Improving Education?

Shepherd Book asks: "Not long ago there was a spirited discussion, in the usual Slashdot style, about education, touched off by an article about the value of homework. Even more recently, there was a discussion about the value of grammar. This inspires the following Ask Slashdot question: What, in your opinion, would make primary and secondary education as good as possible? I have no experience of education outside the US, but I can say confidently that public education in my country sucks. And it may always suck. However, what can we do to make it suck less?"

"For the purpose of this question, the following are givens:

1. I know that there is a strong libertarian faction in this community, who might like to see public education disappear. Let's assume, though, that that isn't going to happen any time soon, and that there will be a public school system for the foreseeable future.

2. Similarly, many Slashdot readers are brilliant people who have educated themselves to a large extent. Let's further accept that most people are not capable of doing this, or at any rate need help reaching that sort of educational self-sufficiency.

Thanks in advance, folks."

Elements of Style

[`Sean]

Simple. Hand out copies of Elements of Style [amazon.com] to every single student. Had that book been given to me in High School I probably wouldn't have hated the class so much.

Time in school not a factor

[suso]

Whatever it is that makes for a better education, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the time you spend in school. My wife is from Uzbekistan (former Soviet republic) and the quality of her education seems much higher than the one I received. Yet, she only went to school from 8am to noon 5 days a week from the age of 7 til age 17. That's quite a difference from the typical age 5 to 18, 7:30am to 3pm we go through in the U.S.

And yes (to those who were going to ask), the length of the school year is about the same.

Diagramming Sentences

[scovetta]

I attended catholic school, and in 8th grade (circa 1992), we were diagramming sentences. I haven't met a single other person under 50 that has even heard of such a thing.

The point is that most people have very poor grammar, even if they think they're just fine.

For the curious, here's the first link I found on Google.

http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/diagrams2/diagr ams2.stm [commnet.edu]

Re:a few starting ideas

[pete6677]

I can't believe that CNN actually used the word 'poo' in a news article.

It's called a quote. When a reporter interviews a source and reports what the source says, the quote is reported word-for-word, even if the source in question is a PHd who said "poo" during an interview for CNN. Your disbelief should be with the researcher that was interviewed, not CNN.

free software

[101percent]

Why schools should use exclusively free software
by Richard Stallman

There are general reasons why all computer users should insist on free software. It gives users the freedom to control their own computers--with proprietary software, the computer does what the software owner wants it to do, not what you want it to do. Free software also gives users the freedom to cooperate with each other, to lead an upright life. These reasons apply to schools as they do to everyone.

But there are special reasons that apply to schools. They are the subject of this article.

First, free software can save the schools money. Even in the richest countries, schools are short of money. Free software gives schools, like other users, the freedom to copy and redistribute the software, so the school system can make copies for all the computers they have. In poor countries, this can help close the digital divide.

This obvious reason, while important, is rather shallow. And proprietary software developers can eliminate this disadvantage by donating copies to the schools. (Watch out!--a school that accepts this offer may have to pay for future upgrades.) So let's look at the deeper reasons.

School should teach students ways of life that will benefit society as a whole. They should promote the use of free software just as they promote recycling. If schools teach students free software, then the students will use free software after they graduate. This will help society as a whole escape from being dominated (and gouged) by megacorporations. Those corporations offer free samples to schools for the same reason tobacco companies distribute free cigarettes: to get children addicted (1). They will not give discounts to these students once they grow up and graduate.

Free software permits students to learn how software works. When students reach their teens, some of them want to learn everything there is to know about their computer system and its software. That is the age when people who will be good programmers should learn it. To learn to write software well, students need to read a lot of code and write a lot of code. They need to read and understand real programs that people really use. They will be intensely curious to read the source code of the programs that they use every day.

Proprietary software rejects their thirst for knowledge: it says, "The knowledge you want is a secret--learning is forbidden!" Free software encourages everyone to learn. The free software community rejects the "priesthood of technology", which keeps the general public in ignorance of how technology works; we encourage students of any age and situation to read the source code and learn as much as they want to know. Schools that use free software will enable gifted programming students to advance.

