Reforming American Education


Recommended Posts

Hi All,

I read this surprising article about plans for changing the educational system in New Hampshire and possibly Massachusetts and Utah:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081107/us_t...eafter10thgrade

I was surprised because the reform plan is being supported by the usually liberal education establishment. I think it could be a very good suggestion. In my view, it would inadvertently weaken the ability of the k-12 education establishment to indoctrinate students with left-wing ideology. I don't think that students at age 16 necessarily have a firmly established set of beliefs.

Of course, many colleges are very left wing, but students that are concentrating mainly on scientific or technical subjects at the community college or university level are less likely, in my view, to be indoctrinated by left wing professors. In addition, there is an increasing array of alternative education avenues for students at the college and post college level including online or tv courses.

I think we should support this change, depending upon how it is framed, and think of ways to take advantage of the change. For example, it might be possible for Objectivists to offer some sort of transitional education between standard high school and a four year University education. Or, we could push for talented students to be allowed to go directly to four year Universities from high school, perhaps with some sort of chaperone program.

Any thoughts?

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darrel:

I entered Queens College at 16 and did quite well, graduating at 20 and beginning to teach at the same University. Therefore, myself and a number of my friends who also went into college at 17 had no problems.

Newt Gingrich perceptively noted that the last year or two of high school was the most expensive dating service known to man.

Rush Limbaugh noted that "ignorance" is the most expensive commodity in America.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

You did well entering college so early, but I wonder if there would a market for private two year schools for the last two years of high school. The potential benefit of such a scenario would be the eventual erosion of the public school system as the primary means of educating children. If a large percentage of the population were to enter post secondary high school, after regular high school in a free market model, people might to start to get the idea that private school is better than public school and eventually start trying it at a younger age.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During my junior and senior years at a public high school I took 3rd and 4th year French, 1st and third year German, Calculus 1 and 2, Biochemistry, Chemistry 2, AP English, and could have taken Physics 1 and 2, and British History (But preferred Biochem & German). Of course this was 23 years ago, but it was a better education than 90% of my classes at Rutgers.

Real school choice is the answer, not some top down revamp of the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys:

You are preaching to the choir. I was elected to a NY City school board when I was 25 and served three terms totally 8 years - when I opposed the mandated breakfast program, District Counsel 37 - the non-teachers union opposed me - challenged my petitions and knocked me off the ballot and I had to run as a write in and one by one vote - the reason that I opposed the program is that I ran the costs of the program and it came out to about $4.67 per breakfast for basic garbage - my proposal was to provide "chits" or vouchers redeemable at the local private diners, luncheonettes etc. which would have run about $2.05 and the kids would have gotten whatever they wanted short of steak and eggs!

Of course this was 1971.

I ran on pure capitalistic principles and always had a copy of Atlas when I campaigned of spoke at any event or school board meeting.

Imagine how many left wingers I pissed off!.

I would argue that a home schooling family should get a check from the state for schooling their children equal to the amount per capita that is being spent by the state for each public school child.

I know, I have that archaic constitutional concept of equal protection under the law. If I am not using your "service" you have no constitutional right to charge me for it at the point of a gun.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to high school around 1960, that was the 6-year gymnasium. We took 6 languages: Dutch, English, French, German, Latin and Classical Greek (all 6 years), further: maths (several subsections) (6 years), physics (4 years), chemistry (3 years), biology (4 years), history (6 years), geography (6 years), art/drawing (4 years). It was a solid education, and yes, it was a public school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to high school around 1960, that was the 6-year gymnasium. We took 6 languages: Dutch, English, French, German, Latin and Classical Greek (all 6 years), further: maths (several subsections) (6 years), physics (4 years), chemistry (3 years), biology (4 years), history (6 years), geography (6 years), art/drawing (4 years). It was a solid education, and yes, it was a public school.

What state/country has a 6 year HS program?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I went to high school around 1960, that was the 6-year gymnasium. We took 6 languages: Dutch, English, French, German, Latin and Classical Greek (all 6 years), further: maths (several subsections) (6 years), physics (4 years), chemistry (3 years), biology (4 years), history (6 years), geography (6 years), art/drawing (4 years). It was a solid education, and yes, it was a public school.

Dragonfly, my mother, who was educated in Belgium before WWII spoke of a very similar education. That is a much more thorough - and impressive - educational system than in the U.S. 6 years sounds like the equivalent of our middle school through high school - 7th grade thru 12th grade, or age 12 thru 17.

How was the 4 years of physics broken up - was it repetition or was it one year for mechanics, one year for waves and sound and optics....etc?

