As non-violent as I'm becoming in my old age, I'm wondering if a little too much is being made about "bullying." Kids are kids and they run on hormones, some pretty vigorous horse play is part of growing up. At the same time, I do remember a few instances that would probably qualify as the sort of bullying folks seem up in arms about today. Let's just not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or something.
you are also becoming more repetitive in your old age, too
back when i was a kid, some of our favorite recess games were Kill The Man With The Ball and it's slightly less violent version Keep Away. FSM help ya on your birthday. you'd be chased down and given your birthday punches by multiple kids. no one died. no one even lost an eye.
every now and then, my 6th grade teacher would yell "rumble in the coatroom". use your imagination.
As non-violent as I'm becoming in my old age, I'm wondering if a little too much is being made about "bullying." Kids are kids and they run on hormones, some pretty vigorous horse play is part of growing up. At the same time, I do remember a few instances that would probably qualify as the sort of bullying folks seem up in arms about today. Let's just not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or something.
back when i was a kid, some of our favorite recess games were Kill The Man With The Ball and it's slightly less violent version Keep Away. FSM help ya on your birthday. you'd be chased down and given your birthday punches by multiple kids. no one died. no one even lost an eye.
every now and then, my 6th grade teacher would yell "rumble in the coatroom". use your imagination.
That wasn't so much an analysis, as it was an assertion.
And the 'why are "we"' question was pretty much answered right after it was asked, though one can easily argue with that answer as well. My point is that economic performance (or wealth on any scale) is based on way more factors than education and skill sets.
Absolutely.
And as Kurt will tell you, the fact that US adults are not as sharp as their counterparts in other countries makes us that much more likely to buy the official government explanations of everything, from 9/11 to how fish get pregnant, making us much more easily ruled by the elite, secret societies in charge.
Well, if you're going to object to coarse analysis or sweeping generalities regarding national economies and such, you shouldn't be looking at studies comparing vaguely defined abstract concepts like "21st century adult skills" in the first place.
That wasn't so much an analysis, as it was an assertion.
And the 'why are "we"' question was pretty much answered right after it was asked, though one can easily argue with that answer as well. My point is that economic performance (or wealth on any scale) is based on way more factors than education and skill sets.
The robustness of your economy? Now there's another complex topic if there ever was one.
Well, if you're going to object to coarse analysis or sweeping generalities regarding national economies and such, you shouldn't be looking at studies comparing vaguely defined abstract concepts like "21st century adult skills" in the first place.
When he said "we" are "rich", I don't think he was talking about cumulative wealth of individuals, but the robustness of the economy. And economic competitiveness has been cited as a major justification for repeated waves of educational reform ever since the absurd propaganda of A Nation at Risk.
The robustness of your economy? Now there's another complex topic if there ever was one.
What's the correlation between intelligence and wealth? I am sure you can come up with some examples of wealth that didn't really need intelligence (though intelligence can be and tends to be redefined as needed, i.e. IQ, emotial IQ, social IQ, etc., etc.). Are top performers in, oh let's say banks, really all that more intelligent? That's not what people like Kahneman suggests. Are drug lords more intelligent?
I agree that not everybody needs to be a high performer, but I do think that we're increasingly embedded in technology-rich environments, even if it's just through the use of computers/internet or smart phones, etc.
It doesn't seem to use just averages... And the differences might not be all that great either.
When he said "we" are "rich", I don't think he was talking about cumulative wealth of individuals, but the robustness of the economy. And economic competitiveness has been cited as a major justification for repeated waves of educational reform ever since the absurd propaganda of A Nation at Risk.
Seriously, as Carneveale asks in the Times article, if we're so dumb, why are we so rich?
I suspect this study, like previous international comparisons of students (school aged children) from different countries, compares averages. As Gerald Bracey has pointed out, comparing averages doesn't make much sense. It's probably much more relevant to compare percentages of high performers in different countries. We certainly want leaders and innovators in various fields to be skilled and technically competent. Does your average person really need to have a mastery of basic algebra, and "problem solving in technology-rich environments"? I think most average farmers only need skills involving problem solving in fertilizer-rich environments.
Education isn't just about work, it's about life—and making sense of it. And figuring out when you're being lied to.
Seriously, as Carneveale asks in the Times article, if we're so dumb, why are we so rich?
