Stupid school.

[CosmicJoghurt]

Hey.

I had classes today, and while we were talking about globalization in the classroom, I noticed, like I always do... There was no rational inquiry, critical thinking... The teacher was just vomiting biased information at us and expect us to blindly accept it. And the shame is, most of the class does. And to be honest, I'm usually the first one to try and stop the classroom and actually start some kind of debate related to whatever topic is being discussed.

Seriously, without any discussion, class becomes boring. And I like school. Very much so.

Usually when I start a debate there's 3 reactions that I see from different classmates:

1.- This dipshit again?
2.- Hmm, he might be saying something interesting. LEMME HEAR.
3.- Dude, shut the fuck up, the teacher's talking.


So, what do you do? It seems that only when ---> I <--- start a discussion, the class becomes remotely interested. But then there's the SHUT THE FUCK UP at the end of the class. I get mad at the school system for being retarded.


"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, the three main ideas of the French Revolution. How amazing and revolutionary!"

"NOW HOW ABOUT WE ACTUALLY DISCUSS THESE VAGUE POINTS?"

"Amazing ideas.".

 

[Nashy19]

They probably think that you're annoying or somehow slowing the process down. They probably aren't enthusiastic like you, they probably just want to record the information they need to pass, and a debate just makes things more complicated. In most classrooms I wouldn't bother to say anything and a lot of the time it's easier to write down the easiest argument, not the one you believe. Debating in the classroom is also restrictive and awkward, people would rather do it somewhere else. Lastly if you're known for doing something like that then people who are just observing will start to point out every time you do it. I don't think this would happen if you were in a small class, like in a group of 8.

 

[gobro]

We all get older.
That is a given.

CosmicJoghurt keep on being who you are, is all I can say.
As your classmates eventually mature, and all finish their schooling years, they will move off into different studies, occupations, towns, cities, countries etc.
Life will move on, and as it does, all those knockers will hopefully mature within their minds from the experiences that life deals up to us all.
I tell you this from experience CosmicJoghurt. Your challenges to the teacher WILL be remembered by many of them, if not ALL of your peers.
Maybe many years later for some of them, nonetheless, still remembered.

You may be right in some challenges & you may be wrong in others.
The point is, if current knowledge goes unchallenged, the current quality of life on earth will go unchanged.
Life is evolution in progress. Always has been, Always will be.

It is those who challenge current knowledge who become leaders in whatever field they persue.
School teachers only know what they know, which is what they arre fed by the texts that their superiors instruct them to read.
As school teachers they are expected to follow a specific code/guideline, but rest assured that they will respect your challenges even if they may at times disagree.

Glad to see you havent joined the race of sheeple.
Keep that attitude up. But remember you are never Always right, so always keep an open mind & open ears.
We were given 1 mouth & 2 eyes & 2 ears for a reason - Read & Listen at least four times more than we Speak

 

[Laurens]

I think the general problem with the school system (at least here in the UK) is that discussion and a deeper understanding aren't in the interests of the school.

Over here schools are judged by the exam results that their students get, and how well they do in inspections, if the exam results are consistently good and the schools meet the criteria of the inspection then they're more likely to be recognised as successful schools which in turn means that they're more likely to get more students, more recognition and more funding.

This leads to a situation which, in my opinion, neglects the students in favour of doing well as an organization. There's little room left for discussion and a deeper understanding, because the teacher's job is no longer to make sure every child in the class learns and understands the subject matter, it's to make sure that enough of the class retain enough information to pass the exams. If you're one of the unfortunate people who struggle, then that's too bad, the class isn't going to slow it's pace for you, you're just going to have to either keep up with the top of the class or fall into the percentage of people who do badly in their exams... So long as more people keep up than struggle, then the school has done well.

I hardly retained any information that I learned at school, I managed to do OK in my exams, but I obviously didn't really learn much, or else I'd remember a lot more. I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this rant... But I guess my point is that you obviously have a desire to really learn, and think about what is being taught, rather than just retaining it for as long as necessary - and you shouldn't let your teacher or your peers kill that desire.

