Poll: 80% of what you learn in school is useless?

[Unesh52]

Actually, current private and charter schools have much smaller faculties and make very little money.

I'll take your word for it. Nevermind about privatization then, at least for monetary reasons.

That is to say, yes, a kid's parents' income DOES matter. You can't teach a hungry, tired child with no emotional center at home.

I see your point, and I didn't realize that before. Nonetheless, it doesn't defeat my argument that simple teaching methods are better than costly, complex ones. You assert that you can't teach downtrodden kids, which is true -- but it's true regardless of the method.

You might not realize this, but at least in the American public education system, the very REASON it's broken is because it's being run into the ground by businessmen, rather than being guided by educators.

It's been well established in this discussion. Yeah, I get it.

Memorization is an unfortunate side-effect of a bloated curriculum. Too much to cover, too little time to cover it beyond an inch deep. This is because our curriculum is being written by testing companies, who cater to the bottom line (thus explaining the use of multiple-guess mentioned earlier).

Not the teacher's fault I guess. Ok.

The student is not their to assess the teacher. It's the opposite.

...

...the teacher has enough people "grading" them all the time...

Students are the only ones with first hand accounts of classes, and they are the ones singularly most affected by the content of those classes. They should have some say in the way the classes are conducted. This is really just principle; students shouldn't be given much control, but they at least deserve to have their opinions heard and assessed. Actually, that could probably still be accomplished under the system we have now, it's just not been organized before because there is little unity among students. I digress, the point is, the more power and authority you have, the more you're going to be graded. I know it'd be nice to not have to be accountable for some of the stupid shit that just happens on the job, but you don't get any free passes for being having a tough time of it. Deal.

And I'm sorry, but there just never will be time for the teacher to explain every ounce of his/her methodology to the class... And then (as is the nature of the human) they'll start using these to stall and filibuster the class period. (Kids do this with misbehavior all the time already, at home and school.)

This is a straw man sliding down a slippery slope. I never asked for teachers to explain "every ounce" of anything. Plenty of tactics make sense -- assigning homework (though not necessarily grading it), giving lectures, doing diagnostic quizzes -- and some things are just way out there, like assigning us to make a board game out of construction paper based loosely on the mechanics of the internet (real example). And for the most part, one question is shared by the majority of students, rather than there being specific, different ones for every individual. Explaining oddball assignments reassures students, and makes them feel less like they're being jerked around. My algebra/trig teacher applied this idea, and he ran one of the smoothest ships in the building.

I agree that kids are known to take advantage of this, but at the point that it's taking up too much class time, couldn't an after class meeting be arranged? If a student is just antagonizing, he would either decline and shut up, or decline and keep going on, at which point it would be clear that he is just being disruptive and he should be removed. It's not that complicated -- the possibility that the privilege could be abused is not enough to warrant ignoring legitimate student concerns, or worse, addressing them with "because I said so" type responses.

See above. Sorry, but it's a fact of life that people are allowed to pull rank...

If I walk in and my doctor tells me I'm pregnant, I'm going to require some serious explanations. Fact of life my ass; there are some very specialized situations in which rank is the only available discriminatory tool on hand, but in any other situation, rank is not an intrinsic justification. Rank =/= right.

There are plenty of kids who "think" their ideas are better... They have no concept, and it's just because they haven't experienced enough yet.

This is just a "why do we have rules" gripe, and that's all. Work in the education system for awhile, and you'll start to see why these things do, in fact, matter... There's simply not time to explain why each of these rules matters, but know that in every school they are the subject of constant internal debate...

But there are large sub-sections of the student population that require these rules, and that means they need to be in place for everyone. I'm sorry that you don't understand the intricacies of the behind-the-scenes that even the newest teacher in a school has to understand, but there's more to it than you think.

And after the last fallacy I almost called special pleading. Not quite, but you're still throwing the "mysterious veil" over the situation. One thing I've learned from talking with you over the past few days is that I am capable of understanding the way the system works. My views have changed at least twice here from things you've said. What's so complicated about dress code? What is it's intention? Does it accomplish it's goal? What externalities does it introduce? How do they relate to the success of the intent? I actually have gone to task over this one, and I've been in to talk with administrators several times. They always throw out the same excuses "It's the way we dressed in school," "Without it you'd all be wearing clown costumes," "Because you have to dress for success," etc. Most of these are outright fallacies, and the rest are specious at best, if not complete bull.

In fact, the real reason I suspect they implemented the re-vamped policy was because the summer before, some punks put a video of themselves jumping a guy from our rival school on YouTube. On campus. Wearing school themed clothes. It was a huge scandal and the administration was scrambling to cover it's ass. So they implemented this ridiculous policy and started advertising that they were "cracking down on school discipline." And who's to say they weren't? They sure were sending a lot more kids home. Oh yeah, I totally get the "behind-the-scenes" stuff that goes on. And it's as flimsy and deceptive as real movie magic.

