouldn't know a deep thought if it
cold cocked them in the jaw.
>But quantitative testing proceedures will not improve the performance
>of teachers in the classroom. I am becoming more and more convinced
>that a proliferation of private schools would offer sufficient
>diversity to improve the quality of education -- but I'm concerned that
>this will also deepen the education gap of the poor.
Around here private schools are the second choice. That's where
Johnny gets sent after he gets caught with pot on our campus.
But I am all for diversification. I teach all AP courses and I see
nothing wrong with an all-AP high school, or a high school that
teaches athletics or technology, or whatever, as its primary focus.
However, it's doubtful that the taxpayers would fund anything that
differs, even superficially, from the schools they had back in the
day.
>Public schools suck, but we have to find a way to keep from screwing
>the poor. It's a real problem. Those linear and quantitative tests and
>teaching evaluations, however, will not improve the quality of
>education or the minds of educators.
I taught in a "poor" school for years. On any given day, 10-20% of my
students were absent, and at least 10% of the
Serial Killfiler
wrote:
>In particular, it reports that the academic achievement of women entering
>teaching has declined substantially.
Of course it has. Teaching is a low-pay, low-prestige career and most
women would rather make more money in private sector or high powered
professional jobs than stoop to doing ill-paid, ill-respected public
service work like teaching.
>You mean all those feminists who became teachers through affirmative action aren't really that smart? Who'd have thought?
In 14 years I have NEVER met a single PS teacher who could fairly be
called a feminist. Those types go into higher ed, where they can
lecture and publish papers about whatever. Probably the last place a
hardcore feminist cares to be is in a dirty, overcrowded classroom
filled with ill-mannered, underbathed, baggy-panted adolescent boys.
>The study actually confirms what the rest of us have known all along. The
>feminisation of the school curriculum alienated a generation of boys from
>the education system, and did nothing for the girls beyond giving them a
>sense of entitlement to affirmative action. Allowing the teachers unions to
>run the education system has simply resulted in a slow deterioration of
>teaching standards. And driving male teachers out of the profession through
>affirmative action and subtle innuendos about men being pedophiles has been
>a disaster.
What a load of crap. Women do not run the state boards of education
and the legislatures, which create these absurdly overloaded school
curriculums. Our unions are not powerful enough to "run" a damn
thing. They can only react-- usually ineffectually -- to the
politically motivated agendas of the state boards, the legislatures,
and the local districts. And if male teachers are being driven out--
an assertion that you have provided no actual evidence for-- it's the
probably the pay. In many areas you can't do much for your family
with a teacher's paycheck, and that is a main reason people avoid or
quit teaching jobs.
>But it's not like the teacher's unions don't have a solution to the
>problem. They are demanding that teachers be paid more money. The argument
>is that better, and smarter teachers will be attracted to the profession if
>it pays more money.
>
>Can you imagine any organization other than a union demanding more money
>because they are doing such a poor job?
You have provided no evidence of any such thing. You are just spewing
gas.
>Of course the teachers unions have always fought the concept of
>performance-based, or merit-based pay. Across the board pay rises have
>always been the demand in the we-are-all-equal culture of the socialist-
>rooted elites.
There is no way for the people who enter my classroom at most twice
annually to evaluate how effectively I do what I do. And the public
isn't going to pay for extra pencil-pushers to implement such a scheme
fairly. It has failed everywhere it's been tried because it becomes a
political bat for clubbing those the admin doesn't like and rewarding
suckups. The bonuses and raises given for advanced degrees and
National Board certifications are a far better idea.
>They have even resisted Little Johnny's demands for standardized report
>cards. There have been many squishy arguments against this, usually based
>around the notion that all children are different, and their needs can only
>really be assessed and met by Trained Professionals (ie increasingly dumb
>women teachers).
I have never heard of any proposal for a standardized report card. I
have never read of any such proposal in any of the many
education-related and news publi
Serial Killfiler
wrote:
>In particular, it reports that the academic achievement of women entering
>teaching has declined substantially.
Of course it has. Teaching is a low-pay, low-prestige career and most
women would rather make more money in private sector or high powered
professional jobs than stoop to doing ill-paid, ill-respected public
service work like teaching.
>You mean all those feminists who became teachers through affirmative action aren't really that smart? Who'd have thought?
In 14 years I have NEVER met a single PS teacher who could fairly be
called a feminist. Those types go into higher ed, where they can
lecture and publish papers about whatever. Probably the last place a
hardcore feminist cares to be is in a dirty, overcrowded classroom
filled with ill-mannered, underbathed, baggy-panted adolescent boys.
>The study actually confirms what the rest of us have known all along. The
>feminisation of the school curriculum alienated a generation of boys from
>the education system, and did nothing for the girls beyond giving them a
>sense of entitlement to affirmative action. Allowing the teachers unions to
>run the education system has simply resulted in a slow deterioration of
>teaching standards. And driving male teachers out of the profession through
>affirmative action and subtle innuendos about men being pedophiles has been
>a disaster.
What a load of crap. Women do not run the state boards of education
and the legislatures, which create these absurdly overloaded school
curriculums. Our unions are not powerful enough to "run" a damn
thing. They can only react-- usually ineffectually -- to the
politically motivated agendas of the state boards, the legislatures,
and the local districts. And if male teachers are being driven out--
an assertion that you have provided no actual evidence for-- it's the
probably the pay. In many areas you can't do much for your family
with a teacher's paycheck, and that is a main reason people avoid or
quit teaching jobs.
>But it's not like the teacher's unions don't have a solution to the
>problem. They are demanding that teachers be paid more money. The argument
>is that better, and smarter teachers will be attracted to the profession if
>it pays more money.
>
>Can you imagine any organization other than a union demanding more money
>because they are doing such a poor job?
You have provided no evidence of any such thing. You are just spewing
gas.
>Of course the teachers unions have always fought the concept of
>performance-based, or merit-based pay. Across the board pay rises have
>always been the demand in the we-are-all-equal culture of the socialist-
>rooted elites.
There is no way for the people who enter my classroom at most twice
annually to evaluate how effectively I do what I do. And the public
isn't going to pay for extra pencil-pushers to implement such a scheme
fairly. It has failed everywhere it's been tried because it becomes a
political bat for clubbing those the admin doesn't like and rewarding
suckups. The bonuses and raises given for advanced degrees and
National Board certifications are a far better idea.
>They have even resisted Little Johnny's demands for standardized report
>cards. There have been many squishy arguments against this, usually based
>around the notion that all children are different, and their needs can only
>really be assessed and met by Trained Professionals (ie increasingly dumb
>women teachers).
I have never heard of any proposal for a standardized report card. I
have never read of any such proposal in any of the many
education-related and news publications that I read, and this topic
has never come up in 10+ years of discussions here. Indeed, you have
not even defined what "standardized report card" means, and it seems
that no one-- including you -- knows what you're talking about.
(remainder snipped--not worth wasting keystrokes on)
TSK
----------------------------------
"May those who damn us be damned."
alhuriy...@NOBOTSyahoo.com
Serial Killfiler
>Unfortunately public school teachers -- and college students in teacher
>training -- do tend to be rather stupid and anti-intellectual. They
>confuse conformity with education -- and this is what they try to
>"teach."
The last thing a person of intellectual bent would be happy doing is
playing battle of the wills with 30+ spoiled, irritating, irregularly
bathed adolescents in a dirty, shabby classroom for hours a day. Nor
do such people happily volunteer to spending even more hours running
copies and doing mind-numbing paperwork.
K12 teaching is public service work, and only a person who feels
rewarded by that aspect of the job will ever be happy and effective in
the classroom. Intellectuals typically seek out research work. There
is a vast difference between a research environment and the
gym-sock-smelling hormone-filled chaos school teachers work in every
day.
>They are not very deep thinkers.
90% of the people in this country wouldn't know a deep thought if it
cold cocked them in the jaw.
>But quantitative testing proceedures will not improve the performance
>of teachers in the classroom. I am becoming more and more convinced
>that a proliferation of private schools would offer sufficient
>diversity to improve the quality of education -- but I'm concerned that
>this will also deepen the education gap of the poor.
Around here private schools are the second choice. That's where
Johnny gets sent after he gets caught with pot on our campus.
But I am all for diversification. I teach all AP courses and I see
nothing wrong with an all-AP high school, or a high school that
teaches athletics or technology, or whatever, as its primary focus.
However, it's doubtful that the taxpayers would fund anything that
differs, even superficially, from the schools they had back in the
day.
>Public schools suck, but we have to find a way to keep from screwing
>the poor. It's a real problem. Those linear and quantitative tests and
>teaching evaluations, however, will not improve the quality of
>education or the minds of educators.
I taught in a "poor" school for years. On any given day, 10-20% of my
students were absent, and at least 10% of the attendees refused to
participate. That's only one problem that defines the reality of
educating disadvantaged kids.
The contrast between the hot air you're blowing and what really goes
on in the classroom shows how little deep thought is occuring between
your ears.
Serial Killfiler
Alan Lichtenstein
> In article <dKidnVSRp5M6zZjY...@rcn.net>,
> Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
>>Herman Rubin wrote:
>>
>>>In article <fOOdnc_ba416HJnY...@rcn.net>,
>>>Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Samuel wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Deuteros wrote:
>
>
>
> .................
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>If subject matter scholars could test teachers to the
>>>standards that they would want for those teaching their
>>>children, the failure rate would be enormous. What do
>>>YOU think would happen?
>
>
>>First of all, Herman, my question had little to do with testing, but
>>rather with the poster's very likely uninformed prejudices regarding
>>educational evaluation and the factors which contribute to the 'success'
>>or lack thereof of the educational process.
>
>
>>As far as YOUR comment is concerned, if we used YOUR elitist standards,
>>there'd be NOBODY to teach anyone. Especially when you measure YOUR
>>standards against current salaries.
>
>
> Wrong. If we get people who understand the subjects,
> instead of those who memorize and do routine, and
> drop the "objective" tests, we could get many more.
Wrong again. Your standards are so high that anyone who could meet them
would be so far in demand that they wouldn't consider teaching. Herman,
you just have to be realistic. You never were, you aren't now, and it's
highly unlikely you'll ever be.
> We have to get them away from the dumbing down process
> and allow them to think. I was teaching back when the
> returning GIs were called "damned average raisers".
> Remember that this group included many who did not go
> to college for financial reasons before.
I agree with you that we should not dumb down subjects. But that means
failing more people. I have no problem with that. Do you?
>>So now, my elitist friend, you have your answer.
>
>
> There are lots of competent people who understand
> subject matter but have not taken, or are unwilling
> to take, education courses, and who want to teach.
to that, I say, Bullshit.
> If we change the curriculum, many of those who now
> are dumbed down and go to teach will not be dumbed
> down, and will be able to understand.
Wrong. The curriculum has nothing to do with it. Salary does.
>>>The same holds for grading prospective teachers. Flunking
>>>most of them at one school would only mean that other
>>>schools, with even lower standards, would get them.
>>>So the teacher candidates can get by with weak courses,
>>>graded weakly as well.
>
>
>>There is no doubt that majors in 'Education' are among the less
>>academically talented individuals at universities. Studies with data
>>have been introduced in this NG and others verifying that status.
>
>
>>However, are you suggesting that since these candidates are so
>>academically untalented, that perhaps they should not be even permitted
>>to gain higher education?
>
>
> Those capable of a decent higher education will be able
> to get a FAR better education than they now get.
You're getting on your soap box again, Herman. And avoiding the
question, as usual. Can you answer a direct question?
> Because, Herman, SOMEONE has to be at the
>
>>bottom of the academic barrel.
>
>
> The bottom can be raised.
It will still be the bottom, and your plaint will still be the same.
Mathematically illiterate
> people are now going to college, when first graders
> who will ever have the ability to speak mathematics
> can be taught the language. Those same children,
> after the public schools have had their way, seem
> to be no longer so capable.
I don't disagree with what you say. So I ask again, are you in favor of
reducing the number of colleges so that there will be fewer spaces for
these 'dummies?'
> And regarding your other comment about
>
>>these candidates simply going to another school, are you suggesting that
>>many of these schools be forced to close, thereby precluding that option?
>>Maybe Purdue would be one of those.
>
>
> No, I am suggesting that course standards be absolute.
Then if you are not suggesting that, then the circumstances which annoy
you will continue.
> And I have no problem with someone needing to take
> courses meeting twice as long to get the information
> in a course, but not more credit.
But if they are essentially illiterate, what good will that do?
> And then, Herman, you could get a
>
>>job teaching high school, which given your elitist attitudes and
>>peculiar 'theories' on education, would get you fired for incompetence
>>in short order.
>
>
> A high school which groups by age, yes. One which wants
> its students to learn, no problem.
Every school wants its students to learn. What you refuse to realize is
that the methodology which you would insist on would be ineffective, and
therefore, get you fired when a competent supervisor observes you.
You talk big, Herman, but you can't stand up and deliver.
>>And maybe that wouldn't be so bad. Then, Herman, you could practice
>>your libertarian philosophies and get a REAL job.
>
>
> I can easily retire now.
Perhaps you should.
>>>Alternatively, the candidates would take the "subject
>>>matter" from people in the school of education, who are
>>>the ones causing the problem now.
>
>
>>In most schools of Education with which I am familiar, teaching
>>candidates for subject area disciplines take their subject area
>>disciplines from those respective Departments. If these people are
>>passed,then it is on the dime of those subject area professors.
>
>
> But what would happen if the failure rate in those courses
> went up to 80%? The educationists would scream that the
> subject departments are putting bars in the way of producing
> teachers, and right now the NEA has more than 10% of the
> delegates to the Democratic conventions.
Fact remains, Herman, Education is not a particularly rigorous
discipline. But simply because the discipline is not rigorous,does not
mean that it is not worthwhile. a simple concept that your elitist
attitudes refuse to accept. Everything doesn't have to be academically
rigorous to be worthwhile. A concept you have always had much
difficulty accepting, and comprehending.
> You sound like the Chemistry professor who passed a star
> football player. The exam consisted of two questions, with
> 50% a passing score. The first question was, "What is the
> formula for water?" This question was failed. The second
> question was, "Do you know the formula for sulfuric acid?"