I think education really does need to change somehow, so that it does encourage discussion, critical thinking and accommodates those who lag behind. I don't claim to know the exact changes that need to take place, but I think that changes need to be made in the way that we educate people. Storing a list of dates and events in your memory for long enough to pass an exam or module in history for example, is not really learning...

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

It's not that I can't keep up - I can, I've been top of the class so far. It's just that I want discussion, that's all..

Oh, well... money money.

 

[Laurens]

It's not that I can't keep up - I can, I've been top of the class so far. It's just that I want discussion, that's all..

Oh, well... money money.

Sorry I didn't mean to suggest that you personally can't keep up. Just that schools in general don't make much accommodation for those who do get stuck with things.

 

[Demojen]

Start a club for discussion.

You'll collect like minded individuals if you put down the right bait. In the middle of class, not the place to drop the bait, because then you have to deal with the people who don't care. Peer pressure discourages people who do want to engage doing it, so it really has a doubly negative impact bringing up a serious discussion during class (Unless it directly flies in the face of something being taught).

 

[ArthurWilborn]

I think the general problem with the school system (at least here in the UK) is that discussion and a deeper understanding aren't in the interests of the school.

Over here schools are judged by the exam results that their students get, and how well they do in inspections, if the exam results are consistently good and the schools meet the criteria of the inspection then they're more likely to be recognised as successful schools which in turn means that they're more likely to get more students, more recognition and more funding.

This leads to a situation which, in my opinion, neglects the students in favour of doing well as an organization. There's little room left for discussion and a deeper understanding, because the teacher's job is no longer to make sure every child in the class learns and understands the subject matter, it's to make sure that enough of the class retain enough information to pass the exams. If you're one of the unfortunate people who struggle, then that's too bad, the class isn't going to slow it's pace for you, you're just going to have to either keep up with the top of the class or fall into the percentage of people who do badly in their exams... So long as more people keep up than struggle, then the school has done well.

Well, what's wrong with that? Not everyone is going to do well in school no matter what you do. The level of education is growing less and less associated with the level of success in careers - not everyone needs as much school as they get. Heck, even if we could everyone Ph.D. level knowledge with magic, only a small fraction of people would be able to use that knowledge. Should we cut the amount we give to all students to benefit some students? That only weakens the experience level of everyone for the minimal benefit of people who will likely not do very well anyway. I say the best outcomes for the greatest number - which is what you say is happening.

I think education really does need to change somehow, so that it does encourage discussion, critical thinking and accommodates those who lag behind. I don't claim to know the exact changes that need to take place, but I think that changes need to be made in the way that we educate people. Storing a list of dates and events in your memory for long enough to pass an exam or module in history for example, is not really learning...

Based on my experience, I would say only a small fraction of people are even capable of critical thought. It's a struggle for me to think critically, and I'm in the top 1% of IQ scores. Children? Forget about it - even trying just leads them to a ridiculous, dogmatic interpretation of critical thought; like rejecting everything they don't like on the excuse that it is "biased". Heck, even AronRa has uncritically parroted things (e.g. fictitious beneficial mutations) just because they agreed with him, and he's a nationally renowned expert. Trying to teach critical thought in schools is pointless - the best you can do is try to impress accurate dogma.

 

[devilsadvocate]

ArthurWilborn,

I'm curious as to how do you explain Finland's success in education compared to most OECD nations, given what you believe? Finland has consistently been in the top 5 (and most often in top 3) in PISA, spends about two thirds of the money on education compared to the U.S, students have 3 months summer vacations, 20-30 hour school weeks and Finland has a policy to educate all children in common school system and an expectation that all children can achieve at high level.

