http://www.talentism.com/business_talent/2007/06/my_son_wont_do_.html

I am going through hell with my son. He is twelve, and no matter what I do, no matter what my wife or my oldest daughter do, he won’t do his homework. We ground him, we take away all his gadgets, we prevent him from going to birthday parties and other social events that he loves. Other than corporal punishment (which is a place I won’t go), we have tried everything. It doesn’t matter… he doesn’t care. We can't force him to do something he thinks is wrong. And my personal hell is... he is right.

My son can listen to the radio and pick up his saxophone and play whatever he is hearing. Or, if his sax isn’t handy, he picks up whatever other musical instrument is around and plays that.

But he doesn’t do his homework.

I bought him a book about drawing and he gets up at night and reads it and sneaks around the house sketching things. The portraits he does are incredible. The comics he produces are funny, insightful and engaging. Everyone asks him to draw for them.

But he doesn’t do his homework.

My son is rarely if ever unhappy, and people are naturally drawn to him. He has a great delivery on jokes and has a photographic memory for any piece of pop culture he has seen. We riff on Simpson’s lines all the time, cracking each other up in the process. Then he’ll tell me movies he saw three years ago, shot by shot, line by line.

But he doesn’t do his homework.

My son is intellectually curious. He loves to learn new things and is always asking me “Why does something work this way?” or “What about that?”

But he doesn’t do his homework.

My son loves video games. I work at a video game company so I know how long it is supposed to take to finish all the missions in your average next gen video game. My son takes half that time. He holds competitions with his friends where, after he beats them, he shows them all the tricks that he has figured out about how to beat the game.

But dammit, he doesn’t do his homework.

The other day I insisted that my son finish a piece of homework. I sat down next to him and taught myself math that I never learned in all my years of high school and college (remember, he is twelve). I stayed up until midnight with him, browbeating him the entire time, my anger unchecked. Finally, we completed the problem, which had to do with plotting the parabola of a quadratic equation and reducing the result set to a graph of the system of inequalities. The project was about finding the cross section of a river based on a given quadratic equation.

The next morning my son woke early and went down and made his project interesting to him. He put in cartoon characters exploring the depth of the river, and drew a shark (which he labeled with his teacher’s name) about to eat a happy little duck (which he labeled “My Grades”). He drew a fisherman packing gear and assorted other fish and life. These were not just doodles – he actually helped clarify some of the information that he had been struggling with. By drawing the characters he was helping himself understand what the lesson was trying to teach.

My entire family was completely enthralled by what he had done. It was not only artistically creative and engaging, it actually helped clear up the very nature of the project. Justly proud, we anxiously looked forward to hearing how his teacher responded.

My son returned home from school downcast, shuffling his feet. I asked him what was wrong. “My teacher didn’t like the project, because I put it on the wrong size paper.”

I don't have much hair, but I am ready to tear what little I have out at the roots. My son doesn’t do his homework because his homework is stupid. I have spoken to educators and principles and academicians and grandparents and probably a hundred other people , and nobody has given me a decent answer to this question: "Why are you so convinced that my son is going to be an academic or an investment banker?" Because as far as I can tell, those are the only two things that schools prepare kids to be.

I have been sitting by my son's side for 7 years, doing his lessons. I believe I can state with the unequivocal clarity of someone that his given valuable time to a task that is largely worthless but required... the homework is just plain dumb. It is boring and condescending and even my son, at the age of twelve, can figure out that the rules are arbitrary, that they are enforced in a haphazard fashion, and that the stuff that he loves (art and music and video games) will be a great future for him and the stuff he hates (math and science) is something he will never compete in, never have a chance at.

But school doesn’t care, because school does not have the objective of helping my son produce the maximum amount of value in the future that he will probably encounter. School cares about ensuring that he knows how to take tests, follow directions and can do math that he will never have to care about for the rest of his life. School cares that he can either prove that he is worthy of being in the top 5% that will go on to be homogenized and brainwashed in a top-notch school so that they are almost completely without originality of thought or perspective or that he gets the hell out of the way for those kids that meet that description. School cares that he can be measured and managed, so that he will be a good little cog in a habitual big wheel.

As a parent I am caught between two worlds. I am 100% certain that school is doing great damage to his future prospects, but I also know that the game is rigged to be in favor of kids who get the right grades. Because recruiters can’t seem to get off the “experience and education” kick that does so much damage to our society and our children, I know that my children’s future job prospects are being controlled by people who have never once taken a critical look at what really goes into producing value for a business or market. They just know that their client (the hiring manager) told them they wanted somebody from Stanford with a certain GPA. And if they can get that butt in that seat they can then go deal with the next client.

I want to focus on what will make my kids successful, on what will allow them to provide the most possible value to their clients, their society and themselves. But I have to focus on what will get them work, even if that will hurt them, society, the companies that hire them and everyone around them. This is the very definition of broken system, the very epitome of how we are driving ourselves off a cliff all in the name of safe driving. This is why Talentism matters so much to me.

tldr (someof it)

You have bought into the notion that your son MUST do his homework to succeed. So have the teachers and admin and all those 'educators' in the local union.

Our entire nation has bought into the notion that your son must do his homework.

This, however, is not true. Your son does not have to do his homework. He can fail. Everything you are doing is correct, so keep doing it. If a child wants to act like a child, treat them like a child. You are, until he's 18, responsible for his well being and care etc., so make sure he stays in his room (that you have now emptied of all possessions, and make him sit in a chair until he does as you wish.

Show him that in life there is risk v reward. Let him do what he loves, but to a certain point, he must follow some sort of order. [INSERT: Understand that when he grows older, he may be very talented at what he loves but YOU need to help him with the administrative type things for him to succeed financially. End of insert/thoughts for future for dad.] You can only do so much and you will need to let him learn on his own how to cope with life. Life will teach him hard too....but it can be a better parent than you.

However, I doubt you will need to go to extremes with him. I once had a boy of a girl I was seeing act really, really bad...at certain times. He was very head-strong. One day we didn't do ANYTHING for him and made him do it all. He didn't last a couple hours and learned his lesson quickly. He was 7 too, so he found out how hard it was to do the simplest things.

Success isn't defined by finishing one's homework the way everyone expects. It may mean he doesn't get an A in a class when he says/does things the profs don't agree with, or people in general. Being your own person is never following the footsteps of another.

he sounds like the type that is not suited for a 'job' working for someone else...he might well be the entrepreneur type who is better off working for himself, starting his own business, band, etc. Maybe some kind of vocational / music / etc type of school rather than the standard school would fit him best...he is obviously of an artistic bias, not academic, so there's no point trying to force a square peg into a round hole....he still needs schooling / training to build up character, self-motivation, drive, structure, discipline, etc...but he might be best served at a vocational or charter school rather than the standard academic model.

much like anything else the government does that it has a near or complete monopoly of: it stifles innovation and tries to impose a one-size-fits-all program on everyone, regardless of their situation or needs. It's the open market that produces a variety of products to meet the varying market demands....i'm afraid government and teacher-union monopolies produce exactly the opposite. If you are interested, look up John Stossel's show on Fox Business...he has done two shows now looking at education and the broken monopoly that it is, and covers some alternatives, including Charter schools. It sounds like something you might be interested in watching.

I'm adding your story to my long list of reasons not to have kids.

Rebound -- I understand your frustration. As a student and an educator, I've seen more than my share of dumb assignments. But here's a few things.

1) Always ask yourself what the purpose is. the "right paper rule" sounds arbitrary, but is your teacher there JUST to teach math? You yourself said that your kid has no future in math or science (based upon what you said, I completely disagree -- I think they're BUILT for it) but no matter what you do, you need to follow directions properly, be organized, etc. And sometimes doing busywork is unavoidable. These lessons can be taught within assignments whose main purpose seems to be something else.

2) Math has an annoying tendency of working its way into everything you do. At least, if you want to do it well. Especially 12 year old math. you're nowhere near the realm of "math for math's sake." As Jason Fox once said "the more math you know, the more math you see."

3) Twelve years old is awfully young to say "I know exactly what I want to do for the rest of my life." Hell, even HS is pretty young to be saying that -- especially when the average college student switches majors something like 5 times. So general education, covering a broad spectrum, is a great thing. It's not preparing them to be "an academic or an investment banker." Sure, they may not use EVERYTHING they learned in school, but we don't want to pigeonhole them at age seven and be like "those of you who want to build things, take these courses, those who want to make video games, take these courses, those who want to be athletes take these courses, etc etc." Hell, when you're young you don't even know what interesting jobs EXIST.

4) Unfortunately, your son may not have had the greatest teachers. Or, because he's gifted, he may not focus on certain things that they say. For example, if your son had brought his math project to me, I would have been delighted -- what he did shows that he understands the math because he can relate it to a situation in the real world. That's deep understanding, not just regurgitation -- and that's ideal. However, there would be a mild scolding in there for not following directions about the correct paper (or showing all your work, or being organized, etc etc). Sometimes students -- especially gifted students -- get caught up in that criticism way more than they should and don't realize that the teacher's proud of the work they've done. a good teacher would realize there's more going on than just not doing homework and perhaps assign challenge problems/brainteasers or something similar so that they could really apply their skills and interests. If that's the case, hopefully it'll change in the future.

Also, that's a great math problem. Where do you live, because I wish our twelve year olds were given problems like that? We baby them with our curriculum. But that aside, the problem lets the teacher see if they understand the meaning of the system of inequalities. Definitely higher level thinking, not just regurgitation of "here's how to do problems of type ____."

Couple things -- I didn't write this, but I may as well have.

I'm not anti-math, but I think the author makes an excellent point: If you cannot excel at math, you will fail. Should the Music, Art, and Athletic departments pick the best mathematicians they can find? What if drawing skill was as important as math, and you had to be make oil paintings with perfect perspective in order to get into university? Wouldn't we keep a lot of talented people out of university for no good reason?

It used to be that you needed Latin and Greek to get into college. Now it's math. I met a woman who speaks five languages and works in in international sales. She's terrible at math. Would her company sell more product if she spent more time on math and less on language?

Is the OP the author of the original article? Or simply passing along a parent's struggles against public schooling?

Our schools spend WAY too much time teaching our kids stuff they will never have to know. If your child is artistically inclined they will undoubtedly get the short end of the stick. I think through 9th grade I had an art/music class 35 minutes, twice a week.

Couple things -- I didn't write this, but I may as well have.

I'm not anti-math, but I think the author makes an excellent point: If you cannot excel at math, you will fail. Should the Music, Art, and Athletic departments pick the best mathematicians they can find? What if drawing skill was as important as math, and you had to be make oil paintings with perfect perspective in order to get into university? Wouldn't we keep a lot of talented people out of university for no good reason?

It used to be that you needed Latin and Greek to get into college. Now it's math. I met a woman who speaks five languages and works in in international sales. She's terrible at math. Would her company sell more product if she spent more time on math and less on language?
:blush:

Yeah, I realized that after I posted, but same thing applied -- just to the author.

Anyway, that's not true at all -- the excel or fail bit. That's why classes are P/F. In fact, grades seem to be getting inflated slowly over time. That is, an average student nowadays normally gets a "b" and even ones who should fail get a c or d. Most of the time, the only true failures are the ones who don't do their work at all.

Also, it's totally bogus that you need to be good at math to get into college. a) as we discuss in our great college hoax thread, tons of dumb people are going to college b) Schools don't judge solely based on your SAT score.

Should your friend been exempt from math classes in elementary/middle/high school because she KNEW she was going to go into language and never use math ever?

Is the OP the author of the original article? Or simply passing along a parent's struggles against public schooling?

Our schools spend WAY too much time teaching our kids stuff they will never have to know. If your child is artistically inclined they will undoubtedly get the short end of the stick. I think through 9th grade I had an art/music class 35 minutes, twice a week.
It's easier to let them do art at home then teach them math at home ;)

anyway, OP was C&P from the link. It's a blog.

Couple things -- I didn't write this, but I may as well have.

I'm not anti-math, but I think the author makes an excellent point: If you cannot excel at math, you will fail. Should the Music, Art, and Athletic departments pick the best mathematicians they can find? What if drawing skill was as important as math, and you had to be make oil paintings with perfect perspective in order to get into university? Wouldn't we keep a lot of talented people out of university for no good reason?

It used to be that you needed Latin and Greek to get into college. Now it's math. I met a woman who speaks five languages and works in in international sales. She's terrible at math. Would her company sell more product if she spent more time on math and less on language?
I think Language Arts are far more important than math in the job-world.

I can't tell you how many people can't write a decent email, paper, or give a proper presentation. Frankly, I think math should be a relatively minor subject until we start high school, with only those showing a strong apptitude toward it being encouraged to do more of it younger.

Multiple languages, proper writing and communication, history, science etc., are more important, and frankly, far more interesting to younger minds.

I'm adding your story to my long list of reasons not to have kids.


Don’t let this story sway you into not having kids…

Take it from someone who when asked how they liked kids used to use the old WC Fields line; “Medium Rare”…

I am over 50 and the biggest regret of my life is that we waited on kids. Having been a dad for only 7yrs to 10 and 7 yr old boys (adopted) you will find that it the hardest most rewarding job you will ever have.


The day we brought our fist son home I got a new favorite saying “some things become apparent once you become a parent”

The problem IS the problem. Govt's solution is to be everything to everyone and in a commoditized environment, education is a canned package dished out to the masses. You can't possibly serve every interest, every permutation, every possibility. further, we have this notion that every kid can be everything. Sorry, people are born with certain aptitudes, and we are best suited by tailoring education/development towards those aptitudes than ramming people into the same molds.

