Message boards :
Politics :
Parents role in Education ?
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 19 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
Yep. Geography. Pretty much meaning one and meaning two from that definition. The exam had a list of several nations, and for each one the student had to discuss the physical features (mountain ranges, rivers, approximate area, etc.), the biological features (the types of climatic zones found in that nation, etc.), the cultural features (approximate population, language(s) spoken, prominent religion(s), the government of that nation, major cities, etc.). Additionally, they had to discuss things like major crops, resources, industries, imports, exports, trading partners, friendly nations, and unfriendly nations. And it was an essay exam. No short answer. No fill in the blank, no true/false, and especially no multiple choice. Like I said... Daaayyyuuummm!
Yes. An emphasis on theory and a lack of emphasis on the practical. But the *point* of elementary school (grades 1 to 4) "math" was to teach the students the practical arithmetic skills they would need to function in society. 1st & 2nd grades: addition & subtraction. 3rd & 4th grades: multiplication, division, and some work with fractions (both rational and decimal)... The theory would come later on in Jr. High (5th through 8th grade), so that the student would be ready for Algebra I in either 8th or 9th grade. The practical arithmetic skills are primarily taught by drill & practice. Lots of it. My school district's dubious flirtation with new math ended around the time I was in 4th grade, and they reverted to the older scheme. So, the kids in my rough age group got double dosed on the theory, and received a woefully inadequate exposure to the drill & practice teaching of the practical skills. Me, I lucked out. I was not one of the students screwed up by this. My dad had math as one of his majors on his undergraduate degree, and had taken the required classes to receive a teaching certificate. He worked for a few years as a high school math and science teacher (Algebra and Chemistry, mostly) as he saved up the money to continue his education. When I was at an early age (around 2 or 3) he noticed that I had an interest in numbers (I could already read), so he started working with me almost every day, beginning with simple arithmetic. His 'fun with numbers' games helped to instill a love of mathematics (and several other subjects) that persists to the present day. After a year or two of that, I proceeded with more independent study, but he still somewhat supervised it and of course answered questions I had. My Dad was *involved* with my education, and I am trying my best to follow his example with my own kids. I am working simple arithmetic into the counting games my 3 (almost 4) year old and I play, and he is steadily improving his reading. The 2 year old is progressing as well. Parental involvement in their children's education is KEY.
Note: I didn't say mathematics, I said arithmetic. And it wasn't the school that expected it, it was the community. Back then it was because of the new math. These days, it is the fault of the electronic calculator. These days, students (and adults) see no reason to need to know simple arithmetic skills because calculators are everywhere. What they lose sight of is what happens when the techno-toys aren't available. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Yep. Geography. Pretty much meaning one and meaning two from that definition. Well, then this does sound like quite a bit. Then again, I know I got at least some portion of that in my education in the 70s. And I still ask the question, how many (better, what percentage) of children were getting at least an 8th grade education? Further, of them, what percentage were learning that much about Geography? We may both be rounding when we think of "100 years ago". So, what would the answers be for both before and after compulsory education in the U.S.? Based on this (and it matches what I have learned elsewhere about it), Major, are you sure this is the math you were "exposed to"? Fair enough. Some people do not remember much about their early education. And, as I said, it is my understanding that the New Math that followed Sputnik did not get applied nationwide. Note: I didn't say mathematics, I said arithmetic. And it wasn't the school that expected it, it was the community. Back then it was because of the new math. Arithmetic: among other things, adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, factoring numbers. 9IN the last case, factoring of natural numbers.) Working with inverse operations and numbers that are inverses under a particular operation. Algebra: among other things, adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing and factoring polynomials; applying the first four to rational expressions (aka, algebraic fractions, with polynomials as numerators and denominators); applying the first four to radical expressions (radical, or root); solving equations, using what I said about inverses. Linear algebra: doing much of this for matrices. Abstract (or Modern Algebra): etc. ... . Given this repetition , you can see why spoke of mathematics in general, not restricting myself to arithmetic. One can also understand why New Math was attempted, even though they got it wrong. |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
