Reforming the Educational System

[NGTOne]

Prompted by the start of the new school year a few days ago, a thread sprang up in the Space Lounge comparing school to prison. Personally, I felt that high school wasn't that bad, and university is, in fact, a lot of fun (I'm on a work term right now, but that's another matter). So, here's my question to you, the assembled intellect of the KSP community:

How would you go about reforming the American educational system? What would you change/scrap/implement?

Personally, I'm very much in favour of open-ended learning, at least in subjects that support it (history, the sciences, computer programming). In the US, the trend over the last 10-20 years (at least in the public educational system) has been a shift away from that, towards memorization- and testing-based education (all the better to quantify student progress to the bureaucrats with). However, such a paradigm has the unfortunate side effect of making kids hate knowledge and hate learning - if learning is hard and tedious work, what reason would a student have to enjoy it? High schools are worst for this - at a time when students are first beginning to develop their own attitudes and opinions, the educational system seems specifically geared towards breeding resentment towards knowledge and learning.

But how to reverse this trend?

In my view, the answer is threefold:

1. Get the bureaucrats to lay off. Less demand for statistics for their portfolios means less pressure to produce test scores, which means less debasement of the curriculum (in order to produce higher test scores, of course - add in the fact that TEACHERS have been known to cheat on the tests as well, manually filling in hundreds of correct answers before sending them for grading), as well as less standardized testing in general.

2. Reduce class sizes. It's been well-known for a while that a teacher cannot adequately support learning at the elementary- or high-school level past a class size of about 30 - too many students demanding the teacher's time.

3. Replace the "standardized learning" paradigm with something more open-ended - especially at the high school level. Cramming facts and figures and names and dates into the heads of students isn't useful (especially in the Information Age), and runs a significant risk of missing the bigger picture - WHY is this fact or figure or name or date significant? What did that person accomplish, in the broader context of history/chemistry/politics? In my personal view, a more research-based curriculum is the ideal - students are allowed to pick a topic (within the confines of the subject matter, naturally) and sent to research it independently, with minimal teacher oversight. Picking a topic allows students to remain engaged, as they are likely to pick one in which they are interested. Some basic instruction is necessary, of course, but it should be of a form that emphasizes context and the bigger picture over memorization of facts and figures. For instance, rather than "this is a hydrocarbon, it has this chemical structure, repeat after me", the lesson would be more along the lines of "this is a hydrocarbon, it has this chemical structure, can anyone think of why that is the case? Why do other hydrocarbons have different structures? Do other hydrocarbons with similar structures behave in similar ways?" This format encourages independent learning and inquiry, and is much less likely to turn students off of learning.

What are the thoughts of the KSP community on all this?

P.S. PLEASE don't post any complaints about school here. I'm looking to start a constructive discussion on how the system could be changed for the better, and am not here to hate on it. If you want to complain about school, go to the thread I linked to up above.

[SpaceHole]

text.

1) will end up hurtig the system - people are lazy - when there is no control chances are your education will vastly differ depending on your teacher and school - which is a bad thing

also you cherry picked one bad thing here

2) Great idea - its well known but not realistic - who will pay for that? I think everybody agrees that smaller groups are better for kids and teachers but as i said who pays?

3) open-ended? That can only end up awful - may i just say creationism?

Also lets be honest here - teachers are most likely not that qualified in their field anyhow they are teachers - scientists or "specialists"

Also learning those facts is a good thing - not because its that important but because kids learn how to learn

Also your "research" thing souds nice in theory but lets be real here if you give kids a "free" topic to research and hardly any screening what do you think will realistically happen?

The system can only change when society changes and actually sees knowledge as one of the most important things in life. Since this is not the case and nobody is willing to invest money i doubt anything will happen. Not to mention that the american educational system is probably one of the worse ones in western countries.

Also in general you cant let kids choose to much. They have to get a basic knowledge. Point is most of those kids will not know what they want to do later on anyhow and many of them would probably just choose whatever is easiest.

A thing i would change - which is rather easy is to make progression more dynamic so that smarter kids can progress trough classes faster and less smarter kids slower. The target should be to get everyone to a certain level while still giving them the chance to learn more.

So in the end a better educational system is not a question of new ideas but about people willing to spend money with taxes.

Edited September 7, 2013 by SpaceHole

[Endeavour]

This may be a bit off topic, but as an American in high school right now, I think that more students need to understand the purpose of what they are learning. I feel like too many of my classmates really miss the point of school. They think that the school is trying to get them to remember all of these random facts and processes, but it's really trying to teach them how to learn. They think a math test is just a test of what they were taught, but it's actually a test of how well they can learn that type of math.