Also, why, if only a small portion requires regulation, should that regulation be felt by all? If the lower "50%" are offensively letting their pants sag, why do I have to tuck my shirt in? The problem is that the stroke is too broad; more precise restrictions could be in place to target the problem more specifically. However, I do acknowledge that in some instances, regulation inevitably runs over onto people it was not intended for, and that it is a logistical necessity. I'm arguing that it's not a necessity as often as it actually happens.

It's not like mouthing off to a cop, it's more like shouting in an ICU at the hospital--try it, and you WILL be forcibly removed.

I shouldn't have said shouting. Let's say I call the ICU doctor a **** at normal volume. Would they still throw me out? (That's actually more earnest that I thought at first, would they?)

Your problem here is you're thinking about the experience through the eyes of an individual student. We're thinking from the point of view that for each "individual" student, there are hundreds of "other" students who will have to deal with that student's exercise of freedom. We have to follow the age-old test of, "What if EVERYONE did it?" If we can't have every single student doing it, none can. Sorry.

No, that's not my problem. I'm aware of the argumentative method of universalizing, and I considered it. As I said before, there's a difference between rudeness and being disruptive. If every student was allowed a disruption, there would be chaos. But if every student called their teacher a fat, ugly, *****, there would just be one upset teacher. That sort of name calling doesn't have to interrupt class, they can say it as they walk by out the door. I'm saying that those types of actions should be protected. They'd just have to deal with it like they would outside of their job.

Hey, I was just proofing this again, and I want to make something clear. I'm being very caustic with a lot of my remarks, and I'm not going to change it because I feel that euphemisms would make the writing bland and obtuse, and that they would belie my very real indignation about the topic. I know that, but I'm really enjoying this discussion and I think you're a worthwhile opponent (not that we're fighting, I mean where your views oppose mine). I feel like I've gained some insight into this thanks to you. Hope you bother to reply brother.

 

[Dastardly]

Students are the only ones with first hand accounts of classes, and they are the ones singularly most affected by the content of those classes. They should have some say in the way the classes are conducted. This is really just principle; students shouldn't be given much control, but they at least deserve to have their opinions heard and assessed. Actually, that could probably still be accomplished under the system we have now, it's just not been organized before because there is little unity among students. I digress, the point is, the more power and authority you have, the more you're going to be graded. I know it'd be nice to not have to be accountable for some of the stupid shit that just happens on the job, but you don't get any free passes for being having a tough time of it. Deal.

During class is simply not the time for these views to be expressed. That's like discussing billing DURING the surgery, it's just not the right time. That's the only time things like this become an issue. I teach middle school kids, and I still allow them to come to me with questions outside class time--which of course means after school, so they aren't using me as an excuse to miss OTHER classes. If it's not important enough for them to wait and have the concern addressed, it's not important enough to worry about.

This is, in fact, what Student Council was created for--giving students a way of recreating a representative democracy to have concerns heard. They meet after school and require extra work from the student, rather than just "uncivil disobedience" in the middle of the school day, which is why people often shun and stereotype those that participate in this way--to the point that few even choose that road. Still, it's been offered.

But beyond this, you're right: The more power and authority you have, the more you SHOULD be graded. So, exactly how much power/authority is it that you think the classroom teacher has? Especially as compared to the parent? And who grades them, anyway? Read the article about that Gamestop employee whose boss threw him under the bus because of some batshit crazy customer and a policy over which the employee had no control. Both the parents, the kid, and the administration can point blame at the teacher--that doesn't exactly sound like the tippy-top of this little pyramid, does it?

It's a case of shit rolling downhill, but claiming things are running the other way.

This is a straw man sliding down a slippery slope. I never asked for teachers to explain "every ounce" of anything. Plenty of tactics make sense -- assigning homework (though not necessarily grading it), giving lectures, doing diagnostic quizzes -- and some things are just way out there, like assigning us to make a board game out of construction paper based loosely on the mechanics of the internet (real example). And for the most part, one question is shared by the majority of students, rather than there being specific, different ones for every individual. Explaining oddball assignments reassures students, and makes them feel less like they're being jerked around. My algebra/trig teacher applied this idea, and he ran one of the smoothest ships in the building.

That's just the thing. You can't oversimplify in the way you are, and assume the line will be easy to draw. Just because YOU don't want Policy X explained, you think the other students won't? Every rule out there, SOMEONE takes issue with it--that's why there had to be a damn rule in the first place. And if you get to argue about the construction paper model, Jimmy gets to argue about why he can't eat pizza in the middle of computer lab.

Oh, and if you think there's not a mountain of shitty and time-consuming excuses out there, sit in a classroom sometime. It sounds to me like your time in high school was spent in the higher-performing classes, rather than mixed in with the "general population" (so to speak).

Also, regarding your construction paper assignment, these things are perfectly legitimate teaching tools. Rather than promoting the rote memorization (which you blasted earlier), the teacher was using resources readily at hand (not every kid has a computer at home, you know) to have folks demonstrate different ways of conceptualizing the internet (which not everyone understands automatically). It might not have helped you specifically, but it likely helped several others (who will never ADMIT it). And YOUR project may have even helped someone else understand a concept they were missing.

