Education Comparisons

[Belsnickel]

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/03/10/469831485/americas-high-school-graduates-look-like-other-countries-high-school-dropouts

Quote:A new study confirms what many Americans already knew deep in their hearts: We're not good at math.

Not only that, but when it comes to technology skills, we're dead last compared with other developed countries.

The PIAAC study — the Program for International Assessment of Adult Competencies — looks at the skills adults need to do everyday tasks, whether it's at work or in their social lives.

"Clearly, we have some work to do in this country," says Peggy Carr, the acting commissioner of the government's National Center for Education Statistics. The study compared countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Japan and Finland led the group in literacy, math and technology skills, while the United States' performance was average or well below average in each category.

Here is the study. It actually focuses specifically on the young, old, and unemployed. So the information is not all encompassing. We've known for a while, though, that when we compare to the rest of the western world when i comes to education we fall behind in many ways. So let's have some other studies, let's talk about what we think is wrong and what should be done to fix it. If you want to propose privatization, let's see some studies to back up the idea that it would lead to better performance.

[GMDino]

(03-10-2016, 08:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/03/10/469831485/americas-high-school-graduates-look-like-other-countries-high-school-dropouts


Here is the study. It actually focuses specifically on the young, old, and unemployed. So the information is not all encompassing. We've known for a while, though, that when we compare to the rest of the western world when i comes to education we fall behind in many ways. So let's have some other studies, let's talk about what we think is wrong and what should be done to fix it. If you want to propose privatization, let's see some studies to back up the idea that it would lead to better performance.

Bring back music classes.  I bet math scores would increase.

[6andcounting]

Do exactly what we are doing now, but more of it. Clearly, the methods are pefect schools just need more money, students need to spend more time sitting at a desk (not in art, music, recess) and more standardized tests. Creating the same standard for everyone definitely pulls kids below the standard up and definitely doesn't just hold kids far above the standard stagnant.


As bad as public grade schools are, the university are the best in the world. Most university are state run, so I'm sure the answer is as simple as blaming the government for being involved in education (conservatives) or blaming underfunding (liberals). One difference is that universities are subject to competition from other schools and price sensitivity of customers. That's not the final answer, but it definitely creates more accountability and forces rational decision making both from the school and the students.

[fredtoast]

Here is my suggestion. I think it is important for the government to promote education, but if we are going to spend taxpayer money we should focus those funds on areas that will give the greatest returns to our economy.

In other words, if you want an art history degree you are welcome to get it, but there will not be near as much government assistance in that field.

[fredtoast]

(03-10-2016, 09:39 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Creating the same standard for everyone definitely pulls kids below the standard up and definitely doesn't just hold kids far above the standard stagnant.

I don't buy this argument.

I agree that some teachers are too obsessed with the testing (I have to kids in public school).  But standards are absolutely necessary, and they do nothing to hold back the best students. 

[6andcounting]

(03-10-2016, 09:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is my suggestion. I think it is important for the government to promote education, but if we are going to spend taxpayer money we should focus those funds on areas that will give the greatest returns to our economy.

In other words, if you want an art history degree you are welcome to get it, but there will not be near as much government assistance in that field.

I think this exists on a very small scale right now. I'm not sure how it works because it doesn't pertain to me, but there is a loan forgiveness program for federal loans for public school teachers. I'd hate to put the government in the business of deciding which things should be covered; lobbyists will buy special treatment for their industry or school. And there's so much room to disagree. I'd say school teachers are important, but right now it's impossible for recent graduates to land a salaried teaching position. From an economic sense, we don't need more education students. Teachers unions would disagree. I love the idea, but making it work will become a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy. But that's not to say I wouldn't absolutely that type of change.

[6andcounting]

(03-10-2016, 10:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't buy this argument.

I agree that some teachers are too obsessed with the testing (I have to kids in public school).  But standards are absolutely necessary, and they do nothing to hold back the best students. 

