Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It has been reported that the UK is to bring over Chinese Mathematics teachers to give advise on teaching methods. I do wonder if there is such a thing as a magic bullet when it comes to education? My own feeling is that modern society and cultural differences are the reason why other countries appear to be ahead of us with regard to education.

A 50+ years ago education was hammered into you. Parents would support teachers and you were expected to do what you were told at school. There was no flexibility or worrying about if the child enjoyed the lesson. Did this actually make for a better education environment? Does the modern attitude to education work for a lot of subjects, but for all it's faults, do you have to rely on the old methods to teach some of the more perceived boring subjects?

In the 17 years it took for me to become an educated adult, I can honestly say I've learned more about how to game standardized tests than actual subject matter.

I agree. There are proven, effective ways to teach children, and they probably work for the majority of them. The children who cannot learn (as opposed to just being lazy, or having some social stigma against education) should not be prioritized. They are outliers.

There are always going to be children who are just not bright. It seems like society is too eager to make everyone a winner.

 Captain Fantastic wrote:


There are always going to be children who are just not bright. It seems like society is too eager to make everyone a winner.

There does appear to be a tendency toward super special snowflake-itiis. This without any apparent legislative push or gudilines being issued -much like political correctness and 'elf and safety.

It's interesting that all parties appearing to be pandering to the general public over results when part of the problem is caused by parents. This is whether it's due to some fictional standard parents have in their head or that they aren't providing the support for the children themselves.

 Wolfstan wrote:
It's interesting that all parties appearing to be pandering to the general public over results when part of the problem is caused by parents. This is whether it's due to some fictional standard parents have in their head or that they aren't providing the support for the children themselves.

Bingo. In my 13 years in Education, this is something that's discussed in conference rooms and meetings but the closest you'll see it in legislation in the US is a requirement for schools to engage parents. The thing is, the kids are at school for about 6 hours per day, 180 days per year; compared to the time the kids spend with their peers and parents, that's not all that much. Teachers have an uphill battle to benefit the kids if good habits are not being reinforced at home/outisde the school.

You can throw all the money you like into Education. You legislate schools to do this or the other but at the end of the day home environment plays a large part in whether a child is successful or not in school.

With regards to the parents, if your parents are illiterate and innumerate and never read a book, they are pretty unlikely to give you support at school. Therefore if society wants you to be educated it should not rely on your parents.

The countries that are particularly good at maths are the ones that do a lot of rote learning and multiple choice testing. (Japan, Korea.) Maybe this is the secret to basic maths education.

However while Shanghai got the top score, I bet Westminster School could get the best score in the UK if tested separately. The rest of China probably gets a much lower score.

I think part of the problem is what the education system's goal today is compared to what it was 50 years ago.

Today, the goal is to push the kids into college, and let colleges deal with the whole "teach them what they need to know to function in the real world and get a job."

50+ years ago, that's what high school was for.

Somewhere, the real priorities of the K-12 system got lost as we moved from a country that produces, to a country that consumes. Trade skills, if they're even still taught at your local high school, are probably not emphasized at all anymore.

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
I agree. There are proven, effective ways to teach children, and they probably work for the majority of them. The children who cannot learn (as opposed to just being lazy, or having some social stigma against education) should not be prioritized. They are outliers.

There are always going to be children who are just not bright. It seems like society is too eager to make everyone a winner.

That has many many problems. First, it assumes that the basis of primary and secondary education is to produce an elite, not to teach all to a minimum standard. Amusing, as you do, that it is a choice between teaching all or teaching the best then in a publicly funded education system we should be aiming to ensure that all children leave school with at lease a basic level of education?

It sounds like what you are suggesting is a single way of teaching and leaving everyone who falls outside that. Many are left behind by that, including those with SPLDs and other disabilities. Not that long ago people with things like dyslexia were just labeled stupid and lazy, but the old fashioned systems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The countries that are particularly good at maths are the ones that do a lot of rote learning and multiple choice testing. (Japan, Korea.) Maybe this is the secret to basic maths education.