Unfortunately, given the status of things, education is what it is. Imagine a system where everyone was the exception, where everything was tailored. Imagine the cost, and it wouldn't even be effective.

This is why I am a fan of vocational-style education. Back when I was in HS, in Soph-Senior years kids could elect to go to a vocational school for half the day where they learned things ranging from catering, cooking to babysitting, some amount of nursing, auto repair and other trades (electrician, HVAC, etc). This is the perfect example of educating kids in areas they are interested in.

Not everyone should go to college, but we somehow insist that this is done as if it's the 13th grade. there is no shame in enlisting in the military, or taking your talents and applying them to a trade.

The problem IS the problem. Govt's solution is to be everything to everyone and in a commoditized environment, education is a canned package dished out to the masses. You can't possibly serve every interest, every permutation, every possibility. further, we have this notion that every kid can be everything. Sorry, people are born with certain aptitudes, and we are best suited by tailoring education/development towards those aptitudes than ramming people into the same molds.

Unfortunately, given the status of things, education is what it is. Imagine a system where everyone was the exception, where everything was tailored. Imagine the cost, and it wouldn't even be effective.

This is why I am a fan of vocational-style education. Back when I was in HS, in Soph-Senior years kids could elect to go to a vocational school for half the day where they learned things ranging from catering, cooking to babysitting, some amount of nursing, auto repair and other trades (electrician, HVAC, etc). This is the perfect example of educating kids in areas they are interested in.

Not everyone should go to college, but we somehow insist that this is done as if it's the 13th grade. there is no shame in enlisting in the military, or taking your talents and applying them to a trade.



We had damn sure better get back to teaching the trades. I would agree that not every kid need or should go to college. We have drilled the notion into the heads of kids that they have to go to college to get a good job…doing what?

We are at the beginning of the boomers retiring and there is no one to step in and do those trade jobs, i.e. machinist, plumbers, electricians, mechanics. We have no more shop class in HS, as we transitioned to a service economy this is the result.
Interesting read on the subject

http://www.centerforamerica.org/pledge/gr/AAMGA_Magazine_Ratzenberger_CFA_Article_8-11.pdf

http://edudemic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/gradescartoon.gif

http://edudemic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/gradescartoon.gif
:heart:

I think Language Arts are far more important than math in the job-world.

I can't tell you how many people can't write a decent email, paper, or give a proper presentation. Frankly, I think math should be a relatively minor subject until we start high school, with only those showing a strong apptitude toward it being encouraged to do more of it younger.

Multiple languages, proper writing and communication, history, science etc., are more important, and frankly, far more interesting to younger minds.
Communication skills are undoubtedly essential. I agree with you about foreign languages as well. Everyone should be able to speak Spanish and/or Mandarin as well as English. Sorry, but that's where the world's heading. However, I disagree with you about math. Math NEEDS to be taught. Perhaps in a different form than it is today (though sometimes the "new math" programs are horrific) but it needs to be taught. Why? Because math isn't just about how to find area or how to add and subtract. Math teaches you how to think and problem solve. Logic and math go hand in hand. Without these skills, you can't succeed in ANY vocation. History, science, etc -- they all come down to THINKING, which is the core of math. It is the only "pure" subject -- that is, it's entirely made up and contained within its own abstract set of rules. Science and history are limited by the bounds of evidence and experimentalism (not that they're not important). Language constantly evolves. Math is the only thing that is universal and untainted.

Unfortunately, when we picture math, we think of an old teacher saying "do problems 1-50 until your hands bleed." That's what needs to change, not limiting math education. For more discussion on why math education is critical, I recommend reading the book Innumeracy.

Communication skills are undoubtedly essential. I agree with you about foreign languages as well. Everyone should be able to speak Spanish and/or Mandarin as well as English. Sorry, but that's where the world's heading. However, I disagree with you about math. Math NEEDS to be taught. Perhaps in a different form than it is today (though sometimes the "new math" programs are horrific) but it needs to be taught. Why? Because math isn't just about how to find area or how to add and subtract. Math teaches you how to think and problem solve. Logic and math go hand in hand. Without these skills, you can't succeed in ANY vocation. History, science, etc -- they all come down to THINKING, which is the core of math. It is the only "pure" subject -- that is, it's entirely made up and contained within its own abstract set of rules. Science and history are limited by the bounds of evidence and experimentalism (not that they're not important). Language constantly evolves. Math is the only thing that is universal and untainted.

Unfortunately, when we picture math, we think of an old teacher saying "do problems 1-50 until your hands bleed." That's what needs to change, not limiting math education. For more discussion on why math education is critical, I recommend reading the book Innumeracy.



It is funny while we have homework problems with our 10 year old…5th grade and our 7 year old…2nd grade, both of them like and are good at math. We believe the reason is just as you stated bonk, that fact that math is constant, its rules do not change… and for an ADD kid that is a G-d send.

It is amazing critical thinking and logic are being taught in 5th grad by using algebra and geometry, the middle school starts calculus …courses that I never had till 9th, 10th and 12th grade. I assume that they will pass me in what I am able to help with homework by the time they are in HS.

I think Rebound has appropriately noted that there's not a true "one size fits all" method for education. I'm interested to see what he advocates for from here; it certainly seems to me that our current system emphasizes "one size fits all" above all.

It is funny while we have homework problems with our 10 year old…5th grade and our 7 year old…2nd grade, both of them like and are good at math. We believe the reason is just as you stated bonk, that fact that math is constant, its rules do not change… and for an ADD kid that is a G-d send.

It is amazing critical thinking and logic are being taught in 5th grad by using algebra and geometry, the middle school starts calculus …courses that I never had till 9th, 10th and 12th grade. I assume that they will pass me in what I am able to help with homework by the time they are in HS.
That's a great thing to hear. Maybe not for your ego, but for your kids. IMO, my district (and many around me in MA) baby our kids. We honestly teach them 2nd-3rd grade math at the MS/HS level. That gives them the impression that it's difficult stuff.

I think Rebound has appropriately noted that there's not a true "one size fits all" method for education. I'm interested to see what he advocates for from here; it certainly seems to me that our current system emphasizes "one size fits all" above all.
The problem IS the problem. Govt's solution is to be everything to everyone and in a commoditized environment, education is a canned package dished out to the masses. You can't possibly serve every interest, every permutation, every possibility. further, we have this notion that every kid can be everything. Sorry, people are born with certain aptitudes, and we are best suited by tailoring education/development towards those aptitudes than ramming people into the same molds.

To play devil's advocate and to reiterate my point earlier, how early is too early to specialize? Just because a preschooler likes playing with blocks all day, does that mean we should not teach them history and science because they clearly want to be an architect? "One size fits all" is a derogatory term for a general education. Generalization is not a bad thing, especially when you are young. You need to be given options. You do not want to be in a situation later in life where your early life education has limited you. Specialization is great when you're advanced, but if you ever want to switch disciplines (or integrate across disciplines) you require the general knowledge to do so.

Our school system represents this. In general, elementary education is pretty fixed -- an overview of everything. In MS, you start having the opportunity to take electives. In HS, still more electives exist. In college, you further specialize. In grad school, you focus on one minute thing.

Unfortunately, given the status of things, education is what it is. Imagine a system where everyone was the exception, where everything was tailored. Imagine the cost, and it wouldn't even be effective.

This is why I am a fan of vocational-style education. Back when I was in HS, in Soph-Senior years kids could elect to go to a vocational school for half the day where they learned things ranging from catering, cooking to babysitting, some amount of nursing, auto repair and other trades (electrician, HVAC, etc). This is the perfect example of educating kids in areas they are interested in.

Not everyone should go to college, but we somehow insist that this is done as if it's the 13th grade. there is no shame in enlisting in the military, or taking your talents and applying them to a trade.
Now, I am definitely with you hear. Starting with the HS level, I am all for more vocational skills to be taught in the curriculum or rather BE the curriculum. There are many, many kids who relate better to the practice than to the theory. Unfortunately, America has become such a white collar country that there's a stigma associated with vocational ed. It's quickly changing, though, especially as college costs skyrocket and the job market remains depressed.

That's a great thing to hear. Maybe not for your ego, but for your kids. IMO, my district (and many around me in MA) baby our kids. We honestly teach them 2nd-3rd grade math at the MS/HS level. That gives them the impression that it's difficult stuff.

Ours, too, though it's a mixed bag. Most teachers try to offer the stronger students more advanced topics than they offer the weaker students.

Though there are also teachers either unable or unwilling to do so; they stick to a curriculum and generally offer classes set at the lowest common denominator. Which can be pretty low, even at highly ranked public schools. There are many students that aren't terribly "school ready" for whatever reason, and every class has to make some accommodations for special education students. (Again, these accommodations vary by the teacher.)

The problem is, we want metrics on everything. When your job and school is evaluated on a standardized test, you are sure as hell going to get everyone to prepare and take that test.

WTF, is it post 4+ year old article day on SD or something?

Ours, too, though it's a mixed bag. Most teachers try to offer the stronger students more advanced topics than they offer the weaker students.

Though there are also teachers either unable or unwilling to do so; they stick to a curriculum and generally offer classes set at the lowest common denominator. Which can be pretty low, even at highly ranked public schools. There are many students that aren't terribly "school ready" for whatever reason, and every class has to make some accommodations for special education students. (Again, these accommodations vary by the teacher.)
this is definitely one of the challenge of modern education. There are plenty of studies (and I have anecdotal evidence) that show that integrating a classroom across levels is beneficial to EVERYONE (most beneficial to the lower levels, but still neutral or helpful to the bright ones). However, it needs to be with a teacher who knows how to handle that type of classroom. Oftentimes, the "low" students aren't lacking in intelligence but have behavioral problems that can interrupt the class if not handled properly. When properly done (ie levels of problems for EVERYONE to try, applications to extend their knowledge, etc), this type of classroom is great. However, what often happens is that the teacher turns the bright kids into tutors for the "slow" kids and then wastes time with behavioral issues and people purposefully dragging their feet.

"tracking" avoids this problem, and it's something that's been done traditionally. However, it tends to screw over the lower kids and makes life especially bad for the misplaced kids -- teachers aren't perfect when recommending students for future classes, of course! These problems are what have led it to becoming a "negative buzzword" in the past few years and something that classrooms are trying to avoid. However, that can often lead to frustration, especially for the bright students.

The problem is, we want metrics on everything. When your job and school is evaluated on a standardized test, you are sure as hell going to get everyone to prepare and take that test.
Why is that bad, if the test does a good job of reflecting material that is important to know at that age?

http://www.ted.com/talks/salman_khan_let_s_use_video_to_reinvent_education.html

what do you guys think of this...

Communication skills are undoubtedly essential. I agree with you about foreign languages as well. Everyone should be able to speak Spanish and/or Mandarin as well as English. Sorry, but that's where the world's heading. However, I disagree with you about math. Math NEEDS to be taught. Perhaps in a different form than it is today (though sometimes the "new math" programs are horrific) but it needs to be taught. Why? Because math isn't just about how to find area or how to add and subtract. Math teaches you how to think and problem solve. Logic and math go hand in hand. Without these skills, you can't succeed in ANY vocation. History, science, etc -- they all come down to THINKING, which is the core of math. It is the only "pure" subject -- that is, it's entirely made up and contained within its own abstract set of rules. Science and history are limited by the bounds of evidence and experimentalism (not that they're not important). Language constantly evolves. Math is the only thing that is universal and untainted.
I'm not trying to insinuate that math isn't important or shouldn't be taught. I've read in numerous places that at young ages (1st - 6-8th grade) that kids pick up language arts much better. I think taking 1.5 hours a day to teach something kids have less patience for and don't pick up as quickly is a mistake.

Why is that bad, if the test does a good job of reflecting material that is important to know at that age?


Mostly because kids learn differently and at different rates and their are a lot of flaws in the system.

One of my biggest complaints is the smart often suffer, because we throw most of the resources at the under performing. As long as a smart student passes the test, they are often forgotten, as the teacher spends most of their effort bringing the subpars up to speed, and the smart kids get lazy.

Parents not caring about their kids education. Funny story. After 2-3 years of mediocre attendence at parents day, my wife's school offered a free chili dinner prior to entice parents to show up. The result was 3-4X the amount of parents showing up, a record, the entire parking lot was full. The funny part was after the dinner over 1/2 the parents left without going to the child's class, seeing their work, or meeting their teacher.

I have a bunch others, ie special education kids included in the score averages for the school. The prevelence of zombie jobs in the service industry where education is a determent... etc etc.

I've been reading and seeing on TV more and more about Charter Schools and how they often can personalize learning for their students. Reporter John Stossel has had a few TV show specials of late on Charter Schools. One piece that he wrote yesterday on the topic, which has a link to his TV show, "Fighting to Save America’s Schools".

"Charter School Burnout"

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/10/24/charter-school-burnout

Recall reading this article also:

"Will Charter Schools Cure America’s Blues?"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/01/26/will-charter-schools-cure-americas-blues/

Good luck to your son! Hope an answer can be found that keeps his interests up in attending school and doing homework.

this is definitely one of the challenge of modern education. There are plenty of studies (and I have anecdotal evidence) that show that integrating a classroom across levels is beneficial to EVERYONE (most beneficial to the lower levels, but still neutral or helpful to the bright ones). However, it needs to be with a teacher who knows how to handle that type of classroom. Oftentimes, the "low" students aren't lacking in intelligence but have behavioral problems that can interrupt the class if not handled properly. When properly done (ie levels of problems for EVERYONE to try, applications to extend their knowledge, etc), this type of classroom is great. However, what often happens is that the teacher turns the bright kids into tutors for the "slow" kids and then wastes time with behavioral issues and people purposefully dragging their feet.

