Idea for education reform

[Scheavo]

So I was thinking the other day that one major problem with our educational system is that we have teachers for one year. If we had teacher's for a longer period of time, it would allow for a deeper relationship to form, and thus be more important. I don't think it would be good for it to run the whole way, but say 1-4 grade, 5-8 and 9-12 have a specific teacher, later being for a specific subject. Match kids with a teacher, take time to make sure it'll be a good fit, and don't force every subject on every kid (so no standardized testing).

Thoughts on this?

[sonatafanica]

i don't think that's really a major problem in the education system. and maybe standardized testing has a few things wrong with it, but taking courses in a lot of areas and getting a well-rounded education is, well...what school is about in its purest form. just learn as much as you can about all the stuff in the world.

[Riceball]

I quite like that idea. I had the same teachers for maths, history and economics in both of my final years of high school (which are the two "assessment years" for lack of a better term) and I definately felt more comfortable in these classes. Probably helped that the teachers were awesome though.

I wouldn't have thought that primary school would be as important though (so years 1 to 7 in Australia) as its more about learning to basics and developing social/learning skills. The actual "learning" occurs in high school.

From first glance, it almost seems like the way that teaching works now, as in the "one year" thing, is more of a product of the old way of teaching rather than the focus on skills and outcomes which exists now. On that basis, too, I like it.

I'd say it has merit, for sure, on face value. I'm not sure how the US system works re: specialised teachers and stuff, so are you saying you would have A science teacher, A maths teacher, A english teacher etc?

[Genowyn]

From Grade 10 through 12 I had the same English teacher every year. In Grade 12 I actually had two courses with her, Writer's Craft and AP English. I think having the same teacher for three years was definitely beneficial...in Grade 9 my essays were horseshit, but by the first year of Uni I could write an A essay in a few hours with no preparation 

[Scheavo]

I quite like that idea. I had the same teachers for maths, history and economics in both of my final years of high school (which are the two "assessment years" for lack of a better term) and I definately felt more comfortable in these classes. Probably helped that the teachers were awesome though.

I think the quality of teacher's is probably the most difficult thing to account for. Even there though, I think overall, those bad teachers would be better if they had the same students for several years. There'd be more personal investment for them, becuase they have the same students the next year.

And there was some teacher's in high school I didn't really think were that awesome, that other people loved, and vica versa.

i don't think that's really a major problem in the education system. and maybe standardized testing has a few things wrong with it, but taking courses in a lot of areas and getting a well-rounded education is, well...what school is about in its purest form. just learn as much as you can about all the stuff in the world.

Forcing everyone into the same mold is bad for everyone, though. Instead of a lot of people getting a well-rounded education, it usually means most people get none, and some get a well-rounded education, becuase that's more their style. People view and interact with the world differently, their learning styles and behaviors are going to be different. If you engage the student correctly, then you can spark interest, which leads to actually learning, and caring about all the stuff in the world.

[El Barto]

Aside from the possibility of getting saddled with a really crappy teacher (and that happened to me at one point),  there's also a benefit to encountering a greater number of personalities.  You see tons of your peers, all unique,  but only a handful of teachers who assume the authority role.  Throughout my educational career,  I saw plenty of average teachers,  a small handful of really great ones, and quite a few dipshits/assholes.  I think it's important to interact with all of them.

[Scheavo]

Aside from the possibility of getting saddled with a really crappy teacher (and that happened to me at one point),  there's also a benefit to encountering a greater number of personalities. 

Well, you'd still have a variety of teachers, but the more I've thought about it, the more I think there needs to be more overturn, or possibility of overturn. Or maybe, instead of having one teacher for every subject, we basically just add a "philosopher"-type (now I'm just trying to find a job for myself...) who works with the students over a longer period of time than a year.

[Implode]

Aside from the possibility of getting saddled with a really crappy teacher (and that happened to me at one point),  there's also a benefit to encountering a greater number of personalities.  You see tons of your peers, all unique,  but only a handful of teachers who assume the authority role.  Throughout my educational career,  I saw plenty of average teachers,  a small handful of really great ones, and quite a few dipshits/assholes.  I think it's important to interact with all of them.

I agree with this. You can learn so many different things about the same subject by learning it from different people. And I wouldn't want to be with a teacher that is horrible or just isn't compatible with for 4 years.

[Orthogonal]

This could be a good idea, but the main problem is that there is virtually no experimentation with different model's because it is all a directive from the government. The public school's don't have a feedback system alerting them to what work's and what doesn't. The children themselves (who are the customer's), have almost zero influence on what they get in their curriculum. Obviously, they wouldn't decide everything since they are still learning, but the fact is they have almost no say in their own education. Ever since the advent of the Department of Education, the practice of teaching in school's has stagnated. There is virtually no innovation from within and the only improvements are from external sources like technology. We still have the same basic setup of over a hundred years ago. A teacher in front of a chalk board (now dry erase) talking to students.

