Should Education Systems Change?

[BookBeauty]

Whether we're talking about Kindergarten, all the way up to University and College...

I have often thought that if I were to go back even just 200 years, or even 100, I may very well be embarrassed when trying to communicate with the populace during those times.

Words, literature and history have gotten lost in the shuffle, but not only that, but science and maths have also become increasingly diluted. Even the visual and performance arts.

It has been argued that school systems were created at the turning point of the industrial revolution. Kids grouped by age, and not by skill or merit, and expected to be produced: Fully educated.

So, that begs the question.

Are we being properly educated now?

And...

If not, how should our education be rehabilitated?

(And... Does this count as political? *Tugs at collar*)

[BienvenuJDC]

For the most part, the younger ages need to be grouped as such due to the social development. As for exceptions, I wouldn't push for it, because there are those parents that THINK that their child is more developed than all the rest (when in fact, they are usually behind).

I think that our education system needs to balance the different learning types. The system often focuses on auditory learning system with little attention given to visual learning. However, unless you go to a vocational school, very little attention is given to tactile learning methods. We shouldn't be teaching subjects. We should be teaching students.

[BookBeauty]

Learning types are actually much more complex than auditory, visual and tactile. And there are also arguments against testing younger children.


Witte does not advocate testing perceptual modalities with children, however. “You have to read over and over again before you decide you like reading,” Witte says. “I’m not sure that the child has sufficient neural network based on repetition to legitimately establish a modality preference. If a kid is just learning to read, why would you expect him to have a preference for reading?”

In my opinion, it's simply another way to categorize children, when they are all so very unique.

I certainly agree that parents shouldn't be the ones who decide how their children are taught. Parents aren't experts on the subject of education. :D

I have often thought that children should be taught according to interest first, but to have all materials and resources available to them. It's very difficult to be certain, but myself, at least, I was very curious and loved learning. It seemed very natural. If the material is presented in a fun, and interactive way from the start, it seems very likely that it can be absorbed with much more enthusiasm than it is today.

Take, for example, instances where children have an avid interest in learning something. They won't even stop to eat! Video games are very poor examples, but there are other things too. Puzzles, books, and sport.

School seems to be something that children dread, which is so unfortunate, because there is so much opportunity for growth. It's just that the systems seem to fit into a mold, and it's very similar all over the world.

And another thing: We should be putting in the very best to teach the youngsters! Instead, a teacher's knowledge is very generalized, and they are paid very poorly (most of the time), for what should be a very prestigious position. These children are the future.

[Buh4Bee]

You describe the emergent curriculum, which is fine for Pre-K. In Kindergarten, they need to start learning to read and write. The curriculum is much more structured and there is less time for self-guides learning. Also, this kind of curriculum may work for some kids, but for many kids it is too unstructured.

My biggest complaint about these kinds of conversations is that there are so many factors that need to be considered when talking about school reform. For example, are the schools actually failing? In the US, the schools are not failing, but actually making gains in terms of test scores. Then, on the other hand, if things do need to be reformed, research needs to support that and people need to start complaining. The NCLB Act has over 80% of the American schools failing to meet the standards. The country is changing it standards to what is called the Common Core or a national set of standards that is more developmentally appropriate for the school population of children. Currently, the system is in a transitional state and many states are applying for wavers, so they do not lose their school funding. Teachers are working students to the bone, but I can tell you our students can read well.

[BookBeauty]

You describe the emergent curriculum, which is fine for Pre-K.

Absolutely. And though I hadn't specified, I think that I implied it by saying, 'at first', several times. :)

It's true that the teaching structure can't remain the same throughout different ages in children, simply because they are at different stages of development, learning and growth.

I only argue that children should not be categorized by age, as if age were any indicator of their 'level' of development.

I'm not arguing that children cannot read and write. But, what have they read and written?

