Education Discussion

[southsider2k5]

I read a study that lower teacher-student ratios are really just important in k-6 levels and not as important in high schools. I believe it was a study in Kansas.

 

I, personally, like the American higher education system. I think it's good we keep such a liberal arts education instead of such specific "trade" schools like you would see in Germany.

 

Interesting. I wonder if that has a change in higher achieving school systems? I would be curious to see what types of school systems were in the study.

[StrangeSox]

I read a study that lower teacher-student ratios are really just important in k-6 levels and not as important in high schools. I believe it was a study in Kansas.

 

I, personally, like the American higher education system. I think it's good we keep such a liberal arts education instead of such specific "trade" schools like you would see in Germany.

 

Sure, but how many people really need to rack up $80k in student loans to get an B.A. in art history?

[bmags]

Interesting. I wonder if that has a change in higher achieving school systems? I would be curious to see what types of school systems were in the study.

 

If I remember correctly, I believe it was called the "STAR" program, done in Kansas I believe? I'll do a google search.

[bmags]

Sure, but how many people really need to rack up $80k in student loans to get an B.A. in art history?

 

I don't know where you got the impression that I meant art history should be what was pushed. Our engineering educations at American universities are a more liberal education than in Europe with all the upper level electives and gen eds needed.

[Soxy]

Which, by the way, is a big reason that it costs so much to go to college. Its simple supply and demand. The number of institutions and spots at them is relatively fixed. With more people attempting to go to college, the price point becomes the way of weeding out some people from going.

So much so that good students get priced out of top private and public colleges. The price thing will be the death-knell of American higher education.

 

And to bmags, maybe stigmatized is too strong of a word. But if someone told you he was attending Harvard or CoD, would you initially have a higher opinion of one? We, collectively, place high value on baccalaureate institutions and minimize the valuable contributions of 2 year schools and tech schools.

[Soxy]

And related to the price thing, students think that because they pay this money that they are somehow entitled to good grades. One out of state student where I teach told a colleague that since he paid a higher tuition he should start at a higher base of grade. The entitlement thing is just out of hand.

[StrangeSox]

I don't know where you got the impression that I meant art history should be what was pushed.

 

I know. I was just continuing on the point that too many people go to college just for the sake of going to college, not to study anything or learn skills for a career.

[bmags]

And to bmags, maybe stigmatized is too strong of a word. But if someone told you he was attending Harvard or CoD, would you initially have a higher opinion of one? We, collectively, place high value on baccalaureate institutions and minimize the valuable contributions of 2 year schools and tech schools.

 

Okay, I agree, I was speaking more to the fact that I enjoy that American curriculum is very broad education.

 

one thing I learned in a public policy course:

Universities found that raising their tuition raised attendance. Higher tuition was seen as more prestigious.

I quite agree with you, soxy, I think these US news college rankings are such a load of crap. Things like flat screen tvs come into effect. Its a reason that I previously have argued that to I don't believe there is a difference in education in most colleges, Despite the 20 grand difference in tuition, I don't think University of Wisconsin students got a 20,000 dollar better education than me.

 

I didn't really care for the book but an interesting part to Malcom Gladwell's Outliers book was talking about being smart enough, and pointed to where the last 20 nobel prize winners for different categories, and pointed to all the different colleges, sure some Ivy league or MIT. But he explained how at some point people are just "smart enough" and the difference between 120 and 180 isn't that different in terms of how much success is to be obtained. Kind of a rah rah anyone can do it thing.

 

 

SS2k5,

http://www.heros-inc.org/star.htm#Summary

 

I may have mislead. The study took two sets of kids in k-3, one in a small, 12-1 maybe, ratio of T-S. The other were larger. The kids who had a smaller class size in that time of their life did better throughout the educational experience compared to the kids in the higher class sizes.

 

Now I feel like our professor said that in a follow up study of class size in high schools there was not much difference in how they performed at that level. But I couldn't find it in that summary.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I know. I was just continuing on the point that too many people go to college just for the sake of going to college, not to study anything or learn skills for a career.

