Prohibit employers from asking about credentials/degrees along with shifting hiring/firing/promotion to either picking first on list or randomly.
How Can The Education System Stay Relevant?
- Thread starter Kellan Sullivan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- education
Sorry if I come off as harsh. I use to teach High School History for 25 years. Being a teacher is a difficult job. First you get no respect for it (All Teachers do is babysit. Those who can't Teach).
Most New Teachers last no more then 3 years. They find out the Job is not what they thought it was. They not going to change the life of every student. Some days, you give a great lecture on a exciting topic and you just get Zombie stares from your students.
And for some reason, even knowing that some student don't care and you will never reach them, no matter what, you still come in and try your hardest.
The most important thing, I use to teach was not knowledge about historical events, but how to research a topic and organize that information in to coherence report with proper notes.
Doing that Term Paper, was the thing that got two or three students who gone on to University to come back every year and thank me for teaching them how to do one.
How to improve the Education System. Pay the Teacher a wage that they can live one. Spend the Money to maintain the School Buildings. Upgrade the Textbooks every 3 or 4 years. And hire enough Teachers that you don't have more then 25 students per class. If you have 30+ students in a class, it takes longer to do the basics and you have less time to answer questions after the lecture.
Every year, you heard of some program that being tried and is helping the Students with problems. The next year you hear that program is being shut down due to the money be ing pulled so that the Administration can build a new headquarters .
One answer I heard a lot is School Choice. The reason that you hear that one school in a district is do better on all the Tests usually has nothing to do with the quality of the School.
School in Middleclass and upper class neighborhoods do better a great part of the time due to the support of the Parents. Mom and Dad usually are not working two or three jobs. One of them is usually home at night. The parents went to college , so they understand and can help with the kid homework if the kid has a problem.
They are more likely to take Vacation to Historical sites and Museums. There is a big difference between the Student who parents took him or her to Gettysburg during the break and the parent that show the kid the movie, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter . Which one is going to learn more with my lectures on the Civil War.
My best students were also the ones that on Parent Teacher night at least one parent and often both show up. Most of the time, the students that had problems were the ones who I could not reach the parents to talk to. Just because you move a student from a poorer preforming school to a "Better" school does not mean that the Student going to do better there.
Another answer people mention is mention is Charter School. Charter Schools can pick and chose their Students. They always take the best. They do not have to teach the worst of the students. So yes their test results are much better than regulars Schools. And I never seen a Charter School class with more then 25 students, Most have 20 or less.
Usually a Charter School also was willing to spend more per students. A Science Charter School in this County was letting Students do Lab experiments that my school science teachers would love to do But the cost of getting the materials for 5 classes of 30+ students is beyond them. Most High School in my district have reduce the number of Lab day down to one a week. A Charter School get the money to do three labs a week.
Some of you are saying that I giving the typical answer to throw money at the problem. And other will say that My above comments blame the Students for being poor.
Any Student can be taught. It just takes Time and resources. The Fewer Students in a Classroom means more time to help each. The only way you get fewer students is to hire more teachers and put them in Classrooms. This requires money for salaries and more building to put those smaller classes in. The Student who comes in with out the basic knowledge base will require you to spend time reviewing that basic information. The other students will be bored out of their minds while you do that. Is that fair to the rest of the Students ? 25 years of teaching and I still do not have a answer to that question.
The Third Answer I heard is that of redoing the System from Top to Bottom. This means one of two things. They have some idea of redoing the system but no idea how to do so .
Usually when I ask people online to answer what they have in mind, they do not have any answers.
Or there the Political Answer. If you here a Politician talk about redoing the School System, it means get rid of the Teacher Unions and the seniority system of pay.
Now most teachers do not want to be a member of the Union, but the default attitude of the School administration in a conflict between the Student Parents and the School is that the Teacher is always wrong. The Unions provide Legal help for the Teacher that the School administration does not. I seen 3 good teacher who chose not to join the Union get kicked out due to unfair complaints against them.
And it amazing the number of time that the answers to finical problems from the Head Administrator who being paid a 6 or 7 Figure salary is to reduce the amount that the Teachers in the Classroom are being paid.