> To this, the student answered, "No.", which was correct.
considering that the subject of the scholarship athlete came up at YOUR
school a few years back, and that YOU, with your lofty ideas refused to
begin your crusade at home, why Herman, you have no basis to talk.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Especially if
they refuse to clean their own house, which you refuse to do, Herman.
Stand up for your ideals Herman. Criticize Purdue for its duplicitous
actions regarding scholarship athletes. Then, after you do that, maybe
then you'd have credibility. Right now, you're only a hypocrite.
Jenny6833A
> "Jenny6833A" <Jenny...@aol.com> wrote:
> >I saw a comparison of college majors to SAT scores once. The Education
> >majors were at the bottom of the barrel, but had a high graduation
> >rate. I don't know if that's still true.
>
> It never was true. The SAT numbers represent what kids said that they
> were going to major in, when they attended college. A low percentage
> of those who said that they were going to major in education actually
> did attend college and major in education, with the result that the
> SAT scores of those who actually got an education degree being as high
> as most other non-science majors.
Maybe, but that's not what I recall. It was the median SAT score by
major of those _admitted to and attending_ a very large (~35,000) state
university. It also showed grad rate by major.
:-)
Jenny
Herman Rubin
Serial Killfiler <alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>On 10 Sep 2006 07:49:16 -0700, "Samuel" <clas...@excite.com> wrote:
>>Unfortunately public school teachers -- and college students in teacher
>>training -- do tend to be rather stupid and anti-intellectual. They
>>confuse conformity with education -- and this is what they try to
>>"teach."
>The last thing a person of intellectual bent would be happy doing is
>playing battle of the wills with 30+ spoiled, irritating, irregularly
>bathed adolescents in a dirty, shabby classroom for hours a day. Nor
>do such people happily volunteer to spending even more hours running
>copies and doing mind-numbing paperwork.
If one had a real educational system, this would not be
the situation. Those in the classroom would be of comparable
ability, and either would all want to learn, or it would not
be expected that they learn much.
We may want to do much of the teaching by video; this would
handle the problem of only a few students of a given type
in a typical "class".
>K12 teaching is public service work, and only a person who feels
>rewarded by that aspect of the job will ever be happy and effective in
>the classroom. Intellectuals typically seek out research work. There
>is a vast difference between a research environment and the
>gym-sock-smelling hormone-filled chaos school teachers work in every
>day.
Another reason to dothings by video. There are people who
are retired, or wish to change careers and want to teach,
and even college students who could do half-time teaching.
>>They are not very deep thinkers.
>90% of the people in this country wouldn't know a deep thought if it
>cold cocked them in the jaw.
Schoolteachers are about 1%, but I am afraid most of them
fall into the 90%. I do not think that most started out
that way; the schools did it to them.
>>But quantitative testing proceedures will not improve the performance
>>of teachers in the classroom. I am becoming more and more convinced
>>that a proliferation of private schools would offer sufficient
>>diversity to improve the quality of education -- but I'm concerned that
>>this will also deepen the education gap of the poor.
I agree with the first, but academic private schools will
go after the competent poor.
>Around here private schools are the second choice. That's where
>Johnny gets sent after he gets caught with pot on our campus.
There are only about 100 academic private schools in the country.
>But I am all for diversification. I teach all AP courses and I see
>nothing wrong with an all-AP high school, or a high school that
>teaches athletics or technology, or whatever, as its primary focus.
>However, it's doubtful that the taxpayers would fund anything that
>differs, even superficially, from the schools they had back in the
>day.
>>Public schools suck, but we have to find a way to keep from screwing
>>the poor. It's a real problem. Those linear and quantitative tests and
>>teaching evaluations, however, will not improve the quality of
>>education or the minds of educators.
--
Eudaemonic Plague
news:1158007838....@q16g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
So....how long ago did you see this? I'd be interested in seeing this
thing.
Bob LeChevalier
Here is an old post that covered the subject and has references
http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-03-35.pdf
is a current cite for the research paper in question
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joni Rathbun - view profile
Date: Thurs, Feb 28 2002 6:28 pm
Groups: k12.chat.teacher
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Apobetic´ wrote:
> Now how do we produce top quality students when the source is such low quality?
From a post by Sam Lubell, compliments of Bob C., here's something for
you to chew on:
There is hard data to refute them. The following is the verbatim post
of Samuel Lubell from 11/21/99 on the "Millers or GRE Easier" thread
which I think was crossposted to several groups including all the
educational groups.
>Except that this isn't true either. Yes, prospective SAT scores are
>lower for those high school seniors reporting an interest in teaching
>but an analysis of those taking the PRAXIS teacher test show that
>teachers in their subjects outscore other adults, even college
>educated adults.
>See ftp://etsis1.ets.org/pub/praxis/225033.pdf
>First the study showed the uselessness of those who rely on SAT data
>of high school students who say they have an interest in teaching (for
>example Gross in his _The Conspiracy of Igorance_)
>"Hanushek and Pace (1994) estimated that more than half of all
>potential education majors switch career plans between their senior
>year in high school and the end of their sophomore year in college.
>Moreover, about one quarter of the teaching force did not major in
>education (Feistritzer, 1996;NCES, 1996)"
>Instead the ETS study looked at those taking the PRAXIS teacher
>licensing exam and then went back and collected those students' SAT
>and ACT scores from back when they were in high school.
>It found that while the SAT average for would-be teachers is lower
>than the average for college students overall, the SAT average for
>those who passed the PRAXIS exam to enroll in a college of education
>was higher than the average. The Average for college-bound students
>is 511M 505V, while those who passed the test to enroll in schools of
>education scored 514M and 525V. However, even this is misleading
>since the PRAXIS population had a greater percentage of females who
>tend to score lower on these tests. So when you do a breakdown by
>gender you find that college bound males scored 530M, 507V while
>PRAXIS males scored 535M and 525V while college bound females scored
>494M 503V and PRAXIS females 507M 524V.
>They then compared college graduates to those passing the PRAXIS II
>teacher licensing test. They found that while elementary school
>teachers scored lower than the college graduate population, other
>teachers scored higher.
>than math performance. There is a great disparity between those who
>qualify for licenses in specific content areas and those who qualify
>for licenses in elementary, special, and physical education.
>Elementary education candidates, by far the largest single group of
>prospective teachers, have SAT scores that are clearly higher than
>those of college bound seniors who announce their intention to be
>education majors. Their verbal scores are slightly higher than college
>bound seniors^ , but their math scores are somewhat lower. However,
>elementary education candidates have much lower math and verbal scores
>than all college graduates.
>For those who qualify for content licenses, we see a far different
>pattern. With the exception of Art & Music, verbal SAT scores for
>teachers who succeed on licensing tests in content areas are higher
>than for all college graduates, up to 35 points higher in the case of
>those passing licensing tests in English/Language Arts. Math SATs for
>teacher candidates who pass licensing tests in mathematics and science
>I quote: "The trends are fairly consistent for both math and verbal
>SAT, though teacher candidate verbal performance is generally stronger
>are substantially higher than for all college graduates (55 and 26
>points for math and science candidates, respectively). For virtually
>all content areas, SAT scores for successful Praxis II candidates are
>significantly higher than those for all college bound seniors.
>Clearly, those qualifying for teacher licenses in specific content
>areas are a far stronger group, academically, than is suggested by the
>intended education major data. In fact, they are generally stronger
>than college bound seniors, and their overall verbal skill as measured
>by the SAT exceeds mean performance of all college graduates.
>Moreover, the math scores of teacher candidates who make primary use
>of mathematics in their teaching far exceed the scores of the average
>college graduate. However, claims of relatively low SAT scores
>compared to their college peers still ring true for those qualifying
>for an elementary, special education, or physical education license.
>And because elementary teachers account for more than half of the
>teaching population, the relatively low SAT scores of elementary
>teacher candidates pull down the average SAT scores of the entire
>Praxis II population, thereby masking the relatively high scores of
>those meeting licensure requirements in academic content areas."
><end quote>
>So unless you think you need a SAT score higher than the average
>college graduate to teach elementary school, most teachers (and
>certainly high school teachers) are better equipped than the average
>college graduate. (And remember that only 27% of high school
>graduates finish college, making even the average college graduate
>above average for high school).
>Specifically math teachers scored 597 M and science teachers scored
>569 M while the average for college graduates is 542. Similarly
>English teachers scored 578V and science teachers 568V and social
>studies teachers scored 554 while the average for college grads
>overall was 543.
>In short, the evidence shows that high school teachers in their area
>of expertise score above the average for all college graduates. So
>please don't say teachers are less intelligent than their students
>unless you have evidence to back it up.
lojbab
Seveigny
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:80cbg2llno175hmln...@4ax.com...
> "Jenny6833A" <Jenny...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I saw a comparison of college majors to SAT scores once. The Education
>>majors were at the bottom of the barrel, but had a high graduation
>>rate. I don't know if that's still true.
>
> It never was true. The SAT numbers represent what kids said that they
> were going to major in, when they attended college. A low percentage
> of those who said that they were going to major in education actually
> did attend college and major in education, with the result that the
> SAT scores of those who actually got an education degree being as high
> as most other non-science majors.
I would be interested to know how many colleges and universities have
Education as an undergraduate major. Here in sunny California, it is no
longer possible to major, as an undergraduate, in Education.
> Of course, education majors primarily teach the lower grades. Your
> high school math teacher was probably not an education major.
Again, here in California, one cannot major in Education in any state
college or university. Elementary school teachers at the California State
Universities major in Liberal Studies. At SFSU (San Francisco State
University, my alma mater) a Liberal Studies major takes the following
courses: http://www.sfsu.edu/~puboff/programs/undergrad/libstud.htm
The CSU's (California State Universities) are the college of choice for
those who wish to teach. The UC's do have credential programs. At those
institutions, students minor in Education but take courses to prepare them
to teach in elementary school. If one wishes to be high school teacher, one
majors in one of 16 subjects, then goes on to get a credential in one of
those 16 subjects. California has made it increasingly difficult to get a
teaching credential. When I got my credential, one could demonstrate
subject matter competance by majoring in the subject and completing the
assigned credential courses, or by proving subject matter competance through
testing, then taking the credential courses. Nowadays, teachers have to
complete the subject matter courses and take a test proving they learned
what they were supposed to learn. Then they take the necessary credential
courses.
>>Nonetheless, averages don't tell the whole story. There are some
>>excellent public school teachers out there. I suspect there'd be more
>>if the system didn't beat so many of them down.
>
> The best and brightest can get much higher pay in private industry.
Indeed they can. Why teach if one can make more money in private
industry? The usual canards,are that those who choose to teach are motivated
by the desire for summers off, by job security, or they are unable to do
anything else. The SAT numbers described by the OP are just another example
of a perception that educators are dummies. I'm tired of this discussion.
Really.
I teach the days the school district decrees I should teach. If they
decided I should teach all year long, I would teach 260 days rather than 185
days.
My summers off? The first five years I taught, I taught summer school
because I couldn't afford not to. Now that I have "summers off" I spend
that time....working. This summer I read the new textbooks adopted by my
school district. I rewrote my curriculum to meet the standards and align
those standards to the new textbook. I created new activities and some
powerpoint presentations. Some of the readers of this post will read the
previous statements as whining. It really isn't. I enjoy my work and
willingly spend time, without pay, doing what needs to be done. I just want
my community to know that my summers aren't spent at the beach, reading
novels and working on my sun tan.
Oh, and let us remember that California requires teachers to maintain
their credential by taking classes. Every five years I have to complete 150
hours of professional development in order to maintain my credential. When
do teachers take those classes? During the school year? During their
"summers off??
Job security? Even in California, where we have teacher unions, we do
not have tenure. We do achieve permanent status after two years of having
our contract renewed. However, we can be fired...there are 11 different
causes for termination in the California Ed Code.
As to being able to do something else, well, I worked in corporate
America for 20 years before I became a teacher. Many teachers at my site
are in their second career. The rest are well educated, talented
individuals who could make a hell of a lot more money in private industry.
Why do we teach? I'll give my answer and hope that other teachers in
this group will give theirs as well. I teach because I want to be part of
the solution, not part of the problem. I want to help kids learn to be
productive members of American society. I teach because I love to learn and
I learn something new every day. I teach because I like kids. They make me
laugh every day. I teach because when a kid "gets it" it makes my day.
~Cate
Serial Killfiler
Rubin) wrote:
>In article <3aebg212atqd16psv...@4ax.com>,
>Serial Killfiler <alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>On 10 Sep 2006 07:49:16 -0700, "Samuel" <clas...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>>Unfortunately public school teachers -- and college students in teacher
>>>training -- do tend to be rather stupid and anti-intellectual. They
>>>confuse conformity with education -- and this is what they try to
>>>"teach."
>
>>The last thing a person of intellectual bent would be happy doing is
>>playing battle of the wills with 30+ spoiled, irritating, irregularly
>>bathed adolescents in a dirty, shabby classroom for hours a day. Nor
>>do such people happily volunteer to spending even more hours running
>>copies and doing mind-numbing paperwork.
>
>If one had a real educational system, this would not be
>the situation. Those in the classroom would be of comparable
>ability, and either would all want to learn, or it would not
>be expected that they learn much.
Herman, you do not seem to be a stupid person, but I really wish you
would think about what you're saying. Kids will still be kids,
whether you group them by IQ or not. Developmentally they simply are
not the same as college students. You're stuck with them and their
immaturity and their issues, and because they're a captive audience,
you have a prisoner/ warden dynamic that does not exist in college.
I work with the brightest students in my school. Usually they do not
require a heavy hand to manage. However they have the potential to be
just as spoiled, irritating and irregularly bathed as any other given
population of students. Also some of them are as emotionally
conflicted and/or as dangerous to you as less intelligent students.
If you think your typical egghead is equipped or willing to deal with
these kids, you're dreaming. I've seen the "intellectuals" come and
I've seen them go. They don't connect with the students very well and
they don't earn respect or keep order. Few of them last a whole
year... many, not even a full semester. The kids chew them up and
spit them out.
>We may want to do much of the teaching by video; this would
>handle the problem of only a few students of a given type
>in a typical "class".
Kids tune out during passive activities. The worst thing you can do
is do a lot of teaching from a screen. The fact that you suggest it a
all demonstrates that you don't understand high school kids.
>>K12 teaching is public service work, and only a person who feels
>>rewarded by that aspect of the job will ever be happy and effective in
>>the classroom. Intellectuals typically seek out research work. There
>>is a vast difference between a research environment and the
>>gym-sock-smelling hormone-filled chaos school teachers work in every
>>day.