Same question for history: In the U.S. we study American history over and over in different grades. Did you study the history of different countries and times in those six years? For example world history broken into chronological sections?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragonfly, my mother, who was educated in Belgium before WWII spoke of a very similar education. That is a much more thorough - and impressive - educational system than in the U.S. 6 years sounds like the equivalent of our middle school through high school - 7th grade thru 12th grade, or age 12 thru 17.

That's the same age group as in my school.

How was the 4 years of physics broken up - was it repetition or was it one year for mechanics, one year for waves and sound and optics....etc?

Sorry, I no longer remember the exact program (it was almost half a century ago...), except that the last two years the treatment was more advanced (use of calculus). I only remember mechanics and the gas laws in the first year, elementary electromagnetism in the second year, waves and optics in the third year and advanced electromagnetism in the fourth year. Oh I forgot that we also had one year cosmography.

Same question for history: In the U.S. we study American history over and over in different grades. Did you study the history of different countries and times in those six years? For example world history broken into chronological sections?

Of the history lessons I remember even less, as I didn't like the subject, but as far as I remember there was a general chronological procession, from ancient Egypt and classical Greek and Roman history in the first years to the 20th century in the last year. The emphasis was on European history, with some excursions to other continents. There was also included some history of art, architecture and science (which I did find interesting).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
I went to high school around 1960, that was the 6-year gymnasium. We took 6 languages: Dutch, English, French, German, Latin and Classical Greek (all 6 years), further: maths (several subsections) (6 years), physics (4 years), chemistry (3 years), biology (4 years), history (6 years), geography (6 years), art/drawing (4 years). It was a solid education, and yes, it was a public school.

The Dutch never heard of Horace Mann and John Dewey.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba'al:

Dewey was, in my opinion, was one of the most evil man to occupy America in the last 150 years. Do not know enough about Horace Mann, but if he is in the same neighborhood in a sentence with Dewey, I hate him already! lol

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba'al:

Dewey was, in my opinion, was one of the most evil man to occupy America in the last 150 years. Do not know enough about Horace Mann, but if he is in the same neighborhood in a sentence with Dewey, I hate him already! lol

Adam

Horace Mann was very taken with the Prussian system of schooling, turning out good little Prussians to serve the state etc. Horace Mann thought that was a neat cool idea for the United States. He was not satisfied that each parent should see to the schooling of their children, he wanted the government to make sure it was done and done "right".

By the way, what do you find in John Dewey to created such hostility. I do not share Dewey's pragmatics but I do not recall anything he wrote that raised my temperature. I found Mann's pro-Prussian statism more anoying.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba'al:

His commentary at Columbia Teachers College where he trained cadres of teachers with:

First we must separate the child from his/her religion. Then from his/her country. Then from his/her family. Then we will create the common child.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baal:

This was a post from Nov. 1, 2007:

post Nov 1 2007, 09:39 PM

Post #1

$$$$$$

Group Icon

Group: Members

Posts: 1,198

Joined: 10-October 07

From: New Jersey

Member No.: 3,516

John Dewey's Pedagogic Creed, [link below] is one of the top ten most chilling statements that I have ever read. I could have pulled out atwenty (20) paragraphs that make my blood run cold. If you have never read it in its entirety, you should.

I remember reading his "common child" statement at a school board meeting concerning a new "gifted and talented" program being proposed by the hard core political elements, e.g. the teacher's and para-professional's unions, the President's Councel of the district PTA's and the "Church group", which included Orthodox Jewish, Protestant and Catholic schools in the district

I am searching for the exact quote which basically argued that:

We must create the common child; once we separate/remove the child from his/her God, family and country, we can create the common child.

Ahh, the Elsworth line to Peter - one neck, one collar....

http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/e-dew-pc.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba'al:

His commentary at Columbia Teachers College where he trained cadres of teachers with:

First we must separate the child from his/her religion. Then from his/her country. Then from his/her family. Then we will create the common child.

Adam

Jeezus! Early American fascist awful. He was going to train Dewey Jugend.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba'al:

At a minimum a statist:

"Trotsky’s Tribute to Dewey

Credit for the definitive exposure of the infamous MOSCOW frame-up trials engineered by Joseph Stalin, goes to the “Commission of Inquiry into the Charges Made Against Leon Trotsky in the Moscow Trials.” This impartial body was headed by John Dewey and conducted hearings in Coyoacan, Mexico, from April 10 to April 17, 1937, hearing the testimony of Trotsky and examining a massive amount of documentary evidence. After nine months of work in consultation with its legal adviser, John Finerty, of worldwide fame in the defense of Tom Mooney and of Sacco and Vanzetti, the Commission made its report which was published in 1938 by Harpers & Brothers under the title, “Not Guilty.” At the hearing, in one of the great speeches of our time, Trotsky summarized his defense, concluding with a tribute to Dewey and the Commission:

