OT: High school teacher calls it quits

[all]

[quote=eavesdropper]
Given your interest in the situation, and your high level of mathematics literacy, perhaps you can volunteer your time to your local public school system, either providing support to overworked teachers there, or tutoring struggling students. [/quote]

Here is an idea – take some of the money spent on TSA and pay skilled and educated people to teach. If you depend on volunteers you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt. It is not her fault, it is the system.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=captcha][quote=eavesdropper]
Given your interest in the situation, and your high level of mathematics literacy, perhaps you can volunteer your time to your local public school system, either providing support to overworked teachers there, or tutoring struggling students. [/quote]

Here is an idea – take some of the money spent on TSA and pay skilled and educated people to teach. If you depend on volunteers you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt. It is not her fault, it is the system.[/quote]

Captcha, what, precisely, do you mean by “you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt”? What leads you to believe that she is unqualified for her position? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious.

BTW, I agree with you that some reorganization of our societal priorities is in order. But chronic underfunding of education has always been a problem, and in the current political atmosphere – one in which the trashing of educated people and academic pursuits has become a popular way for many of our political office holders and citizens to feel better about themselves – I don’t anticipate that this will change.

Upping salaries and benefits will certainly attract more people to teaching, and some will have flawless academic credentials. But, in teaching elementary and secondary school students, that is only half (and not the most important) of the battle. In these grades, you have students of widely varying socioeconomic/cultural backgrounds and academic capabilities. What’s more is that these students did not choose to attend school, and don’t understand why they need to be there. For the most part, they are not, in any way, receptive to learning. Truly skilled teachers (grades 1-12) are able to find ways to reverse that. Learning CANNOT occur in the absence of curiosity. Good teachers find a way to reach their students, and expose them to the rewards of learning. They know that once a student’s curiosity is piqued, they will actively SEEK knowledge. They will want to know more, and will go after it — on their own, if they have to.

This is why early childhood education is so important: children are at their most imaginative and curious at that age, and if they do not acquire the basic building blocks of academics in the beginning, they will be totally incapable of learning anything that comes after that. Yet, there is no area of education that is more underfunded than that of early childhood.

For whatever reason, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was one of these: the kids that fall through the cracks and are permitted to graduate, despite being functionally illiterate. Fortunately, when exposed to an instructor who took a genuine interest in the students she was teaching, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was able to see that this could represent the difference between a student leading a life of accomplishment and self-confidence, as opposed to setting off on a path of frustration and failure. This inspired her to try to make a difference in the lives of other young students.

As for “topology, predicate calculus or at least Euclidean geometry”, I saw nothing in the article that enabled me to determine that these were not included in the curriculum, or were not areas of interest or skill for Ms. DeRegnaucourt (I have my own opinions on that topic, but they are just that). Likewise, I have no evidence that she is incapable of enthusiastic discussion of the Newton vs. Leibniz controversy or Fermat’s last theorem.

What I DID get from the article is that she uses her education, experience, and her love of mathematics to excite curiosity in her young, at-risk students. And, in my book, that is what constitutes “skill” in teaching. It doesn’t matter in the least if a teacher is excited by the subject matter he/she is charged with teaching. It only matters if he/she can get their students excited about it.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=captcha][quote=eavesdropper]
Given your interest in the situation, and your high level of mathematics literacy, perhaps you can volunteer your time to your local public school system, either providing support to overworked teachers there, or tutoring struggling students. [/quote]

Here is an idea – take some of the money spent on TSA and pay skilled and educated people to teach. If you depend on volunteers you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt. It is not her fault, it is the system.[/quote]

Captcha, what, precisely, do you mean by “you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt”? What leads you to believe that she is unqualified for her position? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious.

BTW, I agree with you that some reorganization of our societal priorities is in order. But chronic underfunding of education has always been a problem, and in the current political atmosphere – one in which the trashing of educated people and academic pursuits has become a popular way for many of our political office holders and citizens to feel better about themselves – I don’t anticipate that this will change.