It's not the students job to understand the ins-and-outs of every single assignment. It's just their job to DO the assignment. Even so, if you were to sit down with a teacher after school and ask, I'm sure they'd tell you. That is, if you're willing to wait for the teacher's schedule to open up a little.

I agree that kids are known to take advantage of this, but at the point that it's taking up too much class time, couldn't an after class meeting be arranged? If a student is just antagonizing, he would either decline and shut up, or decline and keep going on, at which point it would be clear that he is just being disruptive and he should be removed. It's not that complicated -- the possibility that the privilege could be abused is not enough to warrant ignoring legitimate student concerns, or worse, addressing them with "because I said so" type responses.

If the student is willing to fit into a teacher's schedule, sure. Of course, with umpteen committee meetings every week, parent conferences with those kids who DON'T behave as well as you, extra tutoring sessions for the kids who are having problems with the CONTENT (as opposed to just the methods), you might have to wait awhile. And most kids opt for the high-profile "fast track" of cause a disturbance and then blame the teacher.

"Because I said so," is useful as a temporary, "Shut up and quit wasting everyone ELSE'S time on YOUR question, just ask it later in private or leave it be." But it has the added benefit of not being a suggestion or open-ended question. It's a time-saver, and our time is very limited and strictly monitored.

If I walk in and my doctor tells me I'm pregnant, I'm going to require some serious explanations. Fact of life my ass; there are some very specialized situations in which rank is the only available discriminatory tool on hand, but in any other situation, rank is not an intrinsic justification. Rank =/= right.

No. But rank = experience. And experience trumps inexperience in a pinch, when all other things are even. The other trick is that things AREN'T even. The teacher is in charge there. You use the "if my doctor tells me I'm pregnant" as an obvious, measurable example of incompetence, but the reality of the classroom just doesn't come up to that.

"Oh, but my teacher once said the Statue of Liberty was made of tin!" or somesuch. Yeah, ever make a slip? Confuse a fact? Try that with hundreds of thousands of facts rolling around in your head AND a state-approved pacing guide for the state-approved test used to decide whether or not you keep your state-approved job with the school board breathing down your neck because their kids aren't getting automatic A's in pre-calculus. It happens. Jesus Christ, it's not a stoning offense, nor is it a mark of incompetence.

And after the last fallacy I almost called special pleading. Not quite, but you're still throwing the "mysterious veil" over the situation. One thing I've learned from talking with you over the past few days is that I am capable of understanding the way the system works. My views have changed at least twice here from things you've said. What's so complicated about dress code? What is it's intention? Does it accomplish it's goal? What externalities does it introduce? How do they relate to the success of the intent? I actually have gone to task over this one, and I've been in to talk with administrators several times. They always throw out the same excuses "It's the way we dressed in school," "Without it you'd all be wearing clown costumes," "Because you have to dress for success," etc. Most of these are outright fallacies, and the rest are specious at best, if not complete bull.

You can't simultaneously complain about the length of a post and complain because I'm not going into necessarily-lengthy explanations about individual points, and then accuse ME of logical inconsistencies.

It isn't that you can't understand, it's just that you don't at this point. And it's overwhelming to try to explain it all, knowing where to start, all that. It's just there's so much that goes on behind the scenes that people don't realize until they have to do it. A lot like owning a house... you don't think about a lot of the things you're responsible for until it pops up, and there's no comprehensive manual available that explains everything in the "correct" order.

In fact, the real reason I suspect they implemented the re-vamped policy was because the summer before, some punks put a video of themselves jumping a guy from our rival school on YouTube. On campus. Wearing school themed clothes. It was a huge scandal and the administration was scrambling to cover it's ass. So they implemented this ridiculous policy and started advertising that they were "cracking down on school discipline." And who's to say they weren't? They sure were sending a lot more kids home. Oh yeah, I totally get the "behind-the-scenes" stuff that goes on. And it's as flimsy and deceptive as real movie magic.

So, you're saying (indirectly, I realize) that you think this perceived pattern of weak cover-ups and overreactions to what parents think will be somehow IMPROVED by a privatized system? Admitted digression, but I couldn't resist.

Really, though, how do you control someone else's kids? You can't, I know, but how do you do it when everyone--including the parents!--expect you to do so at the threat of your job? You TRY SHIT. You jiggle whatever parts you can jiggle and see what shakes loose. There are myriad different reasons schools implement uniforms--some good, some not. But one thing that will always be true about rules is that it's too much hassle to make different rules for each student.

We don't have a police force. We, as teachers, are the folks that have to enforce the rules. And if you have to know that 65% of the students are in uniform X, and the other 35% don't need it, or vice versa, you'll lose your goddamned mind the first day. We have speed limits because SOME people drive unsafely, yet the limit applies to everyone equally, because it's easier than being reactive (and thus perpetually behind) and only applying it to the "problem drivers." It's about the cost (money and manpower) of enforcement, and it's a cost-benefit analysis that the student side loses, I'm sorry.

However, I do acknowledge that in some instances, regulation inevitably runs over onto people it was not intended for, and that it is a logistical necessity. I'm arguing that it's not a necessity as often as it actually happens.