>
>Another reason to dothings by video. There are people who
>are retired, or wish to change careers and want to teach,
>and even college students who could do half-time teaching.
The video thing is a stupid idea. However I do agree that it would be
wonderful if K12 schools could recruit part-time or adjunct faculty
more easily. It would make it easier for schools to offer the
advanced or specialized courses that are hard to staff.
>>>They are not very deep thinkers.
>
>>90% of the people in this country wouldn't know a deep thought if it
>>cold cocked them in the jaw.
>
>Schoolteachers are about 1%, but I am afraid most of them
>fall into the 90%. I do not think that most started out
>that way; the schools did it to them.
Mo
Serial Killfiler
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>I quote: "The trends are fairly consistent for both math and verbal
>>SAT, though teacher candidate verbal performance is generally stronger
>>are substantially higher than for all college graduates (55 and 26
>>points for math and science candidates, respectively). For virtually
>>all content areas, SAT scores for successful Praxis II candidates are
>>significantly higher than those for all college bound seniors.
>
>>Clearly, those qualifying for teacher licenses in specific content
>>area
Serial Killfiler
Rubin) wrote:
>In article <3aebg212atqd16psv...@4ax.com>,
>Serial Killfiler <alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>On 10 Sep 2006 07:49:16 -0700, "Samuel" <clas...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>>Unfortunately public school teachers -- and college students in teacher
>>>training -- do tend to be rather stupid and anti-intellectual. They
>>>confuse conformity with education -- and this is what they try to
>>>"teach."
>
>>The last thing a person of intellectual bent would be happy doing is
>>playing battle of the wills with 30+ spoiled, irritating, irregularly
>>bathed adolescents in a dirty, shabby classroom for hours a day. Nor
>>do such people happily volunteer to spending even more hours running
>>copies and doing mind-numbing paperwork.
>
>If one had a real educational system, this would not be
>the situation. Those in the classroom would be of comparable
>ability, and either would all want to learn, or it would not
>be expected that they learn much.
Herman, you do not seem to be a stupid person, but I really wish you
would think about what you're saying. Kids will still be kids,
whether you group them by IQ or not. Developmentally they simply are
not the same as college students. You're stuck with them and their
immaturity and their issues, and because they're a captive audience,
you have a prisoner/ warden dynamic that does not exist in college.
I work with the brightest students in my school. Usually they do not
require a heavy hand to manage. However they have the potential to be
just as spoiled, irritating and irregularly bathed as any other given
population of students. Also some of them are as emotionally
conflicted and/or as dangerous to you as less intelligent students.
If you think your typical egghead is equipped or willing to deal with
these kids, you're dreaming. I've seen the "intellectuals" come and
I've seen them go. They don't connect with the students very well and
they don't earn respect or keep order. Few of them last a whole
year... many, not even a full semester. The kids chew them up and
spit them out.
>We may want to do much of the teaching by video; this would
>handle the problem of only a few students of a given type
>in a typical "class".
Kids tune out during passive activities. The worst thing you can do
is do a lot of teaching from a screen. The fact that you suggest it a
all demonstrates that you don't understand high school kids.
>>K12 teaching is public service work, and only a person who feels
>>rewarded by that aspect of the job will ever be happy and effective in
>>the classroom. Intellectuals typically seek out research work. There
>>is a vast difference between a research environment and the
>>gym-sock-smelling hormone-filled chaos school teachers work in every
>>day.
>
>Another reason to dothings by video. There are people who
>are retired, or wish to change careers and want to teach,
>and even college students who could do half-time teaching.
The video thing is a stupid idea. However I do agree that it would be
wonderful if K12 schools could recruit part-time or adjunct faculty
more easily. It would make it easier for schools to offer the
advanced or specialized courses that are hard to staff.
>>>They are not very deep thinkers.
>
>>90% of the people in this country wouldn't know a deep thought if it
>>cold cocked them in the jaw.
>
>Schoolteachers are about 1%, but I am afraid most of them
>fall into the 90%. I do not think that most started out
>that way; the schools did it to them.
Most people in most professions fall into that 90%. I could count on
one hand the deep thinkers I've ever met. Most of them aren't college
professors, or Americans. This is *not* a culture of deep thinkers,
for the most part.
TSK
----------------------------------
"May those who damn us be damned."
alhuriy...@NOBOTSyahoo.com
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
Serial Killfiler
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>I quote: "The trends are fairly consistent for both math and verbal
>>SAT, though teacher candidate verbal performance is generally stronger
>>are substantially higher than for all college graduates (55 and 26
>>points for math and science candidates, respectively). For virtually
>>all content areas, SAT scores for successful Praxis II candidates are
>>significantly higher than those for all college bound seniors.
>
>>Clearly, those qualifying for teacher licenses in specific content
>>areas are a far stronger group, academically, than is suggested by the
>>intended education major data. In fact, they are generally stronger
>>than college bound seniors, and their overall verbal skill as measured
>>by the SAT exceeds mean performance of all college graduates.
>>Moreover, the math scores of teacher candidates who make primary use
>>of mathematics in their teaching far exceed the scores of the average
>>college graduate. However, claims of relatively low SAT scores
>>compared to their college peers still ring true for those qualifying
>>for an elementary, special education, or physical education license.
>>And because elementary teachers account for more than half of the
>>teaching population, the relatively low SAT scores of elementary
>>teacher candidates pull down the average SAT scores of the entire
>>Praxis II population, thereby masking the relatively high scores of
>>those meeting licensure requirements in academic content areas."
>><end quote>
You can post all the evidence you want, but these bigots are allergic
to factual arguments. They want to bash teachers, and if even if you
printed out study after study and crammed the papers up their noses,
they wouldn't take notice. It's just the way things are.
Alan Lichtenstein
Herman is a Libertarian, and as such, you must excuse him for his
somewhat 'peculiar' philosophies which result from his adherence to that
'odd' point of view. And while Herman is NOT stupid, he DOES lack
common sense. Perhaps he's been shut up in that ivory tower of Purdue
too long. He really doesn't have any clue as to the real world.
( remainder of post snipped )
Serial Killfiler
wrote:
I wasn't aware he is a libertarian. That's not something I expect of
a person with an education, but that wasn't really my point. I just
don't think he has any experience with groups of adolescents of any
ability level, and like many people who carry forth about what high
schools "should" be doing, he does not seem to understand what the
high school environment is like. How can someone then know what works
and what doesn't?
TSK
----------------------------------
"May those who damn us be damned."
alhuriy...@NOBOTSyahoo.com
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
Libertarius
Most of them cannot even speak correct English, although
they do insist they "have went" to college!
Even that they "have wrote" a thesis! ;-) -- L.
Frank Clarke
<alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
<ai9cg29ludg395oie...@4ax.com>
>Herman, you do not seem to be a stupid person, but I really wish you
>would think about what you're saying. Kids will still be kids,
>whether you group them by IQ or not. Developmentally they simply are
>not the same as college students. You're stuck with them and their
>immaturity and their issues, and because they're a captive audience,
>you have a prisoner/ warden dynamic that does not exist in college.
You have identified the root cause; did you know that you did so?
Some of the kids in school don't want to be there; for them, school is a prison;
why should we be surprised that a 'prisoner/warden dynamic' exists?
For those students who actually --do-- want to be there, that 'dynamic' may or
may not exist; if it does, it is traceable directly to having to cope with peers
who do not want to be there.
Nobody is forced to go to college, therefore the 'dynamic' is different.
The solution to the problem seems pretty plain: all school should be voluntary,
and everyone should be required to deal, on their own, with the consequences of
their own choices.
Dennis Kemmerer
news:mfbeg29j68neevvh1...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> The solution to the problem seems pretty plain: all school should be
> voluntary,
> and everyone should be required to deal, on their own, with the
> consequences of
> their own choices.
Everyone pays the consequences for lack of education. Poor education and
crime are directly related.
Herman Rubin
Serial Killfiler <alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:57:59 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com>
>wrote:
>>Serial Killfiler wrote:
>>> On 11 Sep 2006 17:03:21 -0400, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
>>> Rubin) wrote:
>>>>In article <3aebg212atqd16psv...@4ax.com>,
>>>>Serial Killfiler <alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 10 Sep 2006 07:49:16 -0700, "Samuel" <clas...@excite.com> wrote:
...............
>>Herman is a Libertarian, and as such, you must excuse him for his
>>somewhat 'peculiar' philosophies which result from his adherence to that
>>'odd' point of view. And while Herman is NOT stupid, he DOES lack
>>common sense. Perhaps he's been shut up in that ivory tower of Purdue
>>too long. He really doesn't have any clue as to the real world.
>I wasn't aware he is a libertarian. That's not something I expect of
>a person with an education, but that wasn't really my point. I just
>don't think he has any experience with groups of adolescents of any
>ability level, and like many people who carry forth about what high
>schools "should" be doing, he does not seem to understand what the
>high school environment is like. How can someone then know what works
>and what doesn't?
When I went to school, the current behavioral problems
making all the headlines essentially did not exist.
Possibly that was because those mainly causing the problems
were in different classes, or not in high school at all.
The elementary schools had just been socialized, but none
of it had reached the high schools, and WWII kept it from
getting there.
My children did go to high school, but again the school
here is probably different from most, with the clientele
being almost entirely children of university people or
professional people. The parents of many complained that
the students were not taking the honors courses; my son
learned little which he could not have learned otherwise,
and my daughter was unimpressed with the level of most
courses, although the "neoclassical" geometry course was
excellent.
Dionisio
What's a little satire?
;-)
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
Serial Killfiler
I have never heard a teacher speak that way.
BTW your last "sentence" is actually a fragment.
TSK
----------------------------------
"May those who damn us be damned."
alhuriy...@NOBOTSyahoo.com
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
Serial Killfiler
Rubin) wrote:
Regardless of the reason the present problems exist, nevertheless they
do exist. You can propose all kinds of school reforms, but if these
problems are not taken into account, of what worth are any proposals
for change?
>My children did go to high school, but again the school
>here is probably different from most, with the clientele
>being almost entirely children of university people or
>professional people. The parents of many complained that
>the students were not taking the honors courses; my son
>learned little which he could not have learned otherwise,
>and my daughter was unimpressed with the level of most
>courses, although the "neoclassical" geometry course was
>excellent.
If you can recognize that your family's personal experiences may not
be typical, maybe you can accept that what you propose will not suit
every population of students... or any, as the case may be. Whatever
school demands of kids, it must take their developmental state into
account.
Serial Killfiler
<m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:17:21 -0500, Serial Killfiler
><alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
><ai9cg29ludg395oie...@4ax.com>
>
>>Herman, you do not seem to be a stupid person, but I really wish you
>>would think about what you're saying. Kids will still be kids,
>>whether you group them by IQ or not. Developmentally they simply are
>>not the same as college students. You're stuck with them and their
>>immaturity and their issues, and because they're a captive audience,
>>you have a prisoner/ warden dynamic that does not exist in college.
>
>You have identified the root cause; did you know that you did so?
>
>Some of the kids in school don't want to be there; for them, school is a prison;
>why should we be surprised that a 'prisoner/warden dynamic' exists?
Who is surprised? The same dynamic exists in many kids' homes, among
the faculty members in some schools I've worked for... and I'm sure in
lots of private workplaces, too. Is the world is full of workplaces
that people are dying to go to? I don't think so.
>For those students who actually --do-- want to be there, that 'dynamic' may or
>may not exist; if it does, it is traceable directly to having to cope with peers
>who do not want to be there.
>
>Nobody is forced to go to college, therefore the 'dynamic' is different.
I do not credit a 14 or 15 year old with enough maturity or
intelligence to make choices that have such drastic consequences, ie.
the near total guarantee of poverty. Anyway, no 14-15 yo who is
mature and intelligent would drop out of high school when the benefits
of graduating are so obvious.
>The solution to the problem seems pretty plain: all school should be voluntary,
>and everyone should be required to deal, on their own, with the consequences of
>their own choices.
School is voluntary already-- you can pick your nose and be a lifelong
idiot, or you can study and excel, or you can strike your level
somewhere in between. Also you can legally quit at 16 without any
sort of credential. And, lest we forget, we will ALWAYS deal with the
consequence of our own choices-- educational, sexual, nutritional,
spiritual, etc.
TSK
----------------------------------
"May those who damn us be damned."
alhuriy...@NOBOTSyahoo.com
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
Serial Killfiler
<m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:17:21 -0500, Serial Killfiler
><alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
><ai9cg29ludg395oie...@4ax.com>
>
>>Herman, you do not seem to be a stupid person, but I really wish you
>>would think about what you're saying. Kids will still be kids,
>>whether you group them by IQ or not. Developmentally they simply are
>>not the same as college students. You're stuck with them and their
>>immaturity and their issues, and because they're a captive audience,
>>you have a prisoner/ warden dynamic that does not exist in college.
>
>You have identified the root cause; did you know that you did so?
>
>Some of the kids in school don't want to be there; for them, school is a prison;
>why should we be surprised that a 'prisoner/warden dynamic' exists?
Who is surprised? The same dynamic exists in many kids' homes, among
the faculty members in some schools I've worked for... and I'm sure in
lots of private workplaces, too. Is the world is full of workplaces
that people are dying to go to? I don't think so.
>For those students who actually --do-- want to be there, that 'dynamic' may or
>may not exist; if it does, it is traceable directly to having to cope with peers
>who do not want to be there.
>
>Nobody is forced to go to college, therefore the 'dynamic' is different.
I do not credit a 14 or 15 year old with enough maturity or
intelligence to make choices that have such drastic consequences, ie.
the near total guarantee of poverty. Anyway, no 14-15 yo who is
mature and intelligent would drop out of high school when the benefits
of graduating are so obvious.
>The solution to the problem seems pretty plain: all school should be voluntary,
>and everyone should be required to deal, on their own, with the consequences of
>their own choices.
School is voluntary already-- you can pick your nose and be a lifelong
idiot, or you can study and excel, or you can strike your level
somewhere in between. Also you can legally quit at 16 without any
sort of cr
Day Brown
>>Can you imagine any organization other than a union demanding more money
>>because they are doing such a poor job?
salaries for running the company into the ground. Happens all the time.
curtsybear
On 2006-09-12, Dennis Kemmerer <d...@suespammers.org> wrote:
> "Frank Clarke" <m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:mfbeg29j68neevvh1...@4ax.com...