Not just tutors (not that you were saying this). My daughter's been more or less assigned to mentor one of the developmentally disabled students because she's the only one in the class mature enough to do so. The rest of the kids tease or refuse to have anything to do with the poor kid.

While this assists the classroom dynamic, I don't think it's doing anything to help my daughter's education.** (I think it's assisting her in empathy, although here it might at times be backfiring - my daughter often would like to hang out with her peers on the playground; instead she's getting cornered by the student she's been assigned to in class.)

To address your broader point, a good/great teacher can generally make things work. I've found this to represent about half of the teachers in the school system we're dealing with. As a parent, unfortunately we have to act as activists and more or less demand attention so that the principle will shuttle our kids into the classrooms where the good teachers are. I say "unfortunately" because it's a zero-sum game - for every student that gets a "good teacher", another student necessarily has to go elsewhere.

And I am for "mainstreaming" to some extent, though I think we probably end up overdoing it in our efforts to leave no child behind. Maybe high school is the place to specialize, maybe earlier in some cases. I'm also skeptical whether all of the resources we put into special education are worth it.


** Her in-classroom education. The teacher has handed her some additional stuff which is beyond the level of what's going on in the school. We go over this at home, and she ends up learning a decent amount. Most good teachers will do things like this, though it would be nice if her classroom experience were at this level as well.

Where's Elmer? Specialization is for insects.

All people should be able to do algebra (if not calculus), quote literature, know history, appreciate art, play an instrument, speak a second language, understand how to posit and test a hypothesis, etc. That's what basic education is all about. (This should be done in high school, college is mostly for specialization).

I disagree with you about math. Math NEEDS to be taught. You're right, but I disagree with you. Here's the problem: Many students are not particularly good at Math, and because of our extreme emphasis on Math, these students believe they are stupid, they get behind in school, and begin to fail at a young age.

Imagine a curriculum where it was equally important to be able to write English, speak a foreign language, play a musical instrument, draw, and master mathematics. The truth is that many students who do very well with mathematics would have difficulty speaking the foreign language or drawing. But drawing and speaking French are not important, so the children who excel at math do better in school than those who are fluent in French, and that's not fair, nor is it especially intelligent.

I think, also, we simply over-emphasize math. A better approach would be more instruction in math-less science at earlier ages, such as introductory astronomy, physics, chemistry, computer programming, and social statistics. With this knowledge, students will develop more thirst for math, because they will understand what they can do with it. When I took computer programming in high school (long ago), every single assignment was a math problem, because computers were taught by the math teacher. So if you were stuck on the quadratic equation or the trig problem, you weren't going to get the assignment right no matter what.

I also have another observation: We have got to fire these damn textbook companies. Their products are horrible. I know with certainty that the mathematics textbooks I used twenty years ago can teach math just as well as today's books. In case you haven't seen them, the books my kid gets in school look like comic books. They're all four-color, full of sidebars and charts and photographs and diagrams, and this is all the subjects. They change out these books constantly, in order to meet the "curriculum requirements' of the State of California. This is absolutely nonsense. First off, you show the teacher the standardized test the kids have to take at the end of the year and you say, "Teach them this." DONE. You don't tell them how the students have to solve the problems, or which homework assignments to give, or any of that. Teaching is an art. You don't tell Picasso which brush to use. We have got to let the teachers teach, and stop cranking out new textbooks and these absurdly detailed lesson plans every single year. It is utter crap, and every single teacher knows it.

One word, corporal punishment.

One word, corporal punishment.You can't beat a kid into being good at math.

If the homework is not needed practice (for that particular student) for a concept that will be assessed, then does the student really need to do it? How much consideration is homework given when considering the final grade? The answer to these two questions would determine how much emphasis I would place on whether or not the homework was completed.

From the example given, IMO it seems as if the homework was not valuable. As a teacher I must value my student's time. If an assignment does not benefit them I should not give it. My belief is homework serves as practice to help a student better grasp concepts that will be assessed in my classroom. Homework for the sake of homework is BS. I can teach the importance of hard work in other ways.

The education system is very messed up. There are not any quick fixes for it. But parents who really care about their child must stand up for them and be their voice. There are only certain things I can do as a teacher to help a child. But when a parent becomes a child's advocate, the system has to listen. When parents come to me with concerns I can not address, I give them the names of people who work within my district who can address their concerns. By doing this, I am going outside of the boundaries sometimes and perhaps making my job more difficult, but it is worth it if it means my student will get the help needed. My other option is to keep quiet and try to steer the parent in a different direction. I have done that in the past. That is no longer an option for me now. I really do care about my students more than I care about keeping my job.

Seek to understand before you seek to be understood. Until that's taken care of: (as the kids say) epic fail.

Also, the modern education system is centered around a mathematical-logical type of teaching. Too bad so few children in their most formative years learn that way.

Oh, and "won't do his homework?" There's an app for that.

You can't beat a kid into being good at math.
If given a choice between homework and mindless distractions such as Facebook, video games, and tv programming, 12-year old will choose distractions 100% of the time. It is a parental obligation to steer them in the right direction, by force if necessary.

All people should be able to do algebra (if not calculus), quote literature, know history, appreciate art, play an instrument, speak a second language, understand how to posit and test a hypothesis, etc. That's what basic education is all about. (This should be done in high school, college is mostly for specialization). This is really interesting. It's interesting because while on algebra, the outcome ("do algebra") is in perfect alignment with the use or purpose of that type of knowledge/skill. Same is true for "speaking a second language", and "understand how to posit and test a hypothesis".

But, when it comes to "quote literature", "appreciate art", "play an instrument" there is no intrinsic value in any of these (intrinsic is the key word here). "Know history" is somewhere in-between since it can have direct value depending upon one's chosen profession -- in politics for example.

So, Xygonn , why do you think we should teach students to "quote literature", "appreciate art", and "play an instrument"?

If you are interested, look up John Stossel's show on Fox Business...he has done two shows now looking at education and the broken monopoly that it is, and covers some alternatives, including Charter schools. It sounds like something you might be interested in watching.Isn't Stossel the former ABC reporter who botched some facts while at 20/20, such as when he "proved" that a private ambulance system was better than one fire department's? At least Stossel doesn't do anything really, really stupid, like have an impressionist pretend to answer questions as Barack Obama.

Charter schools, on average, have performed about the same as regular public schools, and the charter schools that have done best have almost always been those that get the most money.

This is really interesting. It's interesting because while on algebra, the outcome ("do algebra") is in perfect alignment with the use or purpose of that type of knowledge/skill. Same is true for "speaking a second language", and "understand how to posit and test a hypothesis".

But, when it comes to "quote literature", "appreciate art", "play an instrument" there is no intrinsic value in any of these (intrinsic is the key word here). "Know history" is somewhere in-between since it can have direct value depending upon one's chosen profession -- in politics for example.

So, Xygonn , why do you think we should teach students to "quote literature", "appreciate art", and "play an instrument"?
There is intrinsic value to speaking a second language or understanding how to formulate and test a hypothesis?

What sort of value is that, exactly?

This video is lousy quality but has excellent content. It is a bit old too and I'm sure things are even worse now but if you have an hour, it is very worth your time. I'd consider it a must-see for any parent.
Peg Luksik:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7398714418354815608#

There is intrinsic value to speaking a second language or understanding how to formulate and test a hypothesis?

What sort of value is that, exactly?We're in a whole lot of trouble if we teach only things with the highest intrinsic value. Speaking English has a very high intrinsic value in non-English speaking countries, so much so that it's often taught in elementary school. But foreign language skill is very useful in business. If you're in the restaurant or construction business, speaking Spanish will keep you way ahead of your competition. In my business, it helps us have better relationships with our foreign customers. It's more useful in business than graphing a quadratic equation, that's for sure.

This is really interesting. It's interesting because while on algebra, the outcome ("do algebra") is in perfect alignment with the use or purpose of that type of knowledge/skill. Same is true for "speaking a second language", and "understand how to posit and test a hypothesis".

But, when it comes to "quote literature", "appreciate art", "play an instrument" there is no intrinsic value in any of these (intrinsic is the key word here). "Know history" is somewhere in-between since it can have direct value depending upon one's chosen profession -- in politics for example.

So, Xygonn , why do you think we should teach students to "quote literature", "appreciate art", and "play an instrument"?

Ideas are more than just math. Literature gives one a sense of broad ideas, how to communicate stories, and make metaphors. Being able to quote greats in literature allows you to process and maintain ideas that are important to you and others. It's a shared knowledge and understanding.

Art is similar, though it also is able to promote emotions as well as symbols. One should be able to tie together the meaning of paintings and sculptures when possible. I'm not a huge fan of abstract art, though.

Playing an instrument is entertaining for both the player and the audience. Additionally learning to play and instrument, really play it, gives one the ability to think in patterns and create new patterns. It lets you think in focus, in rhythm, and in concert with others that have the same line of thought. These skills are valuable in other aspects of life.

I want to be absolutely clear here though. We don't all have to be the best at everything. Just competent. Understand what drives others, how they fit in, and why all skills that are valued in society are valued. By making this exploration you can understand what value you have and can create, and how to best pursue success and enjoyment of your life. That is what primary education is about.

Just for fun:

x=[-b (+ or -) sqrt(b^2-4ac)]/(2a)

The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. ~Plato

I like Van Gogh.

I play Tuba (and a bit of guitar).

I speak some Japanese (used to be nearly fluent :( ) and am currently learning Chinese (can carry on a basic conversation).

As far as doing science, I have a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering. I kinda found my niche.

Isn't Stossel the former ABC reporter who botched some facts while at 20/20, such as when he "proved" that a private ambulance system was better than one fire department's? At least Stossel doesn't do anything really, really stupid, like have an impressionist pretend to answer questions as Barack Obama.
i dont know anything about that...but everyone makes mistakes...dont tell me reporters from NYT, CNN, etc have not made the same if not worse, yet people still listen to them..

Charter schools, on average, have performed about the same as regular public schools, and the charter schools that have done best have almost always been those that get the most money.

I'll take your unproven, unfounded allegation, and raise you a real life example of someone who turned around a system by using charter schools, outperforming the public schools, with half the money the public schools get ($7k per student vs. $13k in the public schools)
http://www.amazon.com/Crazy-Like-Fox-Principals-Triumph/dp/0451228189

we (the usa) have dramatically increased educational spending in the past 4 decades, and spend more per student than most, if not all, other countries, yet the outcomes are crap...why? because the system is crap, the government monopoly performs just like any other monopoly: produces the worst quality product at the highest possible price...that is the outcome, if not the purpose, of a monopoly...it's bad enough that it's a monopoly, but the teachers unions don't help with their setup that protects inferior and failing teachers, while providing no rewards whatsoever for ones that outperform, in the union's typical leftist goal of equality across the board, regardless of performance....so we have what we have....and the democrats and the unions opposition to vouchers just further enforces and entrenches the corruption, mediocrity, and failure.

Some, like Chavis, are able to challenge and outperform the system, but sadly, they are just a drop in the ocean at this time.

Try to overcome your bias against Stossel, and watch at least his second episode of the education issue...he interviews Chavis, as well as union-supporters and lets them present their case...your opinion of his bias is irrelevant when he is interviewing and talking with other folks....after his first episode, the teachers unions dared him to come teach to see what it is like...he called their bluff and took their challenge...they told him we will find you something, and over a year later, he still has not heard form them as they stall and prevaricate...that speaks volumes in itself

Isn't Stossel the former ABC reporter who botched some facts while at 20/20, such as when he "proved" that a private ambulance system was better than one fire department's? At least Stossel doesn't do anything really, really stupid, like have an impressionist pretend to answer questions as Barack Obama.
i dont know anything about that...but everyone makes mistakes...dont tell me reporters from NYT, CNN, etc have not made the same if not worse, yet people still listen to them..Stossel wasn't under a tight deadline like a daily reporter but had weeks to investigate and prepare for it.

OTOH you're right that dozens of NYT and CNN reporters have resorted to interviewing impressionists pretending to be politicians.

I'll take your unproven, unfounded allegation, and raise you a real life example of someone who turned around a system by using charter schools, outperforming the public schools, with half the money the public schools get ($7k per student vs. $13k in the public schools)
http://www.amazon.com/Crazy-Like-Fox-Principals-Triumph/dp/0451228189

we (the usa) have dramatically increased educational spending in the past 4 decades, and spend more per student than most, if not all, other countries, yet the outcomes are crap...why? because the system is crap, the government monopoly performs just like any other monopoly: produces the worst quality product at the highest possible price...that is the outcome, if not the purpose, of a monopoly...it's bad enough that it's a monopoly, but the teachers unions don't help with their setup that protects inferior and failing teachers, while providing no rewards whatsoever for ones that outperform, in the union's typical leftist goal of equality across the board, regardless of performance....so we have what we have....and the democrats and the unions opposition to voucher just further enforces and entrenches the corruption, mediocrity, and failure.

Why should I watch Stossel's unsubstantiated report? Give me a break. He has no desire to tell the truth but to only further his political agenda, and for years he's been doing nothing but junk reports where he cherry picks facts that fit his viewpoints, rather than show the overall picture.

Similarly, your story about the charter school is just an anecdote, and while ou can always find exceptional schools that do well with little money, either their system can't usually be duplicated on a larger scale, or the schools turn out to be Texas miracles. The fact is, quality of education correlates more highly with spending per pupil (among conventional public schools, only Utah's seem to do much better than expected for their low spending, which probably shows the importance of tight families) and family income. Also spending in the last 10-20 years hasn't kept pace with overall inflation, and it's inflation that may be giving you the impression that spending has increased a lot (before the past 10-20 years, yes). I'm not the only one who's said charter schools tend to lag conventional schools, and generally they substantially outperform only where the regular schools are exceptionally bad. Maybe that's because charter schools are only lightly regulated in most places, they get less money, and their teachers are paid quite a bit less. Low-paid teachers have rarely been good unless they're clergy.

