[Genryu]

I'll get flamed for saying this, but why do you want to meet Europeans, Ace ?

[Ace]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Liberator's right. States' public education curriculums are being decimated because of the ludicrous standards set by standardized tests, which are imposed by politicians who don't know jack **** about education. My school is neck deep in this ****, and Massachusetts boasts one of the best systems in the country. I've seen several different documentaries using Texas as a case study. Politics is screwing education hard. (Although I don't know if Liberator will agree with me that this disaster is partially attributable to No Child Left Behind.)

The problem is more deep-rooted then just the politicians.

Often we hear children in education referred to as a 'product.' Companies want to have quantifiable results to judge whether an entry level employee is capable of doing their job or not based on their education.

Generally we don't hear about problems with acredited schools and companies accepting employees from them as the students have to meet standards to graduate.

The problem is, as opposing to adopting the college system and installing it in the public schools as a method of gaining credits for a diploma or degree standardized testing is being done. The main reason is because the tests are cheap to do and don't require a lot of changes.

The problem is though that the very intelligent and disabled folks are the ones who suffer in a scenario where people are forced to 'teach to a test.'

What could work is rethinking the testing standards, having one universal cirriculum and textbook style. (i.e. multiple potential books and publishers, but all must cover the same material in a similar way) Then special needs students get tutoring.

That is, as opposed to homeschooling you have teachers who actually have the education to do the teaching for the otherwise homeschooled students. (Also keeping a low teacher to student ratio of say between 1:1-1:4)

[Flipside]

Fear of intellect seems to be common in the Western World in general. Oriental and Middle Eastern countries prize it, but, as Ace has already said, in the UK, America and large areas of Europe. intelligence is not rated as a quality.

If a child in a class out-argues his teacher in the UK or America, is he gifted or merely cheeky? The opinions differ from West to East. Yes, there are abherrations in that system, some Middle Eastern countries discourage education to too high a level, some Western countries encourage it, but this seems to be a general trend.

In the UK, they coped with their dropping grades by making the exams easier. Suddenly we have an influx of highly qualified people who can't find a job to suit their qualifications.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally posted by Ace


The problem is more deep-rooted then just the politicians.

Often we hear children in education referred to as a 'product.' Companies want to have quantifiable results to judge whether an entry level employee is capable of doing their job or not based on their education.

Generally we don't hear about problems with acredited schools and companies accepting employees from them as the students have to meet standards to graduate.

The problem is, as opposing to adopting the college system and installing it in the public schools as a method of gaining credits for a diploma or degree standardized testing is being done. The main reason is because the tests are cheap to do and don't require a lot of changes.

The problem is though that the very intelligent and disabled folks are the ones who suffer in a scenario where people are forced to 'teach to a test.'

What could work is rethinking the testing standards, having one universal cirriculum and textbook style. (i.e. multiple potential books and publishers, but all must cover the same material in a similar way) Then special needs students get tutoring.

That is, as opposed to homeschooling you have teachers who actually have the education to do the teaching for the otherwise homeschooled students. (Also keeping a low teacher to student ratio of say between 1:1-1:4)

That's right, but I think it's quite evident that this is the result of politicians either thinking concretely or catering to people who do. They treat education like a business so that they can say they're demanding "results." I mean, I know it's true here. Governor Romney is running everything like a corporation.

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by PeachE


meh, this whole rant is pretty funny coming from someone who a few threads ago boasted about getting away with not reading the Republic..

Well, you obviously missed the entire point of both threads. I chose to read The Republic and do a report on it. The point of the other thread was not to say that I don't have to read any literature at all, but that I can get away from asignments when I don't feel like doing them and how much of a problem that is / creates in my life. It's not like I won't be reading that and the four other half finished books I have lying around, over christmas break.

On a side note: We did get Religon cleared, so I'm probably going to overload myself on fun articles to do. I'm already planning on writing an article on our current Jihad, and another mostly concerning our own government or the Middle East put of d00m. I'm also going to get a few more articles about Iraq and foreign policy in which makes me happy.

Just to let you guys know, I really don't think the tardation on some of the students at my school is due to teachers. On the whole, all the teachers I've had there, including my Journalism Advisor, are hard-working, dedicated folks. It's not their fault really that most kids just can't be assed, or don't want to care. If anything, that's more related to the entire educational curriculum system and how it's administered, not their faults. And yeah, vetoing sucks, but Religon was my second choice, so I can't complain so much anymore.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

That's right, but I think it's quite evident that this is the result of politicians either thinking concretely or catering to people who do. They treat education like a business so that they can say they're demanding "results." I mean, I know it's true here. Governor Romney is running everything like a corporation.

No, it's about the politicians actively working to keep the status quo unchanged so that they can use as an issue in the next election.

[Anaz]

The whole education thing pisses me off.