>> voluntary,
>> and everyone should be required to deal, on their own, with the
>> consequences of
>> their own choices.
> Everyone pays the consequences for lack of education. Poor education and
> crime are directly related.
And poor education and trolling usenet are pretty well established
as linked also. Thus, trolling usenet and crime are related in a
way that they could only get married in West Virginia?
--
"What a shame! Only about one per cent of all the lost will ever come
back to Jesus, and that's only if good Christians like me pray for them
for hours and do a lot of witnessing and soul winning to bring them
back from the brink of the Pit." -- Lurlean Tucker explains her poor
performance appraisal and blames everything on Jennifer Anniston's beau.
Libertarius
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:19:23 -0600, Libertarius
> <Liber...@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
>
>
>>Just what do you expect from all those undereducated teachers?
>>Most of them cannot even speak correct English, although
>>they do insist they "have went" to college!
>>Even that they "have wrote" a thesis! ;-) -- L.
>
>
> I have never heard a teacher speak that way.
===>I have. MANY times.
And correcting them is of no use.
>
> BTW your last "sentence" is actually a fragment.
===>Of course it is.
What should I of wrote? ;-) -- L.
Libertarius
===>True, but they don't use money extorted from tax payers. -- L.
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
"Jenny6833A" wrote:...
(Jenny): ..."I saw a comparison of college majors to SAT scores once.
The Education
majors were at the bottom of the barrel, but had a high graduation
rate. I don't know if that's still true."
It is.
(Bob): ..It never was true. The SAT numbers represent what kids said
that they were going to major in, when they attended college. A low
percentage of those who said that they were going to major in education
actually did attend college and major in education, with the result
that the SAT scores of those who actually got an education degree being
as high as most other non-science majors.
Source?
Ken Adelman wrote an article for the __Kappan__(supposedly endorsing
Philosophy as a major), which compared GRE, LSAT,, and GMAT scores by
undergraduate major. The highest GRE Math score was Physics majors
(Math majors were second). Econ majors had the highest Math scores of
social science majors. The highest GRE Verbal score was English majors.
Anthro majors had the highest Verbal score among Social Science
majors. Math majors had the highest LSAT and GMAT scores. Business
majors scored below average of all majors on the GMAT, which is rather
amusing considering that that's their test. Social Work, Journalism,
and Education majors were in the bottom of the rankings of all tests.
(Bob): ...Of course, education majors primarily teach the lower grades.
Your
high school math teacher was probably not an education major.
"Probably" ? Dunno 'bout that. Some States have moved in that
direction. Hawaii certainly has not.
(Jenny): ...Nonetheless, averages don't tell the whole story. There
are some excellent public school teachers out there. I suspect there'd
be more if the system didn't beat so many of them down.
(Bob): ...The best and brightest can get much higher pay in private
industry.
I read somewhere that bright teachers tend to leave the profession
earlier. Teaching can be fun, and if you like your subject and like
kids, it's great to have a classroom full of willing students. The
system does beat teachers down, if they object to compulsory union
dues, lunatic instructional fads like Whole Language and Whole Math,
and brain-numbing inservice training by politically-connected halfwits.
Legislators could address the problem with policies which allow
individual parents to determine which institution, if any, shall
receive the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy.
Gerard Lassibile and Lucia Navarro Gomez, ["Organization and Efficiency
of Educational Systems: some empirical findings", pg. 16,
__Comparative Education__, Vol. 36 #1, 2000, Feb.]
"Furthermore, the regression results indicate that countries where
private education is more widespread perform significantly better than
countries where it is more limited. The result showing the private
sector to be more efficient is similar to those found in other contexts
with individual data (see, for example, Psucharopoulos, 1987; Jiminez,
et. al, 1991).
This finding should convince countries to reconsider policies that
reduce the role of the private sector in the field of education".
http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/hoxbyleigh_pulledaway.pdf
http://www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html (One page. Marvin Minsky comment
on school. Please read this.)
http://www.educationevolving.org/pdf/Adolescence.pdf
http://edpro.stanford.edu/hanushek/admin/pages/files/uploads/research%20observer.pdf
(Hanushek on Education Markets).
http://www.schoolchoices.org (Massive site. Useful links).
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/index.html
http://www.educationpolicy.org (Myron Lieberman's site).
http://www.hslda.org (Very useful links, for prospective
homeschoolers).
http://harriettubmanagenda.blogspot.com/
Dave L. Renfro
> Business majors scored below average of all majors
> on the GMAT, which is rather amusing considering
> that that's their test.
The GMAT doesn't test business knowledge. Also,
keep in mind that the non-business majors who take
the GMAT are a self-selected subgroup of individuals
who likely have a strong desire to change over to
business. Finally, these other majors tend to attract
a different type of student than business does -- you
typically don't have 20% of the student body majoring
in physics, as is often the case with business.
Nonetheless, it is rather striking how poorly business
majors perform on the GMAT relative to other majors:
http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwphl/philosophy/undergraduate/PhilosophyMajor.html#GMAT
Dave L. Renfro
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>"Jenny6833A" wrote:...
>(Jenny): ..."I saw a comparison of college majors to SAT scores once.
>The Education
>majors were at the bottom of the barrel, but had a high graduation
>rate. I don't know if that's still true."
>
>It is.
>
>(Bob): ..It never was true. The SAT numbers represent what kids said
>that they were going to major in, when they attended college. A low
>percentage of those who said that they were going to major in education
>actually did attend college and major in education, with the result
>that the SAT scores of those who actually got an education degree being
>as high as most other non-science majors.
>
>Source?
Little slow, aren't you MK? I posted the message a couple of days
ago, and within a very few hours posted the source, as reported
several times in the past by Lubell, me and Joni (and probably
others).
http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-03-35.pdf
lojbab
Frank Clarke
<a6HNg.1151$7I1...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
So are crime and 'reduced lifespan'.
Frank Clarke
<alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
<mgteg2t3hl2klgqlt...@4ax.com>
>On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:05:28 GMT, Frank Clarke
><m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>Nobody is forced to go to college, therefore the 'dynamic' is different.
>
>I do not credit a 14 or 15 year old with enough maturity or
>intelligence to make choices that have such drastic consequences, ie.
>the near total guarantee of poverty.
Thank goodness they have parents! Their parents can help them make good(**)
choices that will fit them for later life. Sometimes that will mean 'working';
sometimes it means 'schooling'. As long as a bureaucrat whose livelihood
depends on forcing into school kids who either don't want to be there or
can't/won't benefit from the experience, the 'experience' is largely ruined for
all.
(**) If you decide to question the parenting skills of some people, please
provide a way we can quantify 'good' vs 'bad'; thanks in advance.
>>The solution to the problem seems pretty plain: all school should be voluntary,
>>and everyone should be required to deal, on their own, with the consequences of
>>their own choices.
>
>School is voluntary already-- you can pick your nose and be a lifelong
>idiot, or you can study and excel, or you can strike your level
>somewhere in between. Also you can legally quit at 16 without any
>sort of credential.
...including, in some states, a driver's license. You really have to get past
the notion that you (and the bureaucrats) know what's best for everyone else
through age 16. When you've accomplished that, we'll get to work on disabusing
you of the notion that you know what's best for --anybody-- else.
Alan Lichtenstein
I understand. However, knowing that piece of information goes somewhat
closer to providing an explanation for his 'peculiar' views, considering
the level of his academic talents.
I just
> don't think he has any experience with groups of adolescents of any
> ability level, and like many people who carry forth about what high
> schools "should" be doing, he does not seem to understand what the
> high school environment is like. How can someone then know what works
> and what doesn't?
On, you are wrong. Herman does indeed have experience with groups of
adolescents. High ability ones. He claims he has experience with
somewhat diverse intellectual capabilities, but when one questions him
further, one realizes that what he considers a 'diverse' group, are
really high ability students.
Herman thinks there is a 'one size fits all' approach to student
abilities. He has absolutely no conception that differing intellectual
capabilities, as well as differing socio-economic backgrounds might,
just might, create unforeseen problems of a non-academic nature, that
will require modifications in methodology.
You are probably correct in your assumption that Herman does not truly
understand the typical high school environment. But in fact, Herman is
quite the hypocrite, for when given the opportunity to confront
instructional issues at his own institution, Herman chickened out.
So much for doing what I do. With Herman, it's do as I say, but don't
expect me to do what I say when it comes close to home.
Alan Lichtenstein
But they do now, Herman, and we are talking about the here and NOW.
> Possibly that was because those mainly causing the problems
> were in different classes, or not in high school at all.
Are you suggesting that we restrict opportunity for education?
> The elementary schools had just been socialized, but none
> of it had reached the high schools, and WWII kept it from
> getting there.
>
> My children did go to high school, but again the school
> here is probably different from most, with the clientele
> being almost entirely children of university people or
> professional people.
To be sure. You have described that experience previously. Perhaps
that's why you think every school conforms to your elitist notions.
The parents of many complained that
> the students were not taking the honors courses; my son
> learned little which he could not have learned otherwise,
> and my daughter was unimpressed with the level of most
> courses, although the "neoclassical" geometry course was
> excellent.
See what I mean?
Frank Clarke
<EoadncGbQ-K_H5XY...@rcn.net>
>Herman Rubin wrote:
>> When I went to school, the current behavioral problems
>> making all the headlines essentially did not exist.
>
>But they do now, Herman, and we are talking about the here and NOW.
Are you suggesting there is no value in asking how we got here from there?
>> Possibly that was because those mainly causing the problems
>> were in different classes, or not in high school at all.
>
>Are you suggesting that we restrict opportunity for education?
Restrict opportunity? Certainly not! Are you suggesting we should force people
to stay in school when they neither want to be there nor are willing to make any
effort to profit from the experience? Are you suggesting we should punish
those who do want to profit from the experience by inflicting the other type
upon them?
Frank Clarke
<EoadncabQ-L8HJXY...@rcn.net>
>On, you are wrong. Herman does indeed have experience with groups of
>adolescents. High ability ones. He claims he has experience with
>somewhat diverse intellectual capabilities, but when one questions him
>further, one realizes that what he considers a 'diverse' group, are
>really high ability students.
>
>Herman thinks there is a 'one size fits all' approach to student
>abilities. He has absolutely no conception that differing intellectual
>capabilities, as well as differing socio-economic backgrounds might,
>just might, create unforeseen problems of a non-academic nature, that
>will require modifications in methodology.
I think you have read Herman completely wrong. It is the --existing-- regime
which is 'one-size-fits-all'. Were it not, vocational programs would be much
more common/prevalent than college-prep, yet they are not. Here in Pinellas
County, FL (highest pop. density in FL) vocational programs are nearly
non-existent.
>You are probably correct in your assumption that Herman does not truly
>understand the typical high school environment. But in fact, Herman is
>quite the hypocrite, for when given the opportunity to confront
>instructional issues at his own institution, Herman chickened out.
This is a fundamentally unfair criticism to level against a man-on-the-street.
Citizens not enmeshed in the 'educational system' deal with educational issues
at a philosophical, rather than a 'detail', level, but that is not a criticism,
and it's not a bad thing, either. We, the people, are the ones who must
describe what we want our social structures to look like, and sometimes we do so
in terms that are very 'blue sky' -- because that's the vocabulary we have
available to us. In the present, the 'educational elite' tell us what we are
going to have to cope with -- take it or leave it. That's not how the system is
supposed to work, and you ought to expect some well-deserved resistance.
Alan Lichtenstein
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:13:28 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> <EoadncGbQ-K_H5XY...@rcn.net>
>
>>Herman Rubin wrote:
>
>
>>>When I went to school, the current behavioral problems
>>>making all the headlines essentially did not exist.
>>
>>But they do now, Herman, and we are talking about the here and NOW.
>
>
> Are you suggesting there is no value in asking how we got here from there?
How we got from there to here is only instructive as far as the
historical record is concerned. And of course, if you choose to place
blame for the current circumstances.
But as far as solution is concerned, it is really irrelevant.
Circumstances which exist here and now are the only things that are of
issue. Herman's response to a query asking for a solution went to
describing the circumstances which existed when he was in school. As
such, it was unresponsive.
>>>Possibly that was because those mainly causing the problems
>>>were in different classes, or not in high school at all.
>>
>>Are you suggesting that we restrict opportunity for education?
>
>
> Restrict opportunity? Certainly not! Are you suggesting we should force people
> to stay in school when they neither want to be there nor are willing to make any
> effort to profit from the experience?
Not at all. Restricting opportunity is not equivalent to a requirement.
surely you knew the difference.
Are you suggesting we should punish
> those who do want to profit from the experience by inflicting the other type
> upon them?
Not at all. If you were a long term poster to the education NG's, you
would be both familiar with Herman's views and mine. You would know
that both Herman and I favor homogeneous grouping, but there we part
company. Herman fails to recognize, as I suspect that perhaps you may
as well, that different methodologies are required for different groups.
Alan Lichtenstein
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:10:13 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> <EoadncabQ-L8HJXY...@rcn.net>
>
>>On, you are wrong. Herman does indeed have experience with groups of
>>adolescents. High ability ones. He claims he has experience with
>>somewhat diverse intellectual capabilities, but when one questions him
>>further, one realizes that what he considers a 'diverse' group, are
>>really high ability students.
>>
>>Herman thinks there is a 'one size fits all' approach to student
>>abilities. He has absolutely no conception that differing intellectual
>>capabilities, as well as differing socio-economic backgrounds might,
>>just might, create unforeseen problems of a non-academic nature, that
>>will require modifications in methodology.
>
>
> I think you have read Herman completely wrong.
Hardly. I've been reading Herman for around ten years, and I believe I
am fully understanding of his positions in total. Perhaps with a few
more years experience, you will come to the same understandings.
It is the --existing-- regime
> which is 'one-size-fits-all'.
We're talking about methodology.
Were it not, vocational programs would be much
> more common/prevalent than college-prep, yet they are not.
There is something to be said regarding the elitist notions of the
current Social/Emotional school of philosophy. However, you exhibit
your prejudices with your last assertion about assuming a hierarchy of
intellect required for certain skills.