Upping salaries and benefits will certainly attract more people to teaching, and some will have flawless academic credentials. But, in teaching elementary and secondary school students, that is only half (and not the most important) of the battle. In these grades, you have students of widely varying socioeconomic/cultural backgrounds and academic capabilities. What’s more is that these students did not choose to attend school, and don’t understand why they need to be there. For the most part, they are not, in any way, receptive to learning. Truly skilled teachers (grades 1-12) are able to find ways to reverse that. Learning CANNOT occur in the absence of curiosity. Good teachers find a way to reach their students, and expose them to the rewards of learning. They know that once a student’s curiosity is piqued, they will actively SEEK knowledge. They will want to know more, and will go after it — on their own, if they have to.

This is why early childhood education is so important: children are at their most imaginative and curious at that age, and if they do not acquire the basic building blocks of academics in the beginning, they will be totally incapable of learning anything that comes after that. Yet, there is no area of education that is more underfunded than that of early childhood.

For whatever reason, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was one of these: the kids that fall through the cracks and are permitted to graduate, despite being functionally illiterate. Fortunately, when exposed to an instructor who took a genuine interest in the students she was teaching, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was able to see that this could represent the difference between a student leading a life of accomplishment and self-confidence, as opposed to setting off on a path of frustration and failure. This inspired her to try to make a difference in the lives of other young students.

As for “topology, predicate calculus or at least Euclidean geometry”, I saw nothing in the article that enabled me to determine that these were not included in the curriculum, or were not areas of interest or skill for Ms. DeRegnaucourt (I have my own opinions on that topic, but they are just that). Likewise, I have no evidence that she is incapable of enthusiastic discussion of the Newton vs. Leibniz controversy or Fermat’s last theorem.

What I DID get from the article is that she uses her education, experience, and her love of mathematics to excite curiosity in her young, at-risk students. And, in my book, that is what constitutes “skill” in teaching. It doesn’t matter in the least if a teacher is excited by the subject matter he/she is charged with teaching. It only matters if he/she can get their students excited about it.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=captcha][quote=eavesdropper]
Given your interest in the situation, and your high level of mathematics literacy, perhaps you can volunteer your time to your local public school system, either providing support to overworked teachers there, or tutoring struggling students. [/quote]

Here is an idea – take some of the money spent on TSA and pay skilled and educated people to teach. If you depend on volunteers you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt. It is not her fault, it is the system.[/quote]

Captcha, what, precisely, do you mean by “you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt”? What leads you to believe that she is unqualified for her position? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious.

BTW, I agree with you that some reorganization of our societal priorities is in order. But chronic underfunding of education has always been a problem, and in the current political atmosphere – one in which the trashing of educated people and academic pursuits has become a popular way for many of our political office holders and citizens to feel better about themselves – I don’t anticipate that this will change.

Upping salaries and benefits will certainly attract more people to teaching, and some will have flawless academic credentials. But, in teaching elementary and secondary school students, that is only half (and not the most important) of the battle. In these grades, you have students of widely varying socioeconomic/cultural backgrounds and academic capabilities. What’s more is that these students did not choose to attend school, and don’t understand why they need to be there. For the most part, they are not, in any way, receptive to learning. Truly skilled teachers (grades 1-12) are able to find ways to reverse that. Learning CANNOT occur in the absence of curiosity. Good teachers find a way to reach their students, and expose them to the rewards of learning. They know that once a student’s curiosity is piqued, they will actively SEEK knowledge. They will want to know more, and will go after it — on their own, if they have to.

This is why early childhood education is so important: children are at their most imaginative and curious at that age, and if they do not acquire the basic building blocks of academics in the beginning, they will be totally incapable of learning anything that comes after that. Yet, there is no area of education that is more underfunded than that of early childhood.

For whatever reason, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was one of these: the kids that fall through the cracks and are permitted to graduate, despite being functionally illiterate. Fortunately, when exposed to an instructor who took a genuine interest in the students she was teaching, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was able to see that this could represent the difference between a student leading a life of accomplishment and self-confidence, as opposed to setting off on a path of frustration and failure. This inspired her to try to make a difference in the lives of other young students.

As for “topology, predicate calculus or at least Euclidean geometry”, I saw nothing in the article that enabled me to determine that these were not included in the curriculum, or were not areas of interest or skill for Ms. DeRegnaucourt (I have my own opinions on that topic, but they are just that). Likewise, I have no evidence that she is incapable of enthusiastic discussion of the Newton vs. Leibniz controversy or Fermat’s last theorem.