Since your claim is this kind of policy harms the top percentile (there are no advanced classes, everyone goes through the same education at the same pace), the most suitable data I could find compares what percentage of students pass the various levels of PISA tests in reading comprehension, science and mathematics, rather than simply comparing mean scores. Explanation of these levels for reading test can be found here: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-590-x/2010001/tbl/tbl1.3-eng.htm

Level 6, reading: 1.5% U.S, 2% Finland.
Level 5, reading: 10% U.S, 14.5% Finland
Level 6, science: 1% U.S, 3.3% Finland
Level 5, science: 9% U.S, 18.7% Finland
Level 6, mathematics: 2% U.S, Doesn't say for Finland. Shangai passes 27% (mean of 600), So I would say at least 10% for Finland (mean score of 541).
Level 5, mathematics: 10% U.S, over 20% Finland

Figures taken from "Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education - Lessons from PISA for the United States", http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/50/46623978.pdf

 

[ArthurWilborn]

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow. What you're describing, having a high expectation of all students, sounds like what I agree with. I was arguing against having a low expectation and thereby slowing down and limiting what students are given.

Also, I'm guessing that Finland has much higher values for "perceived value of education" in the citizenry, which is one of the strongest influences on school success.

 

[devilsadvocate]

The key point is against what you stated in your post: "Should we cut the amount we give to all students to benefit some students? That only weakens the experience level of everyone for the minimal benefit of people who will likely not do very well anyway."

I've shown you data comparing Finland and the U.S. Finland has a system where there's no advanced classes and focus is very much on keeping all students on the same curriculum advancing at the same pace, regardless of individual skill. This means that people who struggle get more attention. From the data, this policy doesn't seem to be as hurtful to the strongest performers as you would claim (in fact, not hurtful at all). We could also look at the level 2 and level 3 scores and see what percentage passes these, to see how minimal the benefit actually is to the less skilled.

I think it's the school system in place that enables finns to do so well on PISA, not cultural influences, like perceived value of education, not socio-economic status (this has little impact on the students performance) and certainly not IQ.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

No, that's what Laurens was arguing against and I was arguing for: having the same high standards for everyone. Laurens wanted to slow everything down so people who "lag behind" could do better. I never even mentioned advanced classes. I think you got this from me talking about people being over-educated - which is, of course, an argument against advanced classes.

This is what I'm talking about when I mention people adding their own meaning to things. Your misunderstandings are your own fault, don't pin them on me. :roll: Also, I was right about differing cultural values:

http://pasisahlberg.com/downloads/Education%20policies%20for%20raising%20learning%20JEP.pdf
"Education has always been highly valued in Finland. It has been viewed as a key to
accessing the international community and to personal success, as well as serving as
the major means for building a democratic and peaceful welfare nation. Nevertheless,
from a global perspective, the Finnish education system was until recently viewed as
average in terms of how the system performed or what Finnish pupils learned
compared with their peers in other nations, except that Finnish ten-year-olds had
been found to be the best readers in the world by IEA's literacy studies in the 1970s
and 1980s (Thorndike, 1973; Elley, 1992). Good reading and literacy skills among
young Finns are often explained by an adult population of active readers. The library
network is among the densest per capita in the world; Finnish people borrow more
books from libraries than does anyone else."

 

[devilsadvocate]

Well, that maybe so, I can't say it wouldn't be the first time. Communication is a tricky business.

However, I can't help to see what you stated in your post as pretty much antithesis to the finnish education policy. It seems we do agree that high expectation for all students is a good thing, but from what you've said it seems also clear to me the meaning that has to you and me is altogether different.

There's finite amount of resources at any school and class. In Finland, the policy is to direct those resources toward students that are struggling. There is no underlying ideology that "some people do bad no matter what". You don't give up on struggling students, you give them more education. This is what "high expectation for all students" means in finnish policy. Obviously, given finite resources, this means that the more skilled students do not get as much "teacher-time". From what I gather, this to you is the wrong way to go around allocating resources.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

There's finite amount of resources at any school and class. In Finland, the policy is to direct those resources toward students that are struggling. There is no underlying ideology that "some people do bad no matter what". You don't give up on struggling students, you give them more education. This is what "high expectation for all students" means in finnish policy. Obviously, given finite resources, this means that the more skilled students do not get as much "teacher-time". From what I gather, this to you is the wrong way to go around allocating resources.

Define 'struggling', define 'expectations' Who's expectations? Are you using a standard type of test to make this assessment? Who's guidelines/values/expectations are you using to make these judgement calls? The localized 'society' or the 'society' at large? Define 'society' while we are at it.