It's my fault for not making it clear, but that sentence was toward the concept of standardized tests. Standards in themselves are necessary.

[fredtoast]

(03-10-2016, 10:06 PM)6andcounting Wrote: It's my fault for not making it clear, but that sentence was toward the concept of standardized tests. Standards in themselves are necessary.

I don't see how you can have standards without standard tests.

When judging teacher performance all the specific problems of the schools they teach in should be taken into account.  Test scores are obviously going to be lower in most lower income areas.  But we still need tests to weed out teachers who are failing where others are succeeding and to reward the ones who are doing better under similar circumstances.

There has to be responsibility on some level.

[6andcounting]

(03-10-2016, 10:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't see how you can have standards without standard tests.

When judging teacher performance all the specific problems of the schools they teach in should be taken into account.  Test scores are obviously going to be lower in most lower income areas.  But we still need tests to weed out teachers who are failing where others are succeeding and to reward the ones who are doing better under similar circumstances.

There has to be responsibility on some level.

I'm not against the existence standardized tests, but the problem is that students are just being taught to pass the tests - which means those under the line are the focus and the ones way above the line are ignored. That's not preparing students for the real world.

I'm not against trying to find better ways to grade individual teachers. Great teachers need rewarded and bad teachers need weeded out. Obviously, it would have to be done correctly and fairly, but this is not a road teacher unions want to go down regardless.

[JustWinBaby]

If a non-certified, non-"educated" mom can successfully homeschool her children, not just passable but GOOD students - and I've personally seen examples and I know there are many more....

Maybe the schools aren't the problem...

[McC]

The biggest problem is not with the educational system. It's that there's just too much to do, too many things to distract the mind of a kid.

[McC]

(03-10-2016, 08:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/03/10/469831485/americas-high-school-graduates-look-like-other-countries-high-school-dropouts


Here is the study. It actually focuses specifically on the young, old, and unemployed. So the information is not all encompassing. We've known for a while, though, that when we compare to the rest of the western world when i comes to education we fall behind in many ways. So let's have some other studies, let's talk about what we think is wrong and what should be done to fix it. If you want to propose privatization, let's see some studies to back up the idea that it would lead to better performance.

Japan--little man complex. 

Finland--it's winter eight months out of the year.  What the hell else is there to do?

[Bengalzona]

(03-11-2016, 12:39 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: If a non-certified, non-"educated" mom can successfully homeschool her children, not just passable but GOOD students - and I've personally seen examples and I know there are many more....

Maybe the schools aren't the problem...

I have seen this also.

A child with a parent heavily invested in their academic success almost always does well. Of course, that can be good or bad depending upon how the parent expresses that investment. And there are other factors as well. Personally, I think diet is under-represented as a problem with academics. If a kid is hungry, they don't learn as well. If you ply the kid with sugar, you'll be lucky if they learn anything at all. The same can be said about sleep. Kids need more sleep than adults. If the parent doesn't ensure they have 8 to 10 hours every night, they undermine the child's efforts in school.

But, of course, no one wants to discuss those things because they have to do with the parents and that undermines the "Schools is just plain bad!!!" political narrative.

[Sovereign Nation]

I have always thought the responsibility for educating a child is on the parents.

I don't blame the schools, but I do blame the parents. I don't think the parents are intentionally neglecting their child's education as much as parents thinking that the school will do the job.

Instead of looking at public education as the main educator, parents need to see it as a tool to help facilitate the education process.

I am home schooling though. I know quite a few home schooled people and they are all some of the smartest people that you would ever meet. They have a more well rounded education and seem to have more skills to help them succeed in life as opposed to kids that are in public schools.

I would also say another issue is that schools are not focused on teaching some of the craftsmen skills that they should. There should be more chances for a student to learn about carpentry, plumbing, mechanics and even electricians. I am sure some schools have these available, but I know the ones I went to didn't.