Had you read Herrnstein and Murray's work, 'The Bell Curve,' you would
understand that in many ways, the same level of intellectual ability is
required for skilled trades. You should read the work, and perhaps you
will be disabused of your apparent prejudice that somehow skilled
vocational trades somehow require less intellectual ability than
required to attend a college and receive a BA.
Here in Pinellas
> County, FL (highest pop. density in FL) vocational programs are nearly
> non-existent.
Something you need to work to correct. However, I caution you not to
use them as dumping grounds. I suspect that given your apparent
prejudices and assumptions regarding a hierarchy of intellectual
capability, that is exactly what you would use them as.
>>You are probably correct in your assumption that Herman does not truly
>>understand the typical high school environment. But in fact, Herman is
>>quite the hypocrite, for when given the opportunity to confront
>>instructional issues at his own institution, Herman chickened out.
>
>
> This is a fundamentally unfair criticism to level against a man-on-the-street.
Hardly. You base your ASSUMPTION on a one-shot reading of something.
You know little about Herman, his history and such. I have been reading
Herman for around ten years, and have a far greater understanding of him
than you, a first-time reader.
> Citizens not enmeshed in the 'educational system' deal with educational issues
> at a philosophical, rather than a 'detail', level, but that is not a criticism,
> and it's not a bad thing, either.
Actually, citizens not enmeshed in the educational system tend to deal
with it from positions of ignorance, half-truths, at best, and personal
prejudice.
Rarely does a Bob LeChevalier( with whom I have both agreed and
vehemently disagreed on occasion ) come along who is NOT emeshed in the
educational establishment, yet exhibits a profound understanding, far
beyond most lay people.
We, the people, are the ones who must
> describe what we want our social structures to look like, and sometimes we do so
> in terms that are very 'blue sky' -- because that's the vocabulary we have
> available to us.
So?
In the present, the 'educational elite' tell us what we are
> going to have to cope with -- take it or leave it. That's not how the system is
> supposed to work, and you ought to expect some well-deserved resistance.
Agreed that the present educational elite professes a somewhat
'peculiar' educational philosophy. However, when the people, in their
profound ignorance want something which is unfeasible, it is up to the
professionals to tell them that. Now maybe you don't like being told
that what you may desire is untenable, but that's your problem.
Bob LeChevalier
>Frank Clarke wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:10:13 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>> <EoadncabQ-L8HJXY...@rcn.net>
>>
>>>On, you are wrong. Herman does indeed have experience with groups of
>>>adolescents. High ability ones. He claims he has experience with
>>>somewhat diverse intellectual capabilities, but when one questions him
>>>further, one realizes that what he considers a 'diverse' group, are
>>>really high ability students.
>>>
>>>Herman thinks there is a 'one size fits all' approach to student
>>>abilities. He has absolutely no conception that differing intellectual
>>>capabilities, as well as differing socio-economic backgrounds might,
>>>just might, create unforeseen problems of a non-academic nature, that
>>>will require modifications in methodology.
>>
>> I think you have read Herman completely wrong.
>
>Hardly. I've been reading Herman for around ten years, and I believe I
>am fully understanding of his positions in total. Perhaps with a few
>more years experience, you will come to the same understandings.
Heck. I'll agree with the other guy. I suspect that Herman DOES "have
a conception that ...".
He just doesn't care.
He thinks that the libertarian free market would take care of the
problem. But if it didn't, that wouldn't be a big loss because the
kids who would be hurt wouldn't be the elite that become math PhDs.
> It is the --existing-- regime
>> which is 'one-size-fits-all'.
>
>We're talking about methodology.
And Herman's goode olde regime was even more "one size fits all" than
the current regime (which isn't really. In any given locale, the
choices might be limited, but that's true of a lot of things.) Back
then, you either fit the one size, or you dropped out (and it was
still somewhat acceptable to most of the population to drop out).
>> Here in Pinellas
>> County, FL (highest pop. density in FL) vocational programs are nearly
>> non-existent.
>
>Something you need to work to correct.
They have to wait till the other Bushman is out of office. He is
interested only in destroying public schools.
>> Citizens not enmeshed in the 'educational system' deal with educational issues
>> at a philosophical, rather than a 'detail', level, but that is not a criticism,
>> and it's not a bad thing, either.
>
>Actually, citizens not enmeshed in the educational system tend to deal
>with it from positions of ignorance, half-truths, at best, and personal
> prejudice.
>
>Rarely does a Bob LeChevalier( with whom I have both agreed and
>vehemently disagreed on occasion ) come along who is NOT emeshed in the
>educational establishment, yet exhibits a profound understanding, far
>beyond most lay people.
Thank you, I guess %^)
lojbab
Ray Fischer
Well, actually, thy get paid millions to hundeds of millions of
dollars no matter what they do. Often they get paid millions of
dollars to take the job, and get paid millions more when they get
fired.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Alan Lichtenstein
> Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>
>>Frank Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:10:13 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>>><EoadncabQ-L8HJXY...@rcn.net>
>>>
>>>>On, you are wrong. Herman does indeed have experience with groups of
>>>>adolescents. High ability ones. He claims he has experience with
>>>>somewhat diverse intellectual capabilities, but when one questions him
>>>>further, one realizes that what he considers a 'diverse' group, are
>>>>really high ability students.
>>>>
>>>>Herman thinks there is a 'one size fits all' approach to student
>>>>abilities. He has absolutely no conception that differing intellectual
>>>>capabilities, as well as differing socio-economic backgrounds might,
>>>>just might, create unforeseen problems of a non-academic nature, that
>>>>will require modifications in methodology.
>>>
>>>I think you have read Herman completely wrong.
>>
>>Hardly. I've been reading Herman for around ten years, and I believe I
>>am fully understanding of his positions in total. Perhaps with a few
>>more years experience, you will come to the same understandings.
>
>
> Heck. I'll agree with the other guy. I suspect that Herman DOES "have
> a conception that ...".
>
> He just doesn't care.
Well, I won't disagree with you, Bob. I was just trying to give Herman
the benefit of the doubt by stopping short of that.
> He thinks that the libertarian free market would take care of the
> problem. But if it didn't, that wouldn't be a big loss because the
> kids who would be hurt wouldn't be the elite that become math PhDs.
>
Indeed.
>> It is the --existing-- regime
>>
>>>which is 'one-size-fits-all'.
>>
>>We're talking about methodology.
>
>
> And Herman's goode olde regime was even more "one size fits all" than
> the current regime (which isn't really. In any given locale, the
> choices might be limited, but that's true of a lot of things.) Back
> then, you either fit the one size, or you dropped out (and it was
> still somewhat acceptable to most of the population to drop out).
Educational history does support that conclusion.
>>>Here in Pinellas
>>>County, FL (highest pop. density in FL) vocational programs are nearly
>>>non-existent.
>>
>>Something you need to work to correct.
>
>
> They have to wait till the other Bushman is out of office. He is
> interested only in destroying public schools.
A conjecture. However, it is a conjecture with which I agree.
>>>Citizens not enmeshed in the 'educational system' deal with educational issues
>>>at a philosophical, rather than a 'detail', level, but that is not a criticism,
>>>and it's not a bad thing, either.
>>
>>Actually, citizens not enmeshed in the educational system tend to deal
>>with it from positions of ignorance, half-truths, at best, and personal
>> prejudice.
>>
>>Rarely does a Bob LeChevalier( with whom I have both agreed and
>>vehemently disagreed on occasion ) come along who is NOT emeshed in the
>>educational establishment, yet exhibits a profound understanding, far
>>beyond most lay people.
>
>
> Thank you, I guess %^)
As you know, I have always said that I 'tell it like it is.' And I
believe that with respect to my statement, I have 'said it like it is.'
Your thank you is appreciated.
Herman Rubin
Serial Killfiler <alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>On 12 Sep 2006 20:08:15 -0400, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
>Rubin) wrote:
>>In article <v62eg2lhh2s0sdnkt...@4ax.com>,
>>Serial Killfiler <alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:57:59 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>Serial Killfiler wrote:
>>>>> On 11 Sep 2006 17:03:21 -0400, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
>>>>> Rubin) wrote:
>>>>>>In article <3aebg212atqd16psv...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>Serial Killfiler <alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On 10 Sep 2006 07:49:16 -0700, "Samuel" <clas...@excite.com> wrote:
...............
>>When I went to school, the current behavioral problems
>>making all the headlines essentially did not exist.
>>Possibly that was because those mainly causing the problems
>>were in different classes, or not in high school at all.
>>The elementary schools had just been socialized, but none
>>of it had reached the high schools, and WWII kept it from
>>getting there.
>Regardless of the reason the present problems exist, nevertheless they
>do exist. You can propose all kinds of school reforms, but if these
>problems are not taken into account, of what worth are any proposals
>for change?
The first reform is that not all go to the same type of
educational facility, do not take the same courses, do
not proceed at the same rate in all subjects, etc.
>>My children did go to high school, but again the school
>>here is probably different from most, with the clientele
>>being almost entirely children of university people or
>>professional people. The parents of many complained that
>>the students were not taking the honors courses; my son
>>learned little which he could not have learned otherwise,
>>and my daughter was unimpressed with the level of most
>>courses, although the "neoclassical" geometry course was
>>excellent.
>If you can recognize that your family's personal experiences may not
>be typical, maybe you can accept that what you propose will not suit
>every population of students... or any, as the case may be. Whatever
>school demands of kids, it must take their developmental state into
>account.
Again, the same size does not fit all. Nor do I think that
education must be done by cooping up children who want to learn
in classrooms with those who cannot or will not, and it is quite
possible that subjects other than communal music will be largely
handled by remote procedures, and I do not mean by programs.
Alan Lichtenstein
And how are YOU going to determine who goes where, Herman? You have
been asked that many, many times, yet you always sidestep the question.
Can you give a direct answer to the question? Don't you care to?
>>>My children did go to high school, but again the school
>>>here is probably different from most, with the clientele
>>>being almost entirely children of university people or
>>>professional people. The parents of many complained that
>>>the students were not taking the honors courses; my son
>>>learned little which he could not have learned otherwise,
>>>and my daughter was unimpressed with the level of most
>>>courses, although the "neoclassical" geometry course was
>>>excellent.
>
>
>>If you can recognize that your family's personal experiences may not
>>be typical, maybe you can accept that what you propose will not suit
>>every population of students... or any, as the case may be. Whatever
>>school demands of kids, it must take their developmental state into
>>account.
>
>
> Again, the same size does not fit all.
But your approach to methodology would DEMAND that approach. You have
been advised of that countless number of times, but countless people,
yet you remain obdurate.
Nor do I think that
> education must be done by cooping up children who want to learn
> in classrooms with those who cannot or will not, and it is quite
> possible that subjects other than communal music will be largely
> handled by remote procedures, and I do not mean by programs.
If your assertion went merely toward homogeneous grouping, you would be
on far more reasonable ground than you are. But your libertarian
position goes much further than that. It demands heterogeneous
grouping, BY SCHOOL, and even then DEMANDS that the same instructional
approach be used for the elite as it is for those less academically
able. In effect, following YOUR suggestions separates the elite from
the average, but insures failure for all but the elite.
You seem to have a hard time understanding that Herman.
Herman Rubin
Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>Serial Killfiler wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:57:59 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com>
>> wrote:
>>>Serial Killfiler wrote:
>>>>On 11 Sep 2006 17:03:21 -0400, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
>>>>Rubin) wrote:
>>>>>In article <3aebg212atqd16psv...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>Serial Killfiler <alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 10 Sep 2006 07:49:16 -0700, "Samuel" <clas...@excite.com> wrote:
...............
>>>Herman is a Libertarian, and as such, you must excuse him for his
>>>somewhat 'peculiar' philosophies which result from his adherence to that
>>>'odd' point of view. And while Herman is NOT stupid, he DOES lack
>>>common sense. Perhaps he's been shut up in that ivory tower of Purdue
>>>too long. He really doesn't have any clue as to the real world.
...................
>Herman thinks there is a 'one size fits all' approach to student
>abilities. He has absolutely no conception that differing intellectual
>capabilities, as well as differing socio-economic backgrounds might,
>just might, create unforeseen problems of a non-academic nature, that
>will require modifications in methodology.
You will find nothing in my writings to indicate any of that.
I have always stated that children should be taught according
to their backgrounds and abilities, with the distant ends in
sight, and that some should be doing college work at the age
others are in primary school, while some might not be able to
get to the high school level. I do not know how you would
class my socio-economic background; my parents had little formal
education, especially my father, who might well have been in
my ability class. Also, we were too poor to have books in the
house, but this did not seem to slow reading development.
>You are probably correct in your assumption that Herman does not truly
>understand the typical high school environment. But in fact, Herman is
>quite the hypocrite, for when given the opportunity to confront
>instructional issues at his own institution, Herman chickened out.
I understand the present elementary school and high school
environment, and consider it to be an utter horror, as I would
with any environment which lowers academic progress.
>So much for doing what I do. With Herman, it's do as I say, but don't
>expect me to do what I say when it comes close to home.
Serial Killfiler
<m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:08:13 -0500, Serial Killfiler
><alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
><mgteg2t3hl2klgqlt...@4ax.com>
>
>>On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:05:28 GMT, Frank Clarke
>><m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>>Nobody is forced to go to college, therefore the 'dynamic' is different.
>>
>>I do not credit a 14 or 15 year old with enough maturity or
>>intelligence to make choices that have such drastic consequences, ie.
>>the near total guarantee of poverty.
>
>Thank goodness they have parents! Their parents can help them make good(**)
>choices that will fit them for later life. Sometimes that will mean 'working';
>sometimes it means 'schooling'. As long as a bureaucrat whose livelihood
>depends on forcing into school kids who either don't want to be there or
>can't/won't benefit from the experience, the 'experience' is largely ruined for
>all.
>(**) If you decide to question the parenting skills of some people, please
>provide a way we can quantify 'good' vs 'bad'; thanks in advance.
Truancy laws, like most laws, exist only as a last thin barrier
between civilization and the law of the jungle. They were not written
for the responsible majority, and impose no hardship on the
responsible majority, but they do impose some restraint upon the
excesses of an irresponsible minority that breeds carelessly and
neglects its offspring, making them into public charges of one sort or
another.