Again, if we sent a 20 year old back in time, (Heck, a 30 year old at random) to, let's say, 1850, do you think they would be able to readily communicate and 'blend in'? Do you think that they would have more, or less knowledge, than their peers of that time?

It's true that my example may not be fair. Customs and traditions change. But, there was a time when individuals saw education as being enriching, and important. There were many people who actually crossed their disciplines in the sciences, literature, etc. For various reasons, whether it be progression as a whole, or general understanding. They wanted to go to school. This was the greatest achievement.

Now, school is viewed as a drill-board for kids, who want nothing more than to stay home, because it's ''boring''.

And a lot of times children fall through the cracks who may be able to read, but not understand the information they have read properly, simply because they are expected to be able to recite, but not necessarily to retain.

Education may be satisfactory, but in my opinion at least, it has a long way to go before excelling, which, I think, is where we should be going with our education systems, all over the world.

However... Is it even possible for school to be viewed as an exciting, stimulating place to be for kids, in this day and age? Or is our current school system necessary, and simply building character in our young and young adults?

[Lokasenna]

I'm not too sure where I stand on the issue. I think the education system, at least as far as it exists in my country, probably needs reforming, though I'm at a loss as to how I personally think that should be accomplished.

I understand the need for a structured curriculum, so that everyone, as it were, is speaking off the same page - but I think there is a balancing act involved in making it structured without it being constrictive. I fear that the system as it is now serves mainly to drill the same old ideas into pupils, without at any point engaging the need for active or original thought.

Let's take literature for example: my university, at least according to the government, has the best English Department in the country, so we could reasonably expect to be taking the cream of the crop of literature students. I am, each year, fundamentally amazed by how narrow the education of a lot of them seems to have been - some of them appeared to have mananged to get through A Levels without ever having been taught anything other than 20th century novels; no poetry, no drama, no Shakespeare, Chaucer, Milton, Dryden, Wordsworth, Dickens and so on. This leads to some face-palmingly awful personal statements, such as one I recently saw that read: "I have read widely across the whole gamut of English literature, from Shakespeare and Mary Shelley to Ian McEwan and Salman Rushdie." Quite aside from the fact that there is a heck of a lot of excellent literature that predates Shakespeare, I'm more alarmed at the belief that he belongs in the same intellectual and chronological bracket as Mary Shelley. It betrays a fundamental unawareness of the basics of the subject that they now intend to do at degree level.

Who's fault is this? One could argue that it is the students' fault, for not having read as widely as they might have done - I, for one, never limited myself to simply reading my course books at school. But I'm more inclined to think that a perpetually shrinking syllabus, combined with a restricted intellectual outlook on the part of the teachers, is doing far more harm.

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE]But I'm more inclined to think that a perpetually shrinking syllabus, combined with a restricted intellectual outlook on the part of the teachers, is doing far more harm

It probably is, but it conforms to that wonderful 'inclusiveness' that we hear so much about and militates against that awful 'elitism'.

[Buh4Bee]

I agree with you Emil. Where I teach, up in a very rural section of New England, there is practically no elite and a high level of inclusion. Given this population, we do push that everyone fits this mold. I have gotten frustrated with the lack of time for creativity and the forgotten gifted and talented. My school does offer enrichment and this has served as a way to reach the elite, if you will. Personally, as much as I serve the inclusion population, I live with a man (my husband) who went through the public system whose intellectual needs were not always meet. This could be a part of the system that does need to be reformed. Currently, it appears my son is very bright as well, and he may face similar struggles a student in the public system. I was educated through private schools only side the elite of the NYC suburbs. So I have seen the realty both sides of this argument.

[Paulclem]

At the moment we are following a curriculum and school structure/ year/ day that was established in the 19th century - with a few add ons.

I really don't think the best use of technology and time is made at all, and it's about time we had some creative thinkers and leaders who could start to do that.