 

[Prolescum]

ArthurWilborn,

To be accurate usually means to reflect something as-is or as close as makes no difference (i.e. within tolerable degrees), right? Dogma is generally defined as an authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true, if I'm not mistaken.

Just so I have this clear in my not-the-top-1%-of-IQ-scores-but-I-make-up-for-it-in-looks head, proponents and adherents of "accurate dogma" would be dogmatic, right? As in, they would state their view as if it were established fact? I'm understanding you correctly, yes?

Good.

So besides the shocking revelation that you advocate teaching dogma over trying to instill critical thinking skills (the vast majority of people have no capacity for critical thought according to your dubiously qualified top-1%-of-IQ-scores experience), I'm very curious to know how exactly your notion of "accurate dogma" is meant to work in practice.

 

[Laurens]

No, that's what Laurens was arguing against and I was arguing for: having the same high standards for everyone. Laurens wanted to slow everything down so people who "lag behind" could do better. I never even mentioned advanced classes. I think you got this from me talking about people being over-educated - which is, of course, an argument against advanced classes.

Not necessarily slow everything down. Just create a different kind of environment in which those people who do struggle are given slightly more accommodation than they currently get.

For example when I was at school, I used to take a long time to solve maths questions - my teacher would tell us that any of the sums we didn't finish in class had to be done for homework. I, being slow would constantly have tonnes of homework to do and this stressed me out, I ended up feeling too swamped under to learn anything properly. There is no accommodation for people like myself in the current system.

The result was that I left school without any confidence or great ability in some fairly basic arithmetic skills. This is not because I am incompetent or in capable, its because there was absolutely no space for me to take the time to learn concepts at my own pace and in my own way.

I'm not saying that everyone else should have had to slow down to my level. I think that classes should be divided more efficiently, and different learning styles should be accounted for. I, for example learn a lot better from discussion, rather than simply sitting and copying down what the teacher says. I can be stifled by something for ages until it is presented in a way in which I can understand. At least from my experience, not enough effort is made to get everyone to understand the core principles of each topic.

I just think that focusing too much on the outcome of the whole i.e; how well the school does overall in exams, is the missing the point of school if you ask me. I think the aim of school should be to ensure that each student leaves with at least a moderate understanding of some basic subjects and skills. In the current system there will always be a percentage who do bad, and that's just too bad, so long as more people do well then the targets are met and next lot of funding is secured etc. I think that the focus should not be on the performance as an institution, it should be on getting everyone the education that they need and deserve.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Well, that maybe so, I can't say it wouldn't be the first time. Communication is a tricky business.

However, I can't help to see what you stated in your post as pretty much antithesis to the finnish education policy. It seems we do agree that high expectation for all students is a good thing, but from what you've said it seems also clear to me the meaning that has to you and me is altogether different.

There's finite amount of resources at any school and class. In Finland, the policy is to direct those resources toward students that are struggling. There is no underlying ideology that "some people do bad no matter what". You don't give up on struggling students, you give them more education. This is what "high expectation for all students" means in finnish policy. Obviously, given finite resources, this means that the more skilled students do not get as much "teacher-time". From what I gather, this to you is the wrong way to go around allocating resources.

No, I'm fine with that, as long as the standards are high for everyone.

ArthurWilborn,

To be accurate usually means to reflect something as-is or as close as makes no difference (i.e. within tolerable degrees), right? Dogma is generally defined as an authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true, if I'm not mistaken.

Just so I have this clear in my not-the-top-1%-of-IQ-scores-but-I-make-up-for-it-in-looks head, proponents and adherents of "accurate dogma" would be dogmatic, right? As in, they would state their view as if it were established fact? I'm understanding you correctly, yes?

Good.

So besides the shocking revelation that you advocate teaching dogma over trying to instill critical thinking skills (the vast majority of people have no capacity for critical thought according to your dubiously qualified top-1%-of-IQ-scores experience), I'm very curious to know how exactly your notion of "accurate dogma" is meant to work in practice.

Very much the way it usually does in most classrooms. You teach the facts, try to make them a little interesting, and make all questions point back to the facts you teach. Weeding out problems is done at the teacher end. I like to think I do a little better then most in admitting when I'm wrong.