But the difference is that the school officials have information on all of the students involved, while you have information on yourself and those in your immediate vicinity. You may claim "appeal to authority," but I'm just saying they have more information at their disposal, so I'd be more inclined to think they're working from the bigger picture.

I shouldn't have said shouting. Let's say I call the ICU doctor a **** at normal volume. Would they still throw me out? (That's actually more earnest that I thought at first, would they?)

If you're one legal and independent adult calling another legal and independent adult a name, you probably aren't getting arrested. And yet, when it escalates to the point there IS a problem, notice how the legal fault will come back to the person to start the exchange--you. When people make comments like that, it is specifically to start something. I think teachers have a right to remove that student from the class before they have the chance to escalate things.

I would even argue they have an OBLIGATION to do that as soon as there is a risk that this single student will start drawing an undue amount of attention and time away from the other students in the class. No, calling me a "twatmonger" doesn't necessarily disrupt my class, but if you call me one, I know your aim is to eventually do just that. I'll have you removed as preventative maintenance, and because your focus as a student should be on learning as much as possible, not on just how far you can go without getting in trouble.

But if every student called their teacher a fat, ugly, *****, there would just be one upset teacher. That sort of name calling doesn't have to interrupt class, they can say it as they walk by out the door. I'm saying that those types of actions should be protected. They'd just have to deal with it like they would outside of their job.

But you don't. You call the cops if someone is harrassing you, or if a GROUP is doing so. Or you exercise your right to go somewhere else. None of these are possible for the teacher. But regardless, you really think things like that aren't disruptive in and of themselves?

Every time one of you calls the teacher a "fat ugly *****," you're interrupting someone else (like the teacher) who was talking. And the students who were listening now didn't hear it. That's already more of a disruption than should be "protected." But you've also made it apparent that you are NOT in this room to learn from the teacher. And if you go to a restaurant, sit down, and make it apparent that you have no intention to order anything, they will have you removed for loitering.

Hey, I was just proofing this again, and I want to make something clear. I'm being very caustic with a lot of my remarks, and I'm not going to change it because I feel that euphemisms would make the writing bland and obtuse, and that they would belie my very real indignation about the topic. I know that, but I'm really enjoying this discussion and I think you're a worthwhile opponent (not that we're fighting, I mean where your views oppose mine). I feel like I've gained some insight into this thanks to you. Hope you bother to reply brother.

Hey, me, too. Don't mistake my passion for personal indignance--I don't take any discussion personally. I realize I'm very much playing the roll of "teacher apologist" in all of this, but I still feel we're having a worthwhile discussion.

 

[Talshere]

To some extent yes. But nowhere near 30%

Even the more out of the way stuff like nuclear physics which you can sort of though on can be important in helping us understand our modern world and what new discoveries are made. For example, you all remember back when "OH NO THE LHC IS GOING TO BLOW THE WORLD UP", if people had had that basic education in physics they would know this is at the very least highly improbably, if not impossible. I think subjects such are art are a waste of time. Imo this is a hobby, something that should be done in your own time.

However, even the subjects I chose to drop Physical Education, History, Textiles, Cooking, Resistant Materials (wood and metal work), graphics design, French. All of these help to imbue us with either valuable skills (DIY should never be undervalued, graphics design teaches us to use computers for more than gaming, PE give us a more physical understanding of our body as apose to the chemical and theoretical given in biology) or in the case of foreign languages helps us to broaden our horizons and understanding even if 6 months later we cant speak a word.

 

[VanityGirl]

I learned a good bit when I was in high school. Granted I went to high school in another country, but the school was an America school (it had an American curriculum).

You learn not only how to study, but how to do math, science, write english papers and everything like that.

You also learn social skills needed to survive and do well in the real world.

I wouldn't say 80% of what you learn is useless.

 

[Crumpet Man]

I'd say pretty much all of it is useful, because by being exposed to a wide variety of subjects, you can find something you like that you may not have realized

 

[captaincabbage]

You know, 72% of statistics are pulled right out of someone's arse.

Seriously tho, A fair bit of what you learn in school is retarded, unless you're going to be a scientist. Honestly, I have never in my entire life used Algebra or Triggernometry.

 

[HSIAMetalKing]

It's all useful because learning is about making connections. The more you know, the more you can know.

 

[Agayek]

There is a very small percentage of things you learn in school (at least through high school, university is a different story) that you will ever apply in real life with any degree of regularity, and they're all pretty much the same for everyone. They are, in no particular order:

Arithmetic
Basic algebra
Reading
Writing
Important historical events (and the usefulness of this in everyday life is debatable)
How to socialize with your peers

Quite literally nothing else you learn from a school will be used in real life.

The only one that can't be taught by a halfway decent parent is the last bit, and that one most certainly does not require a school to learn it.

Schools are a waste of time and money, that could easily be replaced by a responsible parent. Unfortunately, most parents are not responsible, and so we shall never be able to rid ourselves of the moneysink.

Edit before someone misunderstands: I am firmly of the opinion that there's no such thing as useless information. The stuff you learn in school is certainly valuable, if for no other reason than it is additional information. That said, the vast majority of school teachings are very rarely, if ever, used in real life, and there are much better ways to spend the millions (or is it billions?) of dollars and thousands of man-hours spent on schools.