I feel like if more people understood this, we'd see more effort and more interest. I know once I realized this I stopped disliking school.

[tom1499]

As a kid who started home-schooling 3-4 years ago I can say that it is becoming a more and more realized fact among people recently that the education system is flawed. At least in many peoples opinions, that is. It is an old system, and as a counter-argument to SpaceHole , teenagers aren't mindless. Kids can be genius. But the current education system doesn't let them be. I am a young leader for my local scout troop, and I can say that the 12-14 year old there can work really well together when they are having fun and with a bit of leadership. But at school they will put in little effort and, at scout meeting, complain about school. They can really put their minds to something, they just won't. If the school system was more Student-Project oriented and flexible, I really think they could do great things.

[K^2]

Get rid of the "No child left behind" mentality first of all. Getting people who are ahead properly educated is more important than looking after stragglers in the long run. These will be the researchers and teachers in the next generation. If you hold them back due to people who can't handle the program, next generation will fall even further behind.

I'm not saying we should just throw kids who aren't managing to keep up to the wolves, but a straight forward system can be devised where classes are split after a few years so that stronger students are studying with stronger students and better curriculum. Something like this has been implemented in Soviet Union and it works.

[Omicron314]

Well, I've been in a school that is not associated with the DOE for a few years now, so I can't say for sure, but one thing I've heard is that science classes are more about memorization and not learning basic facts and figuring the rest out. So perhaps make science classes more scientific?

[lajoswinkler]

If you want to discuss the educational system, you have to specify which country you mean, first. I've heard there are lots of problems with USA educational system, and that scandinavian countries have a remarkably good system.

[Seret]

Something like this has been implemented in Soviet Union and it works.

Assuming you mean Russia? The Soviet Union hasn't existed for about 20 years.

It's not unusual for some educational systems to group students into classes based on ability. When I went to high school in NZ in the 90's it was termed "streaming". Seemed to work well enough, most classes were at the same level, but the brighter kids were picked out into the A stream and put on a slightly more advanced curriculum.

[Brenok]

Assuming you mean Russia? The Soviet Union hasn't existed for about 20 years.

Why do you assume all educational reforms must have necessarially been made less than 20 years ago?

[Seret]

Why do you assume all educational reforms must have necessarially been made less than 20 years ago?

I don't, K^2's use of the present tense implied he was referring to the Soviet Union in the present day.

[K^2]

I don't, K^2's use of the present tense implied he was referring to the Soviet Union in the present day.

Just because the Soviet Union is gone, doesn't mean the principles they've used for something have stopped working.

And I was born in USSR and watched the tanks inbound to Moscow from my window when the Union collapsed, so it's not news to me.

[drakesdoom]

I have witnessed the horrid failure that is American education as of present. Their is no incentive for the student to think is the problem, the only thing tested and therefore rewarded is memorization. Anything else that might take up time like thinking about why and how is discouraged and punished.

I have heard the Japanese do a good job of grouping people of similar ability by having different levels of each school year. Lower achievers get simpler classes and stay in school less, while more advanced students get moved into accelerated schools and stay in school longer. I have heard a high-school grad in Japan is about on par with a Collage Bachelor grad in America.

[jwenting]

Personally, I'm very much in favour of open-ended learning, at least in subjects that support it (history, the sciences, computer programming).

For the vast majority of kids, that would mean majoring in Lady Gaga or collecting baseball pictures.

That's the problem with "free learning" ideas, the vast majority of kids don't want to learn, they want to be entertained and certainly not to think.

To vastly improve the education system:

1) disband the teachers' unions, do away with tenure

2) remove the idiotic "performance based" judging of teachers where their job performance is related solely to the average grades they hand out (and schools to the number of graduates)

3) get rid of (and that can go with 2) very well) the practice of teaching kids to pass tests, rather than to teach them skills

4) revert the politicisation of the curiculum, which is now more about political correctness and AGW propaganda than about teaching real skills.

5) start with strong language and reading skills. Any kid doesn't know English at age 5 well enough to read a decent book (and I don't mean a Disney cartoon) on its own to get remedial classes until it can, and not be allowed in any other classes so as to not slow down the teaching of the rest

6) yes, that means not bowing to accommodating the lowest common denominator in the classroom, slowing everyone down because one or two kids can't keep up. Take those apart from extra lessons instead.

[SpaceHole]

Get rid of the "No child left behind" mentality first of all. Getting people who are ahead properly educated is more important than looking after stragglers in the long run. These will be the researchers and teachers in the next generation. If you hold them back due to people who can't handle the program, next generation will fall even further behind.