What I DID get from the article is that she uses her education, experience, and her love of mathematics to excite curiosity in her young, at-risk students. And, in my book, that is what constitutes “skill” in teaching. It doesn’t matter in the least if a teacher is excited by the subject matter he/she is charged with teaching. It only matters if he/she can get their students excited about it.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=captcha][quote=eavesdropper]
Given your interest in the situation, and your high level of mathematics literacy, perhaps you can volunteer your time to your local public school system, either providing support to overworked teachers there, or tutoring struggling students. [/quote]

Here is an idea – take some of the money spent on TSA and pay skilled and educated people to teach. If you depend on volunteers you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt. It is not her fault, it is the system.[/quote]

Captcha, what, precisely, do you mean by “you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt”? What leads you to believe that she is unqualified for her position? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious.

BTW, I agree with you that some reorganization of our societal priorities is in order. But chronic underfunding of education has always been a problem, and in the current political atmosphere – one in which the trashing of educated people and academic pursuits has become a popular way for many of our political office holders and citizens to feel better about themselves – I don’t anticipate that this will change.

Upping salaries and benefits will certainly attract more people to teaching, and some will have flawless academic credentials. But, in teaching elementary and secondary school students, that is only half (and not the most important) of the battle. In these grades, you have students of widely varying socioeconomic/cultural backgrounds and academic capabilities. What’s more is that these students did not choose to attend school, and don’t understand why they need to be there. For the most part, they are not, in any way, receptive to learning. Truly skilled teachers (grades 1-12) are able to find ways to reverse that. Learning CANNOT occur in the absence of curiosity. Good teachers find a way to reach their students, and expose them to the rewards of learning. They know that once a student’s curiosity is piqued, they will actively SEEK knowledge. They will want to know more, and will go after it — on their own, if they have to.

This is why early childhood education is so important: children are at their most imaginative and curious at that age, and if they do not acquire the basic building blocks of academics in the beginning, they will be totally incapable of learning anything that comes after that. Yet, there is no area of education that is more underfunded than that of early childhood.

For whatever reason, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was one of these: the kids that fall through the cracks and are permitted to graduate, despite being functionally illiterate. Fortunately, when exposed to an instructor who took a genuine interest in the students she was teaching, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was able to see that this could represent the difference between a student leading a life of accomplishment and self-confidence, as opposed to setting off on a path of frustration and failure. This inspired her to try to make a difference in the lives of other young students.

As for “topology, predicate calculus or at least Euclidean geometry”, I saw nothing in the article that enabled me to determine that these were not included in the curriculum, or were not areas of interest or skill for Ms. DeRegnaucourt (I have my own opinions on that topic, but they are just that). Likewise, I have no evidence that she is incapable of enthusiastic discussion of the Newton vs. Leibniz controversy or Fermat’s last theorem.

What I DID get from the article is that she uses her education, experience, and her love of mathematics to excite curiosity in her young, at-risk students. And, in my book, that is what constitutes “skill” in teaching. It doesn’t matter in the least if a teacher is excited by the subject matter he/she is charged with teaching. It only matters if he/she can get their students excited about it.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=captcha][quote=eavesdropper]
Given your interest in the situation, and your high level of mathematics literacy, perhaps you can volunteer your time to your local public school system, either providing support to overworked teachers there, or tutoring struggling students. [/quote]

Here is an idea – take some of the money spent on TSA and pay skilled and educated people to teach. If you depend on volunteers you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt. It is not her fault, it is the system.[/quote]

Captcha, what, precisely, do you mean by “you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt”? What leads you to believe that she is unqualified for her position? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious.

BTW, I agree with you that some reorganization of our societal priorities is in order. But chronic underfunding of education has always been a problem, and in the current political atmosphere – one in which the trashing of educated people and academic pursuits has become a popular way for many of our political office holders and citizens to feel better about themselves – I don’t anticipate that this will change.