Kind of. The countries with rote learning tend to produce very high results at primary and secondary levels, but then leave people completely stuck when they need to use those skills in higher higher education or in real life. They are left with little understanding of the concepts and little flexibility. Korea is starting to find big problems with this, and anyone who has had to deal with outsourced programing to India or China will tell you the problems with lack of creative thinking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolfstan wrote:
It's interesting that all parties appearing to be pandering to the general public over results when part of the problem is caused by parents. This is whether it's due to some fictional standard parents have in their head or that they aren't providing the support for the children themselves.

This. I think parents are a big problem in the UK. The countries with high achievement also have a high regard for education. Everyone wants children to be a success (probably too much sometimes). In the UK poorer families often don't care and have a poor view of schooling and don't give the support. Middle class kids do better, partly because they are the ones makeing their kids sit down and do homework, going to parents evenings, sitting down and asking children "What did you do at school" and reading to them. In my opinion that is partly to do with schools historic problems. Of course children who did not do well at school 50 years ago would end up hating it, when some teachers response was what in any other area would be deemed bullying or assault. There are other reasons. You could make arguments about the welfare state, lack of role models in poor communities, lack of social mobility driving lack of ambition driving lack of social mobility in a vicious circle.

Or perhaps we just worry too much about what other people are doing and should start looking at what we do well.

I always love when we compare our education results to countries that use a completely different model. In the US, everyone has to take the basic testing because everyone is required to go to school. It doesn't matter if you are English as a second language, special education, or taking all accelerated courses. Everyone is tested like they are going to college/university.

The same is not true in China, Korea, Japan; and much of the world. Essentially, we are trying to compare the whole country to the other countries top students.

It is like trying to compare private schools that only recruit the best to a public school that is required to take everyone. It makes no sense and isn't even a valid comparison.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
With regards to the parents, if your parents are illiterate and innumerate and never read a book, they are pretty unlikely to give you support at school. Therefore if society wants you to be educated it should not rely on your parents.

The countries that are particularly good at maths are the ones that do a lot of rote learning and multiple choice testing. (Japan, Korea.) Maybe this is the secret to basic maths education.

However while Shanghai got the top score, I bet Westminster School could get the best score in the UK if tested separately. The rest of China probably gets a much lower score.

Most distrcts in the US offer free Adult Education classes and/or Family Literacy classes. I agree with the rote learning; that is what I witnessed in S. Korea and Japan. Another thing to consider is that most Asian countries do not have mandatory High School education and their scores may not include students from trade schools...

The PISA test is for 15 year olds so it includes everyone in any advanced country.

 Easy E wrote:
I always love when we compare our education results to countries that use a completely different model. In the US, everyone has to take the basic testing because everyone is required to go to school. It doesn't matter if you are English as a second language, special education, or taking all accelerated courses. Everyone is tested like they are going to college/university.

The same is not true in China, Korea, Japan; and much of the world. Essentially, we are trying to compare the whole country to the other countries top students.

It is like trying to compare private schools that only recruit the best to a public school that is required to take everyone. It makes no sense and isn't even a valid comparison.

And its not just testing.

In the majority of the Scandanvian countries the US is compared to, they have multiple educational pathways, not just the single "acceptable" outcome of going to a university.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the stigma with trade schools and skilled labor jobs is killing this country in a ton of ways.

Everyone SHOULDN'T be going to a university. But in the US, everyone is a special snowflake that can do anything.

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
I agree. There are proven, effective ways to teach children, and they probably work for the majority of them. The children who cannot learn (as opposed to just being lazy, or having some social stigma against education) should not be prioritized. They are outliers.

There are always going to be children who are just not bright. It seems like society is too eager to make everyone a winner.