Bobby wrote: Short answer: I do not believe "tracks" are necessarily as divisive as the tripartite system, though I do believe they may be used as a tool to similar ends. Long answer: indeed, I was born a UK subject (as classified by my first passport), had a UK based education, and am now a dual national, having migrated to the US in 1999. The tripartite system I and others have mentioned was a thing of the past when I attended school. At a gross (and no doubt overly simplistic) level, this streamed "state school" entrants at 11 years old into grammar (academically gifted, for those that scored in top 25% of 11+ plus exam results), secondary modern (less academically gifted, some vocational schooling) where the majority of children were taught, and secondary technical, predominantly vocational and rare (owing to a number of reasons, not least of which was opposition from trade unions that believed apprenticeships were their domain). Fee paying schools ("public schools" in UK parlance) were, and continue to be, an alternative option, for which a limited number of scholarships are available to families without sufficient means to pay tuition fees. I'm not sure that the system was a grotesque as the Soviet system you allude to, though it was effective as a means of limiting later opportunities (University admissions, for example, were predominantly from grammar and public schools). The Comprehensive School system, introduced in 1965, replaced the tripartite structure with one under which all children within a school were taught from a common curriculum until age 14, at which point they (with their parents) would chose a set of subjects to study to GCE '0' level, or CSE exams (typically at age 16). Between 1965 and 1988 there was some scope for different schools within the same district to have slight variations in the common curriculum, so an all boys school might have metal work classes, while an all girls school might have cookery (later, the, to my mind, unnecessarily tautological, "home economics"). The 'O' level and the CSE were both replaced with the GCSE in 1988, this coincided with the introduction of a national curriculum; I understand the majority of school to school variations in subjects taught were eliminated at the same time. I believe what you are terming "tracks" was referred to as "streams" in a UK setting, whereby the "brightest" in math, for instance, might be taught in a separate classroom from those that were considered less able. The number of such streams might be a function of the number of children, teachers, classrooms, etc. I am not certain that "tracks" are necessarily as divisive as the tripartite system, though the scope, without adequate safeguards, for prejudicial treatment of particular groups by teachers may be a cause for concern, an example of which might be, an English teacher that systematically gives low grades to children with a particular accent, and thereby disqualifies such pupils from the "top" stream in that subject. As only exit exams (the aforementioned 'O' levels, etc) were subject to independent verification in pre-1988 Comprehensive schools, it seems to me obvious that such treatment could occur, though it would be foolish to speculate about the degree. I believe the lack of independent verification was a factor in removing "streams" from Comprehensive schooling, the cost of implementing it being deemed too great. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
On a couple of points though, my own recollections are a little different. You didn't get to a Secondary Technical School from the 11+ exam, although that is what was originally intended. You had to pass the 13+ to go there, at least in the LEA where I was. Sec Tech School Thanks for the clarifications and corrections. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24877 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
Wow, what an interesting thread. Thought I'd put my oars in rather than 2 cents........... From the age of 5 until 11, I attended primary/junior school (was combined in the same building). From there, went to secondary school until the age of 16. By the age of seven, I could read & write quite successfully with a basic understanding of arithmetic. From the age of nine onwards, arithmetic became easier to follow. However, from the age of ten onwards, I began to rebel, not against being taught, but against my parents(valid reasons for doing so but I will not comment on that as I will not belittle the dead). Whether or not it was the policy of the school I do not know, but from the age of ten, my school used corporal punishment. I do not recall having taken an 11+ plus exam but my mother got the school she requested for me. In the first three years of secondary school (I was a glutton for punishment), the teachers dreaded hearing my name & canings galore came my way..... ...that is until they realised that it had no effect whatsoever & I had received many temporary explusions by then so got send to the second building where there was a particular teacher who used the cane.... ..that man only ever caned me once..I made sure never to have cause to visit him again...EVER! Up until that point, one was always caned on the palms, but Mr P caned the backside.... |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24877 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