I consider the 1973 Supreme Court Case San Antonio Independents School vs Rodriguez to be the worst court rule ever. It even worst then Dredd Scoot or Plessy Vs Ferguson or Kormatsu v United State. It allow School System to discriminate against School because they are in poorer neighborhoods that don't generate as much tax revenue. The problem is that it take more resources to educated a student from a lower income background then from a middle class one. But the Rodriguez case allow them to spend less then other schools.
This is a major failure to educate the students.
Remember that the Problem that need to be solved is how do you educate every single Student that comes through the Door of the School , regardless of their basic knowledge, race, sex, or economic class or their willingness to learn and dealing with any behavior problems. Any answer that does not deal with every one is not a realistic answer.
Last edited:
As a teacher, I have seen the smart young man who should be pulling a A easily just get a C because instead of spending time paying attentions to the lecture, he staring at Suzy trying to figure out how to get in her pants. Most of them grow out of it.
And it not just Boys. I seen teenage girls spend more time planning that wedding with the cute boy than paying attention .
As someone who's closer to the latter than the former, nah, it doesn't surprise me at all that the latter wouldn't be enthusiastic. There's basically three reasons a twenty-something would be teaching a college class:
- They're a graduate student doing a TAship;
- They're an adjunct hired specifically for teaching;
- They're actually on tenure-track and have been assigned a class to teach.
If they're an adjunct, their job actually is to teach, but the college probably pays them so badly that they actually work three or four jobs, some of which might not even be teaching, to get by. Obviously the end result is that they can't care that much about any one class, since they have to struggle to keep up with all of their classes and potentially other, non-teaching jobs, as well as being stressed financially and, likely, emotionally (many adjuncts are people who want to be in the third category but haven't been able to find a tenure-track job). So they're not going to be enthusiastic either. And they don't have to be, because the standard isn't "very exceptional teaching," it's "are you a cheap and not awful substitute for tenured faculty?"
Finally, if they're tenure-track their job is theoretically to teach, but in practice to get research money and publish. Just as with the graduate student, as long as they're not grossly incompetent or outright criminal they have no chance of being fired because they're a bad teacher, whereas they will get fired (well, fail to get tenure, which is effectively the same thing) if they don't show that they're good at research and attracting funding. So, just like the graduate students, they're generally going to spend all their time and enthusiasm on their research, the thing that will get them a permanent hire, and leave teaching just enough to get by. Again, you'll see some exceptions, but they're just that--exceptions.
An additional factor, related to the issues with the tenure-track faculty, is that universities generally hire Ph.D.s in the subjects being taught to teach classes--e.g., a physics class will be taught by someone with a physics Ph.D., a history class by someone with a history Ph.D., and so on and so forth. The thing is that getting a Ph.D. in a subject means that you're enthusiastic enough about learning about and working in that subject to stick through a Ph.D. program, not that you're interested in teaching others about it, and especially not that you're interested in going through all the bureaucratic overhead involved in real classes (for good reason, mostly). Many people with Ph.D.s in a subject will pine for browsing archives or conducting analyses or otherwise working in that field instead of grading essays or marking problem sets, which obviously tends to kill enthusiasm in the classroom.
By contrast, while the high school teacher might face some of the same issues as the adjunct, they aren't dealing with the same problems as the graduate student or tenure-track faculty. Their job is to teach, and they're being evaluated on just that. While they might have a lot of bureaucratic overhead to deal with, they aren't being pressured to get a big grant, and at the age of 67 they certainly don't need to worry about getting tenure, either. And since schools focus just on teaching they tend to select out people who aren't interested in teaching--the people who want to do experiments or write books usually either don't apply or don't last, because they do lack enthusiasm. Ultimately, schools are for just one thing--teaching--whereas universities have awkwardly acquired a dual role of teaching and research, and tend internally to focus on the latter over the former, which naturally tends to make them worse at teaching.
I have yet to hear one that solve the problems.
No one want to pay what it would take to fix the problems. They try to blame the Teachers as if some how getting new people who don't know how to teach can do better.
I explained the problems with School Choice and Charter Schools.
So I open for any New Answers. As I said, all you have to do is educate every kid that comes in the door of the School.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Once you get to the serious job loss, and the video talks about two million driving jobs being lost in the United States due to self-driving vehicles, I don’t think education is the complete answer. And I do believe in learning for learning’s sake.
I favor an ownership society version of universal income.