Upping salaries and benefits will certainly attract more people to teaching, and some will have flawless academic credentials. But, in teaching elementary and secondary school students, that is only half (and not the most important) of the battle. In these grades, you have students of widely varying socioeconomic/cultural backgrounds and academic capabilities. What’s more is that these students did not choose to attend school, and don’t understand why they need to be there. For the most part, they are not, in any way, receptive to learning. Truly skilled teachers (grades 1-12) are able to find ways to reverse that. Learning CANNOT occur in the absence of curiosity. Good teachers find a way to reach their students, and expose them to the rewards of learning. They know that once a student’s curiosity is piqued, they will actively SEEK knowledge. They will want to know more, and will go after it — on their own, if they have to.

This is why early childhood education is so important: children are at their most imaginative and curious at that age, and if they do not acquire the basic building blocks of academics in the beginning, they will be totally incapable of learning anything that comes after that. Yet, there is no area of education that is more underfunded than that of early childhood.

For whatever reason, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was one of these: the kids that fall through the cracks and are permitted to graduate, despite being functionally illiterate. Fortunately, when exposed to an instructor who took a genuine interest in the students she was teaching, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was able to see that this could represent the difference between a student leading a life of accomplishment and self-confidence, as opposed to setting off on a path of frustration and failure. This inspired her to try to make a difference in the lives of other young students.

As for “topology, predicate calculus or at least Euclidean geometry”, I saw nothing in the article that enabled me to determine that these were not included in the curriculum, or were not areas of interest or skill for Ms. DeRegnaucourt (I have my own opinions on that topic, but they are just that). Likewise, I have no evidence that she is incapable of enthusiastic discussion of the Newton vs. Leibniz controversy or Fermat’s last theorem.

What I DID get from the article is that she uses her education, experience, and her love of mathematics to excite curiosity in her young, at-risk students. And, in my book, that is what constitutes “skill” in teaching. It doesn’t matter in the least if a teacher is excited by the subject matter he/she is charged with teaching. It only matters if he/she can get their students excited about it.

[all]

[quote=eavesdropper]
Captcha, what, precisely, do you mean by “you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt”? What leads you to believe that she is unqualified for her position? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious.
[/quote]

I do believe that she meets formal requirements. Formally, she was likely qualified to ‘teach’ at her son’s school when the son was 6 and she was a 29 years old high school graduate who missed a lot of school and did not know that negative numbers exist outside of her checking account balance.

Ms. DeRegnaucourt went back to school when she was 29. She is 47 and she has been teaching high level math for 13 years. So, she started teaching high level math 5 years after she was introduced to negative numbers. Unless your talent matches Ramanujan’s you cannot move from finger-counting to teaching math to teenagers with 10 years of math education behind them.

Weren’t you the one who was troubled by the lack of expertise in the decision making process at the highest levels of our government? I find this to be similar – you have people with good intentions and insufficient skills who were told that good intentions and strong will compensate for the lack of expertise.

I don’t question Ms. DeRegnaucourt’s good intentions (I’m not convinced about that either) and her ‘charge the mountain’ attitude (ignorance?), but I don’t think her departure is a huge loss to the system. I think she is the product of that system and generally matches the qualities (poor?) of the system that produced her.

My TSA comment was the result of my disdain for TSA rules and procedures. I don’t think that throwing more money at the problem will fix anything. There was an interesting article in WSJ that was picked up by Slashdot earlier today and some of the comments there are possibly more interesting than the article itself.

[all]

[quote=eavesdropper]
Captcha, what, precisely, do you mean by “you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt”? What leads you to believe that she is unqualified for her position? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious.
[/quote]

I do believe that she meets formal requirements. Formally, she was likely qualified to ‘teach’ at her son’s school when the son was 6 and she was a 29 years old high school graduate who missed a lot of school and did not know that negative numbers exist outside of her checking account balance.

Ms. DeRegnaucourt went back to school when she was 29. She is 47 and she has been teaching high level math for 13 years. So, she started teaching high level math 5 years after she was introduced to negative numbers. Unless your talent matches Ramanujan’s you cannot move from finger-counting to teaching math to teenagers with 10 years of math education behind them.

Weren’t you the one who was troubled by the lack of expertise in the decision making process at the highest levels of our government? I find this to be similar – you have people with good intentions and insufficient skills who were told that good intentions and strong will compensate for the lack of expertise.

I don’t question Ms. DeRegnaucourt’s good intentions (I’m not convinced about that either) and her ‘charge the mountain’ attitude (ignorance?), but I don’t think her departure is a huge loss to the system. I think she is the product of that system and generally matches the qualities (poor?) of the system that produced her.