Just because something is dogmatic doesn't make it wrong, after all. Teaching the spherical nature of the Earth dogmatically is accurate enough for children's school science.

I'm not saying that everyone else should have had to slow down to my level. I think that classes should be divided more efficiently, and different learning styles should be accounted for. I

This is called "tracking". I've seen it used a few places. Now, I really hate people who claim everything is racist, but -- most of the time when I've seen it implemented, whitey got tracked high and darkie got tracked low more often then was merited based on performance. I've heard administrators ask why a kid would need calculus in the ghetto.

I just think that focusing too much on the outcome of the whole i.e; how well the school does overall in exams, is the missing the point of school if you ask me. I think the aim of school should be to ensure that each student leaves with at least a moderate understanding of some basic subjects and skills. In the current system there will always be a percentage who do bad, and that's just too bad, so long as more people do well then the targets are met and next lot of funding is secured etc. I think that the focus should not be on the performance as an institution, it should be on getting everyone the education that they need and deserve.

Bah. My colleagues love this touchy-feely crap, it gives them excuses to be lazy and not challenge their kids. They were scandalized, scandalized I tell you, when I had a drawing competition that not every kid won because their precious little egos would get bruised. :cry: Sorry, I know I'm getting off the track of what you said but this is a sore point for me.

 

[Laurens]

This is called "tracking". I've seen it used a few places. Now, I really hate people who claim everything is racist, but -- most of the time when I've seen it implemented, whitey got tracked high and darkie got tracked low more often then was merited based on performance. I've heard administrators ask why a kid would need calculus in the ghetto.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with what I said. I said that people should be separated efficiently into classes that match their ability, and that the teachers should try to accommodate different learning styles in each lesson. I'm not advocating dividing up the class in terms of race, that would not be an efficient way to do it.

Bah. My colleagues love this touchy-feely crap, it gives them excuses to be lazy and not challenge their kids. They were scandalized, scandalized I tell you, when I had a drawing competition that not every kid won because their precious little egos would get bruised. :cry: Sorry, I know I'm getting off the track of what you said but this is a sore point for me.

Again I never said anything about being lazy and not challenging kids. I just think that each child deserves a decent education, under the current way of doing things, some kids are just not accommodated and they leave school without a decent education - which, in a society that values qualifications as a requisite for certain careers, can fuck you up for life if you're not careful. Now I know not all kids are receptive even to the most accommodating methods, but I would wager that a lot of those who do badly do so simply because things weren't presented in a way that interested them, which they could understand. I'm just saying that we really need to do all we can to minimize that number, its got nothing to do with not being challenging, or being lazy...

 

[ArthurWilborn]

This is called "tracking". I've seen it used a few places. Now, I really hate people who claim everything is racist, but -- most of the time when I've seen it implemented, whitey got tracked high and darkie got tracked low more often then was merited based on performance. I've heard administrators ask why a kid would need calculus in the ghetto.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with what I said. I said that people should be separated efficiently into classes that match their ability, and that the teachers should try to accommodate different learning styles in each lesson. I'm not advocating dividing up the class in terms of race, that would not be an efficient way to do it.

Bah. My colleagues love this touchy-feely crap, it gives them excuses to be lazy and not challenge their kids. They were scandalized, scandalized I tell you, when I had a drawing competition that not every kid won because their precious little egos would get bruised. :cry: Sorry, I know I'm getting off the track of what you said but this is a sore point for me.

Again I never said anything about being lazy and not challenging kids. I just think that each child deserves a decent education, under the current way of doing things, some kids are just not accommodated and they leave school without a decent education - which, in a society that values qualifications as a requisite for certain careers, can fuck you up for life if you're not careful. Now I know not all kids are receptive even to the most accommodating methods, but I would wager that a lot of those who do badly do so simply because things weren't presented in a way that interested them, which they could understand. I'm just saying that we really need to do all we can to minimize that number, its got nothing to do with not being challenging, or being lazy...

I know it's not what you are saying, or what you want, I know. But it's what happens.