That is definitely an issue. And in some high schools, JuCo is definitely looked at as a failure, though it shouldn't be. Most 18 year-olds don't have clue 1 what they really want to do for a living, and I think more students should go that route. But I know that at my high school, where something like 96% of students (in 1991) were going to a 4 year university after graduating, going to a community college was looked down upon.

 

[southsider2k5]

So much so that good students get priced out of top private and public colleges. The price thing will be the death-knell of American higher education.

 

And to bmags, maybe stigmatized is too strong of a word. But if someone told you he was attending Harvard or CoD, would you initially have a higher opinion of one? We, collectively, place high value on baccalaureate institutions and minimize the valuable contributions of 2 year schools and tech schools.

 

Not only good students, but poorer students who REALLY need the education to break the cycle of poverty.

[StrangeSox]

You can give yourself a free MIT-quality education online:

 

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm

[southsider2k5]

SS2k5,

http://www.heros-inc.org/star.htm#Summary

 

I may have mislead. The study took two sets of kids in k-3, one in a small, 12-1 maybe, ratio of T-S. The other were larger. The kids who had a smaller class size in that time of their life did better throughout the educational experience compared to the kids in the higher class sizes.

 

Now I feel like our professor said that in a follow up study of class size in high schools there was not much difference in how they performed at that level. But I couldn't find it in that summary.

 

Cool. Thanks for that.

[Soxy]

Not only good students, but poorer students who REALLY need the education to break the cycle of poverty.

Yep. But, a lot of those students do get tons of scholarship money. However, they're screwed if they get to college because they can't keep up with the coursework due to an inferior education background. So, these kids are getting in and failing out. Which is doubly tragic because they were top of their class in their high schools. But when held to actual academic standards they can't do it. So, you get kids crying to you that they were in the top 10% of their school, and that they're trying so hard. But I can't pass you for effort. So, you have a poor school system f***ing them over because it doesn't support the type of basic education that is needed for an advanced degree. And you have teachers f***ing them over because they want to pass them. It's just a huge mess.

[Soxy]

Okay, I agree, I was speaking more to the fact that I enjoy that American curriculum is very broad education.

 

one thing I learned in a public policy course:

Universities found that raising their tuition raised attendance. Higher tuition was seen as more prestigious.

I quite agree with you, soxy, I think these US news college rankings are such a load of crap. Things like flat screen tvs come into effect. Its a reason that I previously have argued that to I don't believe there is a difference in education in most colleges, Despite the 20 grand difference in tuition, I don't think University of Wisconsin students got a 20,000 dollar better education than me.

 

I didn't really care for the book but an interesting part to Malcom Gladwell's Outliers book was talking about being smart enough, and pointed to where the last 20 nobel prize winners for different categories, and pointed to all the different colleges, sure some Ivy league or MIT. But he explained how at some point people are just "smart enough" and the difference between 120 and 180 isn't that different in terms of how much success is to be obtained. Kind of a rah rah anyone can do it thing.

Gladwell's book sounds interesting. I'm not trying to criticize a liberal arts education. I had one and going that route was the best choice of my life. But we need to really encourage other options.

 

I think the smart option is also a red herring--the people that have quit graduate school before their PhD (or take forever to get one) are often the smartest. Smart only gets you so far. We teach kids that they're smart, so the world is theirs and that is bulls***. You have to sacrifice and work hard. Smart in and of itself is worthless.

[bmags]

Gladwell's book sounds interesting. I'm not trying to criticize a liberal arts education. I had one and going that route was the best choice of my life. But we need to really encourage other options.

 

I think the smart option is also a red herring--the people that have quit graduate school before their PhD (or take forever to get one) are often the smartest. Smart only gets you so far. We teach kids that they're smart, so the world is theirs and that is bulls***. You have to sacrifice and work hard. Smart in and of itself is worthless.

 

I agree. I was surprised how poorly some of my friends who went to good public schools kirkwood missouri, and good private schools( Bennet (lisle?)) have done along side me in Missouri. These were kids who did well in high school. And it really does come down to effort.