These laws are one of the few means by which child neglect and
juvenile crime can be dealt with quickly. They are rarely proactively
enforced, but can at least be used against failed parents much like
tax evasion charges are used in racketeering or drug prosecutions-- it
is easy to prove that the parents are not taking children to school,
which is a clear sign of neglect of the child's best interests. Yet,
on the basis of your flip semantic argument, you propose to toss those
laws away and let even more children slip through the cracks.
This must be some more of that stupid libertarian crap. You don't
believe in Darwin, but you bet the jackpot on social Darwinism.
>>>The solution to the problem seems pretty plain: all school should be voluntary,
>>>and everyone should be required to deal, on their own, with the consequences of
>>>their own choices.
>>
>>School is voluntary already-- you can pick your nose and be a lifelong
>>idiot, or you can study and excel, or you can strike your level
>>somewhere in between. Also you can legally quit at 16 without any
>>sort of credential.
>
>...including, in some states, a driver's license. You really have to get past
>the notion that you (and the bureaucrats) know what's best for everyone else
>through age 16. When you've accomplished that, we'll get to work on disabusing
>you of the notion that you know what's best for --anybody-- else.
I do not credit the typical 14 or 15 year old with enough skill or
self-direction to earn a wage comparable to what he could earn with a
HS diploma at age 18. Developmentally, these 14 yr kids are not ready
to take on adult responsibilities, while an 18 year old typically can.
There is no good reason whatsoever for such a student to leave school
when, in a year or two, he could take vocational courses paid for by
the state, and have BOTH a diploma AND at least a job reference or
two.
As a dropout, a kid will earn perhaps 60-70% of the salary a diploma
would bring. That's a disaster, but you are free to unleash this
disaster on your own children if you want. So let's just have
optional school attendance for the children of libertarian parents.
Let their kids drop out at 14 if they feel like it. Maybe you all can
have house chores personal hygeine and church be "voluntary" for your
kids, too. Let us know how it works out.
Serial Killfiler
wrote:
> I just
>> don't think he has any experience with groups of adolescents of any
>> ability level, and like many people who carry forth about what high
>> schools "should" be doing, he does not seem to understand what the
>> high school environment is like. How can someone then know what works
>> and what doesn't?
>
>On, you are wrong. Herman does indeed have experience with groups of
>adolescents. High ability ones. He claims he has experience with
>somewhat diverse intellectual capabilities, but when one questions him
>further, one realizes that what he considers a 'diverse' group, are
>really high ability students.
>
>Herman thinks there is a 'one size fits all' approach to student
>abilities. He has absolutely no conception that differing intellectual
>capabilities, as well as differing socio-economic backgrounds might,
>just might, create unforeseen problems of a non-academic nature, that
>will require modifications in methodology.
I have found that stupid people and intelligent people share the same
blind spot-- it never occurs to them that not everyone is operating at
their level. That's why stupid people get themselves in trouble so
easily, and smart people get so frustrated when not everyone "gets
it."
The odd thing is that what Herman has proposed before is not
necessarily practical even for the elite population he seems
interested in helping. He is right in thinking that the brightest
kids get shortchanged in school, but his suggestions do not (IMO)
constitute a better way.
Serial Killfiler
Such people quit already. That's what you seem to be unable to grasp.
Those who really don't want a diploma don't get one, and are usually
losers for life.
Serial Killfiler
Rubin) wrote:
That is not a "reform", Herman. That's a fait accompli in large high
schools like mine, where lots of kids interact very little outside of
their academic track.
>>>My children did go to high school, but again the school
>>>here is probably different from most, with the clientele
>>>being almost entirely children of university people or
>>>professional people. The parents of many complained that
>>>the students were not taking the honors courses; my son
>>>learned little which he could not have learned otherwise,
>>>and my daughter was unimpressed with the level of most
>>>courses, although the "neoclassical" geometry course was
>>>excellent.
>
>>If you can recognize that your family's personal experiences may not
>>be typical, maybe you can accept that what you propose will not suit
>>every population of students... or any, as the case may be. Whatever
>>school demands of kids, it must take their developmental state into
>>account.
>
>Again, the same size does not fit all. Nor do I think that
>education must be done by cooping up children who want to learn
>in classrooms with those who cannot or will not, and it is quite
>possible that subjects other than communal music will be largely
>handled by remote procedures, and I do not mean by programs.
Only people who don't teach think that heterogenous grouping is a
solution to anything, and such people usually say that crap in bad
faith. Heterogenous classes are much cheaper, and that's why we have
them.
Public ed runs on stack 'em deep & teach 'em cheap. Alternatives are
more expensive, and most people who bother to vote do not support any
tax increases. So welcome to square one.
Serial Killfiler
In past decades nobody in the general public knew who these CEOs were.
Then they made dozens or hundreds of times what their line workers
made. Now they are celebrities, and that contributes to the
unreasonable pay they get-- many thousands of times what their workers
get-- and rewards the culture of greed they have helped create.
The business world has become gimmick-driven and distorted by a
quasi-communist type of personality cult. These overcoiffed, overpaid
fatsos are a big part of the problem. That's why some say that MBA
actually stands for "mighty big a**hole."
Serial Killfiler
Rubin) wrote:
>Herman thinks there is a 'one size fits all' approach to student
>>abilities. He has absolutely no conception that differing intellectual
>>capabilities, as well as differing socio-economic backgrounds might,
>>just might, create unforeseen problems of a non-academic nature, that
>>will require modifications in methodology.
>
>You will find nothing in my writings to indicate any of that.
>I have always stated that children should be taught according
>to their backgrounds and abilities, with the distant ends in
>sight, and that some should be doing college work at the age
>others are in primary school, while some might not be able to
>get to the high school level. I do not know how you would
>class my socio-economic background; my parents had little formal
>education, especially my father, who might well have been in
>my ability class. Also, we were too poor to have books in the
>house, but this did not seem to slow reading development.
>>You are probably correct in your assumption that Herman does not truly
>>understand the typical high school environment. But in fact, Herman is
>>quite the hypocrite, for when given the opportunity to confront
>>instructional issues at his own institution, Herman chickened out.
>
>I understand the present elementary school and high school
>environment, and consider it to be an utter horror, as I would
>with any environment which lowers academic progress.
I see no evidence that you know anything substantial about K12 school
environments. Your arguments on school structuring are semantic and
theoretical and are not grounded in experience or known fact. What
you have to say about math methodology may or may not have merit-- I'm
not a math teacher, so I don't think it's right for me to judge that.
You're not the only one who believes that changes are needed, and
there's certainly nothing wrong with wanting to make public ed work
better. It's a good thing to be engaged and care about the quality of
public programs. However you have never TMK demonstrated the
willingness to listen to what experienced teachers say, or reconsider
any of your ideas in light of new information or other points of view.
That said, it's hard to see much good in talking about it with you.
Frank Clarke
<alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
<p1cjg21rnok55ig1p...@4ax.com>
>On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 02:15:00 GMT, Frank Clarke
><m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>Restrict opportunity? Certainly not! Are you suggesting we should force people
>>to stay in school when they neither want to be there nor are willing to make any
>>effort to profit from the experience? Are you suggesting we should punish
>>those who do want to profit from the experience by inflicting the other type
>>upon them?
>
>Such people quit already. That's what you seem to be unable to grasp.
>Those who really don't want a diploma don't get one, and are usually
>losers for life.
Agreed, with a caveat: by forcing them into a school which may not (is probably
not) germane to their needs, we often deprive such of an early start on that
which they do need. That imposed delay must factor into the 'losers for life'
syndrome.
Frank Clarke
<F6mdnWkb6LvUzpTY...@rcn.net>
>Frank Clarke wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:13:28 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>> <EoadncGbQ-K_H5XY...@rcn.net>
>> Are you suggesting there is no value in asking how we got here from there?
>
>How we got from there to here is only instructive as far as the
>historical record is concerned. And of course, if you choose to place
>blame for the current circumstances.
>
>But as far as solution is concerned, it is really irrelevant.
>
>Circumstances which exist here and now are the only things that are of
>issue. Herman's response to a query asking for a solution went to
>describing the circumstances which existed when he was in school. As
>such, it was unresponsive.
Not agreed on either point. If the analysis shows that policies/practices still
in place are implicated in the downward trend, we would want to change them,
wouldn't we? How can we change them if we don't know about them? Your
insistence that the historical record is irrelevant means that failed policies,
once in place, will never be changed. That is a recipe for disaster.
>> Restrict opportunity? Certainly not! Are you suggesting we should force people
>> to stay in school when they neither want to be there nor are willing to make any
>> effort to profit from the experience?
>
>Not at all. Restricting opportunity is not equivalent to a requirement.
> surely you knew the difference.
Avoidance of question duly noted; 'strawman' argument duly noted. Yes, you
--ARE-- suggesting we coerce people into school regardless of the cost (in
money, in opportunity, and in negative effects upon others). Only a bureaucrat
could hold such a position: they pay the bill with other peoples' money,
opportunity, and pain.
> Are you suggesting we should punish
>> those who do want to profit from the experience by inflicting the other type
>> upon them?
>
>Not at all. If you were a long term poster to the education NG's, you
>would be both familiar with Herman's views and mine. You would know
>that both Herman and I favor homogeneous grouping, but there we part
>company. Herman fails to recognize, as I suspect that perhaps you may
>as well, that different methodologies are required for different groups.
Speaking of 'irrelevant'... You seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong ;-)
that those who can't/won't profit from time in school should still be warehoused
there (but segregated for the benefit of others). I'd call that 'prison',
wouldn't you? They have to report to their probation officer (principal) every
school day and serve detention; they're certainly not learning anything.
Frank Clarke
<HcGdnWZUbOGJy5TY...@rcn.net>
>Frank Clarke wrote:
> It is the --existing-- regime
>> which is 'one-size-fits-all'.
>
>We're talking about methodology.
You're talking about methodology; I'm talking about what I have observed in my
local school system from the POV of the father of three bright children. You're
talking 'theory'; I'm talking 'practice'. In theory, there's no difference
between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.
> Were it not, vocational programs would be much
>> more common/prevalent than college-prep, yet they are not.
>
>There is something to be said regarding the elitist notions of the
>current Social/Emotional school of philosophy. However, you exhibit
>your prejudices with your last assertion about assuming a hierarchy of
>intellect required for certain skills.
There's no assumption regarding 'required intellect'. I have a very good friend
in MENSA whose career involves waxing vegetables at the local supermarket. Why
does he do such 'menial' labor if he's in MENSA? Because that's what he -wants-
to do. The 'assumption of required intellect' is yours, not mine, as I will
point out in a few lines.
>Had you read Herrnstein and Murray's work, 'The Bell Curve,' you would
>understand that in many ways, the same level of intellectual ability is
>required for skilled trades. You should read the work, and perhaps you
>will be disabused of your apparent prejudice that somehow skilled
>vocational trades somehow require less intellectual ability than
>required to attend a college and receive a BA.
More assumptions on your part...
> Here in Pinellas
>> County, FL (highest pop. density in FL) vocational programs are nearly
>> non-existent.
>
>Something you need to work to correct. However, I caution you not to
>use them as dumping grounds. I suspect that given your apparent
>prejudices and assumptions regarding a hierarchy of intellectual
>capability, that is exactly what you would use them as.
More assumptions on your part...
> In the present, the 'educational elite' tell us what we are
>> going to have to cope with -- take it or leave it. That's not how the system is
>> supposed to work, and you ought to expect some well-deserved resistance.
>
>Agreed that the present educational elite professes a somewhat
>'peculiar' educational philosophy. However, when the people, in their
>profound ignorance want something which is unfeasible, it is up to the
>professionals to tell them that. Now maybe you don't like being told
>that what you may desire is untenable, but that's your problem.
Now, here (above) is where you assume that anyone not an 'education
professional' is unable to make rational decisions for themselves; that is: they
do not have the required intellect, that they suffer from 'profound ignorance'.
'Rational' in this case may not be precisely as you define 'rational', but
shouldn't the people paying the bill get some say in the matter? You could,
after all, be wrong.
In fact, it is -you- who hold an untenable view, viz. that one who does not want
to learn can, nevertheless, be educated. That's the most ridiculous thing I've
heard since I moved out of New York.
Frank Clarke
<alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
<91cjg2dhdaksp839b...@4ax.com>
>The odd thing is that what Herman has proposed before is not
>necessarily practical even for the elite population he seems
>interested in helping. He is right in thinking that the brightest
>kids get shortchanged in school, but his suggestions do not (IMO)
>constitute a better way.
...and you're an 'education professional' whose opinions are indisputable.
Uh-huh...
Frank Clarke
<alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
<01cjg2114usvsmoi9...@4ax.com>
>On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:40:49 GMT, Frank Clarke
><m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>I do not credit a 14 or 15 year old with enough maturity or
>>>intelligence to make choices that have such drastic consequences, ie.
>>>the near total guarantee of poverty.
>>
>>Thank goodness they have parents! Their parents can help them make good(**)
>>choices that will fit them for later life. Sometimes that will mean 'working';
>>sometimes it means 'schooling'. As long as a bureaucrat whose livelihood
>>depends on forcing into school kids who either don't want to be there or
>>can't/won't benefit from the experience, the 'experience' is largely ruined for
>>all.
>>(**) If you decide to question the parenting skills of some people, please
>>provide a way we can quantify 'good' vs 'bad'; thanks in advance.
>
>Truancy laws, like most laws, exist only as a last thin barrier
>between civilization and the law of the jungle. They were not written
>for the responsible majority, and impose no hardship on the
>responsible majority, but they do impose some restraint upon the
>excesses of an irresponsible minority that breeds carelessly and
>neglects its offspring, making them into public charges of one sort or
>another.
Goodness! The phrase 'ponderous horsefeathers' springs to mind! In inner-city
schools, the Law Of The Jungle is the law of the land; I can certify that: my
daughter taught at one of them. So, putting kids in -some- schools in not
better than the alternative, regardless what alternative you envision.
Second, your assertion of 'no restraint' is 100% nonsense: I am taxed for those
wothless schools, and that is a 'restraint'; if I, as a responsible parent(**),
decide my kids would be better off without 'formal schooling', I'll wind up in
jail, and that is a restraint; if I decide to place them in a private school, I
get to pay double for their education, and that is a restraint. Do you have
--any-- idea what you're spouting?
>These laws are one of the few means by which child neglect and
>juvenile crime can be dealt with quickly.
There's always the 2nd Amendment...
>... Yet,
>on the basis of your flip semantic argument, you propose to toss those
>laws away and let even more children slip through the cracks.