“Esteemed Commissioners! The experience of my life, in which there has been no lack either of successes or of failures, has not only not destroyed my faith in the clear, bright future of mankind, but, on the contrary, has given it an indestructible temper. This faith in reason, in truth, in human solidarity, which at the age of eighteen I took with me into the workers’ quarters of the provincial Russian town of Nikolaiev—this faith I have preserved fully and completely. In the very fact of your Commission’s formation—in the fact that, at its head, is a man of unshaken moral authority, a man who by virtue of his age should have the right to remain outside of the skirmishes in the political arena—in this fact I see a new and truly magnificent reinforcement of the revolutionary optimism which constitutes the fundamental element of my life.

“Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission! Mr. Attorney Finerty and you, my defender and friend, Goldman! Allow me to express to all of you my warm gratitude, which in this case does not bear a personal character. And allow me, in conclusion, to express my profound respect to the educator, philosopher and personification of genuine American idealism, the scholar who heads the work of your Commission.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All,

I read this surprising article about plans for changing the educational system in New Hampshire and possibly Massachusetts and Utah:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081107/us_t...eafter10thgrade

I was surprised because the reform plan is being supported by the usually liberal education establishment. I think it could be a very good suggestion. In my view, it would inadvertently weaken the ability of the k-12 education establishment to indoctrinate students with left-wing ideology. I don't think that students at age 16 necessarily have a firmly established set of beliefs.

Of course, many colleges are very left wing, but students that are concentrating mainly on scientific or technical subjects at the community college or university level are less likely, in my view, to be indoctrinated by left wing professors. In addition, there is an increasing array of alternative education avenues for students at the college and post college level including online or tv courses.

I think we should support this change, depending upon how it is framed, and think of ways to take advantage of the change. For example, it might be possible for Objectivists to offer some sort of transitional education between standard high school and a four year University education. Or, we could push for talented students to be allowed to go directly to four year Universities from high school, perhaps with some sort of chaperone program.

Any thoughts?

Darrell

Darrell,

The link didn't work for me, but I did find this one, and I think it is referring to the article you read:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1857336,00.html

Now, I grew up and went to school in NH, including a few years of college. I would have WELCOMED the idea back then. I was so ready to be done with high school by my junior year, and ended up having 1.5 senior years because I just was burnt out, didn't graduate and got my GED. However, knowing where I was at when I was a junior, I would have definitely chose the early college option.

There is a market for high school students at a lot of community colleges. In fact, I had a friend in high school that went to an "early college" for her last year of high school http://www.simons-rock.edu/

The community college my son and husband attend often have high school kids take classes there in the summer and sometimes during the school year while they are still in college.

My only concern - will the high schools start focusing on only "teaching to the tests"? We have a huge problem with that here in TX. Kids are required to take TAKS tests, and if they do not do well in some of the grades, they are required to stay back if they fail one or two of the TAKS subjects NO MATTER what their grade is over all or in those courses. It gets very intense starting in 3rd grade, and is intense again in 5th grade, and seems to be the worst in the 10th and 11th grade. If you don't pass the final tests you are not allowed to graduate.

These test have caused great distress to the students. My daughter in 5th grade used to agonize over the tests in 3rd grade. She has always done well, and we were able to finally convince her that the test is a formality, and all she had to do was pass; this kid (before this last term) has always had an A average, and has been in the gifted program for a few years now. Yet the tests stressed her out. She doesn't any more. But she also has made several comments how her teacher, especially this year, has not taught everything he had planned because he was so focused on teaching to the test. She doesn't sweat them any more, but I can tell you the teachers sure do!

My 9 year old was in third grade earlier this year before we pulled her out for homeschooling. She is also in the gifted program and adores math. However, she was forced to go to tutoring for about two months AFTER school (her and it looked like half the 3rd and 5th graders) because she got a score that was a couple points below what they liked to see - this wasn't even on the math TAKS mock test (oh yes - they do mock tests a few times a year to practice taking the test), but another test that was similar. At first she liked it because she eats math up. However, after a few sessions she hated it because she already knew what they were going over and was bored out of her mind.

One last statement on this: My son's robotic club advisor is a teacher; she told me that although she enjoyed working for the school district what disgusted her was that the district was so proud of how many kids graduated and got into college. They focused a lot on making sure kids were successful in getting INTO college. But what she then said was this :they can get them in, but they don't teach them how to be successful in college, and they certainly don't teach them how to lead a successful life if they decide college isn't for them.

I could go on and on about how much these types of tests suck the life out of teachers and students...but I have gone on enough about our experience.