I'm not saying we should just throw kids who aren't managing to keep up to the wolves, but a straight forward system can be devised where classes are split after a few years so that stronger students are studying with stronger students and better curriculum. Something like this has been implemented in Soviet Union and it works.

No its not - and it is pretty obvious to anyone. What do you think would it be like to live in a world were most of the people are left behind and threated like second class citizens?

Also most "ahead" people will probably not become teachers and most of them will probably also not end up in research.

If you split classes worse kids will get even wors. Point is by stigmatizing people that have a harder time learning you will end up making them even worse not to mention ruining their lives.

More support for smart kids - yes but also for not so smart kids - some sort of "elitist" society will fail pretty fast. If you make the mayority of people hate you and rob them of any future perspective - what do you think will happen?

Also from my point of view smart people especially have an moral obligation to help others aswell not to mention that its in their best self interrest aswell.

Just like rich people if they only care about themselves and generate ridiculous ammounts of money they will just end up in a "golden cage".

I have witnessed the horrid failure that is American education as of present. Their is no incentive for the student to think is the problem, the only thing tested and therefore rewarded is memorization. Anything else that might take up time like thinking about why and how is discouraged and punished.

I have heard the Japanese do a good job of grouping people of similar ability by having different levels of each school year. Lower achievers get simpler classes and stay in school less, while more advanced students get moved into accelerated schools and stay in school longer. I have heard a high-school grad in Japan is about on par with a Collage Bachelor grad in America.

Hmm i have no idea about the Japanese-eduction system but i hope its not as extreme as the chinese educational system.

For the vast majority of kids, that would mean majoring in Lady Gaga or collecting baseball pictures..

I doubt that most kids at least at the beginning are very eager to learn new things. Problem is the educational system kind of stops any motivation they had not to mention that obviously people have different interrests and having to force them to learn certain things will reduce their motivation.

To vastly improve the education system:

1) disband the teachers' unions, do away with tenure

3) get rid of (and that can go with 2) very well) the practice of teaching kids to pass tests, rather than to teach them skills

4) revert the politicisation of the curiculum, which is now more about political correctness and AGW propaganda than about teaching real skills.

Typical dinner-table talk.

so unions are bad - teach them "skills" obviously only the ones you think of as good - i dont even understand what point 4 is supposed to say

Edited September 10, 2013 by SpaceHole

[PakledHostage]

i dont even understand what point 4 is supposed to say

It means something along the lines of [slack jawed yokel twang]"they should be learnin' readin', 'ritin' and 'rithmetic"[/slack jawed yokel twang]

Edited September 10, 2013 by PakledHostage

[Zaeo]

A lot of us are overlooking some pretty big factors: A young child is curious. They want to try new things and experience them and find what they like. As for how to implement interest in these interests, I am at a total loss.

However, As I am 21, I believe i have a pretty good idea of how the schools are run, and yes, they are deplorable. Out of all the "core classes" I took, Only science really interested me.

Here's what I went though, I'll break it down to what I enjoyed and what i hated.

Science: I loved science from the start, especially physics and Astronomy. Physics had a surreal feel to it, always having a wonder factor that just kept me enthralled. Astronomy too. Biology wasn't really my thing, because the way it was presented, it was almost a taboo subject to talk about. If i had a different enviroment, this may have changed. Chemistry was 70% demonstration, and 30% memorization. I mean, yeah, we did do chemistry experiments. But we already knew the results before we started. that took all of the fun out of it. I was actually so good at Physics, it was my only AP class.

Math: This is a touch and go subject for me. Math in context is easy, whereas math without aim, is utterly unenjoyable, tedious busywork. Geometry was cool, as I had an awesome teacher who was a total Star wars Fanatic. He utilized his interest in that to teach us "The ways of the force" And "Dimensions of a light saber". As he was going off of his own math problems he created, he made it fun. we had to find the circumference of a lightsaber hilt, or if a jedi used force push to move a box*translation/rotation/scale* or crush it with the force into a more compact size. He used to say" Well, his quarters were very small, and the box had a volume less then the surface area of the box, so padawan *insert random name of the day here* decided to scale the box down using the force...forcibly... to make it fit." Anyways, that class i pulled a high grade, because it was always fun, and I was actively paying attention and grasping the concepts. A year later, I get thrown into Algebra I, where everything was taken out of the book...incredibly bland. I almost failed that, just enough to pass with a 60 D. Presentation goes a LONG way to improving scores.