You're missing the point: those kids are --already-- slipping through the
cracks... in a system of your devising.
>>>School is voluntary already-- you can pick your nose and be a lifelong
>>>idiot, or you can study and excel, or you can strike your level
>>>somewhere in between. Also you can legally quit at 16 without any
>>>sort of credential.
>>
>>...including, in some states, a driver's license. You really have to get past
>>the notion that you (and the bureaucrats) know what's best for everyone else
>>through age 16. When you've accomplished that, we'll get to work on disabusing
>>you of the notion that you know what's best for --anybody-- else.
>
>I do not credit the typical 14 or 15 year old with enough skill or
>self-direction ...
Did you miss the part (above) about 'good thing they have parents'? You decided
to 'question the parenting skills of some people' but declined to 'provide a way
we can quantify good vs bad'. Cop-out. Suspicions confirmed: your arguments
are completely hollow.
>As a dropout, a kid will earn perhaps 60-70% of the salary a diploma
>would bring. That's a disaster, but you are free to unleash this
>disaster on your own children if you want.
It's a choice, and if some choose to be poor, who are you to say they have made
a bad choice? I fondly recall Sister Mary Robert who actually took a vow of
poverty. Didn't seem to bother her much...
>So let's just have
>optional school attendance for the children of libertarian parents.
Will school taxes be voluntary, too? Oh. I see; you believe everyone should
be forced to pay for -your- pet project, but not for mine: 'sending my kids to a
real school'...
Frank Clarke
<4bkjg2pbgk186n0te...@4ax.com>
> if I, as a responsible parent(**),
(Forgot to add the footnote:) Yes, I am. Of my three children, one is a RN
working oncology/chemotherapy; another is Probation Officer; the third teaches
math in HS; all are productive members of society, and all will tell you how
worthless was most of their schooling.
racqu...@gmail.com
I hope I got these attributions right; they were such a mess that I
couldn't follow them!
On 14 Sep 2006 14:40:59 -0400, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
Rubin) wrote:
>In article <EoadncabQ-L8HJXY...@rcn.net>,
>Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
>>Herman thinks there is a 'one size fits all' approach to student
>>abilities. He has absolutely no conception that differing intellectual
>>capabilities, as well as differing socio-economic backgrounds might,
>>just might, create unforeseen problems of a non-academic nature, that
>>will require modifications in methodology.
>
>You will find nothing in my writings to indicate any of that.
Well of course we do, Herman, otherwise there wouldn't be a half dozen
people saying the same thing!
>I have always stated that children should be taught according
>to their backgrounds and abilities, with the distant ends in
>sight, and that some should be doing college work at the age
>others are in primary school, while some might not be able to
>get to the high school level.
And in this statement is the crux of the problem with your
understanding - You are confusing curriculum with methodology. Almost
everyone here; perhaps EVERYONE here agrees that the ideal would be
for every kid to progress at the fastest pace and as far as that
particular kid can. We do NOT agree that the way to DO this (in
mathematics) is to teach everyone Peano's Postulates in 2nd grade (or
wherever it is you think this should happen), to refrain from teaching
"computation" ever, and to focus on mathematical proofs. Not everyone
can learn to do the math CURRICULUM by that METHODOLOGY.
Beyond THAT, the logisitics of accomplishing this agreed upon ideal
are something you are exceedingly vague about. You essentially want
an individualized instructional program for each kid wherein grouping
is accomplished solely by accomplishment and never by age. You want
PhD level understanding by instructors, but have no plan for how you
will atttract such candidates to elementary and secondary schools
(especially since you yourself would never deign to to do so). You
propose an electronic, self-paced, instructional program be
implimented, ignoring that such a program does not exist, AND that
this METHODOLOGY of "delivering" the CURRICULUM will be completely
inappropriate for some, and ineffective for a great many.
>>You are probably correct in your assumption that Herman does not truly
>>understand the typical high school environment. But in fact, Herman is
>>quite the hypocrite, for when given the opportunity to confront
>>instructional issues at his own institution, Herman chickened out.
>
>I understand the present elementary school and high school
>environment,
Certainly not, since you have spent ZERO time in that environment.
One cannot profess to "understand" that of which one has had no direct
experience. Your understanding is as one who reaches under the
covering of an elephant and attempts to discribe the animal by touch.
Jerry Beeler
news:27mjg29ul347h2e34...@4ax.com...
>...................... and all will tell you how
> worthless was most of their schooling.
I can certainly add to that !!! My math classes were not "worthless", damn
... I never thought I'd say that about my Linear Algebra or Solid State
Physics classes .. but ... I'm now older and wiser.
As to my "education classes" - the pedagogy crap - *TOTALLY* *ABSOLUTELY*
W=O=R=T=H=L=E=S=S.
Jerry
Serial Killfiler
If you do not treat me with respect, given my years of experience in
this line of work, I will not read or reply to anything else you post,
and I will drop your newgroup from any other articles I write in this
thread. This is the only warning you're getting. If you want a
conversation, you're going to have to do better.
Serial Killfiler
<jerry...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>As to my "education classes" - the pedagogy crap - *TOTALLY* *ABSOLUTELY*
>W=O=R=T=H=L=E=S=S.
It's too bad your program wasn't good, however mine was. The
"general" courses for the master's (testing, special ed, etc.) were a
bore, but the subject-area pedagogy courses were excellent. My
instructors were foreign language specialists with 20+ years
experience each. All my content area courses were true graduate
courses taught by professors of foreign languages and attended by a
blend of teacher candidates and prospective PhDs.
I use the methodology I was taught, and it works.
Steve Daniels
compelled Serial Killfiler <alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com>, to say:
>If you do not treat me with respect, given my years of experience in
>this line of work, I will not read or reply to anything else you post,
>and I will drop your newgroup from any other articles I write in this
>thread. This is the only warning you're getting. If you want a
>conversation, you're going to have to do better.
I am so glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that. I
don't have a spare keyboard.
Jerry Beeler
news:lv2kg2pml4auc0nlu...@4ax.com...
>
> It's too bad your program wasn't good, however mine was. The
> "general" courses for the master's (testing, special ed, etc.) were a
Yep .. we spent interminable hours on lesson plans and even more
interminable hours on special ed. Damned near drove me out of teaching
before I even started.
I'm glad yours was a good program ...
Jerry
Bob LeChevalier
>>Circumstances which exist here and now are the only things that are of
>>issue. Herman's response to a query asking for a solution went to
>>describing the circumstances which existed when he was in school. As
>>such, it was unresponsive.
>
>Not agreed on either point. If the analysis shows that policies/practices still
>in place are implicated in the downward trend, we would want to change them,
>wouldn't we?
Not if it would require a tax increase.
>> Are you suggesting we should punish
>>> those who do want to profit from the experience by inflicting the other type
>>> upon them?
>>
>>Not at all. If you were a long term poster to the education NG's, you
>>would be both familiar with Herman's views and mine. You would know
>>that both Herman and I favor homogeneous grouping, but there we part
>>company. Herman fails to recognize, as I suspect that perhaps you may
>>as well, that different methodologies are required for different groups.
>
>Speaking of 'irrelevant'... You seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong ;-)
>that those who can't/won't profit from time in school should still be warehoused
>there (but segregated for the benefit of others). I'd call that 'prison',
>wouldn't you? They have to report to their probation officer (principal) every
>school day and serve detention; they're certainly not learning anything.
They are staying out of the workforce, and off the streets, two places
where they are not wanted.
lojbab
Herman Rubin
Serial Killfiler <alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:40:49 GMT, Frank Clarke
><m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:08:13 -0500, Serial Killfiler
>><alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>><mgteg2t3hl2klgqlt...@4ax.com>
>>>On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:05:28 GMT, Frank Clarke
>>><m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
.................
>There is no good reason whatsoever for such a student to leave school
>when, in a year or two, he could take vocational courses paid for by
>the state, and have BOTH a diploma AND at least a job reference or
>two.
>As a dropout, a kid will earn perhaps 60-70% of the salary a diploma
>would bring. That's a disaster, but you are free to unleash this
>disaster on your own children if you want. So let's just have
>optional school attendance for the children of libertarian parents.
>Let their kids drop out at 14 if they feel like it. Maybe you all can
>have house chores personal hygeine and church be "voluntary" for your
>kids, too. Let us know how it works out.
You have committed the common error of misuse of
statistics. Is there no correlation between completing
high school and native ability?
That same argument would tell them to go on to a PhD.
With a decent educational program, a diploma would mean
a certain amount of knowledge and the ability to use it.
At this time, the piece of paper means nothing other than
serving time with good behavior. And some states are now
requiring the passage of subject competency tests, but
these are very weak; they have to be for the weak students
to have any chance to pass.
Herman Rubin
Serial Killfiler <alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:10:13 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com>
>wrote:
...............
>I have found that stupid people and intelligent people share the same
>blind spot-- it never occurs to them that not everyone is operating at
>their level. That's why stupid people get themselves in trouble so
>easily, and smart people get so frustrated when not everyone "gets
>it."
As I have pointed out repeatedly, I do not assume this. I
have repeatedly stated here that one cannot put a schedule
for understanding a concept, and that the number and type
of exercises a person needs to do to master the concepts
and/or details depends heavily on the person's background
and ability. I point out to students that they will know
they have learned the concept when the "light bulb" goes on.
However, one thing does stand out, and that is that the
user of mathematics or statistics does not need to be able
to carry out the operations, but needs to understand the
concepts and use them to formulate the problem. In the
Middle Ages, merchants who could not read or write or
calculate hired clerics to do it for them, whence our
word "clerk".
Much less is deterministic than most think, and it is
necessary to cope with this. This involves decision making
under uncertainty, and teaching people how to do simple
problems will not help. Even with my mathematical and
computational ability, I have to resort to computers. But
I cannot provide your assessment of the values of alternatives,
and I will not accept that everyone's assessment is the same,
or even similar. I can point out what has to be done, and
possibly help someone do it.
>The odd thing is that what Herman has proposed before is not
>necessarily practical even for the elite population he seems
>interested in helping. He is right in thinking that the brightest
>kids get shortchanged in school, but his suggestions do not (IMO)
>constitute a better way.
You have not tried to do it, and you also are unable to see
the problem. Should someone who CANNOT think like a genius
restrict how a genius should learn? Few teachers seem to be
able to understand concepts now, which children can learn;
what should we be doing? The schools are teaching by rote
and routine, because that is what can be tested by multiple
choice; the "why" cannot be so tested, nor even the use of
structure instead of details.
Should children memorize the addition and multiplication
tables? It may speed up their arithmetic, but how much?
The Chisenbop method of multiplication only has them
"memorize" multiplication by 2 (which is addition) and
by five (which is essentially dividing by 2) and using
addition to perform multiplication. Napier's bones are
a method of using an "on-line" table for the particular
product being found. If one knows when and why, the how
is not important.
Should I care if an engineer knows how to solve certain
types of differential equations? Possibly yes, because
it may cause him to formulate equations of those types,
instead of just using the concepts of mathematics and
engineering to formulate the equations for the situation.
Do you think a child who already knows a subject should be in
a class where the students, and often the teacher, do not?
Possibly one can go into more depth in literature, but even
here I question whether the limit will be reached. However,
one thing a bright or gifted child does not need is a
preview of anything which will be learned later.
Herman Rubin
Serial Killfiler <alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>On 14 Sep 2006 13:53:56 -0400, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
>Rubin) wrote:
>>In article <88teg2toojplbu88j...@4ax.com>,
>>Serial Killfiler <alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On 12 Sep 2006 20:08:15 -0400, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
>>>Rubin) wrote:
>>>>In article <v62eg2lhh2s0sdnkt...@4ax.com>,
>>>>Serial Killfiler <alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:57:59 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xyz.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>Serial Killfiler wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11 Sep 2006 17:03:21 -0400, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
>>>>>>> Rubin) wrote:
>>>>>>>>In article <3aebg212atqd16psv...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>Serial Killfiler <alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On 10 Sep 2006 07:49:16 -0700, "Samuel" <clas...@excite.com> wrote:
...............
>That is not a "reform", Herman. That's a fait accompli in large high
I am not sure you are right. Most principals and superintendents
were teachers, and they seem to support it.
How much more expensive would it be to allow students to at
least proceed within the present curriculum at their rate?
Or allow them to study on their own, with a minimum of help
and consultation? I did learn some things from public
school, but VERY little from the teachers. With the
present curriculum, most bright children are in that
category; let them do it.
>Public ed runs on stack 'em deep & teach 'em cheap. Alternatives are
>more expensive, and most people who bother to vote do not support any
>tax increases. So welcome to square one.
They are not more expensive. However, to really make an
improvement requires, alas, promoting alternatives to the
present system. One could start with vouchers, where a
voucher would be limited to a percentage of what now is
allocated per student to a school.
Herman Rubin
<racqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
If you agree with this, you cannot agree with the present
schools, or with No Child Left Behind (read No Child can
Get Ahead).
We do NOT agree that the way to DO this (in
>mathematics) is to teach everyone Peano's Postulates in 2nd grade (or
>wherever it is you think this should happen),
Are you unwilling to show the children that one of the key
concepts is the ordinal concept, and that it is strong enough
to get all the properties? That addition can be considered
as counting, and multiplication as repeated addition?
The cardinal concept should also be presented, and the
connection shown. But the cardinal concept, without some
form of ordinal, is not adequate.
to refrain from teaching
>"computation" ever,
I never stated this. In fact, if you look at the above,
I would teach them what computation does early. Then one
could teach the tricks for speed. I would have them create
addition and multiplication tables to other bases to point
out the concepts. As for memorizing them, I have already
pointed out that the touted Chisenbop method does not have
them memorize the multiplication tables.
and to focus on mathematical proofs.
They need to know that something is known if there is a
proof, and not otherwise. It can be conjectured.
They need to know, if they are going further in mathematics,
what an argument is, and what a proof is. If they cannot
produce proofs, it should be noted, and they should be
encouraged to learn mathematical concepts and use them in
daily life and professional work, and take the word of others
that things have been proved.
Not everyone
>can learn to do the math CURRICULUM by that METHODOLOGY.
The present curriculum, or a good curriculum? The "new math"
was produced because it was observed that learning arithmetic
very often produced no understanding of what any of it meant;
the failure of the teachers to handle it shows how far this
undesirable result went. It is still there; many who have
learned how to DO arithmetic have no understanding of numbers,
and the distinction between them and strings of numerals.