My TSA comment was the result of my disdain for TSA rules and procedures. I don’t think that throwing more money at the problem will fix anything. There was an interesting article in WSJ that was picked up by Slashdot earlier today and some of the comments there are possibly more interesting than the article itself.

[all]

[quote=eavesdropper]
Captcha, what, precisely, do you mean by “you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt”? What leads you to believe that she is unqualified for her position? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious.
[/quote]

I do believe that she meets formal requirements. Formally, she was likely qualified to ‘teach’ at her son’s school when the son was 6 and she was a 29 years old high school graduate who missed a lot of school and did not know that negative numbers exist outside of her checking account balance.

Ms. DeRegnaucourt went back to school when she was 29. She is 47 and she has been teaching high level math for 13 years. So, she started teaching high level math 5 years after she was introduced to negative numbers. Unless your talent matches Ramanujan’s you cannot move from finger-counting to teaching math to teenagers with 10 years of math education behind them.

Weren’t you the one who was troubled by the lack of expertise in the decision making process at the highest levels of our government? I find this to be similar – you have people with good intentions and insufficient skills who were told that good intentions and strong will compensate for the lack of expertise.

I don’t question Ms. DeRegnaucourt’s good intentions (I’m not convinced about that either) and her ‘charge the mountain’ attitude (ignorance?), but I don’t think her departure is a huge loss to the system. I think she is the product of that system and generally matches the qualities (poor?) of the system that produced her.

My TSA comment was the result of my disdain for TSA rules and procedures. I don’t think that throwing more money at the problem will fix anything. There was an interesting article in WSJ that was picked up by Slashdot earlier today and some of the comments there are possibly more interesting than the article itself.

[all]

[quote=eavesdropper]
Captcha, what, precisely, do you mean by “you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt”? What leads you to believe that she is unqualified for her position? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious.
[/quote]

I do believe that she meets formal requirements. Formally, she was likely qualified to ‘teach’ at her son’s school when the son was 6 and she was a 29 years old high school graduate who missed a lot of school and did not know that negative numbers exist outside of her checking account balance.

Ms. DeRegnaucourt went back to school when she was 29. She is 47 and she has been teaching high level math for 13 years. So, she started teaching high level math 5 years after she was introduced to negative numbers. Unless your talent matches Ramanujan’s you cannot move from finger-counting to teaching math to teenagers with 10 years of math education behind them.

Weren’t you the one who was troubled by the lack of expertise in the decision making process at the highest levels of our government? I find this to be similar – you have people with good intentions and insufficient skills who were told that good intentions and strong will compensate for the lack of expertise.

I don’t question Ms. DeRegnaucourt’s good intentions (I’m not convinced about that either) and her ‘charge the mountain’ attitude (ignorance?), but I don’t think her departure is a huge loss to the system. I think she is the product of that system and generally matches the qualities (poor?) of the system that produced her.

My TSA comment was the result of my disdain for TSA rules and procedures. I don’t think that throwing more money at the problem will fix anything. There was an interesting article in WSJ that was picked up by Slashdot earlier today and some of the comments there are possibly more interesting than the article itself.

[all]

[quote=eavesdropper]
Captcha, what, precisely, do you mean by “you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt”? What leads you to believe that she is unqualified for her position? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious.
[/quote]

I do believe that she meets formal requirements. Formally, she was likely qualified to ‘teach’ at her son’s school when the son was 6 and she was a 29 years old high school graduate who missed a lot of school and did not know that negative numbers exist outside of her checking account balance.

Ms. DeRegnaucourt went back to school when she was 29. She is 47 and she has been teaching high level math for 13 years. So, she started teaching high level math 5 years after she was introduced to negative numbers. Unless your talent matches Ramanujan’s you cannot move from finger-counting to teaching math to teenagers with 10 years of math education behind them.

Weren’t you the one who was troubled by the lack of expertise in the decision making process at the highest levels of our government? I find this to be similar – you have people with good intentions and insufficient skills who were told that good intentions and strong will compensate for the lack of expertise.