 

[SalamanderJoe]

Has anyone ever used algebra OUTSIDE the maths lessons?

 

[Terminate421]

If I want to be a game developer, I don't think Itll help me to read "The Crucible" for about a month and a half. (I've read it like 5 fucking times)

 

[CrystalShadow]

Wait...

You learn things in school?

I always thought you learn things in spite of school. XD

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Well yeah, but you have to take all those classes so that you can figure out what kind of things you want to get into as a career.

 

[Unesh52]

Goddammit, I hate feeling like I have egg on my face...

So much of the school system is messed up. I just know that a lot of the problems I'm having in college are due to incomplete lessons in high school, and I'm certain that a ton of what I did back then was a huge waste of time, but I honestly can't come up with practical solutions to anything, and I'm left with this sensation like I'm shouting and stomping impotently on my hat.

And damn, this has got to be the longest page ever. The scroll bar is tiny.

During class is simply not the time for these views to be expressed.

This is, in fact, what Student Council was created for...

Even so, if you were to sit down with a teacher after school and ask, I'm sure they'd tell you.

I... agree. I never had a student council, and even more infuriatingly, few students were either concerned or mature enough to organize with me on principle alone, and I wasn't very popular... not to mention that on several issues, I was the only dissenter. Almost no student agrees with me that loads of extra credit, over-simple tests, and good grades just for attendance are a bad things.

Nonetheless, I did ask teachers about things. Often. I almost never walked away satisfied.The best I usually get is "Yeah, it's dumb, but how else do you expect me to do it?" Which itself is really dumb and pessimistic. Other times, they'd offer completely ludicrous justification and get mad at me for not accepting it. "Statistics show test scores are higher this way" is a common one. Except the tests are their own (invalid test -- often this happens when they start giving structured notes and letting kids use them during the damn test). And the "statistics" are just their grade books (small samples, no controls). On the rare occasion somebody actually offers up real research, they can never seem to find it for me, or they do and it doesn't quite say what they think it does, or they're applying the principle all wrong. I had an impossible job convincing teachers that their easy to grade tests and assignments that students would actually do were ineffective enough to warrant not using them. I'm just so angry about it... I was even more at the time.

You can't oversimplify in the way you are, and assume the line will be easy to draw.

Ok, I definitely think any teacher is obliged to explain themselves if their method is genuinely obscure in intent, outside of conventional teaching practices, and the source of confusion for more than just a few people, but even then, I can understand how it might be inauspicious to try and explain it to everyone before they see it work.

And experience trumps inexperience in a pinch, when all other things are even. The other trick is that things AREN'T even. The teacher is in charge there. You use the "if my doctor tells me I'm pregnant" as an obvious, measurable example of incompetence, but the reality of the classroom just doesn't come up to that.

"Oh, but my teacher once said the Statue of Liberty was made of tin!" or somesuch. It happens. Jesus Christ, it's not a stoning offense, nor is it a mark of incompetence.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here, but I know that for one thing, I'm not talking about when someone messes up a fact in a lecture. I'm talking about when someone goes "Students shouldn't be allowed to have their cell phones out in the hallway" and justifies it by saying "I'm in charge" if I've given them time to formulate a legitimate response.

You can't simultaneously complain about the length of a post and complain because I'm not going into necessarily-lengthy explanations about individual points, and then accuse ME of logical inconsistencies.

It isn't that you can't understand, it's just that you don't at this point. And it's overwhelming to try to explain it all, knowing where to start, all that. It's just there's so much that goes on behind the scenes that people don't realize until they have to do it. A lot like owning a house... you don't think about a lot of the things you're responsible for until it pops up, and there's no comprehensive manual available that explains everything in the "correct" order.

...

You can't, I know, but how do you do it when everyone--including the parents!--expect you to do so at the threat of your job? You TRY SHIT. You jiggle whatever parts you can jiggle and see what shakes loose.

I wasn't saying that it was too long, I was saying that if it was going to be that long, it needed to be better organized (like your subsequent posts).

Maybe you're on to something here, but just because the process behind rule making is complicated, it doesn't mean students should take what comes of it lying down. And just because you're expected to do something doesn't give you the right to apply policy all willy nilly. Whatever the rules are, they should have to be justified to the people they're intended to affect. This isn't convenient under the current system, I'm aware. People have to be pleased. I'm out of ideas about how to fix that though... it's still goddamn infuriating to be told to do something that has no apparent benefit to you or anyone around you, and the only explanation you're given is "it's the right thing." Must. Be. Fixed.

...Somehow.

So, you're saying (indirectly, I realize) that you think this perceived pattern of weak cover-ups and overreactions to what parents think will be somehow IMPROVED by a privatized system? Admitted digression, but I couldn't resist.

:8( Ok, I read the privatization suggestion on a blog somewhere and I've never really talked it out before... let's just pretend I didn't say anything, yeah?

You call the cops if someone is harrassing you...

Every time one of you calls the teacher a "fat ugly *****," you're interrupting someone else (like the teacher) who was talking. And the students who were listening now didn't hear it. That's already more of a disruption than should be "protected."