It is sad that many parents think it is the schools' (governments') responsibility to educate their kids. Schools are just a tool. If it doesn't work, then the parents only have themselves to blame for keeping their children enrolled.

Parents want to see the best in their children. If the children do not excel academically, the parents make excuses and fool themselves into thinking their child is misunderstood or thinks outside-the-box. These delusions are precisely "what's wrong with education".

Just raise your kids the Asian way and you'll do just fine.

Here's a book for reference: Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother (http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Hymn-Tiger-Mother-Chua/dp/1594202842/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top)

One word, corporal punishment.
You can't beat a kid into being good at math.Well since capital punishment works so well for adults, surely corporal punishment should work as well for kids.

:lol:

Well since capital punishment works so well for adults, surely corporal punishment should work as well for kids.

:lol:
If we actually had capital punishment, I'm pretty sure it'll work.

What's Wrong with Education

Teachers Unions, Administrators/School Boards who won’t back the teachers up, Parents who neglect their parental responsibility, and of course worrying more about being PC and not offending anyone or hurting their feelings than actually teaching.

We're in a whole lot of trouble if we teach only things with the highest intrinsic value. Speaking English has a very high intrinsic value in non-English speaking countries, so much so that it's often taught in elementary school. But foreign language skill is very useful in business. If you're in the restaurant or construction business, speaking Spanish will keep you way ahead of your competition. In my business, it helps us have better relationships with our foreign customers. It's more useful in business than graphing a quadratic equation, that's for sure.
As I see it, the "inherent" values of science and math aren't inherent at all. Some view them as inherent because they value observation and calculation over introspection and reflection, and they justify this argument with the claim that the sciences and mathematics allow for the progression of technology and for the development of better understandings of the world in which we live. In the end, though, technology exists to serve humanity, as does our collective understanding of the physical universe, and what value can service to humanity have if humanity defines itself purely by that which it hopes to achieve? If "humankind" is to have any semblance of meaning at all (and if goals which seek to benefit humankind are also to have such meaning), we must actively seek to retain that which makes us human, for progress for the sake of progress is not progress at all. It is merely, to abuse the grassroots meme of our very own TP, intellectual masturbation.

I've mentioned before to friends in more private conversations that it is interesting that, in general, professional "pure" scientists, such as physicists and microbiologists, tend overwhelmingly to hold a deep respect or admiration for the science of their profession, yet they do not tend to champion the importance of that science above the humanities or even other sciences. Every single such person I know has as a much-loved hobby some activity rooted deeply in the humanities. One physicist I know from my time at university is a composer. Another organic chemistry professor likes to paint. Indeed, at any time when the sanctity of the humanities is threatened, it is typically the "intellectual elite" among us--those very same people who are the very best at the sciences the transgressors would tout--who rush to the defense of the arts.

Still, though, introspection is not productive in the usual sense, which is to say it does not produce a marketable product. Most liberal arts are, when practiced strictly as art forms and not as commercial skills, a relaxing, introspective activity for the artist--a form of inward reflection, almost like meditation. I think the issue with society's view of the humanities stems not from the inherent fallibility thereof but rather from society's collective investment in greed. That is to say that American society, by and large, is built on a foundation of avarice, and without steadily increasing production quotas, our ability to consume at a similarly increasing rate is threatened. Now, because we have so long been so concerned with consumption over production or stability, we tend by and large to view those skills useful for "paving the [technological] road to the future" as primarily important. Add to that the growing greed of America now demands not only tangible goods but also lavish abstractions like education, and you've got yourself a ripe recipe for the NCLB act.

In other words, it's a problem of culture, not one of politics or governmental administration. While it certainly is true that a vocal minority has some serious problems with the "teach to the test" approach that politicians are so strongly promoting, the majority of the public doesn't care. They want to see that their children are getting the education they deserve (goddammit!), and most of them aren't smart enough to figure out that the test scores don't really show that. Your problem is just one of many with the oh-so-popular campaign to make teachers accountable and to ensure that all children are being put squarely on the path to genius.

The funny part? The current trends in education virtually guarantee that future generations will not be led by the wisest people. Not that America has really been too concerned about picking wise leaders in the recent past. Le sigh.

Your problem is just one of many with the oh-so-popular campaign to make teachers accountable and to ensure that all children are being put squarely on the path to genius.No, I think you have not read my posts. Here it is in a nutshell: To get into a good college, you need to learn algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus. Yet, very few professions use all of that. Why are we putting kids through all that? I'm all for offering that to kids who want it, but I feel it's a mistake to use it as a criteria for kids who want to be lawyers or musicians or marketing people. I'm not anti-math, I simply believe that math has far too much importance, at the expense of more useful learning, for many students.

No, I think you have not read my posts. Here it is in a nutshell: To get into a good college, you need to learn algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus. Yet, very few professions use all of that. Why are we putting kids through all that? I'm all for offering that to kids who want it, but I feel it's a mistake to use it as a criteria for kids who want to be lawyers or musicians or marketing people. I'm not anti-math, I simply believe that math has far too much importance, at the expense of more useful learning, for many students.
That's not your real question. I know because it's a stupid one, no offense. Kids don't know what they profession they want to have when they grow up. They don't know what skills they will need. The choice, then, is to pick a handful of skills that the kids may or may not use as adults and teach those in the hope that they will use at least a few of them, in which case the kids will still learn some skills they won't ever use, or to teach them a broader range of skills, which makes it more likely both that one or more of the skills will be useful and that more of the skills will not be useful. By the time a kid is an adult (which is when he or she will ultimately decide what it is he or she wants to do with his or her life), it's far too late to begin training in a field that kid has no prior experience in (like trigonometry), so it's important to get the basics in early on. You do understand that, right?

That's not your real question. I know because it's a stupid one, no offense. Kids don't know what they profession they want to have when they grow up. They don't know what skills they will need. The choice, then, is to pick a handful of skills that the kids may or may not use as adults and teach those in the hope that they will use at least a few of them, in which case the kids will still learn some skills they won't ever use, or to teach them a broader range of skills, which makes it more likely both that one or more of the skills will be useful and that more of the skills will not be useful. By the time a kid is an adult (which is when he or she will ultimately decide what it is he or she wants to do with his or her life), it's far too late to begin training in a field that kid has no prior experience in (like trigonometry), so it's important to get the basics in early on. You do understand that, right?How much biology do you take in high school? Perhaps one year. Chemistry? Perhaps one year. There are no biology or chemistry questions on the SAT, but math is half of the test. Students who do not have a natural aptitude for math are at a serious disadvantage in our educational system, and there's nothing they can do about it.

the how is variable. One thing the that some states and school districts have been working with career clusters to give purpose:nod:
http://www.careertech.org/career-clusters/glance/clusters.html

How much biology do you take in high school? Perhaps one year. Chemistry? Perhaps one year. There are no biology or chemistry questions on the SAT, but math is half of the test. Students who do not have a natural aptitude for math are at a serious disadvantage in our educational system, and there's nothing they can do about it.

Of course they could always TRY harder (or in some case just try at all).. maybe even get tutors or help from other students. You don't have to be a wiz at math to get a decent score on the SAT but if you have little to no aptitude for math and combine that with making little to no effort to learn ... yep .. you will be at a disadvantage.

If I remember correctly the first post in this thread concerned getting the student to do homework ... NOT get the student to get an A or B grade.

How much biology do you take in high school? Perhaps one year. Chemistry? Perhaps one year. There are no biology or chemistry questions on the SAT, but math is half of the test. Students who do not have a natural aptitude for math are at a serious disadvantage in our educational system, and there's nothing they can do about it.
The SAT and the ACT are not part of the K-12 educational system. But anyway, see my previous wall of text. It contained my response to the issue of why math and science are such large parts of modern curricula and why I perceive that to be a problem.

Now, in Ohio schools, if you fail the writing, reading, or social studies graduation test, you are equally affected as you would be if you failed the science or math test. In addition, Ohio permits students to graduate even if they fail sections of the test by meeting certain other criteria, such as maintaining at least a 2.5 GPA in the subject area(s) of failure, maintaining an overall attendance rate of 97% or higher, and obtaining letters of recommendation from teachers of the failed subjects and the principal. By no means are you required to be a pro at math in my state. Maybe you should move.

Here it is in a nutshell: To get into a good college, you need to learn algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus. Yet, very few professions use all of that. Why are we putting kids through all that?
Math sucks. Unless maybe you want to build a bridge or something. Then it's ok.
I think Language Arts are far more important than math in the job-world.

I can't tell you how many people can't write a decent email, paper, or give a proper presentation. Frankly, I think math should be a relatively minor subject until we start high school, with only those showing a strong apptitude toward it being encouraged to do more of it younger.

Multiple languages, proper writing and communication, history, science etc., are more important, and frankly, far more interesting to younger minds.
This.

Mostly because kids learn differently and at different rates and their are a lot of flaws in the system.

Even though kids learn at different rates, we can't set a baseline of stuff that they should know by a certain age? I think not. Can we exceed that? certainly.


One of my biggest complaints is the smart often suffer, because we throw most of the resources at the under performing. As long as a smart student passes the test, they are often forgotten, as the teacher spends most of their effort bringing the subpars up to speed, and the smart kids get lazy.

See my post up above. I don't disagree that smart kids are sometimes held back, but I disagree with your reason of why. It is HARD to teach smart kids. You need to either be smarter than them or you need to know how to appropriately coach them along so that they discover things on their own. These can be hard to do, especially as class sizes grow. Good teachers do a good job of providing above-and-beyond material. However, not every teacher is a good teacher.



I have a bunch others, ie special education kids included in the score averages for the school. The prevelence of zombie jobs in the service industry where education is a determent... etc etc.

FWIW, severe special ed doesn't. The special ed you're thinking of is accomodation special ed, like extra time, use of calculators, etc.

You're right, but I disagree with you. Here's the problem: Many students are not particularly good at Math, and because of our extreme emphasis on Math, these students believe they are stupid, they get behind in school, and begin to fail at a young age.

How is that any different from any other subject? Part of schooling is learning that you may not be great at everything and learning how to play to your strengths and weaknesses, plus perservering through your weaknesses. I just don't understand your point, however. If we don't teach something because some students aren't good and it (and have their self-esteem ruined :rolleyes) then we wouldn't teach ANYTHING.

Imagine a curriculum where it was equally important to be able to write English, speak a foreign language, play a musical instrument, draw, and master mathematics. The truth is that many students who do very well with mathematics would have difficulty speaking the foreign language or drawing. But drawing and speaking French are not important, so the children who excel at math do better in school than those who are fluent in French, and that's not fair, nor is it especially intelligent.

Check out your states education standards. Most states require them to be good at math, science, literature, history, and social science. Most school require students to take some form of art.

It sounds like you're coming from a school that only teaches math. I've never heard of such a place.

I think, also, we simply over-emphasize math. A better approach would be more instruction in math-less science at earlier ages, such as introductory astronomy, physics, chemistry, computer programming, and social statistics. With this knowledge, students will develop more thirst for math, because they will understand what they can do with it. When I took computer programming in high school (long ago), every single assignment was a math problem, because computers were taught by the math teacher. So if you were stuck on the quadratic equation or the trig problem, you weren't going to get the assignment right no matter what.

Once again, this seems to be based on your experience. If anything, my past has led me to think we UNDERemphasize math. Your example may explain things, though. Sometimes the sciences ARE limited by math, and you're correct -- hopefully students would thirst to learn the math. However, that also inherently limits the sciences.


I also have another observation: We have got to fire these damn textbook companies. Their products are horrible. I know with certainty that the mathematics textbooks I used twenty years ago can teach math just as well as today's books. In case you haven't seen them, the books my kid gets in school look like comic books. They're all four-color, full of sidebars and charts and photographs and diagrams, and this is all the subjects. They change out these books constantly, in order to meet the "curriculum requirements' of the State of California. This is absolutely nonsense. First off, you show the teacher the standardized test the kids have to take at the end of the year and you say, "Teach them this." DONE. You don't tell them how the students have to solve the problems, or which homework assignments to give, or any of that. Teaching is an art. You don't tell Picasso which brush to use. We have got to let the teachers teach, and stop cranking out new textbooks and these absurdly detailed lesson plans every single year. It is utter crap, and every single teacher knows it.
Teachers are REQUIRED to go from the textbook where you live? Wow, that stinks.

That said, those texts are designed like they are for a reason. The sidebars, photographs, etc are all designed to introduce random "for your interest" things while making the main content look less overwhelming. It's intimidating to open an old math book and see a list of words and equations. The brain starts to shut out ideas before it even begins to learn.

FWIW, severe special ed doesn't. The special ed you're thinking of is accomodation special ed, like extra time, use of calculators, etc.

You sure? My wife is a special education teacher and a couple of the "severe" cases do count as per their scores. I will have to confirm with her later.

As an aside, she got called into the VP's room last year and had to explain why her score averages dropped. The reason, 2 of her students had progressed enough to be able to removed from special ed and return to normal classes. Luckily the VP was reasonable and understood, losing 2 high scores would lower your average..

You sure? My wife is a special education teacher and a couple of the "severe" cases do count as per their scores. I will have to confirm with her later.