Literature: Now this subject i am torn. I love reading, I love writing, But i HATE dissecting someones Writing. That consisted of 90% of my literature classes, from "Fine art" to "Literature and Biography Study". I would read, get drawn in, enjoy the hell out of the book...Then realized I'm now 5 chapters ahead of the class, and now know FAR too much. This made it extremely difficult to write an accurate "telling" of the chapter though my perspective and opinions on it. Tests in this class were a complete and utter WASTE of time. we had to study books for some tests, and pull quotes from the story to prove we read them...That's just retarded. I understand they are trying to train your memory, but to do that is just wasted time in my eyes. I'll remember if I deem it important enough to remember.

Phys-Ed: Kind of a Null factor for me. I never had PE classes all throughout my life. I am not in the best medical condition...though from the sidelines I found PE to be "over budget" and "overly glorified". Why the HELL does a High school need a brand new turf when the old turf is perfectly acceptable and still usable? Why does it need Expensive Aluminium bleachers, When all you really need is some lawn chairs and a Staggered dirt plateau to raise the chairs different levels? Why a overview tower if you can't hear the Play by play at a game ANYWAYS? Total Waste of money that could go into improving teachers/students environments. Its a School, Not a Stadium.

I think that there needs to be a lesser focus on "core groups" and a greater in "Extra-curricular" activities, ranging from art to manufacturing, all the way to computer programming. I would have loved to have the ability to have a very large selection of classes. I moved around a lot. In florida, I had classes in TV Production, a pre-cursor to film and video industries. That was extremely fun for me, and I absorbed and excelled in it. Also, they had a Robotics class, Which had sparked programming as an interest for me, Plus, robotic programming is a form of "Instant Gratification" when something you program it to do works the way you want it to.

In Michigan, They had their own Planetarium, And where I lived, there was almost no light pollution, so I could clearly see the stars in far greater detail than I had ever seen. This sparked an interest in two ways for me. The first, being space. As you can see, this has stuck with me, and is still one of my greatest interests. The second thing this did for me was spark interest in "Space art" as I had taken a Graphics design class for photoshop. I had actually joined Business Professionals of America entry, a flyer. I didn't win, as art is heavily based on opinion, and the fact that I had overlooked one of the elements needed...That was due to an over-burdened teacher not having enough time for their students to make sure everything was there.*it was 5 words of text...kind of annoying really*

Anyways, As a result of shifting around in my highschool years, I had the chance to experience and gain personal interests in 4 fields. Of which I enjoy two as a hobby, and two as my occupation.

I am both a Website designer, and a 3D artist. I play space games and enjoy talking about space travel. I find Physics and Theorycrafting/discussing to be incredibly fun.

The point is, If you want to focus on a subject, it should be the first priority over tedious "core skill" classes that make students stress out and hate school.

[NGTOne]

A lot of us are overlooking some pretty big factors: A young child is curious. They want to try new things and experience them and find what they like. As for how to implement interest in these interests, I am at a total loss.

However, As I am 21, I believe i have a pretty good idea of how the schools are run, and yes, they are deplorable. Out of all the "core classes" I took, Only science really interested me.

Here's what I went though, I'll break it down to what I enjoyed and what i hated.

Science: I loved science from the start, especially physics and Astronomy. Physics had a surreal feel to it, always having a wonder factor that just kept me enthralled. Astronomy too. Biology wasn't really my thing, because the way it was presented, it was almost a taboo subject to talk about. If i had a different enviroment, this may have changed. Chemistry was 70% demonstration, and 30% memorization. I mean, yeah, we did do chemistry experiments. But we already knew the results before we started. that took all of the fun out of it. I was actually so good at Physics, it was my only AP class.

Math: This is a touch and go subject for me. Math in context is easy, whereas math without aim, is utterly unenjoyable, tedious busywork. Geometry was cool, as I had an awesome teacher who was a total Star wars Fanatic. He utilized his interest in that to teach us "The ways of the force" And "Dimensions of a light saber". As he was going off of his own math problems he created, he made it fun. we had to find the circumference of a lightsaber hilt, or if a jedi used force push to move a box*translation/rotation/scale* or crush it with the force into a more compact size. He used to say" Well, his quarters were very small, and the box had a volume less then the surface area of the box, so padawan *insert random name of the day here* decided to scale the box down using the force...forcibly... to make it fit." Anyways, that class i pulled a high grade, because it was always fun, and I was actively paying attention and grasping the concepts. A year later, I get thrown into Algebra I, where everything was taken out of the book...incredibly bland. I almost failed that, just enough to pass with a 60 D. Presentation goes a LONG way to improving scores.