If it's harassment, we actually do have police for that. 3 or 4 at my high school. And you're just wrong next. "Disrespect" as it's vaguely defined in the (ok, my) school code in no way implies disruption, and as I said, it's added on to other offenses needlessly. If someone breaks up with a girl and gets all belligerent in class over it, the teacher would probably have him removed. I agree with that, he needs to control himself. But if, in his angst, he turns and swears at the teach, that's an additional 2 to 3 days of ISS. Same crime, arbitrary increase in penalty, or worse, an increase due to the personal feelings of the teacher. The claim that "disrespect" should be prohibited is built on the premise that it causes disruption, but the truth is that the two phenomena, while usually together, are independent of one another. And more to the point, "disruption" should be the crime in the first place, regardless of it's relation to disrespect.

...the teacher was using resources readily at hand (not every kid has a computer at home, you know) to have folks demonstrate different ways of conceptualizing the internet (which not everyone understands automatically). It might not have helped you specifically, but it likely helped several others (who will never ADMIT it). And YOUR project may have even helped someone else understand a concept they were missing.

In this situation, the teacher was genuinely just an idiot, and the project was very poorly organized, but I definitely hadn't thought of it that way. It brings up a question for me though... which it turns out I'm getting to in a second.

"general population"

...one thing that will always be true about rules is that it's too much hassle to make different rules for each student.

I'll have you removed as preventative maintenance, and because your focus as a student should be on learning as much as possible, not on just how far you can go without getting in trouble.

Removing students because they're not focused on learning? Why not just send home everyone who refuses to pay attention in spite of having the lowest test scores in class? Or everyone that just "christmas tree"s their quizzes? Or everyone who refuses to even come to class sometimes, but insists the teacher hold up the class so he can have the same concept explained to him again?

...wait a minute, that's exactly what I want. Actually, that brings me to two important things. First, the failure of compulsory education -- the very fact that school is mandatory means that being there feels like a bother. It's a lot easier to be critical of something when someone's forcing it on you. It's also a lot easier to not give a shit when it's free. That's why so many don't value their education -- because it's just being handed to them. Forcing it into their mouths just leaves them sulking in the corner, or possibly spitting it out at you. If you let people who don't want to be there leave, you won't have to deal with their bullshit. More importantly, if you let the people who just say they don't want to be there leave, they'll be forced to admit they want it. And if they act up, show them the door. This I think would narrow the gap between the "star pupil" and the "lazy hooligan."

The other thing is the socio-political disconnect between the "star pupil" and the "lazy hooligan." I once knew this pair of girls, one with some genetic defect that left her short and bound to a walker, and the other an acne-ridden blimp. They were friends, both the top of their class (depending on which one you talked to). They spent every minute they could talking about "those stupid people" and "jackasses" that "waste all of our time" by coming to school at all. This probably had less to do with those people's actual class behavior and more to do with them calling those girls "pig pen and gimpy" or w/e behind their back. I hated them. They were rude and patronizing. I've talked to some of the people they were collectively calling names and they're decent folk. A lot of the time they just get the really crap teachers. Or their job takes up all their study time. Or they just don't learn as well, for any number of reasons. A lot of them are angry and resentful of a system that in many cases has actually thrown them under the bus several times (we really did have some racist teachers, and if you make an enemy with some of them, they have a nasty habit of grading too harsh). Their opinion of school was marred, and so they cared about it less. I sympathize with them.

And most of the time they're the exact reason I have to put up with so much shit, with their baggy pants and inattentiveness. If they were gone, I'd have it much easier, with more on-topic lessons, and less restrictive rules. But I would never abandon them... I think that's why we have compulsory education in the first place. So everyone can get the education they deserve. But it's causing as many problems as it solves, I think. It's a conundrum...

 

[Dastardly]

So much of the school system is messed up. I just know that a lot of the problems I'm having in college are due to incomplete lessons in high school, and I'm certain that a ton of what I did back then was a huge waste of time, but I honestly can't come up with practical solutions to anything, and I'm left with this sensation like I'm shouting and stomping impotently on my hat.

It's an accurate representation of what we're doing sometimes as teachers--trying to convince the administration, school board, and even parents that we need to change how we're doing things. It's the natural feeling when someone who has a picture of how things SHOULD be comes up against the reality of how things ARE, and realizes that it can't be changed by reason because logic has nothing to do with how things got this way...

Almost no student agrees with me that loads of extra credit, over-simple tests, and good grades just for attendance are a bad things.

Unfortunately, it's another "necessary evil" under the current system. Our funding isn't based on enrollment, it's based on attendance. So we have to find ways to provide incentive to come to school every single day... which of course leads to sick kids coming to school. I mean, part of it is, "You can't learn it if you're not here to hear it," but also it's a money issue.

I had an impossible job convincing teachers that their easy to grade tests and assignments that students would actually do were ineffective enough to warrant not using them. I'm just so angry about it... I was even more at the time.