Where does that lead every Special education student? Every student with a disability. These are not numbers we are talking about, these are peopl y'know? People who get left behind because people think they are unteachable

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Where does that lead every Special education student? Every student with a disability. These are not numbers we are talking about, these are peopl y'know? People who get left behind because people think they are unteachable

You'll always need someone to stock at grocery stores, and I've seen people who can do that without being able to read.

Leave that for the people who dont want to learn. I had a severe learning disability. I had trouble putting sentences together(Still do) but because someone gave a damn, Im getting A's and B's In collage. Just because someone doesnt look like they can learn, doesnt mean you shouldnt try

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
I agree. There are proven, effective ways to teach children, and they probably work for the majority of them. The children who cannot learn (as opposed to just being lazy, or having some social stigma against education) should not be prioritized. They are outliers.

There are always going to be children who are just not bright. It seems like society is too eager to make everyone a winner.

Where does that lead every Special education student? Every student with a disability. These are not numbers we are talking about, these are peopl y'know? People who get left behind because people think they are unteachable

Usually the Special education kids or kids with learning disabilities get accommodations because they are required to by law. It is more the kids with Emotionally Disturbances kids who are considered the 'unteachables' and are often neglected or ignored. While there is often overlap, as soon as a learning disabled kid becomes learning disabled kid with an attitude, that is when they get considered 'unteachable'.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Leave that for the people who dont want to learn. I had a severe learning disability. I had trouble putting sentences together(Still do) but because someone gave a damn, Im getting A's and B's In collage. Just because someone doesnt look like they can learn, doesnt mean you shouldnt try

How do you tell the difference? Serious question. The special ed classes in high school when I grew up were littered with people who got dropped in there because they seemed to have a problem, but just didn't care. I knew that because I was friends with some of them and knew them better. There were also the genuine cases who needed it too, of course. To a certain extent, the ones who didn't need to be there were doing a disservice to those who did.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have special ed classes or try to help people differently, but you can't reach everyone, and you hurt those who you might be able to reach otherwise by trying to get to everyone.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Leave that for the people who dont want to learn. I had a severe learning disability. I had trouble putting sentences together(Still do) but because someone gave a damn, Im getting A's and B's In collage. Just because someone doesnt look like they can learn, doesnt mean you shouldnt try

Just because someone wants to learn doesn't mean they're capable of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further, there's a reason the Special Ed classes that DO exist don't teach calculus or Shakespeare: they're even less applicable to the lives of someone with special needs than to the rest of the student population.

In fact, I'd argue it's special needs classes where we have successfully identified what these people need to function after school, and that's about it. Thats why we teach them basic life skills.

The classes where I learned the most tended to have teachers/professors who made the content interesting.

There was also a few who genuinly scared us so we made damn sure we learned the material lol....

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Leave that for the people who dont want to learn. I had a severe learning disability. I had trouble putting sentences together(Still do) but because someone gave a damn, Im getting A's and B's In collage. Just because someone doesnt look like they can learn, doesnt mean you shouldnt try

Just because someone wants to learn doesn't mean they're capable of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further, there's a reason the Special Ed classes that DO exist don't teach calculus or Shakespeare: they're even less applicable to the lives of someone with special needs than to the rest of the student population.

In fact, I'd argue it's special needs classes where we have successfully identified what these people need to function after school, and that's about it. Thats why we teach them basic life skills.

You should still try. They may be capable of it, you don't know yet.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Leave that for the people who dont want to learn. I had a severe learning disability. I had trouble putting sentences together(Still do) but because someone gave a damn, Im getting A's and B's In collage. Just because someone doesnt look like they can learn, doesnt mean you shouldnt try

Just because someone wants to learn doesn't mean they're capable of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further, there's a reason the Special Ed classes that DO exist don't teach calculus or Shakespeare: they're even less applicable to the lives of someone with special needs than to the rest of the student population.

In fact, I'd argue it's special needs classes where we have successfully identified what these people need to function after school, and that's about it. Thats why we teach them basic life skills.

You should still try. They may be capable of it, you don't know yet.