I don’t question Ms. DeRegnaucourt’s good intentions (I’m not convinced about that either) and her ‘charge the mountain’ attitude (ignorance?), but I don’t think her departure is a huge loss to the system. I think she is the product of that system and generally matches the qualities (poor?) of the system that produced her.

My TSA comment was the result of my disdain for TSA rules and procedures. I don’t think that throwing more money at the problem will fix anything. There was an interesting article in WSJ that was picked up by Slashdot earlier today and some of the comments there are possibly more interesting than the article itself.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu][quote=eavesdropper]Thanks so much for posting this article, flu. I would have definitely missed it on my own.[/quote]

It’s just really sad to read about this. I’m not dissying being a nurse (which is what she has to be). It just infurriates me that when our government budgets gets cut, education is the first thing to go. Only third world countries do this.[/quote]

It may be because a large, very vocal contingent in this country insists that the United States is #1 in everything. Unfortunately, this is pure opinion, and not based on fact or data.

What’s worse is that anyone who ventures forth with proof of the opposite is immediately branded “unpatriotic”. Unfortunately, no problem can be addressed if it cannot first be acknowledged.

The sad fact is we are now several generations removed from the United States’ elevation to world power, and many of our citizenry are unaware that this is a status that is achieved, not conferred. And their belief that we will continue to remain in this position because of the might of our military forces is, shall we say, interesting given that the U.S. ascended to that level, in part, due to the use of weapon technology that renders the size of a military irrelevant.

The generation that fought WWII came of age during the Great Depression, and experienced or witnessed severe deprivation and disease firsthand. Most were offspring of parents who had very little or no education, and who had been forced to work in dangerous, extremely low-paying jobs instead. Thanks to the establishment of G.I. Bill, many WWII vets were able to achieve levels of education heretofore unheard of in their socioeconomic class. They used this education to build an economy unrelated to war, and to create an atmosphere that fostered scientific exploration, resulting in rapid technological advancement and achievement.

U.S. unchallenged superiority in technology had pretty much come to an end by the early 1970s, and not much of a fight was put up to retain it. Is it a coincidence that the generation that was responsible for maintaining the momentum of technological research and development was also the first generation for whom 12 years of government-paid education was a right (as opposed to a privilege), and for whom a college education was within reach? For what it’s worth, I don’t think so.

We don’t value education in this country. Elementary and secondary schools are seen as state-sponsored daycare, a welcome respite for “parents” who can rid themselves of their uncontrollable offspring for eight hours a day. Instead of making sure that their kids actually do the small amount of homework and assignments they are given, moms and dads issue fake excuse notes while wondering aloud why schools continue to teach subject matter that students will never use in “real life”. Even those students who voluntarily choose to attend school when they reach college age seem to be, for the most part, concerned with the paycheck that they believe a particular course of study will guarantee than they are with a genuine desire to learn. The upshot of this is that they learn only the factoids that will result in a passing grade (or, often, just the plagiarism skills).

Until we recognize that we are behind other nations in terms of technological advancement (and losing more and more ground rapidly), and that our piss-poor attitude about education is the cause, things will only get worse. We need to place education at a much higher place in our list of national priorities. That means
(1) directing more government funding toward education;
(2) changing our national attitude: seeing education as essential to our survival as a nation and our place as an international competitor; and
(3) focusing our attention on more effective ways of teaching: We have more technology available to us now that can be adapted for teaching that will enable students to learn, to retain, and to use knowledge far more effectively than ever before. We are well into the 21st century, yet we are still trying to force students to learn utilizing 19th century methods (i.e., read-memorize-test).

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu][quote=eavesdropper]Thanks so much for posting this article, flu. I would have definitely missed it on my own.[/quote]

It’s just really sad to read about this. I’m not dissying being a nurse (which is what she has to be). It just infurriates me that when our government budgets gets cut, education is the first thing to go. Only third world countries do this.[/quote]

It may be because a large, very vocal contingent in this country insists that the United States is #1 in everything. Unfortunately, this is pure opinion, and not based on fact or data.

What’s worse is that anyone who ventures forth with proof of the opposite is immediately branded “unpatriotic”. Unfortunately, no problem can be addressed if it cannot first be acknowledged.