....I was finally expelled for the final time & my parents got me into a comprehensive. The cane as a form of punishment was still in force then & the school used it. Fortunately for me & many others, the school rarely saw fit to use it. Instead they sat down with the troublemakers & demanded of us as to what we wanted. At the time, many of us stated that we were not being taught what we wanted...i.e., we had some academic & domestic studies thrown in, even though we had selected technical studies. They resolved the issues, no more trouble - in fact we enjoyed our studies more. In fact, being labelled an absolute horror, I ended up with 7 CSE's & 7 GCE "O" levels. So today's GCSe's are nothing but a cockaymied amalgamation of CSE's & GCSE's & do not hold the same value. It has been stated that in general the "data" shows that corporal punishment had an adverse effect....what a load of rubbish! Many of the so called hooligans are now public servants(probably retired by now), forces personnel, emergency services personnel & even teachers. I found the corporal punishment I received knocked the unruliness out of me & benefitted me later when I entered the Armed Forces - made the rigid dicipline much easier to bear & accept! |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
It has been stated that in general the "data" shows that corporal punishment had an adverse effect....what a load of rubbish! If you believe the data provided to be rubbish, please explain why they is so, better yet, provide alternative interpretations that give grounds to doubt the conclusions reached. Even better, provide data in support of your statements that are not subject to the criticisms you have of the data previously posted. Many of the so called hooligans are now public servants(probably retired by now), forces personnel, emergency services personnel & even teachers. Is this data or anecdotal? If the former, where are the longitudinal studies measuring the outcomes of those once labelled hooligans? Your own experiences (and if I've mis-characterized them in any way, please accept my apologies) suggest it may be possible to reach a different conclusion with regards to the utility of assaulting children: the teachers dreaded hearing my name & canings galore came my way..... Seems to me that it is plausible to believe your behavior was not modified until sufficient force was applied to change your will, and even then: Instead they sat down with the troublemakers & demanded of us as to what we wanted. it appears ultimate resolution was not reached until you and your teachers talked to each other and came to a mutually agreed path. A conclusion that it seems is supported by something posted in an earlier thread on the subject: Alternatively, "While punishment may be of limited value in consistently influencing rule-related behavior, non-punitive techniques have been found to have greater impact on children". In that same thread I (re)posed a comment I made in yet an earlier thread: "Teaching children that violent acts are the way to enforce leadership is not a valuable lesson." It seems plausible that children may take this lesson to mean, if it is acceptable for a teacher to use violent acts to ensure my compliance in the classroom, then it is likely acceptable for me to use violent acts elsewhere to ensure the compliance of others. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24877 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
Nice turnaround Bobby. You're the one that brought "Data" into the thread yet did not provide any links or proof. Show me the data & I'll research data for my post. |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
Nice turnaround Bobby. You're the one that brought "Data" into the thread yet did not provide any links or proof. Show me the data & I'll research data for my post. Links to research on discipline in this thread. From my previous post: Bobby wrote: Alternatively ... (which is a link to http://www.springerlink.com/content/r00u746076w16067/) Containing the comment: While punishment may be of limited value in consistently influencing rule-related behavior, non-punitive techniques have been found to have greater impact on children. From a week ago: Bobby wrote: Here's ... (which is a link to http://www.phoenixchildrens.com/PDFs/principles_and_practices-of_effective_discipline.pdf) Containing the comment: The research to date also indicates that physical punishment does not promote long-term, internalized compliance. Most (85 percent) of the studies included in a meta-analysis found physical punishment to be associated with less moral internalization of norms for appropriate behavior and long-term compliance. Similarly, the more children receive physical punishment, the more defiant they are and the less likely they are to empathize with others. Sirius B wrote: It has been stated that in general the "data" shows that corporal punishment had an adverse effect Apologies for initially misreading this. I do not know the general state of data and research in this field. Any data related assertions I've made in this thread have been in regards to the papers that have posted here. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24877 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
Apologies for initially misreading this. I do not know the general state of data and research in this field. Any data related assertions I've made in this thread have been in regards to the papers that have posted here. Jeebers...That's a 1st! You mean to tell me that you have commented in this thread without 1st having ensured that it is a nationwide established fact (backed up with conclusive evidence of course) that corporal punishment was known to cause adverse effects? You're slipping Bobby, I would never have expected this of you! |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