For my child, he starting at 12 (maybe 13), I want him to apprentice with one of the craftsmen skill jobs for 4 hours each day for a year, at the end of the year he will "graduate" to another skill. This way he will see real world application of mathematics and reading and also learn the value of working. If he likes anyone of the jobs and wants to continue then great, if not, then he will still have a better understanding on how the job works and will be able to do it himself if needed or not have anyone take advantage of him.

[Sovereign Nation]

(03-11-2016, 02:02 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I have seen this also.

A child with a parent heavily invested in their academic success almost always does well. Of course, that can be good or bad depending upon how the parent expresses that investment. And there are other factors as well. Personally, I think diet is under-represented as a problem with academics. If a kid is hungry, they don't learn as well. If you ply the kid with sugar, you'll be lucky if they learn anything at all. The same can be said about sleep. Kids need more sleep than adults. If the parent doesn't ensure they have 8 to 10 hours every night, they undermine the child's efforts in school.

But, of course, no one wants to discuss those things because they have to do with the parents and that undermines the "Schools is just plain bad!!!" political narrative.

Yeah, that is a lazy argument.

Schools are neither good nor bad.  They are a tool that can be used to facilitate a child's education.

Just because a child is in public school, doesn't mean a parent's job of educating their child is finished.  A parent must still take an active approach in the education of the child.

That does come with a caveat though.  Sure have an active approach, don't dictate what the schools will teach.  For instance, Sex Ed. let the school teach it as they see fit.  If you don't want your child learning Sex Ed. from the school, then pull them from the class.  Don't try and change the curriculum of the class so your child can attend. 

[Belsnickel]

I see some discussions about home schooling. I have seen both good and bad results from this. Of course, you can have idiots teaching children in schools as well, so there is that. The biggest negative I have seen in home schooled children is I have seen some that lacked any socialization and as a result they did not know how to interact with peers.

Essentially, the results I have seen from home schooling have been either really, really good, or really, really bad.

[GMDino]

(03-11-2016, 09:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I see some discussions about home schooling. I have seen both good and bad results from this. Of course, you can have idiots teaching children in schools as well, so there is that. The biggest negative I have seen in home schooled children is I have seen some that lacked any socialization and as a result they did not know how to interact with peers.

Essentially, the results I have seen from home schooling have been either really, really good, or really, really bad.

A longer answer:

(I'll talk about my experiences with homeschooling within my extended family later.)

I went to Catholic school. 1-12.  Then a catholic, liberal arts college.

I loved every second of it.

Small classes, good friends, few problems.  Even the cliques got along well enough that there wasn't fights and such.

My sister, four years younger than me, went to the same schools 1-12. 

She hated every second of it.

Classes were too small, she only had a few girls she could be friends with.  If you had a problem with someone you couldn't avoid them.

Education, like most things, is a situation where you get out what your put in.  And there is no "one size fits all" for it.

My 8th grade class had 11 kids in it.  And we were STILL split up in math class (7 and 4) so the ones that did not catch on as fast (or at all) could get a quality education while the rest of us kept pushing forward.

When my wife and I had out oldest ready for school we debated public vs private.  We both agreed that as long as we were involved with her studies she would be okay wither way. She was very smart but shy.  So we opted for private and the smaller school.  

By the end of the first day she had come out of her shell and we realized we could have gone either way and she would be fine.

By 6th grade she wanted to go to the public school for junior high and we allowed it.  Out son also wanted to switch (3rd grade at the time) and we allowed that too.

Both have excelled in their studies.

But that is only our situation.

Over the last 25 years since I left college I've seen the effects of the politicizing of the school system.  Politicians using taxes to rile up people to hate the teachers and the schools.  

Could schools spend better?  Sure.  But to do that constructively would be better than just demanding they do more with less.  Let's stop the bickering and let the people who understand education make recommendations rather than people who want re-elected.

I know way too many teachers that care and do the right thing to be put off by the occasional one that holds on too long or is a poor teacher.  I've seen so many who love their jobs and struggle to do a good job but are working within a framework created by people who are more demanding of others than themselves (politicians).

