Education is probably the biggest problem our nation has

[grhayes]

Think of all the things you can tie back to education.
The reason people don't select better candidates, not understanding economics and why the stimulus package will not work and so on.

If people understood thing better they would be less gullible or likely to be taken advantage of by liberal groups.

But that being said lazy people will always exist and those wish to take advantage of others in society. In other words the worthless will still be hear maybe smarter but still here.

I think a system of acceptance in reality needs to be taught. Such as the average IQ is 100 that means 50% of the IQ population is below that mark while 50% of the IQ population is above the mark.
It is unfair to expect those below it to ever perform at the level of those above it and it is unfair for those above it to be subjected to a retarded system just so those below it can either pass or feel good about themselves.

Maybe we need to give the one below that barrier additional classes but we should also strive to challenge those who can handle it. That however means more time and effort and work upon teachers.

We need to weed out lazy teachers. Example: Is we have some teachers who have no problem pushing the students then we have teachers who wish to teach the minimum required and use the excuse it is the curriculum and they can be in the same exact school. We need to make sure we reward and encourage those teachers who do teach more.

We audit college classes why not start auditing grade school classes on a weekly basis. That gives a massive opportunity to gather lots of useful data on effective practice teacher performance and so on.

Seriously we need to get that idea that because your child can't learn as much as someone else's child attitude it is the schools fault out of here. I am tired of hearing the poor me victim cries. The parent who complained because her child wasn't doing as well as mine is the most annoying of all. I asked a simple question how much time do you spend teaching your child at home. Answer none. I spend 2 hours a day. hmmm. Wander do you think that is the difference not even looking at IQ differences. The next excuse out of her mouth was with out even knowing I don't have the education you do to teach my child. Hmmm. Your child is in first grade and you graduated highschool I hope you are capable of doing first grade work.

Self responsibility and stop comparing your child to others judge them based on their own abilities and improvements.

[YankeeRose1214]

Think of all the things you can tie back to education.
I think a system of acceptance in reality needs to be taught. Such as the average IQ is 100 that means 50% of the IQ population is below that mark while 50% of the IQ population is above the mark.
It is unfair to expect those below it to ever perform at the level of those above it and it is unfair for those above it to be subjected to a retarded system just so those below it can either pass or feel good about themselves.




I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, all students (including self-contained special ed kids) are required to take and pass the state acheivement test on grade level. That means, for example, that a student who should be in third grade, but is functioning on a 1st grade level is expected to pass a 3rd grade level achievement test. Even the child that has been diagnosed as learning disabled or educably mentally delayed is being forced to take a test that they have no hope of passing. The student already has enough against them without being put through the torture and humiliation of being handed something they likely can't even read. Schools are being graded on these test results.

[Long Island Bob]

. . .
I think a system of acceptance in reality needs to be taught. Such as the average IQ is 100 that means 50% of the IQ population is below that mark while 50% of the IQ population is above the mark.
It is unfair to expect those below it to ever perform at the level of those above it and it is unfair for those above it to be subjected to a retarded system just so those below it can either pass or feel good about themselves.

. . . .


It is true that the average IQ is 100.
It is also true that roughly 50% of the population have a higher IQ and roughly 50% have a lower IQ.

However the second is not true because of the first,
nor does the truth of the first statement mean or imply the truth of the second.

The fact that the MEDIAN IQ is also 100 is why 50% of the IQ population is below that mark while 50% of the IQ population is above the mark.

Then again,
IQ tests are deliberately scored in order to produce that result. That is the only proper way to grade an IQ test.
This is not a "trick" used by the test graders mind you. The only proper way to score an IQ tests is to use the variant of percentile based scoring that places IQ=100 at the 50 percentile mark.

If we all became a lot smarter, the average (and the median) IQ would STILL be 100.
If we all became a lot "stupider," the the average (and the median) IQ would STILL be 100.
If the bottom suddenly became a lot smarter (the gap between top and bottom closed), the average (and the median) IQ would STILL be 100.
If the bottom suddenly became "stupider" (the gap between top and bottom widened), the average (and the median) IQ would STILL be 100.

That's just the way the test is graded

[grhayes]

I think you misunderstood what i was saying. IQ population is not the same as saying the number of people. You could have a number of very smart people that tips the scale to a higher position or a number or really less capable people who tip it to a much lower position.

You are correct if the population on average went up 10 IQ points compared to previous testing the center would still be set to 100. Because it is set to the average of the population.