For how long? Assume they then start to grasp things, but at a much slower rate than everyone else. The amount of time and resources you have to teach are finite. Do you teach them higher level things that aren't applicable to real life, or do you focus on the basics, giving them the best chance of survival unaided in the real world?

I mean, calc and classical literature are great, but when someone is struggling to grasp how to balance a checkbook, I think you need to focus your priorities.

There are only so many chances and so many resources you can spend on any individual student, sadly.

There are a lot of ways to teach, test and stream people, some people will function well regardless of where they end up, but some people will need one to one teaching from a specialist teacher, coupled with extensive behaviour management... and sadly there isn't always that kind of resources available.

You can't teach some children in main stream education but unfortunately that is where they end up, and unfortunately these people can the bring down an entire class of other children.

So what happens if you crack the education question and have 70% + of your school leavers moving on to Uni and leaving with degrees? I'm pretty certain that the job market place is pyramid shaped, with there being more lower paid jobs than high paid jobs. Who takes up those jobs? Is the reality that society can't afford too large an educated workforce?

The USA and UK are two of the richest societies in the world. If we "can't afford" an educated workforce it's because the wealth is too concentrated at the top end.

However I disagree with 50% or 70% of people having degrees. Germany does much better than us with fewer graduates (especially a lot fewer MBA graduates) and much better technical vocational education.

Not to mention the negative stigma that vocational education carries in some circles, at least, in the US.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The USA and UK are two of the richest societies in the world. If we "can't afford" an educated workforce it's because the wealth is too concentrated at the top end.

However I disagree with 50% or 70% of people having degrees. Germany does much better than us with fewer graduates (especially a lot fewer MBA graduates) and much better technical vocational education.

I was very interested in what Germany is doing with Tech schools in place of/in addition to high school. Recently a bill was circulating (I think it passed but can't recall) that will diversify high-schools in Texas; it will create career tracks as far as student learning. They've finally realized that maybe someone who's going to work on cars might not need to take trig or geometry but instead focus on the skills that will apply to their chosen field of endeavor. I'm on the fence as to this being a good idea or not as I can see benefits to both sides.

I think that's one of the problems in the UK. It's all about Uni & degrees, but in saying that the increase in the fees has made school leavers look at apprenticeships as a viable option. To me it makes more sense for the work force. You get people trained in the skills that industry / business needs. I've always thought that it was shortsighted of industry / business to move away from apprenticeships in years past. They can't complain about the lack of skills if they couldn't be bothered to invest in them, but hat could just be me

 Wolfstan wrote:
I think that's one of the problems in the UK. It's all about Uni & degrees, but in saying that the increase in the fees has made school leavers look at apprenticeships as a viable option. To me it makes more sense for the work force. You get people trained in the skills that industry / business needs. I've always thought that it was shortsighted of industry / business to move away from apprenticeships in years past. They can't complain about the lack of skills if they couldn't be bothered to invest in them, but hat could just be me

Exactly. I can see a definite benefit in a program that lets a student study half a day and then work the other half under the guidance of professionals in their field; earn some money and learn the skills you'll need to be successful later on. In the US we have this type of thing to a limited extent with career-tech partnerships with public high schools.

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Leave that for the people who dont want to learn. I had a severe learning disability. I had trouble putting sentences together(Still do) but because someone gave a damn, Im getting A's and B's In collage. Just because someone doesnt look like they can learn, doesnt mean you shouldnt try

Just because someone wants to learn doesn't mean they're capable of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further, there's a reason the Special Ed classes that DO exist don't teach calculus or Shakespeare: they're even less applicable to the lives of someone with special needs than to the rest of the student population.

In fact, I'd argue it's special needs classes where we have successfully identified what these people need to function after school, and that's about it. Thats why we teach them basic life skills.

Wait, which special Ed? Im talking about non-severe cases like mine. Where im capable of understand, just not that great at it without some help, but now I can study whole chapters and understand them without hel. Or the Severe, witch cases like down syndrome or things like that?