A proposal for education reform in the US

You mean those smaller solutions that we've been trying for years, which clearly aren't working?

Rather than trying to personally water every plant in the field, why not irrigate the land. Big innovations are frightening, and sometimes risky, but they can also have big payoffs.

It's fine if you don't agree with the proposed methodology, but do you really want to pass it up just because it's a "big change"?



What programs? Do they work? What methodology do they use?

Thanks,

This can be very true but it can also be deadly. All the plants in the field don't need the same amount of water. Cattails need a swamp, catus needs very little.

I think we could develop a national strategy for overall goals and objectives of our education system but the techniques of teaching are going to depend on to many variables to create a comprehensive approach that is much better than what we have now.

That overhaul of the national level objectives is, IMO, where we need to start.

I don't think I ever said I want to pass it up because it's a big change. If I thought it would work, sure. I don't think it would work, for reasons I have laid out (you haven't commented on a major point I made about whether these monetary incentives would actually effect any significant change), Fishin' has laid out, and Letty has laid out.

What I did mention is that I think continuous big changes that are not well-thought out, fail, and then are replaced by another big change are a problem, yes.

I think that your idea is an interesting starting point for discussion, though, and I appreciate that.

A quick Google search yielded this -- let me know if you want more.

http://www.neirtec.org/products/techbriefs/10.htm

(Well said, Fishin'! I agree.)

This may be the motherlode:

http://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/bibsearch.html

I didn't read all of the emails (sorry, it's Friday afternoon and my brain is mush!) but I know that I would jump at the chance to go back to school and get my degree but I just can't afford it. The cost of a college education here in the U.S. is astronomical.

If I were offered a job at a salary less than I'm making now but with a benefit where they would pay for my college education over the next few years, I would sign an agreement that I would stay with that company in a heartbeat.

I look back when, at 17, I left school and started working. I was dead tired of school by 17 and couldn't wait to get out. I was also far too young and immature to appreciate another four years of the learning experience and deciding what major to choose and what course my life would take. It is very rare for someone to know at this tender age what career direction they want to go in - I know I didn't!

I have met people here who have two or three degrees because ... guess what? They found out after finishing one that they really didn't like the work relating to it! What a waste of money! I also know several people with Masters degrees that work at jobs that do not test their brain-power and it is not because they cannot get that work ... it's because they don't want it!

At a young age it is difficult for educators to get students to pay attention and get excited by what they are learning. I am whole different person now that I am older (and hopefully wiser) and I would literally chase down a good teacher to suck the information out of them appreciatively.

Maybe a solution would be for all teens, upon leaving high-school, having to work for a year before a college would accept their application. A taste of low wages at sucky menial jobs might be just the incentive to make young people appreciate an education all the more. Plus, if employers are complaining about not being able to find skilled workers then perhaps they might lower a salary or two and find some special young person who will be interested in a lower salary but the financial backing to get good grades and graduate.

A good chunk of the college experience is about the experiences and not as much about the actual learning and classes. A huge chunk of it is social activities that could just as well be left out, along with the exhorbitant costs.

As for bucks for grades, I don't know about that. It would be of no incentive to many because this is a contry where a person can pay $1,000 a year for a gym membership and only working-out in it for the first two months!

I didn't read all of the emails (sorry, it's Friday afternoon and my brain is mush!) but I know that I would jump at the chance to go back to school and get my degree but I just can't afford it. The cost of a college education here in the U.S. is astronomical.

If I were offered a job at a salary less than I'm making now but with a benefit where they would pay for my college education over the next few years, I would sign an agreement that I would stay with that company in a heartbeat.

I look back when, at 17, I left school and started working. I was dead tired of school by 17 and couldn't wait to get out. I was also far too young and immature to appreciate another four years of the learning experience and deciding what major to choose and what course my life would take. It is very rare for someone to know at this tender age what career direction they want to go in - I know I didn't!

I have met people here who have two or three degrees because ... guess what? They found out after finishing one that they really didn't like the work relating to it! What a waste of money! I also know several people with Masters degrees that work at jobs that do not test their brain-power and it is not because they cannot get that work ... it's because they don't want it!