I suspect this study, like previous international comparisons of students (school aged children) from different countries, compares averages. As Gerald Bracey has pointed out, comparing averages doesn't make much sense. It's probably much more relevant to compare percentages of high performers in different countries. We certainly want leaders and innovators in various fields to be skilled and technically competent. Does your average person really need to have a mastery of basic algebra, and "problem solving in technology-rich environments"? I think most average farmers only need skills involving problem solving in fertilizer-rich environments.
What's the correlation between intelligence and wealth? I am sure you can come up with some examples of wealth that didn't really need intelligence (though intelligence can be and tends to be redefined as needed, i.e. IQ, emotial IQ, social IQ, etc., etc.). Are top performers in, oh let's say banks, really all that more intelligent? That's not what people like Kahneman suggests. Are drug lords more intelligent?
I agree that not everybody needs to be a high performer, but I do think that we're increasingly embedded in technology-rich environments, even if it's just through the use of computers/internet or smart phones, etc.
It doesn't seem to use just averages... And the differences might not be all that great either.
American adults lag well behind their counterparts in most other developed countries in the mathematical and technical skills needed for a modern workplace, according to a study released Tuesday.
The study, perhaps the most detailed of its kind, shows that the well-documented pattern of several other countries surging past the United States in students’ test scores and young people’s college graduation rates corresponds to a skills gap, extending far beyond school. In the United States, young adults in particular fare poorly compared with their international competitors of the same ages — not just in math and technology, but also in literacy.
More surprisingly, even middle-aged Americans — who, on paper, are among the best-educated people of their generation anywhere in the world — are barely better than middle of the pack in skills. (...)
Seriously, as Carneveale asks in the Times article, if we're so dumb, why are we so rich?
I suspect this study, like previous international comparisons of students (school aged children) from different countries, compares averages. As Gerald Bracey has pointed out, comparing averages doesn't make much sense. It's probably much more relevant to compare percentages of high performers in different countries. We certainly want leaders and innovators in various fields to be skilled and technically competent. Does your average person really need to have a mastery of basic algebra, and "problem solving in technology-rich environments"? I think most average farmers only need skills involving problem solving in fertilizer-rich environments.
American adults lag well behind their counterparts in most other developed countries in the mathematical and technical skills needed for a modern workplace, according to a study released Tuesday.
The study, perhaps the most detailed of its kind, shows that the well-documented pattern of several other countries surging past the United States in students’ test scores and young people’s college graduation rates corresponds to a skills gap, extending far beyond school. In the United States, young adults in particular fare poorly compared with their international competitors of the same ages — not just in math and technology, but also in literacy.
More surprisingly, even middle-aged Americans — who, on paper, are among the best-educated people of their generation anywhere in the world — are barely better than middle of the pack in skills. (...)
A suburban Los Angeles school district is now looking at the public postings on social media by middle and high school students, searching for possible violence, drug use, bullying, truancy and suicidal threats.
The district in Glendale, California, is paying $40,500 to a firm to monitor and report on 14,000 middle and high school students' posts on Twitter, Facebook and other social media for one year.
Though critics liken the monitoring to government stalking, school officials and their contractor say the purpose is student safety. (...)
Let's go back and reexamine your notion that these reformers pushing charter schools that are funded by taxpayers are noble reformers who are simply trying to offer parents choices. When you look at this argument, it falls apart. School choice is something that has already been tried without the need for giving tax revenue to charter schools, and actually exists in various forms throughout the country. In Arlington, VA for example, you can send your child to any elementary school in the county. The different schools are set up differently, with different focuses, if I remember correctly. One is a traditional school that appeals to parents who think their children will benefit from that sort of environment; another is an arts focused school, still another focuses on math/science/technology. Google "open enrollment public schools" to find other examples. So I fail to see why we need to shove money towards for-profit educational companies to reconduct an experiment that has already been tried.
And open enrollment is something a lot of parents like. Why does it not spread? Cost issues, I would guess. It mostly exists in municipalities that are fairly geographically contained. It probably would not be economically feasible in Montana, say, because most states in the US are very stingy with money for education. The market that you insist is needed to give you choice is not going to solve the lack of funding issue, is it?