Imagine the frustration of all those teachers, who were once students like you, that entered the field believing wholeheartedly they'd be the ones to "change the system from within." Having to fall back on the same old survival tactics we were once so passionately against is extremely disheartening. Even more frustrating is when you are TOLD to do something in a way that you know is inaccurate--and you can't ADMIT that you know it's stupid, because you'll be in the crosshairs when it's budget cut time for not being a team player.

"Disrespect" as it's vaguely defined in the (ok, my) school code in no way implies disruption, and as I said, it's added on to other offenses needlessly. If someone breaks up with a girl and gets all belligerent in class over it, the teacher would probably have him removed. I agree with that, he needs to control himself. But if, in his angst, he turns and swears at the teach, that's an additional 2 to 3 days of ISS.

It's been a long time since you were in middle school. The kid pops off at a teacher, and now the whole class is going "Ooooh!" for the next five minutes. And then, nothing happens, so suddenly it's permissible. And you ought to know that the things kids do aren't always based on a mature understanding of rights, so they'll start popping off just to waste time and have a laugh. Sure, no one is physically hurt, but time bleeds bit by bit.

But also, don't you think it's important for students to learn some impulse control? No one is saying the feeling of frustration in that situation is invalid. While every feeling should be free to be FELT, that doesn't mean it needs to be EXPRESSED in every single place and time available. I don't see anything wrong with providing that extra out-of-class "cooldown" time to a student who has demonstrated a willingness to take out their ill feelings on people who are not at fault.

I think the problem comes when we elevate too many examples of disrespect to some sort of "civil disobedience" status, instead of "just being a jackass" in class to get attention. A student who is having a bad day, and so he's posing a distraction, is one thing... if the student demonstrates that he/she is willing to escalate that distraction, that warrants extra reprimand.

Yes, schools teach "conformist" behavior. Because you teach what folks need to learn. Folks don't need to learn how to be contrary--they'll get that on their own. They need to learn to rein it in when appropriate, though. Not every time we're asked to conform to a behavioral standard is it jeopardizing our freedom and individuality--seriously, if the ONLY way the kid can express himself is with saggy jeans and rude language, the problem is HIM, not the school that demands he find some other way. Yet if you tell him to watch his mouth and pull up his pants, he'll act like you've clamped a muzzle over his mouth or sold him into slavery (oh! the injustice!).

You've got to assimilate into society to survive. If that means not saying "Ain't" in an interview, then pay the price. If that means not being a dickhead simply because it's not illegal to be a dickhead, then do it. There are so many other rights we could stand up for, and yet for some reason people will only really unite in large numbers to defend the "right" to be a cock-end to others...

Removing students because they're not focused on learning? Why not just send home everyone who refuses to pay attention in spite of having the lowest test scores in class? Or everyone that just "christmas tree"s their quizzes? Or everyone who refuses to even come to class sometimes, but insists the teacher hold up the class so he can have the same concept explained to him again?

...wait a minute, that's exactly what I want. Actually, that brings me to two important things. First, the failure of compulsory education -- the very fact that school is mandatory means that being there feels like a bother. It's a lot easier to be critical of something when someone's forcing it on you. It's also a lot easier to not give a shit when it's free. That's why so many don't value their education -- because it's just being handed to them. Forcing it into their mouths just leaves them sulking in the corner, or possibly spitting it out at you. If you let people who don't want to be there leave, you won't have to deal with their bullshit. More importantly, if you let the people who just say they don't want to be there leave, they'll be forced to admit they want it. And if they act up, show them the door. This I think would narrow the gap between the "star pupil" and the "lazy hooligan."

There it is!

You've found the paradox at the core of this whole problem. I think you've probably found that I haven't disagreed on whether or not most of the things you don't like are problems--I agree that they could be done better. My only issue has been that the blame is, in the end, dumped solely on the teacher. You're seeing, of course, that it's societal. The problems with our public education system are fixed pretty well in the PUBLIC part.

We have compulsory education laws because it is better for everyone that we have a moderately-intelligent population able to hold down jobs and support themselves. It also promotes a smoother-running society if everyone is expected to have a basic, common body of knowledge that we can (reasonably) assume everyone has... Christ, otherwise you'd have to have signs EXPLAINING each of the street signs on the road, right?

But the problem with compulsory education laws is that pesky "compulsory" part. Not only does it mean people have to do it, it ALSO means that at some point this was an issue--people didn't want their kids to go to school. That was likely for very different reasons originally, but now it's not for very healthy reasons in many cases.

We have generations of kids who got old enough to have kids. They're not parents. They're old kids with kids, in terms of emotional maturity. You see these people all the time--perpetually stuck in middle school, they are petty and impulsive and rude, and they breed at an alarming rate. They are in the most important leadership position on the planet, yet they have no accountability beyond making sure the kid doesn't starve or go to school naked.

They come to school, misbehave, we call the parents, and the parents go, "Well what do you want ME to do? He ain't my problem from 8 to 3!" (Actual quote from a parent) They send the kid to school for TWO of the THREE meals a day, year round. (Yep, some schools provide breakfast and lunch during the summer, because otherwise the parents don't FEED them... they spend the money on rims and manicures. I shit you not. You are not being shat here.)