At a young age it is difficult for educators to get students to pay attention and get excited by what they are learning. I am whole different person now that I am older (and hopefully wiser) and I would literally chase down a good teacher to suck the information out of them appreciatively.

Maybe a solution would be for all teens, upon leaving high-school, having to work for a year before a college would accept their application. A taste of low wages at sucky menial jobs might be just the incentive to make young people appreciate an education all the more. Plus, if employers are complaining about not being able to find skilled workers then perhaps they might lower a salary or two and find some special young person who will be interested in a lower salary but the financial backing to get good grades and graduate.

A good chunk of the college experience is about the experiences and not as much about the actual learning and classes. A huge chunk of it is social activities that could just as well be left out, along with the exhorbitant costs.

As for bucks for grades, I don't know about that. It would be of no incentive to many because this is a contry where a person can pay $1,000 a year for a gym membership and only working-out in it for the first two months!

Hi Fishin',

Yeh, it's a risk. But it might be worth it, *if* we could all agree that we had a plan with a high probability of success. This is where we're still not in agreement.

I haven't yet made compelling arguments for the number of kids who would benefit, or that benefit would even result (given Sozobe's assertions that some people are unmotivatable, and your suggestion that $money$ isn't a good enough motivator).

Hi Soze,

You both make good points, and I think I have addressed them, mostly in the original post. It's just that we don't agree on them yet.

I guess our biggest difference right now are at the core of the argument. You and Fishin are cautious and prefer to continue with lots of small changes which nip away at the edges of the problem, whereas I want to propose a major change that drives at the core of things.

I continue to go back to my extreme example just to validate the theory... if money were not an option, and we could pay some huge sum for effective results, parents would be strongly motivated to help kids achieve those results. I have a hard time believing it, but both of you seem to disagree with even this example of extremes. To me it seems obvious that making such a dramatic change at such a root level would have dramatically good effects.

Your objections are twofold: That it will have no effect, or that the effect will be chaotic and unpredictible (possibly bad).

Both of these concerns seem unlikely to me, but I admit that I don't have any evidence at hand to quantify any predictions.

To make matters worse, I don't yet know how to fund this thing, but we haven't even gotten to that argument yet since we don't agree on the basic theory.

In any case, it's all good discussion.

Now I have to go get beer Talk to ya later,

This is a great discussion.

Rosborne, I think that the money idea might work for a few on the lower economic scale, but like fishn' said, those in the upper income levels won't be phased by it. Also, another good point made by fishin' is the sense of entitlement that would inevitably come up with not all, but many parents. Even with a set scale based on performance, there would be the arguement coming from some parent saying, "My Johnny got a C instead of a B because the school system doesn't want to pay me the money we really deserve." And as far as money for the parents motivating the students, I have a suspicion that some of the less scrupulous parents out there might use methods of "motivation" of their own, just to get the money. It happens.

I do agree with the idea of changing teaching methods -- which I know would not be easy on a large scale, but it wouldn't be any harder than implementing a pay-for-grades program.

Soz, I like Csikszentmihalyi's "Flow" concept, too (used to have the book, I'm sure it's one I loaned out). And I've been looking at the Montessori method, which is similar to the concept of Flow and also goes along with Fishin's calculus example -- show kids how calc and trig and physics apply to the real world, and they'll learn better than just giving them the rules.

Rosborne, like you said in your initial post, kids seem to get bored more easily and "seem" to need more entertainment, but what's really happening (I think, maybe) is that they have grown up with visual entertainment that people my age (34) and older didn't, to such an extent that it takes different methods to teach. And of course not every kid learns the same, but I think that a good percentage just need something more than lecturing and testing. That bored the heck out of me in school (even though I did well) and the most visually stimulating thing on the market back then was "Sesame Street" (or reruns of "The Monkeys" in high school).

Anyway, if teachers could be trained in the idea of Flow or in the Montessori method -- which uses real-life experience as part of the learning and teaching process -- then kids could learn at their own level and their own pace, and focus on their own interests while still achieving a balanced education.