Let's face it; the people behind privatization and market-based reform are in business to make money. That's their goal, and they basically try to steer the political conversation to make extracting taxpayer money from public schools and giving it to charter schools seem a noble and principled thing to do. If they really had noble aims, they'd establish a foundation to fully fund private schools in high poverty areas in the US, and offer any student who wanted it free tuition to attend them. If they really believed in market-based educational solutions but chafed at the regulatory requirements that US schools are subject to, they can take their noble aspirations to Somalia (which currently enrolls only about a third of their children in primary school) and establish a market-based educational system free of the regulations governing education that exist in pretty much every US state.
Look, this only works if each reads what the other writes and responds to that. If you keep responding to what you wished I'd said that may be fun, but it's not a debate.
I haven't made the argument you're so keen to take issue with, but now that you're brought it up I will. I do have a huge amount of respect for those who are actually out there trying to make education work; they will be vilified for it, their efforts will be misrepresented, their motives will be questioned, and the deeply entrenched interests involved will fight very dirty to ensure they fail. There must be easier ways to make a living.
If I follow your logic, because parents in Arlington, VA can already enroll their kids in different public schools there's no reason parents in Fresno or Anchorage to be able to have any say in the school their children go to. This experiment has been tried, and we don't need to repeat it...because it failed? That must be why it's so popular with parents: we love failed educational experiments on our kids.
Open enrollment only costs more if the school district pays to transport the kids to the school of their choice (Arlington, for instance, doesn't provide such transport); the kids' addresses don't make them more expensive to educate. If you know of any other cost drivers feel free to point them out, but every other school reform effort seems to require more money to implement. In fact, if you ask the education interests how to improve school outcomes they need they'll generally answer with...more money. But I digress.
Why hasn't it spread? It has, you can read all about it here. As for Montana (you can see policies for every state in the union here) I can send my kids to any school in my district, or in any other district. I have to arrange transportation myself outside my own district, but the schools are open. Some schools limit the fraction of students allowed in from outside the school's turf and there are often other obstacles, but as of 2009 16% of students nationwide were attending a "school of choice." Are the parents of these students just morons, or do they have their children's interest at heart? Tell us why is this a bad thing, why they shouldn't be trusted with choices like this.
You seem fixated on privatization, as if that was all that was involved here. Charter/magnet schools can be run by school districts too, but in general they turn to private companies because they claim experience and can get a program started quicker, plus they aren't already captive to the forces that are causing the problems they're trying to solve. Why is it OK to run, say, a chain of coffee shops to make money but evil to make a living running a school? Or should Starbucks liquidate itself and form a foundation to provide free coffee to the public thru a government-run program too?
The jurisdiction contracting to set up a charter school can set its budget wherever they want. If they want to limit them to what a regular school costs (or less) there's nothing stopping them. As long as opting into the school is voluntary they will succeed or fail based on how well they educate. Or do you take issue with this? You seem to be allergic to allowing parents to vote with their feet, but so far you haven't provided any rationale for this.
You've claimed that fixating on test scores is part of the plot to privatize public schools, and when you criticize efforts at reform the basis of your claim of failure is...test scores. I'm going to repeat an earlier question:
Should I keep my kid in a bad school on principle?
What would that principle be, exactly, and why is it more important than educating my kid?
If test score obsession = "market-based" then our entire public school system is "market-based". I think you should drop this line of reasoning before it collapses from the weight of its own silliness.
Lazy8 wrote:
A market-based reform would involve choices by customers (students, parents) driving policy. Not seeing that in the efforts criticized here.
Then I don't think you've actually looked at the main report they cite. It looked at the impact of "increased charter school access on student outcomes in Chicago, New York City, and Washington DC". These three cities have all been used as test beds of sorts to try and show off how privatizing education, or increasing choice by promoting charter schools, will allegedly improve education and close the achievement gap between at risk kids and children of well-educated, relatively wealthy parents.
Yes, I read it. I also read the report much of its criticism of charter schools is based on, the Stanford CREDO 2009 study. The CREDO 2009 study did not include New York (that was a separate study, which found significant gains in student outcomes at NYC charter schools). Arkansas, Colorado (Denver), Illinois (Chicago), Louisiana, and Missouri all showed significant gains from their charter schools, while others showed no improvement or were actually worse.