We also have the non-sense where the school's funding is provided by taxes and grants. This makes economic calculation impossible since there is no way to determine a school's efficiency and success. What sense does it make to say that a school's revenue is proportional to the local communities property value and level of income? It's complete lunacy. Until there is a true market for education, all the school's will be wandering in the dark of mediocrity.

[Ben_Jamin]

Pretty much if you want to learn you'll learn as we learn our whole lives. What teachers need to tell students in High School is "its up to you to decide what you want to learn, but the world will reveal what you need to learn" also, to think about the future of where you want to be in 5 years because before you know it 5 years will be here in a snap.

Basically, communication is key, if the teacher isn't doing well let them know what they're doing so they can at least try and change things up.

The standardized testing sucked because it just took time from learning. The real success comes from the SAT/ACT, knowing you can go to any college you want.

But then, its not that its the teachers. Its the students life problems that get in the way of their focus on learning. Either personal, or just having too much fun to not care about school.

As someone who graduated 5 years ago, I regret not doing these things at times. But I know, its not just one thing that's wrong with the education system. Its many things, and what I said is what I feel are some of the problems.

[El Barto]

It's complete lunacy. Until there is a true market for education, all the school's will be wandering in the dark of mediocrity.

And after that,  only the most populated 75% will be. 

[73109]

I haven't read the thread, but I must say, I don't quite like the idea. As much as I think having my most awesome teachers for more than one year, (I'm going to have my favorite teacher next year; that would make 2) being exposed to a bunch of different people and a bunch of different methods of teaching is better than being in a bubble. Good or bad, every teacher I have had as benefited me in some way, and sticking with the same teacher would deprive kids of the experience of dealing with a bunch of folk.

[Nick]

I think it's good to learn from a variety of teachers. With a very limited number of teachers each student runs a risk of having a very poor or very good education. I think the broad teacher base levels the playing field for everyone, and I like that it probably makes students think. By that I mean they have to adapt to various situations and deal with a larger number of overseers. That kind of experience better helps with relationships in the world after school I think.

[Orion1967]

Learning from a variety of techers is a good thing and in agreement with El Barto, if you get stuck with that bad teacher you are pretty much fucked at that point....

I would take the (probably) unpopular opinion that we start rasing the bar a little on expectations from teachers.  After all the cheating that went on here in Atlanta's Public Schools recently on standardized tests, I think it proved my opinion about standardized tests true.  Also the interviews the local news channels did with teachers and administrators made one cringe at the lack of the levels of common literacy in teachers today.  Administrators who tried to speak using big, important sounding words but using them awkwardly only made them look like imbeciles.   I think teacher accountability is the key. 

[PraXis]

Teachers' unions are the problem.

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204226204576601232986845102.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#articleTabs=article

[Nick]

I agree unions do present many problems, and no longer serve the great purpose they once did. I'm generally against unions, but with them I do have a few specific gripes. Horrible teachers can maintain their jobs, steadily being paid more and more while young and talented teachers struggle to find work even though they'd end up being paid less than a bad tenured teacher. It's an atmosphere of feast or famine. Such a struggle to get started, but once you do there is little motivation to try and improve and carry on with excellence.

Not at all saying that is all there is to the problem, but it's always been a big problem in my mind.

I'm also very in favor of vouchers to private schools, whether they be religious or not. Every child deserves an education, but families should have a choice on where the money that is going to be spent on their child is spent. In almost any case families would still be paying more than the worth of the voucher to send a kid outside of public school, but competition should be heightened in this way.

[Orion1967]

I agree unions do present many problems, and no longer serve the great purpose they once did. I'm generally against unions, but with them I do have a few specific gripes. Horrible teachers can maintain their jobs, steadily being paid more and more while young and talented teachers struggle to find work even though they'd end up being paid less than a bad tenured teacher. It's an atmosphere of feast or famine. Such a struggle to get started, but once you do there is little motivation to try and improve and carry on with excellence.

Not at all saying that is all there is to the problem, but it's always been a big problem in my mind.

I'm also very in favor of vouchers to private schools, whether they be religious or not. Every child deserves an education, but families should have a choice on where the money that is going to be spent on their child is spent. In almost any case families would still be paying more than the worth of the voucher to send a kid outside of public school, but competition should be heightened in this way.