As an aside, she got called into the VP's room last year and had to explain why her score averages dropped. The reason, 2 of her students had progressed enough to be able to removed from special ed and return to normal classes. Luckily the VP was reasonable and understood, losing 2 high scores would lower your average..
please ask her. It could also be different for different areas and levels. What grades does she teach? Also, god love her. Special ed teachers are saints.

How is that any different from any other subject? Part of schooling is learning that you may not be great at everything and learning how to play to your strengths and weaknesses, plus perservering through your weaknesses. I just don't understand your point, however. If we don't teach something because some students aren't good and it (and have their self-esteem ruined :rolleyes) then we wouldn't teach ANYTHING.
I certainly agree that math fluency is important, up to arithmetic -- multiplication, division, percentages, and the like. But geometry, trig and calculus fluency are not, in my opinion, essential and most people forget that stuff. In fact, I think if any more advanced math subject is important, it's statistics. We live in a data-driven world and a well-educated person will be better suited with a solid understanding of statistics than algebra II, trig and calc.

Again, I'm not anti-math, I simply think that the subject is over-emphasized, to the detriment of those students who are not well-suited for it.

please ask her. It could also be different for different areas and levels. What grades does she teach? Also, god love her. Special ed teachers are saints.

She was teaching 3rd and 5th grades (she was teaching 2nd and 4th last year), but now they were finally able to find another special education teacher, so thankfully just the 3rd grade now. There was such a shortage of special ed teachers last year she had to do double duty, now that was stressful.

The reason she moved grades this year, was that there were a couple of very high needs kids in the 2nd grade that she was making progress with, so they elected to move her with the kids to continue the progress instead of starting off scratch.

Though I see why there is a high burnout rate in special ed teachers, I could never do that job. It's amazing with as cushy these teaching jobs are supposed to be, they sure have a very hard time filling all the teaching spots.

I have to tell you this story, because I laugh my arse off everytime. One of her students always came to school with 2-3 changes of clothes because would always go to the bathroom in their pants. He would just sit there in the middle of class with a big grin on his face and go.

She was teaching 3rd and 5th grades (she was teaching 2nd and 4th last year), but now they were finally able to find another special education teacher, so thankfully just the 3rd grade now. There was such a shortage of special ed teachers last year she had to do double duty, now that was stressful.

The reason she moved grades this year, was that there were a couple of very high needs kids in the 2nd grade that she was making progress with, so they elected to move her with the kids to continue the progress instead of starting off scratch.

Though I see why there is a high burnout rate in special ed teachers, I could never do that job. It's amazing with as cushy these teaching jobs are supposed to be, they sure have a very hard time filling all the teaching spots.

I have to tell you this story, because I laugh my arse off everytime. One of her students always came to school with 2-3 changes of clothes because would always go to the bathroom in their pants. He would just sit there in the middle of class with a big grin on his face and go.
I guess things may be different at different levels, but now I'll have to check with my special ed colleagues. And its so true -- the things that special ed people have to deal with are crazy. Teaching regular level students alone is like babysitting all day with some education thrown in for good measure. Special ed is like babysitting, caretaking, and educating. It's insane. Also, I love the image of the big grin.

I certainly agree that math fluency is important, up to arithmetic -- multiplication, division, percentages, and the like. But geometry, trig and calculus fluency are not, in my opinion, essential and most people forget that stuff. In fact, I think if any more advanced math subject is important, it's statistics. We live in a data-driven world and a well-educated person will be better suited with a solid understanding of statistics than algebra II, trig and calc.

Again, I'm not anti-math, I simply think that the subject is over-emphasized, to the detriment of those students who are not well-suited for it.
No, I think you have not read my posts. Here it is in a nutshell: To get into a good college, you need to learn algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus. Yet, very few professions use all of that. Why are we putting kids through all that? I'm all for offering that to kids who want it, but I feel it's a mistake to use it as a criteria for kids who want to be lawyers or musicians or marketing people. I'm not anti-math, I simply believe that math has far too much importance, at the expense of more useful learning, for many students.

Again, the goal in teaching math is as much about logical thought and problem solving as it is "the math." That really goes without saying because logical thought and problem solving IS math, but normally when people think of math, they think of memorizing rules and functions. As I said before, math is the only subject that is pure, meaning that its rules are created by the field. Science and history rely on evidence. Languages aren't static. Arts are entirely subjective. That leaves math as the only field where you can really explore logic. Essentially, it is the only "philosophy" class that students see until college (much to Doc wu's dismay).

Math can really be taught in one of three ways: as a "pure" philosophy, as a practical tool (applied math), and as a random set of rules and functions to memorize. Personally, I think the best way to teach is as a mix of the first two. In college, it is often taught purely as the first (unless you're taking "math for poets/biologists/etc"). In good HS classes, there's lots of the second and sometimes a smattering of the first. However, I feel that most often it's taught as the third and this gives rise to the sentiment.

Logical thought is clearly something that's important in almost all fields, ESPECIALLY law. The Greeks, btw, recognized music as one of the fundamental mathematics of the universe (along with astronomy and a few other things). They were probably the first to realize the mathematics of rhythm and harmony. Linguistics is hugely mathematical.

Finally, contrary to your statement, algebra, trig, and calc aren't REQUIRED to get into a good college. True, there are math portions on the major standardized tests (no calc on those, however), but admission to college doesn't depend on those alone. There are numerous cases every year of people who get poor test scores (at least on one section of a test) but are admitted to great colleges because of their exceptional skills in other disciplines.

Again, the goal in teaching math is as much about logical thought and problem solving as it is "the math." I think you are out of touch with how mathematics is taught in California public schools. The first thing they need to do is get the damn textbook companies out of business. An elementary school math textbook from the 1950's or 1960's is a better textbook than what they produce today.

The problem, really, is that the states want to teach to standards, and prove that the standards from their state is better than the standard from another, and they fill the kids' minds up with a bunch of meaningless crap.

Third Grade: Learn how to multiply, and memorize multiplication up to 10. (Of course, the State insists memorizing up to 12, because 12 is more than 10.)

Fourth Grade: Master division, long division, multiplication of large numbers.

Math helps some people solve problems more effectively. Great for them, give them lots of math to study. Let other people learn foreign languages. Our over-focus on math is arbitrary and unnecessary. We are a data-driven society, and if there is any advanced mathematics that matters, it is statistics.

I think you are out of touch with how mathematics is taught in California public schools. The first thing they need to do is get the damn textbook companies out of business. An elementary school math textbook from the 1950's or 1960's is a better textbook than what they produce today.

The problem, really, is that the states want to teach to standards, and prove that the standards from their state is better than the standard from another, and they fill the kids' minds up with a bunch of meaningless crap.

Third Grade: Learn how to multiply, and memorize multiplication up to 10. (Of course, the State insists memorizing up to 12, because 12 is more than 10.)

Fourth Grade: Master division, long division, multiplication of large numbers.

Math helps some people solve problems more effectively. Great for them, give them lots of math to study. Let other people learn foreign languages. Our over-focus on math is arbitrary and unnecessary. We are a data-driven society, and if there is any advanced mathematics that matters, it is statistics.

The thing is though, Bayesian statistics (the kind that matter in this data driven world) are of necessity driven by calculus for updating priors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjugate_prior

Also, queuing theory, and other statistical methods for understanding discrete (and continuous) stochastic processes are highly dependent on calculus.

But sure, teach kids how to abuse the normal distribution, Student's t-distribution, Chi-squared distribution, mean, variance, and linear regression analysis. They'll be able to write misleading policy papers.

No, I think you have not read my posts. Here it is in a nutshell: To get into a good college, you need to learn algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus. Yet, very few professions use all of that. Why are we putting kids through all that? I'm all for offering that to kids who want it, but I feel it's a mistake to use it as a criteria for kids who want to be lawyers or musicians or marketing people. I'm not anti-math, I simply believe that math has far too much importance, at the expense of more useful learning, for many students.
Why should kids want to be lawyers (non crusading type) or marketing people?

I'm worried because for at least the last several decades, the majority of the graduate assistants in science and engineering at our colleges have been foreign students who don't stay here when they're done.

Finally, contrary to your statement, algebra, trig, and calc aren't REQUIRED to get into a good college. True, there are math portions on the major standardized tests (no calc on those, however), but admission to college doesn't depend on those alone. There are numerous cases every year of people who get poor test scores (at least on one section of a test) but are admitted to great colleges because of their exceptional skills in other disciplines.Exactly.... Why do you have to have exceptional skills to get into college if you aren't a math wizard? It makes no sense. Why not require mastery of a musical instrument instead? Or require mastery of three foreign languages instead of Math? And then we could accept a tiny number of students with poor foreign language skills, if they are exceptional at something else?

The thing is though, Bayesian statistics (the kind that matter in this data driven world) are of necessity driven by calculus for updating priors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjugate_prior

Also, queuing theory, and other statistical methods for understanding discrete (and continuous) stochastic processes are highly dependent on calculus.

But sure, teach kids how to abuse the normal distribution, Student's t-distribution, Chi-squared distribution, mean, variance, and linear regression analysis. They'll be able to write misleading policy papers.Spoken like a truly arrogant snob.

I guess I'll be the villain that Gotham... or rather this thread needs. The only people that constantly complain about standards / standardized testing are the parents of dumb kids who don't want to admit that their kids are dumb. Instead of admitting that their kid is of below average intellgence, they'd rather delude themselves into thinking its the systems fault why their kid is failing. The author of the OP's article even goes so far as to claim that because his kid is good at video games, that somehow proves that his kid isn't a dunce.

Unless your kid has behavoral problems, certain learning diabilities or English is his second language then chances are he is of below average intelligence. Some people are above average, and some people are below average, thats just how it works. You don't need to be particularly smart to be successful, you just need to find something that you are good / passionate about.

Worst comes to worst you could always show your kid how to set up a tent in Zuccotti park and demand handouts from people that are good at working with numbers.

The only people that constantly complain about standards / standardized testing are the parents of dumb kids who don't want to admit that their kids are dumb.


You don't need to be particularly smart to be successful, you just need to find something that you are good / passionate about. You just countered your own argument. Our educational system wants you to believe that you're dumb if you aren't good at math. These mighty acolytes have decided that you're dumb, and they want you to feel dumb and go through school and life feeling dumb, and yet you admit that it isn't true!

It's a complete waste. Dont make kids feel that they're dumb, because there are a hell of a lot of people who are much worse at math than you are, who earn more money than you ever will.

You just countered your own argument. Our educational system wants you to believe that you're dumb if you aren't good at math. These mighty acolytes have decided that you're dumb, and they want you to feel dumb and go through school and life feeling dumb, and yet you admit that it isn't true! It's a complete waste.


There's a difference between being "not good at math" and not having a basic level of competency. If a kid is consistantly getting D's and F's in math then chances are he is significantly less intelligent than his peers. It means his problem solving ability, logical reasoning ability, and his ability to organize information are relatively poor in comparison. It's not a waste to test and develop these skills because having these skills determines whether you are suited towards many careers in many fields such as medicine, law, engineering, computer programming, finance, science, etc.

Dont make kids feel that they're dumb, because there are a hell of a lot of people who are much worse at math than you are, who earn more money than you ever will.

No, my point is that even if you are dumb, it doesn't mean that you can't be successful. I'd rather be the luckiest person in the world than the most intelligent person in the world any day of the week. Heck you can get Cs and Ds in school and end up as a Senator or even president of the United States!

At the same time though, if your kid is dumb, it doesn't help to be in denial about it. If your kid is struggling with basic algebra and is geting mediocre grades in all of his other subjects then you should probably be looking at trade schools rather than colleges after highschool. Too many parents with the best intentions send their kids off to mediocre private colleges and take on massive amounts of debt because they believe that institutions of higher learning are the only way that their kid will get ahead in life. Then they act surprised when the banks expect them to make payments on their loans and their kid can't find a job with his non mathematical degrees in art history, english literature, women's studies, anthropology, etc.

I've been talking with my childrens' teachers about this. They told me that the State of California doesn't simply mandate the material they have to teach, but how they have to teach it. The teachers are essentially treated like stupid little robots who aren't given the opportunity to use their natural talents and strengths to teach. My son's fourth grade teacher, who is widely loved by the parents and children, thinks that the state's math methods are horrendous, and will create stupid students.

The thing is, children haven't become smarter. The math that challenged me in fourth grade back in the 1970's can challenge a fourth grader today. "New Math" is not creating better mathematicians.

Exactly.... Why do you have to have exceptional skills to get into college if you aren't a math wizard? It makes no sense. Why not require mastery of a musical instrument instead? Or require mastery of three foreign languages instead of Math? And then we could accept a tiny number of students with poor foreign language skills, if they are exceptional at something else?

Apparently you didn't read my post. You DON'T need to have exceptional math skills to get into college today. I wholeheartedly disagree with your premise and can point out a number of my students who are evidence of my point.

But not anybody to whom I taught math ;)

I've been talking with my childrens' teachers about this. They told me that the State of California doesn't simply mandate the material they have to teach, but how they have to teach it. The teachers are essentially treated like stupid little robots who aren't given the opportunity to use their natural talents and strengths to teach. My son's fourth grade teacher, who is widely loved by the parents and children, thinks that the state's math methods are horrendous, and will create stupid students.

The thing is, children haven't become smarter. The math that challenged me in fourth grade back in the 1970's can challenge a fourth grader today. "New Math" is not creating better mathematicians.
This I agree with wholeheartedly.

A lot of education research is as bogus as a lot of the sociology and social psychology that they're related to. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't important education studies being done, but teaching math in a "new" way sometimes leads to missing the forest for the trees. I've seen convoluted methods to "remember" many of the basic math principles, and while I'm not saying that MY methods are the most superior on planet earth, the amount that some of my students struggle with basic math concepts leads me to believe they're not doing much good and may in fact be a bit harmful.