Let's think about that a minute. According to EPI the students improving their educations in places with effective charter schools should abandon that effort, because schools elsewhere are underperforming. Wouldn't a more constructive approach be to look at what the best-performing schools are doing and try to spread best practices?
By the way—the evaluations of those charter schools that these studies used? Student test scores.
There's another evaluation that might merit consideration: parents willingness to enroll their children in charter schools. In most charter schools there are significantly more applications than seats (in DC that number is 22,000—out of about 80,600, 34,673 of whom already attend charter schools). Either the people closest to the issue are real dopes or they know something that isn't reflected in these studies. Maybe the charter schools have fewer incidents of violence or bullying. Maybe the learning experience is richer—kids learn things that aren't on the standardized tests, for instance. I don't know, but I'm not going to stand outside and tell those parents they're wrong.
Oops—that would be a market-based approach. Can't have that.
Then why have these sorts of market-based solutions (vouchers, charter schools, etc.) been promoted as an overall strategy to improve education in general? They're not being promoted as a forum to evaluate new ideas in education (indeed, public schools have for over a century served as laboratories for various reform efforts). They're being promoted as a means to improve education by their mere existence side by side with public and traditional private schools. They seem to theorize that their presence and support by politicians will foster "competition" that will raise educational outcomes all around.
In a market-based approach if what my kid's school is doing isn't working I can send my kid somewhere else. The market isn't solving the problem, it's allowing me to solve it. Whether the school improves to attract students or not, at least my kid isn't stuck there while it fails. Should I keep my kid in a bad school on principle?
What would that principle be, exactly, and why is it more important than educating my kid?
I guess if you don't like the message, you criticize the messenger, right?
Let's go back and reexamine your notion that these reformers pushing charter schools that are funded by taxpayers are noble reformers who are simply trying to offer parents choices. When you look at this argument, it falls apart. School choice is something that has already been tried without the need for giving tax revenue to charter schools, and actually exists in various forms throughout the country. In Arlington, VA for example, you can send your child to any elementary school in the county. The different schools are set up differently, with different focuses, if I remember correctly. One is a traditional school that appeals to parents who think their children will benefit from that sort of environment; another is an arts focused school, still another focuses on math/science/technology. Google "open enrollment public schools" to find other examples. So I fail to see why we need to shove money towards for-profit educational companies to reconduct an experiment that has already been tried.
And open enrollment is something a lot of parents like. Why does it not spread? Cost issues, I would guess. It mostly exists in municipalities that are fairly geographically contained. It probably would not be economically feasible in Montana, say, because most states in the US are very stingy with money for education. The market that you insist is needed to give you choice is not going to solve the lack of funding issue, is it?
Let's face it; the people behind privatization and market-based reform are in business to make money. That's their goal, and they basically try to steer the political conversation to make extracting taxpayer money from public schools and giving it to charter schools seem a noble and principled thing to do. If they really had noble aims, they'd establish a foundation to fully fund private schools in high poverty areas in the US, and offer any student who wanted it free tuition to attend them. If they really believed in market-based educational solutions but chafed at the regulatory requirements that US schools are subject to, they can take their noble aspirations to Somalia (which currently enrolls only about a third of their children in primary school) and establish a market-based educational system free of the regulations governing education that exist in pretty much every US state.
EDIT: "Spreading best practices": This is a beguiling notion that has been at the bottom of a great deal of school reform effort. Unfortunately, school reform isn't something that is reproducible in the sense of using a cookie cutter and stamping out successful schools one after the other simply by introducing a different curriculum, or hiring different teachers/administrators, or painting the walls a different color. They have been trying for decades to replicate the results of truly outstanding schools like Central Park East, but it's like trying to replicate a Stradivarius. Successful schools that perform better than average consistently over time are grown one at a time, basically. It seems that what is essential is buy-in from all of the people involved: teachers, parents, community members. There has to be a shared, agreed-upon vision of what education means (i.e. what is the school's job? prepare students for employment? for college? teach them the classics? etc.), and there needs to be trust, collaboration, and patience to give the new approach time to bear fruit. In our country, unfortunately, these types of "best practices" hardly ever get spread, because politicians have little patience, and don't see such an old-fashioned approach as one which will garner them votes. So they look for educational gimmicks to set themselves apart.