I fear that we will never turely see vouchers implemented to the degree neccessary.  The problem is that in order to do a voucher the right way you would be taking money away from the public school system and putting it into the private school system.   This is something that the government I think would never allow to happen.  Both my kids are in college now so I wouldn't get any sort of benefit from them but I still feel they are the right thing to do.

[PraXis]

The voucher system was working great in D.C., but the current administration forced the program to end.

[Orion1967]

The voucher system was working great in D.C., but the current administration forced the program to end.

Why was it ended?

[PraXis]

The voucher system was working great in D.C., but the current administration forced the program to end.

Why was it ended?

It makes the NEA look bad.

https://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/02/obama_and_vouchers.html

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703396404576283381160558552.html

Vouchers = less money and power for the teachers' unions.

[73109]

Oh god...vouchers.

[Orion1967]

Oh god...vouchers.

did vouchers do you wrong somehow?  Elaborate please.

[73109]

It's an awful system. They are taking a failing economic system and are trying it implement it into an already failing education system.

[Scheavo]

This could be a good idea, but the main problem is that there is virtually no experimentation with different model's because it is all a directive from the government. The public school's don't have a feedback system alerting them to what work's and what doesn't. The children themselves (who are the customer's), have almost zero influence on what they get in their curriculum. Obviously, they wouldn't decide everything since they are still learning, but the fact is they have almost no say in their own education. Ever since the advent of the Department of Education, the practice of teaching in school's has stagnated. There is virtually no innovation from within and the only improvements are from external sources like technology. We still have the same basic setup of over a hundred years ago. A teacher in front of a chalk board (now dry erase) talking to students.

So, in suggesting an idea to reform the system, you bring up how the system currently is as a reason for why it can't be done. ?

We also have the non-sense where the school's funding is provided by taxes and grants. This makes economic calculation impossible since there is no way to determine a school's efficiency and success. What sense does it make to say that a school's revenue is proportional to the local communities property value and level of income? It's complete lunacy. Until there is a true market for education, all the school's will be wandering in the dark of mediocrity.

? I don't know what the first part has to do with the last part, but I think there's something to be said about the latter.

[Ħ]

One answer for educational reform: Khan Academy

[Jamesman42]

One answer for educational reform: Khan Academy

How?

I have been showing my students that website (students struggling with geometry and students taking SAT's in the coming months) and it is great for supplementing the learning.

[Ħ]

it is great for supplementing the learning.

FTFY

[Jamesman42]

lol at not explaining your stance

[Ħ]

Just from personal experience, I learn about twice as efficiently from Khan's videos than I do from lecture. 

As for actual statistics to see if students perform better with learning based on the videos with real life teachers as a supplement, I think they are working with a math class in a school in the US, I think.

But the idea is brilliant and I think it's the way of the future for worldwide education.

A basic breakdown to those that don't know about it yet, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM95HHI4gLk&feature=channel_video_title

[livehard]

I dont understand why vouchers haven't caught on more quickly.  If you look at where they have been implimented, correctly (i.e. where they haven't been able to give parents the ability to hold teachers accountable by choosing not to go to certain schools that have failed their kids) they have been wildely popular.  Even in the so called "socialist" sweeden, I believe they have them, and they are wildly popular.

[PraXis]

I dont understand why vouchers haven't caught on more quickly.  If you look at where they have been implimented, correctly (i.e. where they haven't been able to give parents the ability to hold teachers accountable by choosing not to go to certain schools that have failed their kids) they have been wildely popular.  Even in the so called "socialist" sweeden, I believe they have them, and they are wildly popular.

It's like that in Belgium too. They tie the money to the kid.. so if parents don't like School A and choose School B, then A LOSES that money for that particular student and B gets it.

Could you imagine if members of the NEA had to actually compete? 

[livehard]

But this is what the dems dont seem to understand. You want to hold the teachers, administrators, beurocrats responsible for failing schools? The marketplace is the best way to do that.  You fail you're out of a job, you succeed you get more money.  Just like any other job, in any other industry.  What you get from the competitive nature of the market is a improved product (education).

[Scheavo]

Okay, new idea:

We should separate "college" sports from education in college. We shouldn't be publicly subsidizing the farm system for the NBA, MLB, NFL, etc. There's a huge difference between club sports in College (which would still give schools a way to compete with each other, and all that other school spirity things people like) and the active recruitment of sports players. It funnels money away from education, and boosts rising tuition costs.

If 18-22 year olds want to play football, let them go play football.


And ya, I already know the American people will never go for something like this.

[73109]

I agree. I'm American.

[MasterShakezula]

I agree. I'm American.

This.

I am not an athlete, but I do intend to go to college, and it sounds like you idea would benefit both athletes, going to college or not, and non-athletes going to college.