Literature: Now this subject i am torn. I love reading, I love writing, But i HATE dissecting someones Writing. That consisted of 90% of my literature classes, from "Fine art" to "Literature and Biography Study". I would read, get drawn in, enjoy the hell out of the book...Then realized I'm now 5 chapters ahead of the class, and now know FAR too much. This made it extremely difficult to write an accurate "telling" of the chapter though my perspective and opinions on it. Tests in this class were a complete and utter WASTE of time. we had to study books for some tests, and pull quotes from the story to prove we read them...That's just retarded. I understand they are trying to train your memory, but to do that is just wasted time in my eyes. I'll remember if I deem it important enough to remember.

Phys-Ed: Kind of a Null factor for me. I never had PE classes all throughout my life. I am not in the best medical condition...though from the sidelines I found PE to be "over budget" and "overly glorified". Why the HELL does a High school need a brand new turf when the old turf is perfectly acceptable and still usable? Why does it need Expensive Aluminium bleachers, When all you really need is some lawn chairs and a Staggered dirt plateau to raise the chairs different levels? Why a overview tower if you can't hear the Play by play at a game ANYWAYS? Total Waste of money that could go into improving teachers/students environments. Its a School, Not a Stadium.

I think that there needs to be a lesser focus on "core groups" and a greater in "Extra-curricular" activities, ranging from art to manufacturing, all the way to computer programming. I would have loved to have the ability to have a very large selection of classes. I moved around a lot. In florida, I had classes in TV Production, a pre-cursor to film and video industries. That was extremely fun for me, and I absorbed and excelled in it. Also, they had a Robotics class, Which had sparked programming as an interest for me, Plus, robotic programming is a form of "Instant Gratification" when something you program it to do works the way you want it to.

In Michigan, They had their own Planetarium, And where I lived, there was almost no light pollution, so I could clearly see the stars in far greater detail than I had ever seen. This sparked an interest in two ways for me. The first, being space. As you can see, this has stuck with me, and is still one of my greatest interests. The second thing this did for me was spark interest in "Space art" as I had taken a Graphics design class for photoshop. I had actually joined Business Professionals of America entry, a flyer. I didn't win, as art is heavily based on opinion, and the fact that I had overlooked one of the elements needed...That was due to an over-burdened teacher not having enough time for their students to make sure everything was there.*it was 5 words of text...kind of annoying really*

Anyways, As a result of shifting around in my highschool years, I had the chance to experience and gain personal interests in 4 fields. Of which I enjoy two as a hobby, and two as my occupation.

I am both a Website designer, and a 3D artist. I play space games and enjoy talking about space travel. I find Physics and Theorycrafting/discussing to be incredibly fun.

The point is, If you want to focus on a subject, it should be the first priority over tedious "core skill" classes that make students stress out and hate school.

Well said. Children are naturally curious, but primary education seems especially geared to grind curiosity out of them, as opposed to rewarding it. Because of the formatting of standardized tests, teaching facts and figures (which, naturally, appear on the test) is encouraged over allowing students to roam over the subject matter (set guidelines, but allow them to explore, which helps with preventing the "Lady Gaga problem", mentioned above - think of a restricted sandbox, and you get the basic picture). The end result is, of course, children that hate knowledge, because to them, knowledge is uninteresting, dry, and reeks of authoritarian teachers trying to shove it into their heads. I've found that, overall, ESPECIALLY at the high-school level, allowing students some free reign over the material (again, with guidelines and a certain amount of teacher approval) generally results in higher student satisfaction and engagement. Perfect example: my grade 11 ancient history class (yes, it was nominally an elective, but it was part of a set of alternatives - either ancient history, or another science, or something to that effect - that you needed to graduate, which means that a lot of the students there weren't necessarily history buffs). There were a number of different "free-range" projects - a couple of my favourites were the paired assignments: given the technology of the time and the material you've learned in class, devise a plan for the construction of Stonehenge (and, for the second assignment, in greater detail, the Egyptian Pyramids). The final project was a combination research paper/seminar - I was no slouch (yes, I'm ever so modest, aren't I?), and I was very impressed with some of the other students' presentations - ironically enough, some of the students I believed to be academic underperformers actually turned in some of the best projects. The thing that set this project apart was that the subject of the paper could be anything related to the class material - I personally chose to do a comparative study of ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian architecture, which was something I found interesting, but had not been covered in class at all. I got the teacher's sign-off on it, and off I went. That's the kind of open-field learning I advocate for - a sandbox, with boundaries, to allow exploration and expansion on the core material.