The sad fact is we are now several generations removed from the United States’ elevation to world power, and many of our citizenry are unaware that this is a status that is achieved, not conferred. And their belief that we will continue to remain in this position because of the might of our military forces is, shall we say, interesting given that the U.S. ascended to that level, in part, due to the use of weapon technology that renders the size of a military irrelevant.

The generation that fought WWII came of age during the Great Depression, and experienced or witnessed severe deprivation and disease firsthand. Most were offspring of parents who had very little or no education, and who had been forced to work in dangerous, extremely low-paying jobs instead. Thanks to the establishment of G.I. Bill, many WWII vets were able to achieve levels of education heretofore unheard of in their socioeconomic class. They used this education to build an economy unrelated to war, and to create an atmosphere that fostered scientific exploration, resulting in rapid technological advancement and achievement.

U.S. unchallenged superiority in technology had pretty much come to an end by the early 1970s, and not much of a fight was put up to retain it. Is it a coincidence that the generation that was responsible for maintaining the momentum of technological research and development was also the first generation for whom 12 years of government-paid education was a right (as opposed to a privilege), and for whom a college education was within reach? For what it’s worth, I don’t think so.

We don’t value education in this country. Elementary and secondary schools are seen as state-sponsored daycare, a welcome respite for “parents” who can rid themselves of their uncontrollable offspring for eight hours a day. Instead of making sure that their kids actually do the small amount of homework and assignments they are given, moms and dads issue fake excuse notes while wondering aloud why schools continue to teach subject matter that students will never use in “real life”. Even those students who voluntarily choose to attend school when they reach college age seem to be, for the most part, concerned with the paycheck that they believe a particular course of study will guarantee than they are with a genuine desire to learn. The upshot of this is that they learn only the factoids that will result in a passing grade (or, often, just the plagiarism skills).

Until we recognize that we are behind other nations in terms of technological advancement (and losing more and more ground rapidly), and that our piss-poor attitude about education is the cause, things will only get worse. We need to place education at a much higher place in our list of national priorities. That means
(1) directing more government funding toward education;
(2) changing our national attitude: seeing education as essential to our survival as a nation and our place as an international competitor; and
(3) focusing our attention on more effective ways of teaching: We have more technology available to us now that can be adapted for teaching that will enable students to learn, to retain, and to use knowledge far more effectively than ever before. We are well into the 21st century, yet we are still trying to force students to learn utilizing 19th century methods (i.e., read-memorize-test).

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu][quote=eavesdropper]Thanks so much for posting this article, flu. I would have definitely missed it on my own.[/quote]

It’s just really sad to read about this. I’m not dissying being a nurse (which is what she has to be). It just infurriates me that when our government budgets gets cut, education is the first thing to go. Only third world countries do this.[/quote]

It may be because a large, very vocal contingent in this country insists that the United States is #1 in everything. Unfortunately, this is pure opinion, and not based on fact or data.

What’s worse is that anyone who ventures forth with proof of the opposite is immediately branded “unpatriotic”. Unfortunately, no problem can be addressed if it cannot first be acknowledged.

The sad fact is we are now several generations removed from the United States’ elevation to world power, and many of our citizenry are unaware that this is a status that is achieved, not conferred. And their belief that we will continue to remain in this position because of the might of our military forces is, shall we say, interesting given that the U.S. ascended to that level, in part, due to the use of weapon technology that renders the size of a military irrelevant.

The generation that fought WWII came of age during the Great Depression, and experienced or witnessed severe deprivation and disease firsthand. Most were offspring of parents who had very little or no education, and who had been forced to work in dangerous, extremely low-paying jobs instead. Thanks to the establishment of G.I. Bill, many WWII vets were able to achieve levels of education heretofore unheard of in their socioeconomic class. They used this education to build an economy unrelated to war, and to create an atmosphere that fostered scientific exploration, resulting in rapid technological advancement and achievement.

U.S. unchallenged superiority in technology had pretty much come to an end by the early 1970s, and not much of a fight was put up to retain it. Is it a coincidence that the generation that was responsible for maintaining the momentum of technological research and development was also the first generation for whom 12 years of government-paid education was a right (as opposed to a privilege), and for whom a college education was within reach? For what it’s worth, I don’t think so.