I've been talking with my childrens' teachers about this. They told me that the State of California doesn't simply mandate the material they have to teach, but how they have to teach it. The teachers are essentially treated like stupid little robots who aren't given the opportunity to use their natural talents and strengths to teach.
Looks like that "teachers should get tenure after three years and big raises because their experience is so important" stuff doesn't have much bearing in California.

Looks like that "teachers should get tenure after three years and big raises because their experience is so important" stuff doesn't have much bearing in California.Looks like some people can turn a discussion about bird watching into an anti-union rant.

Looks like some people can turn a discussion about bird watching into an anti-union rant.
Just pointing out the truth when the opportunity presented itself. I wouldn't have wanted such a strong statement from you to not be given the publicity it deserves.

What's the title of this thread again?

Exactly.... Why do you have to have exceptional skills to get into college if you aren't a math wizard? It makes no sense. Why not require mastery of a musical instrument instead? Or require mastery of three foreign languages instead of Math? And then we could accept a tiny number of students with poor foreign language skills, if they are exceptional at something else?

Spoken like a truly arrogant snob.


I know, right! Whenever an actual expert speaks about what is necessary in their field, they are arrogant snobs. I hate it when my doctor comes in and uses big words. What a jerk.

I guess things may be different at different levels, but now I'll have to check with my special ed colleagues. And its so true -- the things that special ed people have to deal with are crazy. Teaching regular level students alone is like babysitting all day with some education thrown in for good measure. Special ed is like babysitting, caretaking, and educating. It's insane. Also, I love the image of the big grin.

Finally got to talk to the wife.

According to her, if the child is extremely low-level or catatonic, then they are not counted on the standardized tests.

How they assess it, is they ask the kid a question and give them a couple options, if they make any attempt at all to answer (verbal, pointing, blinking, etc) then they get counted on the standardized tests. They are allowed to make certain accomidations for the test but they get counted as regular students.

She also said she has a couple of students that will probably never be able to do basic math (ie 1+1 = ?) or be able to form a complete setence but are counted against her. It's her third year and she is already burning out and wants to quit..

Always an interesting topic. Consider my two oldest kids. Both easily tested into the Gifted and Talented program.

My daughter loves to write, create stories and visual presentations. She however struggles in math and can't solve a word problem to save her life. She loves the GT programs because her writing assignments are different than those done in regular classes and they make it fun to even learn science by combining it with writing. She gets straight A's except science, where she has a B.

My son can't stand to write. He has terrible hand writing and a two paragraph story is too much for him. Science is his thing...he loves math and is in robotics. He loves the GT program because they get to focus on this stuff that isn't taught in the regular classroom and he is around others who like him are into science. He even manages to write stories to go along with his science/math projects. He gets straight A's except math, where he has a B.

Now consider middle school. GT become Language Arts. Gone is science...now it's all about understanding word roots and writing. Who do you suppose will appear to be the steller student in middle school?

Alternative education and specialized education is a great thing...but not for everyone. Some kids are destined to actually be well rounded and concentrating on particular subjects would be an injustice to them. Magnet schools can be the best for the other kids...those who excel in math or science or music or gymnastics.

Spoken like a truly arrogant snob.

Why can't you find a more constructive way to express your ideas?

I know, right! Whenever an actual expert speaks about what is necessary in their field, they are arrogant snobs. I hate it when my doctor comes in and uses big words. What a jerk.I'm not sure what you mean. My children's teachers unanimously believe that the teaching methods being proscribed to them by "math experts" is harmful to the children, in that it confuses them and interferes with their ability to teach them basic arithmetic.

On the other hand, sure, experts are experts, but I dont see how that addresses the overwhelming emphasis on Math as opposed to so many other fields of study. I'm not against Math. I'm also not against Music, French, Auto Shop, History, Chemistry, and many other fields of study.

Always an interesting topic. Consider my two oldest kids. Both easily tested into the Gifted and Talented program.

My daughter loves to write, create stories and visual presentations. She however struggles in math and can't solve a word problem to save her life. She loves the GT programs because her writing assignments are different than those done in regular classes and they make it fun to even learn science by combining it with writing. She gets straight A's except science, where she has a B.

My son can't stand to write. He has terrible hand writing and a two paragraph story is too much for him. Science is his thing...he loves math and is in robotics. He loves the GT program because they get to focus on this stuff that isn't taught in the regular classroom and he is around others who like him are into science. He even manages to write stories to go along with his science/math projects. He gets straight A's except math, where he has a B.

Now consider middle school. GT become Language Arts. Gone is science...now it's all about understanding word roots and writing. Who do you suppose will appear to be the steller student in middle school?

Alternative education and specialized education is a great thing...but not for everyone. Some kids are destined to actually be well rounded and concentrating on particular subjects would be an injustice to them. Magnet schools can be the best for the other kids...those who excel in math or science or music or gymnastics.
Your middle school only teaches language arts? :confused:

I'm not sure what you mean. My children's teachers unanimously believe that the teaching methods being proscribed to them by "math experts" is harmful to the children, in that it confuses them and interferes with their ability to teach them basic arithmetic.

On the other hand, sure, experts are experts, but I dont see how that addresses the overwhelming emphasis on Math as opposed to so many other fields of study. I'm not against Math. I'm also not against Music, French, Auto Shop, History, Chemistry, and many other fields of study.
Most states require equal amounts of math and language and slightly less science. It's really disingenous to compare "math" to "chemistry." Try comparing a field of math to a field of science, like chem. People take as much geometry as they do chem.

Are you saying we should REQUIRE music, french, and auto shop for everyone? We do require history (multiple years of it, in fact). But music and french are nowhere near as instrumental in people's lives as math and language are. Auto shop and home ec, though, I'd love to see restored to prominence.

Your middle school only teaches language arts? :confused:


Reading comprehension a problem for you? I said:

GT become Language Arts.

My entire post was in reference to the GT program and how in Elementary School it allowed both children to flourish in areas they excelled above the general population but that in Middle School it is just about Language Arts. Naturally my daughter who excels in English subjects will have an advantage over my son who struggles in that area comparatively.

Reading comprehension a problem for you? I said:



My entire post was in reference to the GT program and how in Elementary School it allowed both children to flourish in areas they excelled above the general population but that in Middle School it is just about Language Arts. Naturally my daughter who excels in English subjects will have an advantage over my son who struggles in that area comparatively.
Particularly confusing was how you asked who would be the better student in middle school. Makes it sound like there's nothing for your son. sucks that your science/math teachers don't have challenge problems or clubs (robotics team, math team, science olympiad) for your son to enjoy. On the flip side, simply HAVING a gifted program outside of elementary school isn't too common, so maybe your daughter's lucky with her opportunity.

Are you saying we should REQUIRE music, french, and auto shop for everyone? We do require history (multiple years of it, in fact). But music and french are nowhere near as instrumental in people's lives as math and language are. Auto shop and home ec, though, I'd love to see restored to prominence.
Speaking a foreign language is a more useful skill for more people than algebra and calculus are. But what I'm trying to say is that we should keep the math programs for those who want it, and let other college-bound students take other coursework.

There are a lot of professions in science and engineering that require a strong math background, but for other careers, there are more useful courses of study. And it's not simply a matter of providing alternatives, it's the fact that forcing some kids to study a subject they are bound to fail at is setting them up to fail in other courses and life. Another poster said a lack of excellence in math means a kid is dumb. I disagree strongly, and it's high time we stop wasting these kids lives by telling then they're dumb.

Speaking a foreign language is a more useful skill for more people than algebra and calculus are. But what I'm trying to say is that we should keep the math programs for those who want it, and let other college-bound students take other coursework.

There are a lot of professions in science and engineering that require a strong math background, but for other careers, there are more useful courses of study. And it's not simply a matter of providing alternatives, it's the fact that forcing some kids to study a subject they are bound to fail at is setting them up to fail in other courses and life. Another poster said a lack of excellence in math means a kid is dumb. I disagree strongly, and it's high time we stop wasting these kids lives by telling then they're dumb.
Really? More people utilize a foreign language than go shopping, make budgets, figure out their income, etc? These are all algebra things.

And if a teacher tells a student that they're dumb overall because they can't do math, that teacher is just an awful human being. Personally, I don't know any teachers like that, but I know very few teachers percentagewise.

Really? More people utilize a foreign language than go shopping, make budgets, figure out their income, etc? These are all algebra things.

And if a teacher tells a student that they're dumb overall because they can't do math, that teacher is just an awful human being. Personally, I don't know any teachers like that, but I know very few teachers percentagewise.People use arithmetic to do the things you describe.

Teachers tell kids they're dumb when they fail them.

Really? More people utilize a foreign language than go shopping, make budgets, figure out their income, etc? These are all algebra things.

And if a teacher tells a student that they're dumb overall because they can't do math, that teacher is just an awful human being. Personally, I don't know any teachers like that, but I know very few teachers percentagewise.
I know many teachers, and, at most schools in Ohio, a teacher who tells kids they are dumb (for any reason) is a teacher who will soon find him- or herself unemployed.

Carpentry is a valuable job skill. It is useful in daily life. It teaches problem-solving skills. It's taught in many schools. It provides a job skill you can use in any country. Many famous people were carpenters, such as Harrison Ford and Jesus Christ.

But we don't force kids to be carpenters, we don't require 12 years of carpentry education, (or even one year,) and, most important, we don't judge a person's college admission or aptitude based on his or her carpentry skills. Why not?

The system is geared towards teaching the average kid. The truth is that there is no "average" kid, but a full spectrum of pupils. Maybe the example kid is one that is towards the fringe of the bell curve. If you have a child in the fringes of this curve, there is potential that they will not be well suited for our public education system. There is also a chance that the average education is so simple they can do it in their sleep, so they just do the work.
Teaching to the "average" means you only have to be average to be a successful student. From what I've seen standardize tests typically test concepts most gifted children would easily pass with nothing more than a MS or elementary education.
In the OP example the kid not doing the homework, this is good chance to teach your kid sometimes the mundane is necessary to move on to the more interesting tasks. If they don't learn this now they will be in for rude awakening later on in life. Its a means to an end.

People use arithmetic to do the things you describe.

Teachers tell kids they're dumb when they fail them.
A) people are using algebra during those problems, like it or not. There's already a nonsensical argument on here about "arithmetic vs algebra" on here (I can't remember if you participated in it or not). But frankly, solving any problem for an unknown is algebra -- at least what high schoolers call algebra. HS algebra is very different from "real" algebra.

B) Teachers aren't telling a kid they're dumb when they fail them. They're telling them they didn't meet the standards. Now, that COULD be because the student simply doesn't get it -- but again, that doesn't mean they're "dumb." It means they haven't been taught a particular subject in a way that they understand. However, it could mean many other things -- they were absent too many days to be counted, they didn't hand in their work, they didnt try to learn the material....

B) Teachers aren't telling a kid they're dumb when they fail them. They're telling them they didn't meet the standards. Now, that COULD be because the student simply doesn't get it -- but again, that doesn't mean they're "dumb." It means they haven't been taught a particular subject in a way that they understand. However, it could mean many other things -- they were absent too many days to be counted, they didn't hand in their work, they didnt try to learn the material....

The point about the effect of kids being told they are dumb doesn't really have anything to do with how an adult sees a failing grade, it has to do with how kids see a failing grade. Assuming the kid makes a reasonable effort, repeated Ds or Fs are going to make him feel dumb.

Some kids are dumb. 50% of kids are below average.

Some kids are dumb. 50% of kids are below average.
Totally false. All children can excel at something, and all have their weaknesses.

Totally false. All children can excel at something, and all have their weaknesses.

You're right, more people should learn statistics.

You're right, more people should learn statistics.
I'm not joking. The purpose of education is not to create winners and losers. The purpose is to enable each child to reach his or her fullest potential.

Think about that a bit.

I'm not joking. The purpose of education is not to create winners and losers. The purpose is to enable each child to reach his or her fullest potential.

Think about that a bit.

I agree with you. The fact of the matter is, that some people are just worse at learning in general than other people. The objective is not to only teach those that excel, or only teach those that are lagging behind. They all need to be taught to reach their full potential. That is not incompatible with the statement that some kids have more potential than others. One kid will eventually be the POTUS, but another will just be the best grocery bagger in the the greater Springfield area.

The point about the effect of kids being told they are dumb doesn't really have anything to do with how an adult sees a failing grade, it has to do with how kids see a failing grade. Assuming the kid makes a reasonable effort, repeated Ds or Fs are going to make him feel dumb.
The person controls their feelings. If they truly put in effort and still don't understand something then maybe they're "dumb" in that subject. Odds are that they're not bad at EVERYTHING. It's quite an important life lesson to learn what you're good at and what you're bad at.

Some kids are dumb. 50% of kids are below average.
no, 50% of us are below the median. Average tells you nothing about the distribution. Clearly, you're dumb at math :tongue:

I'm not joking. The purpose of education is not to create winners and losers. The purpose is to enable each child to reach his or her fullest potential.

Think about that a bit.
to expand on what Xygonn said, it is quite important to learn what your limits are. If there is a subject that you're bad at, it's really dumb to choose a career that uses that subject. Part of a school's job is to help people realize their strengths and weaknesses and expose them to life options that suit their differences.

to expand on what Xygonn said, it is quite important to learn what your limits are. If there is a subject that you're bad at, it's really dumb to choose a career that uses that subject. Part of a school's job is to help people realize their strengths and weaknesses and expose them to life options that suit their differences.Ok, then why do we shove so much farking math down their throats?