Close schools to save money...cram more kids into a classroom...wonder why the slower kids aren't doing as well...blame the teacher and demand they meet a "standard"...teacher has to dumb down so more people meet the "standard" once a year...the kids suffer...but the politician can say they "did something".

It's sad and it is a shame and it is killing us from the inside out.

I have 4 more years after this in the local school system.  I hope we can get through it before the next "great idea" comes along and makes it any worse.  When the BEST idea would be to go back to the way it was:  Smaller classes, more teachers, specialized teachers for those who need it.  Gym, music, PLAY TIME.

These are CHILDREN.  We've started to slide back to a mentality where we need to treat kids like adults to "prepare" them for life.  How about we let them have some fun and enjoy being young before we kill their hopes and dreams?  Maybe one of their dreams will lead them to bettering the world.

[Belsnickel]

(03-11-2016, 09:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: A longer answer:

(I'll talk about my experiences with homeschooling within my extended family later.)

I went to Catholic school. 1-12.  Then a catholic, liberal arts college.

I loved every second of it.

Small classes, good friends, few problems.  Even the cliques got along well enough that there wasn't fights and such.

My sister, four years younger than me, went to the same schools 1-12. 

She hated every second of it.

Classes were too small, she only had a few girls she could be friends with.  If you had a problem with someone you couldn't avoid them.

Education, like most things, is a situation where you get out what your put in.  And there is no "one size fits all" for it.

My 8th grade class had 11 kids in it.  And we were STILL split up in math class (7 and 4) so the ones that did not catch on as fast (or at all) could get a quality education while the rest of us kept pushing forward.

When my wife and I had out oldest ready for school we debated public vs private.  We both agreed that as long as we were involved with her studies she would be okay wither way. She was very smart but shy.  So we opted for private and the smaller school.  

By the end of the first day she had come out of her shell and we realized we could have gone either way and she would be fine.

By 6th grade she wanted to go to the public school for junior high and we allowed it.  Out son also wanted to switch (3rd grade at the time) and we allowed that too.

Both have excelled in their studies.

But that is only our situation.

Over the last 25 years since I left college I've seen the effects of the politicizing of the school system.  Politicians using taxes to rile up people to hate the teachers and the schools.  

Could schools spend better?  Sure.  But to do that constructively would be better than just demanding they do more with less.  Let's stop the bickering and let the people who understand education make recommendations rather than people who want re-elected.

I know way too many teachers that care and do the right thing to be put off by the occasional one that holds on too long or is a poor teacher.  I've seen so many who love their jobs and struggle to do a good job but are working within a framework created by people who are more demanding of others than themselves (politicians).

Close schools to save money...cram more kids into a classroom...wonder why the slower kids aren't doing as well...blame the teacher and demand they meet a "standard"...teacher has to dumb down so more people meet the "standard" once a year...the kids suffer...but the politician can say they "did something".

It's sad and it is a shame and it is killing us from the inside out.

I have 4 more years after this in the local school system.  I hope we can get through it before the next "great idea" comes along and makes it any worse.  When the BEST idea would be to go back to the way it was:  Smaller classes, more teachers, specialized teachers for those who need it.  Gym, music, PLAY TIME.

These are CHILDREN.  We've started to slide back to a mentality where we need to treat kids like adults to "prepare" them for life.  How about we let them have some fun and enjoy being young before we kill their hopes and dreams?  Maybe one of their dreams will lead them to bettering the world.

There is nothing here I disagree with.

[*michaelsean*]

Just as an aside, how come every study like this that comes out says how bad we suck, and yet we dominate the world? We've been the dumbest people in the world for as long as I can remember, and yet somehow we are always on top.

[Belsnickel]

(03-11-2016, 10:46 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Just as an aside, how come every study like this that comes out says how bad we suck, and yet we dominate the world? We've been the dumbest people in the world for as long as I can remember, and yet somehow we are always on top.

On top in what way?