For example the school year and holidays are dictated by the 6 week summer break. Apparently this was instituted as part of the needs for harvesting crops in the UK. We've got into a rut about it and one of the major, but unspoken, purposes for schooling - free childcare - is served very well. (If you don't think that then consider the protests that happen on a national scale when schools shut due to snow).

Does the school year and school day really serve the best educational purpose or is it other factors? There have been studies which show that teenagers do much better if they are allowed to start the day an hour or two later and go home later. A head in a UK school has adopted this, and the results have noticeably improved. You suspect that this may not be widely adopted due to the adults' often vengeful - "I had to do it, why not you" attitude.

Also we have these school structures - classes based upon yearly intake - of around 20-30 kids, all mixed in. So then you get maybe three teachers in a Primary school, (more in a secondary), all getting the kids to sit up and be quiet whilst they reel off quite a structured set of criteria for what constitutes a maths or english lesson. Why not combine them for that first part - as a lecture - and get the other teachers doing something useful.

What they should definately be doing is supporting those kids who can't learn in that way - those with behavious problems come to mind, or who have some kind of special educational need. At the moment these kids are taught by teaching assistants, when in actual fact they need the very best teachers to teach them skillfully. Either that or they don't take part in the lesson through being sent out or not engaging.

I don't mean to suggest that this lecture model should be the only way to teach kids, but each lesson usually starts with a preamble and then activities - (although a lot probably never move from this expositionary model of teaching - more especially in secondary school). Research has proved that Kids learn in a variety of ways - particularly through discussion. Nowadays we have discussion forums which would be great for kids to discuss topics and be monitored by the teacher. Of course you want the verbal input too, but the opportunity provided by forums is that it blurs the time structure of the school day.

On Youtube, you can get videos of teachers teaching. There is a variety of standards, but this offers the opportunity for the teacher to be with the kids and supporting them after watching a vid and attempting a task. Usually the teacher is stood at the front and so unaware of what's going on with the kids. (I once sat in on a table with four kids during an English lesson. I knew them and they were comfortable with me being there. It was a real eye opener - appropriate discussion was going on, jokes, comments about related stuff, all well below the gaze of the teacher. I found out a lot about them just by listening to them for 20 mins. It's a no-brainer really - getting to know people through listening to them, but the point is that Teachers often have very little time for listening. It was really good, and it made me question this epositionary model we teachers all use).

I think there's a lot to think about, but not necessarily the will to do it.

[BookBeauty]

You make a very valid point, Paulclem.

A lot of times, teachers don't really seem to respect, or value the student's input. Actually, today's euphemism makes me think of the best way that I learned when I was taught.

I would interject, contradict the teacher, only so that the teacher would more carefully explain themselves, and make themselves better understood so that I would absorb the content, and remember it through that confrontation.

It may be hard for a teacher to think of their student as an equal, when the student hasn't had as much experience, and when they could be a 4, or 5 year old, let alone 16 or 18.

But, everyone, no matter what age, appreciates being listened to. And when kids get a chance to have their opinions out in the open, and appreciated, along with getting to share and bounce ideas off of their peers, I think that they would naturally excel and enjoy their environment just a little bit more.

Another point you touched on is technology.

There have been some pretty amazing breakthroughs, and they have even started making small robots:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-epfl-robots-school-classrooms.html

So, really, how should technology be implemented in schools?

There have been arguments that computers could be teaching children through video games, online lessons, etc... But I think that having an actual human teacher is an important social element to the classroom.

[Paulclem]

When I started teaching in the 90's we had a robot used for technology called Roamer. It was good but chronically underused - mainly because the teachers were unsure about using it.

http://hullclc.com/loans/detail/roamer/

I currently teach adults, and we have the same problems embedding technology into the classes. We are definately 5 years behind schools - we're the poor relative.

I agree with you about technology and the potential for use though. I think teachers feel the need to control the lessons, and this doesn't necessarily lead to the best learning. Kids learn best through play/experimentation with input from teachers. This is challenging though, and behaviour problems need to be dealt with efficiently to do it.