However, it is meaning less and less on a daily basis. The gap between the intelligent and the not so intelligent is growing drastically for a number of reasons. Smart people usually don't have long relationships with people they can not communicate with equally. Smart people usually make more money on average and have higher education. To which their families get better health care and so on. Which does affect each future generation. Also health and fitness are also tied into the intellect of future generations. Less intelligent and poorer people have poorer diets which in turn effects the next generation also part of the health issue.

We are becoming more and more divided into two classes by nature itself.

[PhantomPholly]

It is true that the average IQ is 100.
It is also true that roughly 50% of the population have a higher IQ and roughly 50% have a lower IQ.

However the second is not true because of the first,
nor does the truth of the first statement mean or imply the truth of the second.

The fact that the MEDIAN IQ is also 100 is why 50% of the IQ population is below that mark while 50% of the IQ population is above the mark.

Then again,
IQ tests are deliberately scored in order to produce that result. That is the only proper way to grade an IQ test.
This is not a "trick" used by the test graders mind you. The only proper way to score an IQ tests is to use the variant of percentile based scoring that places IQ=100 at the 50 percentile mark.

If we all became a lot smarter, the average (and the median) IQ would STILL be 100.
If we all became a lot "stupider," the the average (and the median) IQ would STILL be 100.
If the bottom suddenly became a lot smarter (the gap between top and bottom closed), the average (and the median) IQ would STILL be 100.
If the bottom suddenly became "stupider" (the gap between top and bottom widened), the average (and the median) IQ would STILL be 100.

That's just the way the test is graded

Not quite true - if a 100 IQ kid in a smarter future took today's test, s/he would score higher than 100.

[lawandorder]

Indeed they are!

[askmieke]

Wasn't it a little creepy when Obama said that "Dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself -- it's quitting on your country. And this country needs and values the talents of every American" ?

Does that mean that the FEDS want more say in the standardization of our student population? Will more money be spent to bring back all of the programs that used to engage young people in exploring their options and gaining the skills needed when they left high school?

Our K-12 is in the business of producing a handful of college freshman and has deemed all other students as failures. They have stripped the schools of any meaningful instruction in vocations, the arts, business, industrial arts, applied math and science and kids by the time they are 16 or so...have figured it out. If you aren't college bound, there is no reason to stay in school. What you need is only available in the private sector, apprenticeships or the junior colleges.

I kind of see him taking all of those 'rejects' and recruiting them into his new legalized gangs: aka civil service army.

[Camus]

I think a huge problem with our schools has to do with what it takes to be a teacher. I sincerely wanted to be one once. Then I looked at what I was going to have to study. The curriculum was almost all “lesson planning.”

“Lesson’s” don’t lend them selves well to motivating kids to moral behavior, conflict resolution and values. They work well to get kids to pass the State tests. Many question what those tests really test, but for sure it isn’t values.

Not able to stomach classes on lesson planning I turned to study psychology. No “lesson” planning but lots on how people learn. Too much to go into it here, of course, but I feel strongly that our schools have severe problems and that the personality/temperament of those who teach, those that love “lesson planning,” may not be equipped to give our children what we would hope for.

[dosmo66]

Regarding judging schools by standardized tests given students, I thought allowances were made for the number of special ed students. Is this not the case? I'm sure it must be difficult to test a learning-disabled child at a level so much higher than his actual capabilities.

For normal pupils, I think these standardized tests are the ONLY reliable measure to evaluate both students and school. The tests, I assume, are based on what a child at that grade level should know. Thus I don't understand the common complaint about "teaching to the test". Children should be prepared to take and pass the test.

I'm not a teacher, and this is just my opinion, but I have observed that students often seem inordinately nervous about these state mandated tests. Children below middle school should not bear such a heavy burden of responsibility..... I wonder if the anxiety is not transferred from teacher to students. Testing of various types should be a routine part of school, not a marathon for which children must rigorously "train".

[dosmo66]

How very true! Public schools somehow don't teach (or students don't learn) much about the ordinary workings of government, separation of powers, government finance, and the rationale behind it all. Many voters know nothing about the duties their candidate is to assume.

Economics, I think, is a course pretty much reserved for college. But budgeting, accounting and various types of investment could easily be taught in high school. This knowledge is invaluable for functioning in adult society, but educators don't seem to think so.
What they do seem to teach is that profit is "bad" and capitalists are "greedy".

Now, more than ever, I see that simple ignorance may be this country's undoing. People who aren't armed with information seek someone to depend upon. They are so easily led by anyone who appears, to them, to be successful.

[grhayes]

Regarding judging schools by standardized tests given students, I thought allowances were made for the number of special ed students. Is this not the case? I'm sure it must be difficult to test a learning-disabled child at a level so much higher than his actual capabilities.