Here is a link briefly describing "Rubrics" (alternative assessment), which sounds, to me, like it would be great in getting students actively involved in their own education. I'm interested in what you guys think about it:

http://www.iloveteaching.com/assesmt/index.htm

Hey all, greta discussion and an important one, too!

When in school, I always learned better from teachers who were "into" teaching. Those with passion instilled passion. Making a connection with students also helped. One teacher found that I liked 60s rock (in the 80s) and asked to borrow a doors album so he could tape it. How cool is that! I am certain, now, that he did that to make a connection with a kid who was disinterested. And it worked.

I agree that standardized testing is the wrong direction. While it may be a useful tool to assess some generalities like regional grade differences and general knowledge, it is too much set up like a magic bullet. Adding more and more tests is like adding band-aid over band-aid over band-aid. Not quite the right analogy, but it doesn't address the root issues in the least.

I missed this post entirely until now. Exactly!

(Glad to see you here, Heeven, LibertyD and littlek. I need to go, but more comments about standardized testing later.)

Hello all,

I am new to this site and first want to commend all for their opinions. It's true...this is an extremely important topic and no "quick-fix" solution. I have read all the responses to rosborn979's original proposal. The original idea is how to get the parent more involved with their child's formal education. I feel his theory is a valid one. I am a teacher and the "problem students" (those 10-20%) are gemerally the ones where the kids are home alone after school because they come from a single-parent home and that parent works 2 jobs and are not home for the kid. I have sat in meetings with parents and you would not believe some of the things they have said. One in particular said, "I don't know if he goes to school or not, I don't have time for him". This was an extremely bright student, but with no support form home and he ended up at an alternative school. It's too bad because he had a lot to offer.

I know we can all share stories about the pros and cons of parental involvement, but I think the key to student motivation is to have the parents equally motivated and have a vested interest in what their child is doing in school. rosborne979's theory is a valid one and I know there are many "bugs" to work out, but it seems possible. Students with support from the home do better, pay more attention, and are less likely to be discipline problems in class. If the parents have a "carrot" in front of them, they will be more likely to come home from work and check little Johnny's homework and make sure he understands it. The big question is, how large of a carrot will it take?

As a dedicated teacher, I can say for sure that better parent involvement for these students will benefit all involved. I hope with these suggestions we all are offering, we can better the education of our children.

Hi, Ace. Welcome to A2K. Hope your handle isn't indicative of your driving habits.

The only problem that I have with "money" is that it must be mandated by the powers at be. That, of course, puts it in the hands of politicians. And, as we all know by now, most of them spend their time preparing for re-election.

You really sound like a dedicated teacher, and I wish you the best in your profession. Hang in there, my friend, 'cause there will be times.

Hi ace,

Welcome! Nice post.

I completely completely agree that parental involvement is very important, and that we should be seeking ways to make it happen. I just don't know if rosborne's idea is the way.

Quite apart from the many practical drawbacks, I just don't think the core of this idea -- that parents who currently are uninvolved in their kids' education will BECOME involved for $2,000 - $5,000 a year -- is sound.

I have worked with many of these kinds of parents. With that kind of a carrot, they may well start out with the best of intentions -- "I'm gonna get $5,000! Alright!" Then reality sets in. Oh, they have to help with homework instead of watching TV? Oh, they have to discipline their kids when their kids want to go play with their friends instead of doing homework? Oh, they don't get instant results -- they actually gave up their leisure time and had a big stressful fight about doing homework and he STILL didn't get an A on his test? Oh, forget it it.

The parents who are currently not involved need all sorts of tools to learn how to be involved -- chances are, they don't currently HAVE the ability to be involved. I listed some of the reasons earlier -- a bad education themselves, drug/ alcohol abuse, overwhelming personal lives (2 jobs, single parenthood), disabilities, poor work ethic, etc., etc., etc.

I think that for this program to have a fighting chance it would have to not only offer the cash reward but offer a host of services to enable parents to actually get that reward. And once we get to that level, why not just focus on the host of services without the extra $2,000-$5,000 per student price tag? The host of services would cost plenty, itself.