Some kids are dumb. 50% of kids are below average.Prove it!



















:)

The person controls their feelings. If they truly put in effort and still don't understand something then maybe they're "dumb" in that subject. Odds are that they're not bad at EVERYTHING. It's quite an important life lesson to learn what you're good at and what you're bad at.:Sure, but when a student learns he or she is bad at sixth grade math, throwing algebra, trig and geometry at them will produce predictable results, which is a kid who stops working at schoolwork.

Ok, then why do we shove so much farking math down their throats?
We don't shove complicated math down their throats. We shove pretty basic math down their throats. Until you get to precalculus, which is a class that many people choose not to take or exceed, basically everything is applicable to real life.

I'm sorry, but if you don't understand what a variable is, how to rearrange mathematical equations using standard operators, and how to graph things, you're going to find yourself severely limited in understanding the world around you. Solving for the complex roots of an equation -- that's something that you can do without. But it's not something that's on any college admissions test (except maybe SAT II math -- I forget).

Sure, but when a student learns he or she is bad at sixth grade math, throwing algebra, trig and geometry at them will produce predictable results, which is a kid who stops working at schoolwork.
Perhaps it's up to the parents to show them how perservering through topics they find difficult is something that's applicable to everything in their life.

Your solution is that people should just be able to say "oh, you know what -- I think I'm not good at this so I'm not even going to bother to try" and the rest of society should just accept that?

Also, there are many people I know who are great at one field of math (say, HS algebra) but terrible at another (say, geometry). And vice-versa.

Sure, but when a student learns he or she is bad at sixth grade math, throwing algebra, trig and geometry at them will produce predictable results, which is a kid who stops working at schoolwork.

Survival of the fittest. If they don't find the resolve to improve their knowledge of required subjects, then they'll struggle even more down the line.

I think you can only do so much as a parent because ultimately, it is up to the child's ambition that will determine his future. (imo)

How is your son doing now?

Perhaps it's up to the parents to show them how perservering through topics they find difficult is something that's applicable to everything in their life.

Your solution is that people should just be able to say "oh, you know what -- I think I'm not good at this so I'm not even going to bother to try" and the rest of society should just accept that?

Also, there are many people I know who are great at one field of math (say, HS algebra) but terrible at another (say, geometry). And vice-versa.Maybe you suck at sports and speaking Latin, and you think everybody should be forced to learn years of math they'll never use.Why do you hate Latin so much? Latin teaches you reasoning and logical thinking skills. You're probably one of those guys with a license plate that says you're an alumni of some university, but if you could speak Latin, you'd know that you aren't an alumni of anything, but my wife and I are.

(Can you figure that out?)

Maybe you suck at sports and speaking Latin, and you think everybody should be forced to learn years of math they'll never use.Why do you hate Latin so much? Latin teaches you reasoning and logical thinking skills. You're probably one of those guys with a license plate that says you're an alumni of some university, but if you could speak Latin, you'd know that you aren't an alumni of anything, but my wife and I are.

(Can you figure that out?)
I don't recall saying I hated Latin, but you must admit Latin is a dead language. Sure, it helps on figuring out what the roots of some words mean in English, but you know what else does? Reading. I'm all for foreign language classes. Especially Spanish and Mandarin, as I've stated previously. In fact, most grammar lessons seem to be taught in FL classes nowadays, as English classes focus more on literature topoics like themes, motifs, and symbolism.

And Latin doesn't teach you logic. I'd love to hear your reasoning (ha!) on that one.

You paint a very funny picture of me. But I do know enough Latin to know that alum is the singular of alumni, just as I know data is the plural of datum. All without taking a Latin class! :bigeye:

True or false -- you use math more often than you use Latin living here in America, assuming you're not a clergyman.

But I do know enough Latin to know that alum is the singular of alumni, just as I know data is the plural of datum. All without taking a Latin class!If I called you an alum, I would violate the Slickdeals Terms of Service, so I better not do that. You are certainly not an alum; at least, I don't think you can be. Is alum singular of alumni? Yes, but you are not an alum.

You should have studied something that teaches logical thinking skills :)

Second declension, not third.

If I called you an alum, I would violate the Slickdeals Terms of Service, so I better not do that. You are certainly not an alum; at least, I don't think you can be. Is alum singular of alumni? Yes, but you are not an alum.

You should have studied something that teaches logical thinking skills :)

Second declension, not third.
alum, alumn, alumnus.

Ah well, the pope'll use context clues to figure out what I'm talking about :rolleyes:

alum, alumn, alumnus.

Ah well, the pope'll use context clues to figure out what I'm talking about :rolleyes:It's the rough equivalent of driving a car that says, "I are a Harvard graduate." Unimpressive.

It's the rough equivalent of driving a car that says, "I are a Harvard graduate." Unimpressive.
oh well. Never claimed to be the goodest english speaker.

I'm sorry, but if you don't understand what a variable is, how to rearrange mathematical equations using standard operators, and how to graph things, you're going to find yourself severely limited in understanding the world around you.
Got some examples you are thinking of? In a different post, you said something about people use algebra for shopping. I suppose in a basic sense they do, but I couldn't think of any serious, "advanced course algebra" examples for that, and now I'm trying to think of specific examples for "a typical person" to know how to rearrange mathematical equations in daily life in anything but a basic fashion.

I mean, everyone needs to know math on a certain level. The question then is what that certain level is.

Got some examples you are thinking of? In a different post, you said something about people use algebra for shopping. I suppose in a basic sense they do, but I couldn't think of any serious, "advanced course algebra" examples for that, and now I'm trying to think of specific examples for "a typical person" to know how to rearrange mathematical equations in daily life in anything but a basic fashion.

I mean, everyone needs to know math on a certain level. The question then is what that certain level is.
calculating mpg, figuring fastest routes, calculating budget excess and finances in general, gambling, athletics, overseeding, tips, cooking .....not to mention the methodical and logical techniques of problem solving which is applicable to almost everything.

of course "how much math" is the question. but when you're 10 or 15, do you really know how much that'll be? It's not like they're learning differential geometry or real analysis.

Got some examples you are thinking of? In a different post, you said something about people use algebra for shopping. I suppose in a basic sense they do, but I couldn't think of any serious, "advanced course algebra" examples for that, and now I'm trying to think of specific examples for "a typical person" to know how to rearrange mathematical equations in daily life in anything but a basic fashion.

I mean, everyone needs to know math on a certain level. The question then is what that certain level is.

In my daily life, I would think the ability to schedule loan payments would be good. So A given P, and i type of stuff. More about finances than anything. So, basic arithmetic as well as how to do powers. Probability theory is also useful for card games. So understanding the properties of factorials is useful.

It sounds like to me that the only thing your son is learning from school is how to hate it. My suggestion is to pull your son out of school and home-school him. He is obviously not learning well with the atmosphere that is setup within the school and works much better with you.

Got some examples you are thinking of? In a different post, you said something about people use algebra for shopping. I suppose in a basic sense they do, but I couldn't think of any serious, "advanced course algebra" examples for that, and now I'm trying to think of specific examples for "a typical person" to know how to rearrange mathematical equations in daily life in anything but a basic fashion.

I mean, everyone needs to know math on a certain level. The question then is what that certain level is.
Scaling and multiplying ratios for creating or modifying recipes (and knowledge of the laws of thermal conductance to estimate how long a new recipe needs to be cooked), basic to advanced algebra for understanding which of two (or more) different sizes of food products is actually the better value, simple arithmetic for understanding how much money I can afford to spend versus how much I make and need to save, advanced arithmetic (and algebra) for understanding how compound interest rates and other common economic calculations are done, rules of probability so I know when certain risks involving a known gamble are worth making... I could keep going. A great deal of scientific and mathematical knowledge gets used in my daily life.

basic to advanced algebra for understanding which of two (or more) different sizes of food products is actually the better value,
You mention this, and someone else mentioned cooking. I hear that kind of thing and think about all the crazy algebra/math I had to do and just don't see how it's related. "Hey, kids, today we're going to learn matrices...."

I suppose there is a chance I do various of those things automatically today and don't give enough credit for the past practice that now allows me to do those things automatically today. ...or not. :cool:
gambling,
Probability theory is also useful for card games.
rules of probability so I know when certain risks involving a known gamble are worth making
"Math is evil and leads to gambling addiction. It must be banned immediately." :P Come on, Rebound, fist-bump. :highfive:

You mention this, and someone else mentioned cooking. I hear that kind of thing and think about all the crazy algebra/math I had to do and just don't see how it's related. "Hey, kids, today we're going to learn matrices...."

I suppose there is a chance I do various of those things automatically today and don't give enough credit for the past practice that now allows me to do those things automatically today. ...or not. :cool:



"Math is evil and leads to gambling addiction. It must be banned immediately." :P Come on, Rebound, fist-bump. :highfive:
Yep, I'm sure you do use math and science in ways you don't even think about. You use them while driving, almost subconsciously, when you make sharp turns or judge whether you can make it past a yellow light, for example. You would be absolutely amazed at how generally dumb people are when they've had no education in math and science. Practical applications you take for granted are astonishing to them. While it is true that some things you can learn to do simply by trial and error, a good lot of things some people do every day are actually impossible without firm grasps on, at the very least, rudimentary concepts.

With regard to schools, the issue that most people don't seem to see at first glance is that a school cannot predict exactly what information will be useful to its students. Some of the information is useful for everyday living, like using simple division to scale down a recipe, using algebra to do your taxes, or using science to keep your driveway clear in the winter. Other information is designed solely to prepare students for more advanced education in that field. Now, there are several problems in deciding where the "need to know" line should be drawn.

One, literally the entire range of everything that is taught in most schools could potentially be useful in the personal lives of some students down the road. This of course is true of all knowledge. The more you know, the better.

Two, America has a long history of global prominence with respect to industrialism and technological innovation. There were even a few "almost-wars" scattered across the last hundred years that have associated the concept of patriotism with this concept of technological and innovative dominance. Now that America is lagging behind, the very idea of losing that title scares many Americans, as Apollo 11, the atom bomb, the assembly line, and Mac / Microsoft have become core components of American identity. America's leaders want to keep America's historic strengths--thus trying to force improvements in science and math, the foundational instructions behind technological innovation.

Three, it is difficult for schools to create different graduation requirements based on student ability, but there are problems with setting the bar too low, also. If you let students strong in the liberal arts graduate just because they're strong in the liberal arts, you may very well be robbing some of those students of tremendous potential, as students who appear skilled in the arts may have a yet undemonstrated affinity for a specific science. Or vice versa--for many are the "science kids" who have received humanities degrees. It is therefore important to evaluate what skills are of critical value to society. This, of course, is a heavy task for any panel, board, or council to consider. They have to create requirements, but the question of which bits of information should be among the requirements is one that will always be met with different responses from different people. On the other hand, if you set requirements low to appease parents demanding better grades for their children, you risk losing the engagement of the students and having them wash out of school before they even really begin.

These concerns are at the forefront of educational legislation, and unfortunately there is no way to completely circumvent the implicit fear of the future America falling behind in technological innovation. Add to that the fact that technological innovation has been a tremendous boon to our nation's economy--this remembered in a time of economic crisis--and you've got an impregnable wall of practical reasoning recommending that we make science and math the "most important subjects." At least three quarters of the equation is rooted firmly in fear. The rest, though, really does relate to fairness for the children.

You mention this, and someone else mentioned cooking. I hear that kind of thing and think about all the crazy algebra/math I had to do and just don't see how it's related. "Hey, kids, today we're going to learn matrices...."

Matrices are occasionally useful, especially if you do spreadsheet work. However, most math classes teach them as a shortcut, especially for solving systems."

I suppose there is a chance I do various of those things automatically today and don't give enough credit for the past practice that now allows me to do those things automatically today. ...or not. :cool:

My math (and science) knowledge says that the probability of the above statement being correct is quite high.

Matrices are occasionally useful, especially if you do spreadsheet work. However, most math classes teach them as a shortcut, especially for solving systems."


I heard recently they dumbed down my old Comp Sci program and only require Matrices instead of Linear Algebra. Matrices before being an optional step to ease you into Linear Algebra. I can't say I've ever used matrices in a professional environment (at least that I can recall) but the basis is to teach a higher level of mathematical understanding. Just an example of higher level understanding in college courses.. A required class I once took was mathematical proofs (which you must do well at to continue, not just pass). But to take that course you must finish Calc 2. Yet there's not a shred of Calc in the class, the explanation why (I remember asking)... They only want to allow people with a certain level of mathematical comprehension into the class.

In fact Calc 1/2 (can't remember which) was described as a weed out class. Meaning they tried to be difficult with the class to get rid of people that didn't belong in a Math/Sci program early. Back when I started it was a class of say 50? After the deadline to drop there was maybe 15 people. and this was true of all sections of the class w/ different professors.. I was always told this was done intentionally to get rid of people who decided to enroll in a Math/Sci program w/o the proper mathematics skill set.

I heard recently they dumbed down my old Comp Sci program and only require Matrices instead of Linear Algebra. Matrices before being an optional step to ease you into Linear Algebra. I can't say I've ever used matrices in a professional environment (at least that I can recall) but the basis is to teach a higher level of mathematical understanding. Just an example of higher level understanding in college courses.. A required class I once took was mathematical proofs (which you must do well at to continue, not just pass). But to take that course you must finish Calc 2. Yet there's not a shred of Calc in the class, the explanation why (I remember asking)... They only want to allow people with a certain level of mathematical comprehension into the class.