As a string, 0.9999... is not the same as 1, but the numbers
they represent are equal.
>Beyond THAT, the logisitics of accomplishing this agreed upon ideal
>are something you are exceedingly vague about. You essentially want
>an individualized instructional program for each kid wherein grouping
>is accomplished solely by accomplishment and never by age.
And I have indicated how it can be done.
You want
>PhD level understanding by instructors, but have no plan for how you
>will atttract such candidates to elementary and secondary schools
>(especially since you yourself would never deign to to do so).
There is a big difference between understanding the concepts
and being able to do research. I can teach the probability
concepts to those who have a good high school algebra level
of mathematics, plus a reasonable idea of limit, which can be
done and should be. I can teach the concepts of statistical
decision theory to those who know that. They are unlikely to
be able to DO anything in probability or statistics, but they
will have a good idea of what has to be done.
The proof level for the development from the Peano Postulates
is far below that for geometry. Try reading _Foundations of
Analysis_ by Landau, the positive integer and positive rational
part, to see what I mean. When it gets to the real numbers,
things get hard, and I would use other methods pedagogically.
You
>propose an electronic, self-paced, instructional program be
>implimented, ignoring that such a program does not exist, AND that
>this METHODOLOGY of "delivering" the CURRICULUM will be completely
>inappropriate for some, and ineffective for a great many.
I did not say a self-paced program; I stated a program of
electronic classes, to get around the problem of not enough
students of a given type in a given place. I came up with
this idea more than 40 years ago, as a possible method of
getting classes for my son to take. At that time, there
were few electronic classes, and the only ones were teacher
on video, students on audio only. As for the cost, very
definitely not high; many schools are requiring laptops
for all students now.
It is ineffective for some things, but not too many. Orchestral
music would be a problem, and shop and laboratory a bigger one,
as well as "physical education". But home schooling is rather
successful even without this.
>>>You are probably correct in your assumption that Herman does not truly
>>>understand the typical high school environment. But in fact, Herman is
>>>quite the hypocrite, for when given the opportunity to confront
>>>instructional issues at his own institution, Herman chickened out.
There are political considerations. I doubt if any state
university can afford to correct the problems by itself.
Harvard and Princeton and CalTech might be able to.
When I told my colleagues in the math department about the
performance of their candidates for high school teachers
who could not use calculus in probability, they were not
surprised. But if they insisted on teaching the concepts,
they were quite aware that other departments would teach
the cookbook, and do an even worse job. There are ways
around the policy that one department does not teach
courses which belong in another.
>>I understand the present elementary school and high school
>>environment,
>Certainly not, since you have spent ZERO time in that environment.
>One cannot profess to "understand" that of which one has had no direct
>experience. Your understanding is as one who reaches under the
>covering of an elephant and attempts to discribe the animal by touch.
Do you read the newspapers? How much and in what way has
this environment changed since my children were in it?
You do not have to eat the whole omelet to know that the
eggs were rotten.
Frank Clarke
<rpckg2tpnk3kl79fn...@4ax.com>
>Frank Clarke <m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>Circumstances which exist here and now are the only things that are of
>>>issue. Herman's response to a query asking for a solution went to
>>>describing the circumstances which existed when he was in school. As
>>>such, it was unresponsive.
>>
>>Not agreed on either point. If the analysis shows that policies/practices still
>>in place are implicated in the downward trend, we would want to change them,
>>wouldn't we?
>
>Not if it would require a tax increase.
OK. What if it --didn't-- require a tax increase? You seem to be implying a
willingness to fix identified problems, but I'm not sure that position has much
support -- as witness the dearth of responses asserting "sure, we want to fix
those problems!" (Did you notice, too?)
>>Speaking of 'irrelevant'... You seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong ;-)
>>that those who can't/won't profit from time in school should still be warehoused
>>there (but segregated for the benefit of others). I'd call that 'prison',
>>wouldn't you? They have to report to their probation officer (principal) every
>>school day and serve detention; they're certainly not learning anything.
>
>They are staying out of the workforce, and off the streets, two places
>where they are not wanted.
By whom? By you? How did you rise to such an exalted position that you get
to decide who may go out on the streets? (If you're about to say "oh,
--everybody-- wants them off the streets", beware: I'm going to demand a
citation.)
Frank Clarke
<alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
<ku2kg2td659okrmhv...@4ax.com>
>On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:57:27 GMT, Frank Clarke
><m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:40:39 -0500, Serial Killfiler
>><alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>><91cjg2dhdaksp839b...@4ax.com>
>>
>>>The odd thing is that what Herman has proposed before is not
>>>necessarily practical even for the elite population he seems
>>>interested in helping. He is right in thinking that the brightest
>>>kids get shortchanged in school, but his suggestions do not (IMO)
>>>constitute a better way.
>>
>>...and you're an 'education professional' whose opinions are indisputable.
>>Uh-huh...
>
>If you do not treat me with respect, given my years of experience in
>this line of work, I will not read or reply to anything else you post,
>and I will drop your newgroup from any other articles I write in this
>thread. This is the only warning you're getting. If you want a
>conversation, you're going to have to do better.
Then, so will you. Given your 'years of experience', you ought to be able to
provide something better than merely your opinion. You cannot demand respect;
you must earn it -- from everyone. If all you have is 'opinion' to bring the
rest of us along, you have a very difficult task ahead of you, and you should
just retire from the fray (some would say 'slink away',but not me....).
Frank Clarke
<eeei1b$51...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>
>In article <01cjg2114usvsmoi9...@4ax.com>,
>Serial Killfiler <alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>As a dropout, a kid will earn perhaps 60-70% of the salary a diploma
>>would bring. That's a disaster, but you are free to unleash this
>>disaster on your own children if you want. So let's just have
>>optional school attendance for the children of libertarian parents.
>>Let their kids drop out at 14 if they feel like it. Maybe you all can
>>have house chores personal hygeine and church be "voluntary" for your
>>kids, too. Let us know how it works out.
>
>With a decent educational program, a diploma would mean
>a certain amount of knowledge and the ability to use it.
>At this time, the piece of paper means nothing other than
>serving time with good behavior. And some states are now
>requiring the passage of subject competency tests, but
>these are very weak; they have to be for the weak students
>to have any chance to pass.
Here in Florida we have the Dreaded FCATs -- 'must pass' tests at various stages
in the educational process. The impact of the FCAT is such that it will
probably have a discernible effect on the Governorship. Although Jeb was
generally a pretty good Gov, he bet on the wrong horse, and his party may pay
for it.
Frank Clarke
<alXXh...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
<lv2kg2pml4auc0nlu...@4ax.com>
>On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 23:30:51 GMT, "Jerry Beeler"
><jerry...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>As to my "education classes" - the pedagogy crap - *TOTALLY* *ABSOLUTELY*
>>W=O=R=T=H=L=E=S=S.
>
>It's too bad your program wasn't good, however mine was. ...
>
>I use the methodology I was taught, and it works.
Recognize that this probably colors your perceptions very deeply. I would be
willing to bet an 'arbitrarily large sum' that your experience is neither
universal nor even widespread.
From those who have been given much, much is expected.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 01:01:12 -0400, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
><rpckg2tpnk3kl79fn...@4ax.com>
>
>>Frank Clarke <m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>Circumstances which exist here and now are the only things that are of
>>>>issue. Herman's response to a query asking for a solution went to
>>>>describing the circumstances which existed when he was in school. As
>>>>such, it was unresponsive.
>>>
>>>Not agreed on either point. If the analysis shows that policies/practices still
>>>in place are implicated in the downward trend, we would want to change them,
>>>wouldn't we?
>>
>>Not if it would require a tax increase.
>
>OK. What if it --didn't-- require a tax increase?
It would. All change has costs.
>You seem to be implying a willingness to fix identified problems,
I do, however, since we will never agree as to the problems, that
doesn't help much.
>but I'm not sure that position has much
>support -- as witness the dearth of responses asserting "sure, we want to fix
>those problems!" (Did you notice, too?)
There are a lot of people who want to fix problems, but there is no
agreement as to what the problems are, what the priorities are in
fixing them, what solutions might work, and what inevitable new
problems the solutions would cause (because they always do)
>>>Speaking of 'irrelevant'... You seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong ;-)
>>>that those who can't/won't profit from time in school should still be warehoused
>>>there (but segregated for the benefit of others). I'd call that 'prison',
>>>wouldn't you? They have to report to their probation officer (principal) every
>>>school day and serve detention; they're certainly not learning anything.
>>
>>They are staying out of the workforce, and off the streets, two places
>>where they are not wanted.
>
>By whom? By you?
By the people in every state of the union that enacted child labor
laws, generally at about the same time that they enacted compulsory
education laws. Compulsory education was never entirely about
education; it was also about keeping kids from competing with those
supporting families for jobs and preventing parents and employers from
taking advantage of the ability and willingness and lack of choice for
kids to work for less than those who have to support others on their
income.
By the people who get upset at seeing kids on the street when they
should be productive (but who again don't want them in the labor
force).
The laws were passed for a reason (maybe several reasons). If you are
so into researching history, I suggest learning the reasons why
decisions were made to make things the way they are. Bear in mind
that 50 different states all made more or less the same decisions,
even though they did not have to.
>How did you rise to such an exalted position that you get
>to decide who may go out on the streets?
I don't (by myself). I also did not personally pass compulsory
education laws.
"We the people" of course have all kinds of exalted positions to
decide such things. Children are not granted that position, and
until/unless they are, and then are equally expected to bear ALL the
responsibilities that go with it, I don't see any changes.
>(If you're about to say "oh,
>--everybody-- wants them off the streets", beware: I'm going to demand a
>citation.)
I don't much care what you demand.
But I will have you look into the loitering ordinances, the curfew
ordinances that are directed at minors (but not at adults) in many if
not most jurisdictions, etc.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>They need to know that something is known if there is a
>proof, and not otherwise.
Mathematical proof does not make anything "known". It only indicates
what follows from the assumptions that were made. Assumptions are
used in lieu of knowledge.
> You want
>>PhD level understanding by instructors, but have no plan for how you
>>will atttract such candidates to elementary and secondary schools
>>(especially since you yourself would never deign to to do so).
>
>There is a big difference between understanding the concepts
>and being able to do research. I can teach the probability
>concepts to those who have a good high school algebra level
>of mathematics, plus a reasonable idea of limit, which can be
>done and should be.
Since we need around three million or more teachers in the elementary
and secondary level, you have to be able to make the claim that
America's colleges can teach 3 million teachers the concepts that you
think they need to know. And you have claimed that the 3 million
teachers that exist today CANNOT be taught them, so you therefore have
a VERY tough claim that there are 3 million others that are NOT
teachers, that are WILLING to be teachers, and who CAN be taught when
the teachers that there are cannot be.
>The proof level for the development from the Peano Postulates
>is far below that for geometry.
The concept of rigorous mathematical proof is completely alien to
anyone outside of mathematics. No other discipline of life requires
rigorous proof. Teaching rigorous proof, when the lessons of life
show that much less rigor is usually "good enough" is an extreme
challenge.
I came up with
>this idea more than 40 years ago, as a possible method of
>getting classes for my son to take. At that time, there
>were few electronic classes, and the only ones were teacher
>on video, students on audio only. As for the cost, very
>definitely not high; many schools are requiring laptops
>for all students now.
No. Not many school are doing so. Maybe colleges. But even the most
elite high schools don't provide them (and requiring them without
providing them won't happen, since many can't afford them).
>It is ineffective for some things, but not too many. Orchestral
>music would be a problem, and shop and laboratory a bigger one,
>as well as "physical education". But home schooling is rather
>successful even without this.
Only for a fraction of the 1-2% or so that home-schools, a group that
was self-selected for parents that have the time and interest to home
school.
>When I told my colleagues in the math department about the
>performance of their candidates for high school teachers
>who could not use calculus in probability, they were not
>surprised. But if they insisted on teaching the concepts,
>they were quite aware that other departments would teach
>the cookbook, and do an even worse job. There are ways
>around the policy that one department does not teach
>courses which belong in another.
Intellectual integrity would demand teaching what you think should be
taught, and upholding standards that you think should be upheld, and
possibly making loud noises to the press and to the legislature if
some department tried to evade the standards that you are upholding.
>>>I understand the present elementary school and high school
>>>environment,
>
>>Certainly not, since you have spent ZERO time in that environment.
>>One cannot profess to "understand" that of which one has had no direct
>>experience. Your understanding is as one who reaches under the
>>covering of an elephant and attempts to discribe the animal by touch.
>
>Do you read the newspapers? How much and in what way has
>this environment changed since my children were in it?
Enormously. The culture of the kids has changed, the culture of their
parents has changed, and the culture of society has changed, since I
was in school which was 25+ years after you were.
lojbab
stoney
<badad...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>Doc Smartass wrote:
>> "R. Pierce Butler" <spam...@google.com> wrote:
[]
>> In 6th Grade, we had some child prodigy type in our science class. He
>> disrupted the class correcting the teacher--and went away within a few
>> days. Bastards should have hired him.
>
> You remind me of a time in high school biology when we had a student
>teacher. He obviously didn't know how to deal with us and he kept
>treating us like we were in junior high or younger. At one point he
>actually gave us construction paper and we were supposed to cut out all
>the parts of a cell and then glue them on our little cell template. In
>an honors class, no less. Anyway, I didn't notice on of my pieces blew
>off the table and when he looked at mine he said, "The mitochondria is
>missing. Where is your mitochondria?" I said I'd show him mitochondria
>if he'd show me his, and danged if I didn't get a bad mark for that.
In Jr. High was a very good science teacher. He made cirriculums based
on various aspects; electricity/electronics, and I don't recall the
others but probably biology, botany, etc..
The things were supposed to take you six weeks to go through them. I
burned through the electricity/electronics stuff in a week and a half
and asked him for more. His jaw dropped and he had to indicate that was
all he had on the subject.
I recall riding my bicycle to the public library and checking out
science fiction books as well as science books. I recall one was
entitled: "An introduction to maser theory." I flipped through the
first few pages to see text so I checked it out. It was the first book
I opened when I got home. I read the first five or six pages and turned
the page to find a mass of equations. That was the end of that.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.