The next reason for using free software in schools is on an even deeper level. We expect schools to teach students basic facts, and useful skills, but that is not their whole job. The most fundamental mission of schools is to teach people to be good citizens and good neighbors--to cooperate with others who need their help. In the area of computers, this means teaching them to share software. Elementary schools, above all, should tell their pupils, "If you bring software to school, you must share it with the other children." Of course, the school must practice what it preaches: all the software installed by the school should be available for students to copy, take home, and redistribute further.

Teaching the students to use free software, and to participate in the free software community, is a hands-on civics lesson. It also teaches students the role model of public service rather than that of tycoons. All levels of school should use free software.

(1). RJ Reynolds tobacco company was fined $15m in 2002 for handing out free samples of cigarettes at events attended by children. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/feature s/health/tobaccotrial/usa.htm [bbc.co.uk].

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted without royalty in any medium provided this notice is preserved.

Re:Education Sucks in the US? That's news to me!

[jpsowin]

If our system "sucks" so much, why are there SO many successful people who went through the system?

Sometimes people come are successful in spite of things, or because it was so bad that it motivated them to educate themselves.

Also, it very much depends on your definition of successful. Sometimes, people can makes lots of money and be "successful" yet be illiterate.

John Gatto says it best

[lavaface]

Seriously, this guy won awards in teaching excellence in New York. He points out that our education system is marvelously successful for what it was designed to do--produce an obedient populace. An excerpt:

In the 1934 edition of his once well-known book Public Education in the United States, Ellwood P. Cubberley detailed and praised the way the strategy of successive school enlargements had extended childhood by two to six years, and forced schooling was at that point still quite new. This same Cubberley - who was dean of Stanford's School of Education, a textbook editor at Houghton Mifflin, and Conant's friend and correspondent at Harvard - had written the following in the 1922 edition of his book Public School Administration: "Our schools are ... factories in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned .... And it is the business of the school to build its pupils according to the specifications laid down."

Read his acceptance speech for the Teacher of the Year award in 1991 here. [vic.edu.au] Really, he hits the issue square-on.

excellent public school experience

[hb253]

The level of generalization I'm reading here about US schools being awful is a tad extreme. The whole question of education is complex and contrary to what many may believe, there is no ONE way that would satisfy and work for everyone.

I attended public school in NYC until 7th grade. I then moved to New Jersey and attended public school until graduating from high school. I can honestly say I think I received an excellent education. I went on to college and got a BS in Mechanical Engineering.

I think several people have already mentioned the following:

• Education starts at home. Parents must set a good example (behavior, intellectual pursuits, arts, etc) and also demand excellence from their children. It's true that there's a pervasive anti-intellectualism in this country - I don't know why. With high parental expectations and support, a student can get a decent education in even the poorest of schools.
• Teachers need to demand excellence. They need parental support as well as support from their administrators.
• Not everyone is destined or able to be a genius. There is nothing wrong with pushing kids towards vocational education.
• Deemphasize sports. Gym class is fine. For some reason, it's OK to excel in sports, but not academics.

Re:Study it scientificaly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um...no. Just about every major university has a graduate program called something like educational science, instructional science, educational technology, etc. Admittedly, some of these programs do focus more on the practical side of educational technology (online learning, simulations, etc.). But, I would say most have a more theoretical bent. They do treat education as a science and you will find that many of the faculty have rigorous analytical, statistical, measurement backgrounds.

Re:Trade schools for the morons

[nickos]

This is what happens in the UK with the old Grammar/Secondary Modern division. Those of us who went to grammar school leave education unused to dealing with 90% of the supposedly less intelligent population, while the other kids are effectively told that they don't amount to much intelligence wise.

Streaming is a better system as kids do not have uniform ability across all subjects. It is quite possible to be great at maths but only average or worse at English and vice versa.

A Semi-Socialist Education System

[Dasch]

I'm living in Denmark [google.com],
where the vast majority of the education system is public (even the universities are free of charge). That means that a very high percentage of the population gets an education. While many of the schools aren't as fancy as their US counterparts (the money is divided between the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy areas), everybody is given the same opportunities. Where you live and who your parents are doesn't matter.

I think the biggest problem with the US system is that education has become an expense for the citizens. Not only do they have less or no time to work, they actually have to pay for being educated (bare in mind that the education of citizens makes a great, positive impact on a country in more ways than one). Here in Denmark (and Norway and Sweden too, I think) we actually *pay* people to study (SU).

Culture, not money...