 

For as much as Waubonsie was s*** on when I was in naperville, I'm forever grateful that our administration gave us a curriculum that focused on writing and essays more than tests. It really set us up well. And considering how well my friends from high school are doing, I think its a testament to that education as well.

Edited January 21, 2009 by bmags

[NorthSideSox72]

I agree. I was surprised how poorly some of my friends who went to good public schools (kirkwood missouri, Bennet (lisle?)) have done along side me in Missouri. These were kids who did well in high school. And it really does come down to effort.

 

For as much as Waubonsie was s*** on when I was in naperville, I'm forever grateful that our administration gave us a curriculum that focused on writing and essays more than tests. It really set us up well. And considering how well my friends from high school are doing, I think its a testament to that education as well.

Benet Academy is a private school, and considered a high end one.

 

[bmags]

Benet Academy is a private school, and considered a high end one.

 

I know, I meant to separate the two. I needed to specify kirkwood was a good public school because it is in missouri so not a lot of people would know it.

[Soxy]

I agree. I was surprised how poorly some of my friends who went to good public schools (kirkwood missouri, Bennet (lisle?)) have done along side me in Missouri. These were kids who did well in high school. And it really does come down to effort.

 

For as much as Waubonsie was s*** on when I was in naperville, I'm forever grateful that our administration gave us a curriculum that focused on writing and essays more than tests. It really set us up well. And considering how well my friends from high school are doing, I think its a testament to that education as well.

You went to Waubonsie HS? I went to Oswego.

[bmags]

You went to Waubonsie HS? I went to Oswego.

 

Yeah. Funny how similar Oswego and that Aurora/Naperville stretch on Ogden look now. Same with Plainfield.

 

But compared to Neuqua, North and Central, Waubonsie was often referred to as second-rate. (because we were in a marginally poorer part of town)

[Soxy]

Yeah. Funny how similar Oswego and that Aurora/Naperville stretch on Ogden look now. Same with Plainfield.

 

But compared to Neuqua, North and Central, Waubonsie was often referred to as second-rate. (because we were in a marginally poorer part of town)

Yeah, they all look the same. It's sad.

 

I didn't know that about Waubonsie. But, after teaching kids that went to the NYC public schools, well, I have a different perspective on suburban education.

[southsider2k5]

Yep. But, a lot of those students do get tons of scholarship money. However, they're screwed if they get to college because they can't keep up with the coursework due to an inferior education background. So, these kids are getting in and failing out. Which is doubly tragic because they were top of their class in their high schools. But when held to actual academic standards they can't do it. So, you get kids crying to you that they were in the top 10% of their school, and that they're trying so hard. But I can't pass you for effort. So, you have a poor school system f***ing them over because it doesn't support the type of basic education that is needed for an advanced degree. And you have teachers f***ing them over because they want to pass them. It's just a huge mess.

 

A big part of that goes back to the new requirements put on to school systems. When you have a low achieving system, their primary concern isn't to give the kids the skills they need to move on in life, it is to get them to pass the test. We actually had a school in our system that had a very heated debate on whether or not junior high kids should be doing homework. It blew my mind because not only is homework important for the knowledge that is covered, but it teaches a couple of very basic study skills, most importantly the abilities to work by oneself, and to prioritize a time schedule. One faction didn't see homework as important, because it was taking up valuable time that could be used to help kids pass the ISTEPs. That is a great look into what happens when your primary concern isn't the welfare of the students. We end up moving students along to higher levels, when they haven't mastered the lower level skills. Then when they get to high school, or college for some, they don't have the ability to meet hightened expectations. They have never been taught to be able to interpret data independantly, prioritize it, and to know what to study, because they teachers give them study guides for high school classes, so that they learn what they are required to learn. Those same kids walk into their first college class and are completely lost when a professor thinks they should be able to do it themselves.

 

In systems that are higher achieving, you don't have these kind of issues, (because kids are passing the test) so teachers are able to open up and teach more skills to go along with the knowledge they give.