NH is a wonderful state to live in; I like the idea of being able to pass a test to show competency so you can get out of school earlier. However, I just hope they don't make the same mistake that TX has, or else there is no point - they will be so bogged down in teaching just enough to pass the tests, that the kids won't be ready for college.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The link didn't work for me, but I did find this one, and I think it is referring to the article you read:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1857336,00.html

And I found this one to go with that one. Thanks.

You touch on a lot of issues with your post. Whether a high school diploma or a high school education is a pre-requisite to success is highly personal, as most things are in life. The responses all indicate that at least for us, the more education, the better. Breezing through high school in two years to goto college, leaves you two years short. Here in Michigan, we also have dual enrollment at the community college level for approved high school students. (Approval is pretty easy to get.)

Consider this recent news item from Connecticut:

Conn. college admission test results 'appalling'Associated Press

March 27, 2009

HARTFORD, Conn. - A report from the state Department of Higher Education concludes that results from the ACT college admission test are appalling.

The report on the 2008 test shows that many Connecticut high school seniors are not prepared for college-level work.

Of the more than 8,000 students who took the test, 35 percent of white seniors, 18 percent of Hispanics and 9 percent of African Americans were ready for college-level work.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/statewir...0,4770838.story

I point out that while all geographies have ranges of peoples within them, Connecticut is in the top percentiles of incomes and educations.

Personally, as I posted in the "Al Gore's Grades" topic, it might be better for children to learn their 3Rs while working and then have us all in college and university later. That, of course, would require a society different than ours. The point is though that as a counter-example, it addresses what a college or university education is... and is not...

Darrell offered the unsupported (and unsupportable) claim that vocational students cannot be greatly influenced by Marxist ideas. The fundamental premise there is that vocational training is an important goal. I agree that education is important. I have never seen a vocational training program that was anything other than a meaningless hurdle created by people who do not work in the field -- or who did 25 yerars ago. Education is different than that. But we always educate ourselves, really.

Certain programs or majors may offer fantastic experiences within different campuses--and you might be better off in a school whose curriculum that meets your needs than in a school with a big name. But what's most important in the quality of your college experience is your willingness to engage in your education, commit to learning and actively take part in classes that challenge you.

Simply put, where you go to school is not as important as what you bring to the school where you go.

Forbes Magazine story here

Edited by Michael E. Marotta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some very good points.

I knew a lot of kids in high school that were bored their last year because they took all the classes that were required to graduate and them some, but there wasn't much left. They had to go to get their last year of English for example, but had to fill up the rest of their schedule with at least a few stupid easy classes because (at that time) you were required to go at least half a day. This could be a good option for those kids that were able to get a lot out of the way successfully the first two or three years of school.

I agree though - usually the more education the better. However, if the schools are not giving a worthwhile education (ie., my husband and several other students had to actually petition physics, chem II and biology II class at one high school he attended), I say let them get out so they can move on to something better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Darrell,

I can see how you would be very interested in reforming education. The link in your topic said it had expired, which is o.k. because I was only going to read it out of courtesy before asking you a slightly related question. My subject is the Montessori school system. I had gotten the idea from friends who had children in Montessori schools that the kids loved it and the parents thought the kids were getting a better education than they would in public schools. That was back in the '70s. In just the last year, when I brought up this subject to my cousin-by-marriage who is teaching in a private girl's school in Arizon, he had nothing good to say about it. He launched into a description of those Montessori teachers that he saw in restaurants - they had piercing, tatoos, were loud and raucous and they smoked. According to him they have a bad reputation. Then I mentioned it to a middle-aged public school teacher here and she said very snidely, "oh yeah, learning by playing", and the conversation changed to something else before I could get more info.

My question is, do you have an opinion one way or the other? And if so, why? What supports your opinion? And all that.

Thanks in advance,

Mary Lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mary Lee:

I am wondering what everyone's answer would be to the proposition:

Resolved that all educational systems will fail because you cannot teach how to teach. Status quo being that we have existing educational systems.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mary Lee:

I am wondering what everyone's answer would be to the proposition:

Resolved that all educational systems will fail because you cannot teach how to teach. Status quo being that we have existing educational systems.

Adam

Almost 20 years ago, I began the process of becoming a school teacher by taking the required Education courses needed to be certified at a local public university. (After taking the courses, and experiencing how dedicated the local school systems were to bureaucracy and not to actually educating the kids, I changed my mind. Pushing paperwork to satisfy administrators in place of actually teaching was not my cup of tea.)

But my experience at the College of Education was less than glorious. Do you remember what Shaw said about teachers?

"Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach."

This particular College of Education showed how that maxim operated when the subject was teaching...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now