[gesualdo]

Until June 11th, I was a high school math teacher at a public charter school in North Carolina. When I decided to not renew by contact for next year, it had nothing to do with money. It had everything to do with culture.

As a whole, our culture (or at least North Cakalaki's) does not value education. I don't need books, I don't need computers, I don't even need chairs. Give me some kids who come from families that value learning and education, and I'll help build an educated student. Give me a kid who won't even put in the effort to cheat on a a test or homework assignment, and there's jack shit I can do.

While culture may not be easy to change, it is the root of all our school's problems. Our schools are stupid enough, however, that, generally speaking, they don't attempt to either fix nor solve the problem. An essential clue that our systems are lacking is the shortage of math and science teachers. These people are, ideally, logical and rational people. Personally, the irrationality and lack of logic at the NC Department of Public Instruction was more than enough to cause me to leave the system. My only other alternative, would have been to sacrifice my standards and the quality of education.

Re:Study it scientificaly.

[edremy]

It *has* been studied, endlessly. Go visit an academic library and you'll find journal article after journal article about it.

So why don't we hear about it? For a couple of reasons

• It's damn hard to measure an outcome. Sure, you can make sure that Johnny can add 2+2 using a standarized test. You might even be able to tell if he can do an algebra word problem. But can you tell if he'll still be able to do it in 10 years? Can he solve a real world problem on the construction site? Worse, can he construct a coherent argument about a local political issue and send it to a Congressman? (And can he do the algebra to figure out how much of a campaign contribution he needs to enclose?) Most things of any importance simply can't be measured on a standardized test.
• Outcomes vary so much based on the learner. Some people can absorb lectures very well, others can't. Some can read a text effectively. Some need pictures to really have a concept sink in. (And before you disparage pictures, consider Fenyman diagrams. All they are are pictures. If you read his biographies that's how he thought.) One-size-fits-all teaching methods will always fail.
• Outcomes vary so much based on the teacher. About the only constant is to demand high standards, but what after that? Two teachers I think of when I remember great ones of my youth were totally different- one was a happy-go-lucky clown type, the other a stern German disciplinarian. Their teaching styles and philosophies couldn't have been farther apart, but they were both great teachers.
• Teaching critical thinking and the ability to synthesize and combine knowledge is the single hardest task imaginable. The vast majority of people today, yesterday and I dare say tomorrow will not master it, no matter what educational system you choose.

It's really hard to get any coherant strategy. Therefore, politicians pass things like No Child Left Behind and pat themselves on the back for "fixing" our educational system. Thanks guys- that really helped.

from someone who knows Hans Mark

[Anonymous Coward]

He was my faculty advisor way back in the day, and spoke at several functions I attended. Although I certainly disagree with the notion of rolling back women's lib, I can say that he is a very intelligent man based on my conversations with him and those public speeches that I saw. I have a feeling he was being polemic regarding women's lib--you don't think Jonathan Swift was serious, in A Modest Proposal, that the solution to the Irish famine and overpopulation was to eat babies? One of Dr. Mark's speeches was about two competing trends in the world today: tribalism, and globalization. Very interesting.

I'm posting as AC since I've already modded some comments here--however, Anonymous Cowards don't have much credibility, so for any skeptics, direct your incredulity towards me. [slashdot.org]

Re:a phonics monkey

[greenrd]

D'oh! He's wrong. In the case of your sig, it should be "it's". Thus, once again proving greenrd's law: Every post which complains about another poster's spelling or grammar, will itself contain a spelling or grammattical error.

Re:Modle After Taiwan

[blzabub]

I didn't mean for my observations to be in contradiction to your suggestions, they were just observations, take them any way you wish. I happen to agree with most of your suggestions. One thing that always interested me about the Taiwan system in the 1950's and 1960's is that they purposely separated out all the children with the highest test scores in the entire nation, plucked them from their hometown schools and placed them all into one special school. These students received special care and were groomed to be future government leaders. Of course the experiment failed when these kids reached college age and began to have radical ideas which threatened the very government that had nurtured them. Most of these kids left to study in America. Some have now come back to Taiwan and taken on the leadership positions they were meant to hold. In America our egalitarian society looks down upon separating kids out based on achievement or natural intellectual ability. But parents do it anyway by withdrawing their children out of public schools and sending them to expensive private schools which essentially achieves the same thing the Taiwan system was trying- creating an elite class of technocrats.