Jeebers...That's a 1st! I believe that honesty with regards to limits of one's own knowledge is rarely a slip. Having said that, I do not believe it is incumbent upon me to defend the position of "corporal punishment has known adverse affects", primarily because it's not a position I've taken, though I have referenced a study providing some support to such a claim, "inappropriate and defiant behavior". It seems to me it is incumbent upon those that have suggested the utility (if there is any) of corporal punishment outweighs any harmful effects the punishments may may have. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24877 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
Fair point, so let's look at the other side of the coin.... Since corporal punishment ended in schools, unchecked liberalism has run rampant to a disastrious extent... ...teachers to afraid to administer discipline due to possible claims of assault, children bringing weapons onto school grounds, curriculums constantly changing, qualifications dumbed down. Too much debating the subject in schools, governor meetings, government with none producing a viable solution, so what next? |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
Since corporal punishment ended in schools, unchecked liberalism has run rampant to a disastrious extent... Chris & Sirus, You both mention 'children carrying weapons'... I see this as primarily a failure of the parents to teach their children right from wrong. When I was a child, going to school in a somewhat rural school district, almost all of the boys (myself included) carried knives to school. They were useful tools, especially considering the 'shop' classes and 'agriculture' classes. Yes, we got in fights, sometimes epic ones. But NONE of us EVER pulled our knives on our opponents, not even the worst of the bullies. You didn't do that. Without exception, our parents had taught us that pulling a weapon out during a schoolyard fight was wrong. These days, it just isn't so. My wife recently quit teaching for this reason. She had more than one student attack her in the classroom, and she feared for her life. This issue is 100% the fault of the parents for not teaching their children right from wrong, and the inner city school districts are more dangerous than war zones because of it. |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
...discipline...parental control...dumbing down... Repeating the same unsubstantiated comments does not make them any more true. Likewise agreement from a self selecting sample. plus a merging of the gender roles Something new, care to elaborate? I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
@MajorKong - I fundamentally agree in principle with what you say about weapons, but it is not all the fault of parents. Poverty and lack of opportunity, amongst other things, are some of the causes for sink estates and the environment that they have. And that is as much the fault of government as anything else. Sigh. More unsubstantiated comments and a new anecdote. Evidence from the Home Office here (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb1210chap3.pdf) suggests a different pattern of violent crime. I might be mistaken though it looks to me that the trend over the past 15 years has been generally in a good direction. @ Bobby - No. Make of it what you will or ignore it. I'll leave speculation for others. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Children and knives: When I was in middle school, early 70's, I had one pulled on me. The other kid wasn't interested in hurting me, just getting me to shut up and get out of his way. I think I had one on me at the time, but I wasn't interested in a fight. IIRC then you if you just had one, your parents would have gotten a call, if you used one a week vacation. Today just having one will get you expelled. Of course they give one to every kid in the cafeteria ... What has really changed? Hype by the press. |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
What has really changed? Hype by the press. The British press sensationalist? Surely not ;-) I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
We have been specifically discussing knives and children. That's more like it. Unfortunately the lack of data older than 3 years old from the report means we can only discern a very recent upward trend (did the trend start earlier? was it a reversal of a previous downward trend from a higher level?). Following a link in the article I found a summary of more recent crimes, which does not show much of a change in the upward trend in knife crime, though not an analysis by age group, so it may be masking a drop for a specific group. There is a further issue with analysis of crimes reported to the police that the article notes "Something else to bear in mind is that any rise in crime levels recorded by the police can to some degree reflect a greater willingness on the part of victims to report offences". While the BCS statistics are not immune from the same criticism, it attempts to be somewhat less influenced by changes in willingness to report offences. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Shouldn't there be a class for parents: How to deal with the fact your DNA makes morons? |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.