But since people believe in meritocracy and just universe theory, we may not be able to get this politically. And believers in this includes people rich, poor, and in-between.
Okay, so what else might work?
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
school does not know how to really handle nonconformists and independent thinkers. Or, they’ll say, you can do your own stuff on your own time, but here in school you need to focus on what we’re trying to teach.
I think one great answer is to pre-study. And I mean something as casual as leafing through a geology text. Then when a person comes across the Bowen’s reaction series, for example, he or she might realize, okay, when we get to this part, I need to jump on top of it, I may even go see the departmental tutor.
And if a person can run a little ahead of the curve, he or she can do more of their own stuff.
One of the problems that every teacher runs into is what to do with the Kids that need more attention and the ones who are ahead of everyone.
If you spend time giving that attention to the two or three students who are having problems, then the rest of your class is getting bored and starts to act up.
It a balancing act . Sadly in a class with 30+ students , the kid who are ahead of the rest is on his own. There is no Time to deal with him.
Only real answer I come up with was Smallest possible classes and more dividing up of students accord to their level of performance.
And don't call the classes for the students who need more attention remedial. It not that the ones who need more attention are stupid. But they require a different type of learning compared to the students who can get a lot from a Lecture format. If instead of one class of 30, you have Two classes of 15 or even better three classes of ten, a teacher can adjust his teaching more to the needs of the student.
Plus smaller classes mean that I can give students more freedom. It easy to monitor a small class. The larger the class, means that I don't the room to let the students get up and talk to each other. All the Classroom space is full of Chairs.
And the larger the Class size, the less time you have to deal with individual problems.
If you want a reform that would make a major change, in Students learning, I guess I go with the Smallest Class size possible. No more then 20 or 25 Students ever and 10 to 15 if possible. This is a expensive reform. It require more teachers hired and paid and more Classrooms available so more buildings.
But if we serious about educational reform, it about the only thing that we have not tried and it worth trying.
Question here: would you happen to have places where I could find PDF or ebook versions of the textbooks for HS History you guys are using? I forgot to grab one when I worked in the States for a year, and it nags me now, because I think it would give me some better insight in the population's mindset to see
It's because blaming the teacher is the easy explanation, combined with the fact that if you can either fire or force out a more experienced teacher and replace it with a less experienced one you can pay them less. Sadly most politicians have only seen the figures and the anectdotes for much too long because they either don't have kids in school or they're in private institutions.
As a result of that mentality we're very close to not having enough qualified teachers for even a small percentage of classrooms. I live in Florida, and in my wife's district they faced such a shortage they hire from other countries via Skype where multiple schools essentialy bid for prospects who I believe only get help with their visa but are left on their own to figure out housing, transportation and in general how to live in a different country.
They have to do that because people are fleeing the education system in droves because they aren't respected or compensated well enough, and the will to teach can only last someone so far before enough is enough.
Amusing result (IMO) of the issues in education:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/education/edlife/american-graduate-student-stem.html
Historian299
Banned
As a college senior about to be a teacher....
1. Massively increase teacher salaries to make them competeive. Good teachers stay in the system and we are recruiuting the best of society.
2. Move away from standardized tests. And don’t make teacher salary depend on test scores. Teachers don’t actually teach content, just how to be good test takers.
3. Teach more trade skills to all students, regardless if they are going to college or not. So they are prepared for the modern workforce. Move away from the idea that “every student college bound”.
4. CIVIC EDUCATION: Seriously. Rather you are a doctor or flipping burgers everyone needs to know their rights, how government functions, the importance of voting, etc. I would make a government/civic course mandatory every year 6th-12th.
Also add home economics. It’s shame 18 year olds are now on their own and don’t know how to buy a car they can afford, build their credit, look for a job, healthy cooking skills, etc. Having Driving Ed would be good.
5. Don’t mandate a foreign language. Study after study shows that it’s impossible to learn a language in a classroom and remember it long term. I spent 4 years in Spanish at one of the best high schools in my state. Don’t remember a word after each summer. I sure could have used that time learn other things.
6. Move away from liberal arts degrees. I say this as a history major. Yes, having a college degree is better than not having a degree. And yes, liberal arts majors eventually find jobs. But too many young people are spending their 20s looking for a relative job because their major has no immediate earning potential. This prevents them from buying homes and cars because they are struggling with student loan payments, thus hurting the economy.