I live in colorado, home of the CSAP (Colorado student assesment program). The CSAP was spawned as the result of a tax increase bill for education. That's right. We had some hundreds of millions of dollar tax increase go to making up some stupid ****ing test. That's just the beginning. This test was designed to "reward the good scoring schools". So we take money away from the schools that aren't doing very well and give it to the schools who are doing well. All the teachers told all the kids to get good scores. And we did. Then our brilliant state government realized that one reason that some of those schools did bad on the tests was because of lack of funding. Now, one other factor. Teachers were in danger of losing their jobs if the kids didn't do well on these tests as a way to "cut off the dead weight" (never mind that we have a teacher shortage...). Enter previous factor. Now they give money to the schools that didn't do so well. So that gives the teachers two choices. One: Encourage students to do well, face budget cuts, keep job Two: Encurage students to do poorly, get higher budget, face potential to lose job. We're currently in the middle of this. Also, for grades 1->about 10, 90% of the curriculum is geared towards learning what is on these tests (which most of the time was taught the first time a few years back...), so most of the year is just review of previously taught stuff, and about a month before the CSAP itself, the teachers go into "completely off the wall please don't take my job mode" where they start doing overhead presentations on such things as "guessing strategies", and "the traffic light method of writing paragraphs". Thankfully I am in 12th grade with higher level classes, so 1) I don't have to take it 2) teachers can focus on actually teaching us something.

Oh, yeah, and sometime between the cold war and now, it seems that apathy has become 'cool'.

[/rant]

[Ford Prefect]

No, it's about the politicians actively working to keep the status quo unchanged so that they can use as an issue in the next election.

But everywhere you look the politicians are ranting about "upping standards" and spitting out more standardized testing. Instead of just establishing standards, they're looking for growth, like it's some kind of market. So even though my school is 5th in the god damned state, if we don't show improvement, we're an "underperforming" school.

[Liberator]

That's true Ford, I do agree that standardized tests prove nothing and don't actually do anything other than cause immense and crippling anxiety.

The politicians should butt the hell out and leave educating to the educators.  Just sign the check and keep you're noses out of something you don't understand.  This also extends to other 3rd parties.  School is a place of learning, not social indoctrination/experimentation.

[Ace]

Well then Lib, you you actually believe that education belongs to the educators and not social engineers, then you'd agree with a biology class not having a segment on creationism as that is a religious matter that should be in a religious studies class, not a biology one.

[Liberator]

No, Ace, I think that biology classes should have a section called "Theories on the Origin of Life on Earth"  that presents all credible theories on the subject, be it creation, evolution, intelligent design, ect.  I don't think that any of them should be presented as "The Explanation", it should be left to the students to decide which they will accept.

[Ford Prefect]

Heh heh. Well, our agreement was nice while it lasted.

[Anaz]

oooh! I want to play on the teaching evolution/creation in schools game!

Science classes should teach things that have been if not proven, but supported by scientific methods. Evolution and perhaps ID.

Church should teach things laid down by the bible, like Creationism.

Given the (theoretical) multi-religious background of all the students in any given class, this will avoid having to teach other creation myths, such as those in eastern religions, and getting nothing done but telling stories in a bioligy class.

[Ford Prefect]

That's a good point. If they teach Biblical creationism, do they have to teach Shiva's cycle of destruction and redemption or the Aboriginal Dreamtime?

[Liberator]

I would prefer that neither be taught except to mention in passing and for biology classes to worry less about origin and more about workings like they're supposed to.

Evolution theory(and it is a theory only) is being used by Atheists who want to push their agenda and indoctrinate students against their faith.

[Bobboau]

yeah its a scientific theory, just like relitivity and gravity

[Liberator]

Perhaps, but I can prove gravity exists by dropping an anvil on you're head and relativity by showing film of an atomic bomb.  Evolution hasn't, as yet, provided enough evidence in such a way that it can be accepted by the general populace without making a larger leap of faith than most religions require.  Hellfire, it has only slightly more evidence than Intelligent Design.

[Bobboau]

take just enough antibiotics to make you feel good next time you get an infection.

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Anaz
[/rant]

Same thing more or less here, although it's more due to No-Child-Left-Behind.

Originally posted by Lib
Perhaps, but I can prove gravity exists by dropping an anvil on you're head and relativity by showing film of an atomic bomb. Evolution hasn't, as yet, provided enough evidence in such a way that it can be accepted by the general populace without making a larger leap of faith than most religions require. Hellfire, it has only slightly more evidence than Intelligent Design.

The world around you is proof enough that it's true. Plus, it's been written in books and supported by at least a dozen people throughout history.

... oh wait... that's your faiths' proof. My bad.

Originally posted by Liberator
No, Ace, I think that biology classes should have a section called "Theories on the Origin of Life on Earth"  that presents all credible theories on the subject, be it creation, evolution, intelligent design, ect.  I don't think that any of them should be presented as "The Explanation", it should be left to the students to decide which they will accept.

I like the nobility of a balanced breakfast and all, but not for dinner. Biology is a science, and thus, gives the scientific explaination for how life is created and advanced. It's not a class of religon or faith. That's called Theology. I mean, you don't expect your church to include evolution as a possibility in a sermon, do you? Just so that it won't offend anyone or try to pressure a beleif on them? Of course not. Those people would be in the wrong place, as would people in a science class offended by evolution. That's why they're allowed to leave at those times.

I have a good friend who is a Jehova's Witness. When evolution time came around in Biology, he didn't whine, he didn't complain, he didn't protest, and he didn't refute anything. He explained to the teacher that the lesson plan conflicted with his beleifs and he'd like to be excused from it. So he got a seperate assignment and did that. No fuss, no muss, no worries, no problems.

[Bobboau]

you know what might be fun haveing a segment were you just have an evolutionist and a creationist argue with each other for a page or two, have it pickup right were it left off last week

and you just know he's gona come back with 'Creation Science'™