We don’t value education in this country. Elementary and secondary schools are seen as state-sponsored daycare, a welcome respite for “parents” who can rid themselves of their uncontrollable offspring for eight hours a day. Instead of making sure that their kids actually do the small amount of homework and assignments they are given, moms and dads issue fake excuse notes while wondering aloud why schools continue to teach subject matter that students will never use in “real life”. Even those students who voluntarily choose to attend school when they reach college age seem to be, for the most part, concerned with the paycheck that they believe a particular course of study will guarantee than they are with a genuine desire to learn. The upshot of this is that they learn only the factoids that will result in a passing grade (or, often, just the plagiarism skills).

Until we recognize that we are behind other nations in terms of technological advancement (and losing more and more ground rapidly), and that our piss-poor attitude about education is the cause, things will only get worse. We need to place education at a much higher place in our list of national priorities. That means
(1) directing more government funding toward education;
(2) changing our national attitude: seeing education as essential to our survival as a nation and our place as an international competitor; and
(3) focusing our attention on more effective ways of teaching: We have more technology available to us now that can be adapted for teaching that will enable students to learn, to retain, and to use knowledge far more effectively than ever before. We are well into the 21st century, yet we are still trying to force students to learn utilizing 19th century methods (i.e., read-memorize-test).

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu][quote=eavesdropper]Thanks so much for posting this article, flu. I would have definitely missed it on my own.[/quote]

It’s just really sad to read about this. I’m not dissying being a nurse (which is what she has to be). It just infurriates me that when our government budgets gets cut, education is the first thing to go. Only third world countries do this.[/quote]

It may be because a large, very vocal contingent in this country insists that the United States is #1 in everything. Unfortunately, this is pure opinion, and not based on fact or data.

What’s worse is that anyone who ventures forth with proof of the opposite is immediately branded “unpatriotic”. Unfortunately, no problem can be addressed if it cannot first be acknowledged.

The sad fact is we are now several generations removed from the United States’ elevation to world power, and many of our citizenry are unaware that this is a status that is achieved, not conferred. And their belief that we will continue to remain in this position because of the might of our military forces is, shall we say, interesting given that the U.S. ascended to that level, in part, due to the use of weapon technology that renders the size of a military irrelevant.

The generation that fought WWII came of age during the Great Depression, and experienced or witnessed severe deprivation and disease firsthand. Most were offspring of parents who had very little or no education, and who had been forced to work in dangerous, extremely low-paying jobs instead. Thanks to the establishment of G.I. Bill, many WWII vets were able to achieve levels of education heretofore unheard of in their socioeconomic class. They used this education to build an economy unrelated to war, and to create an atmosphere that fostered scientific exploration, resulting in rapid technological advancement and achievement.

U.S. unchallenged superiority in technology had pretty much come to an end by the early 1970s, and not much of a fight was put up to retain it. Is it a coincidence that the generation that was responsible for maintaining the momentum of technological research and development was also the first generation for whom 12 years of government-paid education was a right (as opposed to a privilege), and for whom a college education was within reach? For what it’s worth, I don’t think so.

We don’t value education in this country. Elementary and secondary schools are seen as state-sponsored daycare, a welcome respite for “parents” who can rid themselves of their uncontrollable offspring for eight hours a day. Instead of making sure that their kids actually do the small amount of homework and assignments they are given, moms and dads issue fake excuse notes while wondering aloud why schools continue to teach subject matter that students will never use in “real life”. Even those students who voluntarily choose to attend school when they reach college age seem to be, for the most part, concerned with the paycheck that they believe a particular course of study will guarantee than they are with a genuine desire to learn. The upshot of this is that they learn only the factoids that will result in a passing grade (or, often, just the plagiarism skills).

Until we recognize that we are behind other nations in terms of technological advancement (and losing more and more ground rapidly), and that our piss-poor attitude about education is the cause, things will only get worse. We need to place education at a much higher place in our list of national priorities. That means
(1) directing more government funding toward education;
(2) changing our national attitude: seeing education as essential to our survival as a nation and our place as an international competitor; and
(3) focusing our attention on more effective ways of teaching: We have more technology available to us now that can be adapted for teaching that will enable students to learn, to retain, and to use knowledge far more effectively than ever before. We are well into the 21st century, yet we are still trying to force students to learn utilizing 19th century methods (i.e., read-memorize-test).

[Author]

Posts