In fact Calc 1/2 (can't remember which) was described as a weed out class. Meaning they tried to be difficult with the class to get rid of people that didn't belong in a Math/Sci program early. Back when I started it was a class of say 50? After the deadline to drop there was maybe 15 people. and this was true of all sections of the class w/ different professors.. I was always told this was done intentionally to get rid of people who decided to enroll in a Math/Sci program w/o the proper mathematics skill set.

this reminds me of my organic chem course. just plain brutal, although the real weed out class was Basic Chem 1/2 for science majors (surprisingly). it was an 8 am class too... we started in an auditorium with at least 150 people and ended with about 20. there was one A given. :nod:

Got some examples you are thinking of? In a different post, you said something about people use algebra for shopping. I suppose in a basic sense they do, but I couldn't think of any serious, "advanced course algebra" examples for that, and now I'm trying to think of specific examples for "a typical person" to know how to rearrange mathematical equations in daily life in anything but a basic fashion.

I mean, everyone needs to know math on a certain level. The question then is what that certain level is.Where arithmetic stops and algebra starts is kinda murky but here is an everyday example that needs algebra: It takes Tom 4 hrs to dig a certain size hole. It takes Dick 2 hrs. How long would it take Tom and Dick together?

Where arithmetic stops and algebra starts is kinda murky but here is an everyday example that needs algebra: It takes Tom 4 hrs to dig a certain size hole. It takes Dick 2 hrs. How long would it take Tom and Dick together?
That's a textbook word problem, but I don't think it's really a very useful application of algebra. Honestly, do you know how long it would take any of your friends to dig a specific size hole? :lol: A more common example would be something like, "At 22 miles per gallon, how much gas will I need for a three hundred mile road trip?" or, "36 cookies takes one cup of chocolate chips and two cups of flour, so how much chocolate and flour would I use for just 12 cookies?" Algebra is such a ridiculously practical branch of math that half of it is intuitive and isn't easy to recognize as algebra unless you actually look at what you're doing in your head to get the answer. Really, you are using algebra anytime you have an unknown quantity in a math problem. For example, something as simple as, "I have 3 quarters. I need 4 to do my laundry. How many more quarters do I need to get from the coin jar?" is algebra, though the jump from algebra to the subtraction step is so intuitive that we often don't even realize we're calculating an unknown variable.

Thought this could be an encouraging sign to see, the choice of online schooling. By the article, there might be a few wrinkles to iron out but imagine the personalization it would provide students and parents will make it a wave of the future.

"U.S. Public Schools Turn to Digital Education"

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/12/us-public-schools-turn-to-digital-education/

Thought this could be an encouraging sign to see, the choice of online schooling. By the article, there might be a few wrinkles to iron out but imagine the personalization it would provide students and parents will make it a wave of the future.

"U.S. Public Schools Turn to Digital Education"

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/12/us-public-schools-turn-to-digital-education/
It's not much of a choice. Online schools have to be funded somehow, and that means either the school can charge fees or the school is chartered by the state. If it is chartered by the state, that school will still have to go along with guidelines set by the state. If it's not chartered, people would have to pay a tuition to attend, much like a private school. As you might imagine, most opt for the charter route when possible.

Thought this could be an encouraging sign to see, the choice of online schooling. By the article, there might be a few wrinkles to iron out but imagine the personalization it would provide students and parents will make it a wave of the future.

"U.S. Public Schools Turn to Digital Education"

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/12/us-public-schools-turn-to-digital-education/

My daughter finished the last few years of high school online, I would highly recommend it. Though the quality varies from school to school, her cyber school was tough and the graduation requirements were even more than the local high schools.

Thought this could be an encouraging sign to see, the choice of online schooling. By the article, there might be a few wrinkles to iron out but imagine the personalization it would provide students and parents will make it a wave of the future.

"U.S. Public Schools Turn to Digital Education"

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/12/us-public-schools-turn-to-digital-education/
It'll be interesting to track the development of online education in the future. There can be advantages over B&M schools, especially in certain cases (ie disabilities). However, there are many disadvantages as well, especially in things like interaction and presentation.

It'll be interesting to track the development of online education in the future. There can be advantages over B&M schools, especially in certain cases (ie disabilities). However, there are many disadvantages as well, especially in things like interaction and presentation.
One big advantage to online schools: less walking.

One big advantage to online schools: less walking.
just what kids today need -- less exercise ;)

It'll be interesting to track the development of online education in the future. There can be advantages over B&M schools, especially in certain cases (ie disabilities). However, there are many disadvantages as well, especially in things like interaction and presentation.Do you know any math teachers/students who have checked out the Khan Academy (http://www.khanacademy.org/)?
I think it was mentioned on CNN.

Do you know any math teachers/students who have checked out the Khan Academy (http://www.khanacademy.org/)?
I think it was mentioned on CNN.
Plenty. Khan Academy is very cool. But it's not a replacement for an actual classroom. Granted, I'm quite biased as if it DID replace an actual classroom, I'd be out of my current job. :)

Khan is very cool and I sometimes recommend it to my students. More of my students prefer TED. Khan Academy is nice because of the availability of a multitude of subjects. But learning is best done as an active process, not sitting there watching a lecture online. It'll be a sad day if classrooms are ever replaced by something like that.

But learning is best done as an active process, not sitting there watching a lecture online. It'll be a sad day if classrooms are ever replaced by something like that.I agree. The last thing we need is kids sitting in a cubicle every day. I was thinking more along the lines of a kid using it at home to help s/he with a homework assignment they're having difficulty with. Sounds like TED is helpful.

http://www.talentism.com/business_talent/2007/06/my_son_wont_do_.html

I am going through hell with my son. He is twelve, and no matter what I do, no matter what my wife or my oldest daughter do, he won’t do his homework. .......

In my opinion, the kid is bored. Today's public education teaches to the lowest level of student. The kid is intelligent and needs to be challenged, while his school is teaching everyone at the level of the village idiot's kid. The schools are holding back intelligent students because the special ed kid can't understand 2 + 2 = 4 and not 22, and the school can't put the special ed kid in special education because it will hurt their feelings.

I agree. The last thing we need is kids sitting in a cubicle every day. I was thinking more along the lines of a kid using it at home to help s/he with a homework assignment they're having difficulty with. Sounds like TED is helpful.
Ted is a cool sight for people's insights and applications. It's less a "here's how to do stuff" like khan and more a "check out the cool thing I built" or "hear the interesting things I have to say."

In my opinion, the kid is bored. Today's public education teaches to the lowest level of student. The kid is intelligent and needs to be challenged, while his school is teaching everyone at the level of the village idiot's kid. The schools are holding back intelligent students because the special ed kid can't understand 2 + 2 = 4 and not 22, and the school can't put the special ed kid in special education because it will hurt their feelings.
Any evidence to back up your assertion? From being in a school I would say I haven't observed teaching to the dumbest student. What I have seen lots of are kids taking courses at too high a level for their abilities (ie honors, AP) because their parents don't realize their limitations and/or think nobody gets into college with regular level classes.

In my opinion, the kid is bored. Today's public education teaches to the lowest level of student. The kid is intelligent and needs to be challenged, while his school is teaching everyone at the level of the village idiot's kid. The schools are holding back intelligent students because the special ed kid can't understand 2 + 2 = 4 and not 22, and the school can't put the special ed kid in special education because it will hurt their feelings.This is a long thread, so I'll summarize that my opinion is that the piece argues that there is too much emphasis on math. Lots of professions need very little math, yet there is a lot of it taught, and it is relied upon heavily for college admissions even for fields that do not use it.

There is actually too much education for some people in this country. While we all want everyone else to be educated, not everyone wants to be educated. There are a lot of people who simply seek a "simple life" as a farmer, hippie or criminal and does not want or need an education. The system wastes a lot of resources on these people and they still end up turning into the dirt bags that they are. There laws that criminalize parents who don't send their kids to school and this must be repealed.

There is actually too much education for some people in this country. While we all want everyone else to be educated, not everyone wants to be educated. There are a lot of people who simply seek a "simple life" as a farmer, hippie or criminal and does not want or need an education. The system wastes a lot of resources on these people and they still end up turning into the dirt bags that they are. There laws that criminalize parents who don't send their kids to school and this must be repealed.
Very few people want to be a criminal if there's an alternative job that they're qualified for that has equal benefits. I don't think hippie is a job. And farmers aren't helped by education? In case you don't know the state of farming today, this isn't the 1800s. Farming is big business and having an education to match keeps you alive.

Very few people want to be a criminal if there's an alternative job that they're qualified for that has equal benefits. I don't think hippie is a job. And farmers aren't helped by education? In case you don't know the state of farming today, this isn't the 1800s. Farming is big business and having an education to match keeps you alive.

What I'm talking about are kids who clearly can't be helped and don't have any aspirations to achieve anything in life.

Criminal - The kid may not know it, but we've all seen the destructive and violent kids in school who you know are certain to end up in jail. Why waste the teacher's time disciplining them instead of teaching those who want to study?

Hippie - I've seen fellow student in high school who were mentally in their own worlds and just didn't care to move beyond a basic retail job. Again, education is useless for these people.

Farmer - I'm talking about the kids who grow up in a farm and only want to continue the family business. The skills they need can't be taught in a school, and thus the child need not waste their time with it.

What I'm talking about are kids who clearly can't be helped and don't have any aspirations to achieve anything in life.

Criminal - The kid may not know it, but we've all seen the destructive and violent kids in school who you know are certain to end up in jail. Why waste the teacher's time disciplining them instead of teaching those who want to study?

Hippie - I've seen fellow student in high school who were mentally in their own worlds and just didn't care to move beyond a basic retail job. Again, education is useless for these people.

Farmer - I'm talking about the kids who grow up in a farm and only want to continue the family business. The skills they need can't be taught in a school, and thus the child need not waste their time with it.
Should a doctor not treat a patient who wants to be sick and die (but still goes to the doctors)? Should a lawyer not represent somebody who's suspected of being a murderer (but may actually be innocent)?

I understand the point you're trying to make -- why help those who don't help themselves. The thing is that sometimes people don't put in effort because they think it'll end up in failure anyway. It would help those people to be shown that there are things that they can be successful in. Sometimes people don't know what they want even when they say they do.

And with those farmers...there's not too many people like that in this day and age. And there's always homeschooling. It'd be interesting to see how many of them are.

The purpose of our educational system is to help each individual achieve their maximum potential. If we cause people to fail by forcing them to take mathematics which the don't understand they may not reach their full potential, because they will just believe that they are stupid and cannot succeed.

The purpose of our educational system is to help each individual achieve their maximum potential. If we cause people to fail by forcing them to take mathematics which the don't understand they may not reach their full potential, because they will just believe that they are stupid and cannot succeed.
seriously? Again?

Cry me a river, rebound.

seriously? Again?

Cry me a river, rebound.You're just lucky that they standardized on Math instead of Latin, because you sucketh maximus at Latin so much that you'd be homeless, a persona non grata, if Latin were the college entrance requirement.

There is actually too much education for some people in this country. While we all want everyone else to be educated, not everyone wants to be educated. There are a lot of people who simply seek a "simple life" as a farmer, hippie or criminal and does not want or need an education. The system wastes a lot of resources on these people and they still end up turning into the dirt bags that they are. There laws that criminalize parents who don't send their kids to school and this must be repealed.
Have you ever compared those parts of the US where the people average the worst or least education with areas where the education is best?

You're just lucky that they standardized on Math instead of Latin, because you sucketh maximus at Latin so much that you'd be homeless, a persona non grata, if Latin were the college entrance requirement.
And as you've repeatedly demonstrated, Latin is just as important to the modern world as math. :rolleyes:

Do you complain that the SATs test on English, too? How does that not screw over people who are poor at English, causing the same frustrations you perceive with math students? Especially in the modern education era where teachers are encouraged to make writing a part of all curriculums, including science, math, and woodshop.

Name a standardized test that only tests math, other than subject tests like SAT 2 math.

There is actually too much education for some people in this country. While we all want everyone else to be educated, not everyone wants to be educated. There are a lot of people who simply seek a "simple life" as a farmer, hippie or criminal and does not want or need an education. The system wastes a lot of resources on these people and they still end up turning into the dirt bags that they are. There laws that criminalize parents who don't send their kids to school and this must be repealed.

Democracy requires an educated populace. I'm not saying we have that, or that things are working well in any respect, but that's why we educate people. Also, some people are unaware of what an education (especially a liberal education) can offer in terms of actual personal well being (not just the material benefits of a better job/more money).

It may be true that some people don't want to be educated, but we must present them with the opportunity all the same.

At the same time, I do believe that people who want to drop out should be allowed to do so.

There are a lot of people who simply seek a "simple life" as a farmer, hippie or criminal and does not want or need an education..Since you don't have a PhD, are you a hippie, farmer or criminal?

Since you don't have a PhD, are you a hippie, farmer or criminal?
:lol:

This is a long thread, so I'll summarize that my opinion is that the piece argues that there is too much emphasis on math. Lots of professions need very little math, yet there is a lot of it taught, and it is relied upon heavily for college admissions even for fields that do not use it.


I'm sorry but I would argue that putting an emphasis on math is extremely important. Just because you may not use the specific numbers or calculations is not the point. Math teaches concepts that you use in just about every field out there. It teaches important concepts that help with decision making, and much much more.

Now just to make sure, are you agreeing with the piece or are you just summarizing what it is saying?

Not enough science, that's the answer. Lazy parents. School is not the end of learning. It should be a all day event. Not enough incentive for good quality teachers. Lack of discipline. The feeling everyone should pass. Not competitive enough. Too many standardized tests. Too much emphasis on teaching for a single test, and not teaching so a student is prepared for a myriad of challenges whether that be a test o something else.