And you'll get kids who'll ask the age-old, "Why do I have to learn this?" And you give them some answer that's a more poetic version of, "So you can get a job and support yourself and your family someday." Then the kid looks you straight in the eye and says, "My momma ain't go no job and she get a check every month." (Actual quote from a student). What the hell do you say to that? Nothing. If you tell the kid they need to do "better" than that, you're talking badly about the parent (fired).

So, that's what we're working with. And if we use pay-to-play schools the segregate those students from the high-performing (and high-paying), all we're doing is creating a government-sponsored system of haves/have nots. The rich get smarter, the poor get dumber. The poor will still breed faster (as they always do, because sex is free), and eventually realize they outnumber the rich. Then? Peasant revolt. If this sounds a bit like turn-of-the-20th-century Russia, you're spot on.

So as teachers, we're damned if we do OR don't. We know how to fix it, but no one will let us. Yet we stick around, hoping for some sweeping revolutionary change that will give us that power. We all know full well that the privatization people promise the power, but they WILL NOT deliver. Really, nothing about it is going to get better until:

1) We can tell people who are mentally and/or financially incapable of supporting children that they CAN'T HAVE THEM. As it is now, we can't, so it's like having a neighbor who buys YOU a puppy every year, for which you are now financially responsible, but you can't tell them to stop buying them for you.

2) We stop protecting people from the consequences of their own stupidity. Let failure and starvation thin the heard a bit, as is the natural order of things. Right now, our evolution as a society is only favoring the fastest breeders, not the "best and brightest."

3) We provide free birth control, tubal ligations, and vasectomies to folks instead of paying for their many illegitimate children AFTER the fact for 18 years a piece.

4) We allow teachers to revisit our "core curriculum" and pare it down to those things at the real core. Instead of evenly spacing the curriculum over the 12 years of public schooling, we need to be allowed to teach LESS in the fewer years so that we can teach it more DEEPLY. This will allow us to accelerate the introduction of content later on, because the concepts will be more solid that allow retention of that content.

5) We need to be allowed to sort kids a bit sooner the way they do in other countries. We have this flawed idea that "every kid can be an astronaut." Sorry, it's just not going to happen. And while it would be a shame for some kid to be kept out of advanced super-calculus who could have been the next Newton, we can't bank on that likelihood to determine policy. We need to be able to put kids in tracks that play to their strengths, while having supplementary classes that work on building up weaknesses, rather than "one size fits all."

6) We need for society to stop looking down on blue-collar work. Janitors are the punch line of tons of jokes, yet not one of us could get our jobs done without them. As a result, we force every kid into the "college track," whether they can handle it or not, because "You don't want to end up a janitor." We NEED janitors. They're bloody IMPORTANT.

7) Those responsible with enacting the policies in education (teachers) should be an integral part of setting that policy. Period. Not saying we should have carte-blanche, but shit, I'd take any "carte" I could get at this point.

And most of the time they're the exact reason I have to put up with so much shit, with their baggy pants and inattentiveness. If they were gone, I'd have it much easier, with more on-topic lessons, and less restrictive rules. But I would never abandon them... I think that's why we have compulsory education in the first place. So everyone can get the education they deserve. But it's causing as many problems as it solves, I think. It's a conundrum...

A-frikkin'-men.

 

[Retardinator]

Only if you're very narrow in your world perspective. I'm willing to try many new things when it comes to being creative, and sometimes even the most uselessest, (yes, uselessest) arbitrary crap I learned 10 years ago seems to come in handy later on.

 

[smithy_2045]

No more than half is useless.

 

[smithy_2045]

Has anyone ever used algebra OUTSIDE the maths lessons?

If you seriously cannot understand the importance of basic algebra... wow...

 

[Gray Monk]

High-school ugggh all these classes I don't care about, HPE, SOSE and religon jeez.
Why arn't they electives? I really don't know why.
Respect is the most overused word by teachers in my school. They use pretty much whenever a student does something wrong.

 

[Latinidiot]

nothing you learn is useless. everything builds to your view of the world, and makes you more of a person than, for example, a math specialist.

 

[Raven's Nest]

What I learning in ELEMENTARY/MIDDLE school was useful.

What I learned in High School...useless.

Basically the content of what you learn is damn near useless, but the logic patterns and thinking methods taught are what become relevant in later life.

Yeah, pretty much the combo of these. Learning how to think is probably the most useful outcome of education - facts come and go, but education shapes your brain ^_^

Agreed, but I find a major criticism with education, particularly in the UK. The only thing students are really taught is how to pass an exam. They put more emphasis on gaining high level qualifications by reciting answers and less on teaching students how and especially why to ask questions...

Yes, exam success rates are climbing year by year and this looks good but I'm nearly 23 and have just started a course which is largely made up of 16 year old school leavers and I am shocked at how little they know about anything and all but a few don't see any practical relevance in having common sense and a broad understanding of how things like the weather, geology, astrophysics, sociology and philosophy are all connected... It seems like they are walking through life blindfolded and told when and what to think...

"A smart man knows how to answer a question, but a wise man knows when to ask one"