For normal pupils, I think these standardized tests are the ONLY reliable measure to evaluate both students and school. The tests, I assume, are based on what a child at that grade level should know. Thus I don't understand the common complaint about "teaching to the test". Children should be prepared to take and pass the test.

I'm not a teacher, and this is just my opinion, but I have observed that students often seem inordinately nervous about these state mandated tests. Children below middle school should not bear such a heavy burden of responsibility..... I wonder if the anxiety is not transferred from teacher to students. Testing of various types should be a routine part of school, not a marathon for which children must rigorously "train".

The problem is the way the No-Child left behind act has been implemented. The education system and law makers seem to think you can make anyone learn the material.

They apparently missed the fact that not everyone is capable of running a nuclear power plant and understanding the physics behind it or being a doctor and understanding all the biology, chemistry, anatomy... and so on. Just like not every doctor is going to be a surgeon. Some people don't have motor coordination to even think about doing it.

So once upon a time it wasn't an issue if a school pool a child out of a class and stuck them in special ed class. Hell my son has to wait over a year from the time he is tested to just get any advanced courses. Yet, while at home age 7 he can start working on algebra, programming, chemistry, physics and so on. The biggest issue I found when it comes to motivating my son it is how the material is presented. You show the child what it has to with stuff they are interested in.

[grhayes]

How very true! Public schools somehow don't teach (or students don't learn) much about the ordinary workings of government, separation of powers, government finance, and the rationale behind it all. Many voters know nothing about the duties their candidate is to assume.

Economics, I think, is a course pretty much reserved for college. But budgeting, accounting and various types of investment could easily be taught in high school. This knowledge is invaluable for functioning in adult society, but educators don't seem to think so.
What they do seem to teach is that profit is "bad" and capitalists are "greedy".

Now, more than ever, I see that simple ignorance may be this country's undoing. People who aren't armed with information seek someone to depend upon. They are so easily led by anyone who appears, to them, to be successful.

Actually basic economics is real easy to teach children. Most kids understand collecting stuff for value like comic books and coins and so on. Explain the value of those items go up with how rare they are. In other words the fewer of them that exist the greater the value. Also the more people want something the more you can charge for it. Money has the same characteristics.

If you put lots of US currency in foreign hands its over all value declines because they can buy more goods here and there for the needs and want for more drops.

If the US government prints lots of money then the value also goes down. You can eventually get to a point like it was in Germany that it was cheaper to burn a role of money than buy a log of wood.

My 7 year old son understands that with easy and has hundred stood it since about age 4.

The simple laws of supply and demand can be shown graphically to children and they can even participate in experiments with a mock economy. Most children get this fairly easily. Why adults have such problems with it is beyond me.

[Safiel]

http://blog.mises.org/archives/006667.asp

That link lists and details a number of economic texts suitable for children. For younger children "Whatever Happened to Penny Candy." by Richard Marbury is an excellent starter book.

[Devorah :)]

I agree. What ever happened to penny candy is a really good book. It makes sense out of the tangled mess that people call economics.

[Hobson's Choice]

In my experience as a retired electronic engineer, the present school system has systematically dumbed down the study of Math and Science because those in control have a curriculum that teachers can spoon feed the students even if they don't understand the concepts themselves.

Back to basics

[jajjacobs]

I think a huge problem with our schools has to do with what it takes to be a teacher. I sincerely wanted to be one once. Then I looked at what I was going to have to study. The curriculum was almost all “lesson planning.”

“Lesson’s” don’t lend them selves well to motivating kids to moral behavior, conflict resolution and values. They work well to get kids to pass the State tests. Many question what those tests really test, but for sure it isn’t values.

Not able to stomach classes on lesson planning I turned to study psychology. No “lesson” planning but lots on how people learn. Too much to go into it here, of course, but I feel strongly that our schools have severe problems and that the personality/temperament of those who teach, those that love “lesson planning,” may not be equipped to give our children what we would hope for.




Lesson planning is the most important element of teaching. EVERYTHING is based on the plan that you have. Lesson plans consist of long-term goals, short-range goals, introductory activities, developing activites, culminating activites, daily assessment, resources and notes. If you don't know how to manage that juggling act, it won't matter what you know about your subject.

I am an educator who is tasked with improving bad instruction. Improving instruction begins with lesson plans because it encompasses every component of good teaching.

There is an art and science with teaching. I don't care how much you know. All that matters is how much you can get OTHERS to know.

[European]

Don't you have a subject in school thats called "Politics" or "Sociology"?
Over here those subjects teach you how economics and diffrent types of gouvernment work.We also talk about the crisis we are in today and what caused it...