I changed my major from history to education because of the job potential
1. Massively increase teacher salaries to make them competeive. Good teachers stay in the system and we are recruiuting the best of society.
2. Move away from standardized tests. And don’t make teacher salary depend on test scores. Teachers don’t actually teach content, just how to be good test takers.
3. Teach more trade skills to all students, regardless if they are going to college or not. So they are prepared for the modern workforce. Move away from the idea that “every student college bound”.
4. CIVIC EDUCATION: Seriously. Rather you are a doctor or flipping burgers everyone needs to know their rights, how government functions, the importance of voting, etc. I would make a government/civic course mandatory every year 6th-12th.
Also add home economics. It’s shame 18 year olds are now on their own and don’t know how to buy a car they can afford, build their credit, look for a job, healthy cooking skills, etc. Having Driving Ed would be good.
5. Don’t mandate a foreign language. Study after study shows that it’s impossible to learn a language in a classroom and remember it long term. I spent 4 years in Spanish at one of the best high schools in my state. Don’t remember a word after each summer. I sure could have used that time learn other things.
6. Move away from liberal arts degrees. I say this as a history major. Yes, having a college degree is better than not having a degree. And yes, liberal arts majors eventually find jobs. But too many young people are spending their 20s looking for a relative job because their major has no immediate earning potential. This prevents them from buying homes and cars because they are struggling with student loan payments, thus hurting the economy.
I changed my major from history to education because of the job potential
Weird, most countries on Earh teach foreign languages and it works out pretty well.
Historian299
Banned
I traveled internationally this summer 3 different countries. One considered “developed” another at “almost developed” and one “developing” (third world disaster)
Most of the people I interacted with were “elites” just because they went to college and came from the very small middle class of these countries.
They spoke English because it was demanded of them. TV and Movies were in English. Signs and newspapers were in English. Hell, I didn’t even need to convert money because US dollars were preferred.
I don’t want to sound arragount, but the US is the super power. There just isn’t an immediate need to learn another language. A welder in Missouri doesn’t need to know Spanish, so he’s not going to remember it in high school. Thus it being a waste of time. While in other countries, being successful means knowing English.
And the people whose job actually requires a foreign language, how many speak it from high school? It’s usuallu basic elementary Spanish. They basically have to start over in college anyway
Maybe remove the top-down approach and get rid of the Department of Education or reduce its power to the point that all it does is sign checks for funding since we're specifically talking about the educational system of the United States.
And maybe, just maybe don't blame the poor for being poor.
And maybe, just maybe don't blame the poor for being poor.
Last edited:
I can only comment the Finnish school system, and the facts that have kept it relevant so far:
1. Positive public feedback. In the annual study of professions ranked by their public approval, teaching professions were in the top 15, right behind upper level medical tasks.
2. No constant testing. While there are random samples and studies, schools and teachers in elementary school level do not compete with one another.
3. Teacher autonomy. As a teacher, I have two general guidelines: national curriculum and school curriculum. As long as my approach and teaching methods do not contradict these two, I can organize my classes without anyone micromanaging my work.
4. Adequate salaries and generous vacations. This keeps the teachers on the job, and helps the students to focus as well.
Its not a perfect system by any means, but I really like my job as a part of it.
1. Positive public feedback. In the annual study of professions ranked by their public approval, teaching professions were in the top 15, right behind upper level medical tasks.
2. No constant testing. While there are random samples and studies, schools and teachers in elementary school level do not compete with one another.
3. Teacher autonomy. As a teacher, I have two general guidelines: national curriculum and school curriculum. As long as my approach and teaching methods do not contradict these two, I can organize my classes without anyone micromanaging my work.
4. Adequate salaries and generous vacations. This keeps the teachers on the job, and helps the students to focus as well.
Its not a perfect system by any means, but I really like my job as a part of it.
The administration does not want to be seen stigmatizing Students. And they don't want to hire more Teachers which breaking up large classes would require,
The reason I stopped Teaching was the Administration decided to completely redo the pay scale and convert the pension plan to a 401K.
Those of us that had more then 20 years were given a choice. We could accept the reduction in pay and keep teaching. (It would have cost me about 4000 a year) or I could take early retirement but I got to keep my Pension. After that meeting, I called my wife and told her I was retiring