I always regret not getting the kids I taught to use things like mindmaps instead of just sitting and listening. It was only later at many boring eeting that I realised I doodled my way to concentration during them.

[Scheherazade]

So, really, how should technology be implemented in schools?

There have been arguments that computers could be teaching children through video games, online lessons, etc... But I think that having an actual human teacher is an important social element to the classroom.Teachers are not in the classes only as "social elements"; they are facilitators, negotiators, distributors... You might plan a wedding party by simply going online and ordering food, flowers, cakes and so on but you will need a wedding planner to put all these together if you want a smooth running party rather than a chaos in your hands.

As for technology's place in education. Technological innovations are nothing but new resources waiting to be exploited by those who are engaged in teaching. They offer ways of enhancing the learning experience... Social interaction is where actual learning happens; students learn most from their interactions with their teachers and, most importantly, with other students in their classes (the good, the bad, the ugly).

[BookBeauty]

A real aggravating issue is funding for schools.

They really should be getting the new, best equipment, technology and people together to nurture and help the growth of education as a whole, but are usually clogged up due to money. The resources are all there, but not being utilized.

I may cause groans, but when governments choose to fight about nuclear weapons, costing ridiculous amounts of money and not giving every single child and adult the opportunity for self-improvement, progress and knowledge, it is simply baffling.

I think that giving the student the freedom to experiment is tricky business, and there is a fine line between giving too much slack and not enough. 'Controlling' is often a term we use negatively, but the environment really does need to have a certain amount of regulation, despite play, engagement and experimentation. To allow them the freedom to choose, but still making certain that they learn the things they need to learn, even if they don't want to, seems to be where I'd lean.

There will always be things that people don't want to do. I think the hardest part is finding creative ways to teach the tough subjects. There are so many passionate teachers that are trying so hard to do just that, thinking outside the box and throwing out curve balls, but are being met with a great deal of opposition.

I hadn't meant to suggest that a teacher's only function in the classroom is a social one. I was only lacking for a better choice of words. :D I most certainly couldn't have put it better than you have, Scheherazade. It's true that a teacher is an integral part of the classroom, and there are no computers that could ever replace them. At least not yet. :P

[Darcy88]

I heard somewhere that separating the sexes, having all boys and all girls classes, results in a great improvement in the students' quality of learning. Makes sense. As a 12-16 year old boy I spent more time checking out the girls in the class than I did looking at the chalk-board.

Also, there were always a few rotten eggs, incorrigible rascals, who could've learned a lesson or two from some good old fashioned corporal punishment.

[ralfyman]

Focus on home and community schooling. This will be increasingly important as the global economy weakens in the long term.

[BookBeauty]

Focus on home and community schooling. This will be increasingly important as the global economy weakens in the long term.

I have often thought that, in the right hands, home schooling is the best course of action. However, we all have weaknesses that must be overcome before it is the best solution, in my opinion. Actually, teachers are no different. There's always a subject we struggle with as individuals.

I think that we should strive to help our future generations excel at as many subjects as possible, and overcome those weaknesses.

It's rare when you see multi-disciplined individuals that are incredibly gifted, but when you do, it's because of their discipline and drive, and especially how their environments shaped who they become.

We should strive to ensure that the future peoples of the world are as educated as possible, in the most efficient and engaging way possible.

Whether that means turning to gender specific schools, or home, and community schooling, I'm not sure.

What frustrates me most is when I see people saying, ''Ah, well, they're just not good at math. They don't have that kind of brain, they're geared more towards _____'' (Fill in the blank :))

I truly believe that children can surpass expectations in all subjects, if taught properly. And individuals, 20, 30, 40, 50.. No matter the age, can learn anything if they are given the resources, and the proper means for their situation.

It's a difficult subject because none of us want to be the judge on how these things are organized. But we, and/or the parents of the children, have the biggest direct impact of all. I was curious to see what everyone's ideas regarding education was. :)

This is why I think this subject is so serious, and significant.