[Soxy]

A big part of that goes back to the new requirements put on to school systems. When you have a low achieving system, their primary concern isn't to give the kids the skills they need to move on in life, it is to get them to pass the test. We actually had a school in our system that had a very heated debate on whether or not junior high kids should be doing homework. It blew my mind because not only is homework important for the knowledge that is covered, but it teaches a couple of very basic study skills, most importantly the abilities to work by oneself, and to prioritize a time schedule. One faction didn't see homework as important, because it was taking up valuable time that could be used to help kids pass the ISTEPs. That is a great look into what happens when your primary concern isn't the welfare of the students. We end up moving students along to higher levels, when they haven't mastered the lower level skills. Then when they get to high school, or college for some, they don't have the ability to meet hightened expectations. They have never been taught to be able to interpret data independantly, prioritize it, and to know what to study, because they teachers give them study guides for high school classes, so that they learn what they are required to learn. Those same kids walk into their first college class and are completely lost when a professor thinks they should be able to do it themselves.

 

In systems that are higher achieving, you don't have these kind of issues, (because kids are passing the test) so teachers are able to open up and teach more skills to go along with the knowledge they give.

Absolutely. I absolutely agree. Those students (that make it to college) are the worst as an instructor. They try hard, are clearly smart, but just can't do the work because they lack the foundation. That breaks my heart.

 

There have been a couple of notable successes that I've seen. But those students require SO MUCH TIME. As an instructor it's drainign to teach 20 kids, but when one kid is in your office 3 hours a week struggling with the basics, it's just hard. I will say that I have a TON of faith in programs like the McNair Scholars and TRiO (I think that is what they are called), because they provide a ton of one on one with kids that have the intellectual ability but little else. But those programs are expensive. It's just hard. It's hard to watch as an instructor. You really feel those kids' frustration. AGH.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yeah, they all look the same. It's sad.

 

I didn't know that about Waubonsie. But, after teaching kids that went to the NYC public schools, well, I have a different perspective on suburban education.

 

How so?

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Absolutely. I absolutely agree. Those students (that make it to college) are the worst as an instructor. They try hard, are clearly smart, but just can't do the work because they lack the foundation. That breaks my heart.

 

There have been a couple of notable successes that I've seen. But those students require SO MUCH TIME. As an instructor it's drainign to teach 20 kids, but when one kid is in your office 3 hours a week struggling with the basics, it's just hard. I will say that I have a TON of faith in programs like the McNair Scholars and TRiO (I think that is what they are called), because they provide a ton of one on one with kids that have the intellectual ability but little else. But those programs are expensive. It's just hard. It's hard to watch as an instructor. You really feel those kids' frustration. AGH.

With larger high schools, its getting more popular to divide classes up by difficulty level in some fashion. Things like the scholar program you mention, or the IB program, etc. My high school had 5 different levels that a class may be assigned to - level 1 for remedial and special, levels 2 and 3 for most students, level 4 for high achievers (relative), and level 5 for AP classes. I think that can work very well, if you have enough students for that to work. Smaller schools, particularly in rural areas, won't have that luxury.

 

 

[Soxy]

How so?

My education at Oswego rocked. I was lucky to be taught by well-paid teachers that liked their jobs, had a ton of choices of AP classes, and really just got a good education. For a while I was not so convinced of that, because I went to college with some kids that went to top notch private schools who were head and shoulders above the rest of us.

 

Districts that can afford to pay top salaries are going to be getting the best teachers. And god bless Teach for America, but the neediest kids are getting people with the least qualifications. And that sucks.

 

 

With larger high schools, its getting more popular to divide classes up by difficulty level in some fashion. Things like the scholar program you mention, or the IB program, etc. My high school had 5 different levels that a class may be assigned to - level 1 for remedial and special, levels 2 and 3 for most students, level 4 for high achievers (relative), and level 5 for AP classes. I think that can work very well, if you have enough students for that to work. Smaller schools, particularly in rural areas, won't have that luxury.

Did you go to New Trier? Oswego had a similar ranking stuff. Remedial, regular, honors, AP. It was a good program. But it requires additional funding, so I think size alone isn't going to get you all the levels.

 

McNair is actually a college program. You can nominate minority or first generation college students for additional mentoring scholarly opportunities. It's a cool opportunity.