[Helga]

I only know about schools on the ice and I think they are very different from most countries (though I am no expert) what we call kindergarten is from the age of 2-5 and I sent my son to a private one because they have smaller groups and they have a curriculum I liked, most schools don't. He started learning English when he was two years old and I think that is great. He will go to a private school next fall that was made by the same woman who started the kindergarten he's in because they only have 13 kids in every class, a public school here on the ice will have up to 30 and that is terrible I think.

Also in public schools they don't learn other languages 'till they are 10 I think, and anyway how can you teach a group of 30 anything! My son is kinda prone to being teased so that influences this too. (that's another thing why is it OK for a girl to be a 'tomboy' but boys can't be the opposite, is there a name for that that's not offensive to them?)

here on the ice you go to school from 6-16 and I think a lot needs to be done for that system in public school, my son will actually go to one of the only two private schools here, private schools aren't that common here. after this you go to another school for 4 years and that system is crap. the teachers know their subject and nothing more. I once made a comment about the subject Norse mythology we were reading and the teacher didn't know the story I mentioned so she got mad and shot me down and the next question from a student she didn't know she said 'ask Helga she seems to know everything' I never talked in class again.
the university however, I love that and almost everything in it. no complains there, many do complain about the cost and want it to be cheaper but my uni is not expensive and I would be willing to pay more for my education.(don't tell them that though)

but this point does nothing for the subject here I think since I am the only one from the ice, just wanted to comment about it.

[BookBeauty]

I only know about schools on the ice and I think they are very different from most countries (though I am no expert) what we call kindergarten is from the age of 2-5 and I sent my son to a private one because they have smaller groups and they have a curriculum I liked, most schools don't. He started learning English when he was two years old and I think that is great. He will go to a private school next fall that was made by the same woman who started the kindergarten he's in because they only have 13 kids in every class, a public school here on the ice will have up to 30 and that is terrible I think.

Also in public schools they don't learn other languages 'till they are 10 I think, and anyway how can you teach a group of 30 anything! My son is kinda prone to being teased so that influences this too. (that's another thing why is it OK for a girl to be a 'tomboy' but boys can't be the opposite, is there a name for that that's not offensive to them?)

here on the ice you go to school from 6-16 and I think a lot needs to be done for that system in public school, my son will actually go to one of the only two private schools here, private schools aren't that common here. after this you go to another school for 4 years and that system is crap. the teachers know their subject and nothing more. I once made a comment about the subject Norse mythology we were reading and the teacher didn't know the story I mentioned so she got mad and shot me down and the next question from a student she didn't know she said 'ask Helga she seems to know everything' I never talked in class again.
the university however, I love that and almost everything in it. no complains there, many do complain about the cost and want it to be cheaper but my uni is not expensive and I would be willing to pay more for my education.(don't tell them that though)

but this point does nothing for the subject here I think since I am the only one from the ice, just wanted to comment about it.

Nono, Helga, I think you made some very good points. :)

School systems around the world have a tendency towards some similarities, and I grew up in a public school with at least 30 kids in a class. Sometimes they even combined grades, which made things even more confusing.

Suffice to say, it was difficult to learn in that kind of chaotic environment, and I think that individual learning, one-on-one, is usually the best, because that way an individual student's needs can be met.

I think it's great that you have your son learning so much, so early. Let's hope that he's having fun too. :)

As for what to call a boy who has more sensitive qualities... I'd say that it's a boy who is more sensitive and compassionate, and there's nothing wrong with that. No need to throw around nicknames or stereotypes. I'm sorry that he has been teased. Due to being diagnosed with ADHD, passive type, I had a lot of difficulties with that as well in school, albeit for different reasons.

I agree with you about university as well, at least to a degree, since we're able to make our own choices, for the most part, about where we're going. It's incredibly exciting to have that degree of control over what you're learning, and that it's something that you're passionate about, or good at.