The Real Problem with Education

[Camarohusky]

This article represents the true problem with education in the US. No, not the teacher, but her comments. She spoke the truth. Ignoring the fact that she way out of line she was 100% correct about what is wrong with our education systems.

For years the Red States have fed us Grade A shit in telling us that it was the public school's fault. This article combined with what everyone already knew, but cared to little to realize, shows that it is the students who are the problem. Students in high school, and now bleeding over into college, don't care about learning. They don't care about achieving, or growing, or prospering. They just want to do as little as possible while still reaping the benefits.

One comment stuck out to me in the article "It's a teacher's job ... to give the students the motivation to learn." I wholeheartedly disagree here. The teacher's job is to teach; to give motivated students an avenue through which to learn. It is the parent's job to motivate their students.

Do you agree? If so, why do you think students are so unmotivated?
If not, what do you see as the real problem with our education?

[DylanJames]

I think it's absurd that she is at risk of being fired but I don't find it surprising. Public schools have to be incredibly politically correct because they are constantly getting shit from everybody about everything. If they fire her they spark an uproar. If they don't fire her they spark an uproar. It's a tough situation to be in and it seems that public schools are always getting into situations like this.
While I think a teacher should try to help the student's appreciate learning it is not their exclusive job to do so. Their real job is to teach not to force kids to care about learning so I obviously agree with you. I cannot tell you why our schools are the way they are. I'm sure there are many sociological studies one could look up though that might give some insight into this problem.

In my personal opinion I think it comes from living in such a decadent society. We simply don't have to think as much. For example, in the Victorian Age their forms of entertainment included reading, writing, playing instruments and generally just thinking about things. Today however we have a plethora of entertainment at our fingertips. The internet, computers, video games, TV, and films to name a few. For many it's much harder to read a book than it is to play a video game but which one is more educational? Entertainment doesn't teach people as much as it used to and this leads to more ignorant and lazy people. Of course, this is just a personal theory of mine. I am not claiming it to be anything more than that.

[fatape]

At 2/16/11 11:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Do you agree? If so, why do you think students are so unmotivated?
If not, what do you see as the real problem with our education?

Your entirely over-simplifying things , it's not one things fault it's the result of combination of several major and hundreds of minor variables although schools do have a good chunk of blame to themselves. Part of the problem is that American schools over conflate there students ego's and portray a unrealistic world view, obviously students who think they know everything won't be motivated to learn.

This is contrary to most asian school models where even the most intelligent and higher achievers are degragated to feel like they need to do better constantly. Of course this isn't the only problem , schools also need to update there methods for the technological era . In a world where you can have internet access at the touch of a button schools are quickly falling behind with old and outdated teaching methods.

[fatape]

At 2/16/11 12:55 PM, DylanJames wrote: , in the Victorian Age their forms of entertainment included reading, writing, playing instruments and generally just thinking about things.

More like there most people worked hard labor in jobs like farming and coal mining (where children also worked ) and factory work where there was little public education . Honestly where do you get this idea from?

[DylanJames]

At 2/16/11 01:33 PM, fatape wrote:

At 2/16/11 12:55 PM, DylanJames wrote: , in the Victorian Age their forms of entertainment included reading, writing, playing instruments and generally just thinking about things.

More like there most people worked hard labor in jobs like farming and coal mining (where children also worked ) and factory work where there was little public education . Honestly where do you get this idea from?

Where do I get the idea from that forms of entertainment included what I mentioned above? It's quite true that when they could seek entertainment these are the types of things they sought. I never said they all participated nor did I even infer that. Not to mention there were plenty of people who were not subject to the work you mentioned. It still is true that their forms of entertainment were different to ours and it does not matter that they all participated or not as that was not my point.

Example:
"Natural history became increasingly an "amateur" activity. Particularly in Britain and the United States, this grew into specialist hobbies such as the study of birds, butterflies, seashells (malacology/conchology), beetles and wildflowers. Amateur collectors and natural history entrepreneurs played an important role in building the large natural history collections of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries." Obviously not everyone was working in factories or coal mines and you must admit that a hobby like this is more useful than watching TV.

[QuantumPenguin]

My feelings on this are entirely encapsulated in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL 4U

[adrshepard]

At 2/16/11 11:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote: This article represents the true problem with education in the US. No, not the teacher, but her comments. She spoke the truth. Ignoring the fact that she way out of line she was 100% correct about what is wrong with our education systems.

If you agree that the students' attitudes are the problem, how is that part of the education "system."

For years the Red States have fed us Grade A shit in telling us that it was the public school's fault.

Saying it's not the individual student's fault for poor performance but rather the school's isn't accurate republican or conservative sentiment at all, though both parties just throw money at the problem and hope it will go away.

Do you agree? If so, why do you think students are so unmotivated?

Who knows? You can't assign rational motivations to the attitudes of children. You can't expect a 6th grader to try hard at school because it will prepare him better for schooling starting 3 years in the future, which in turn prepares for another 4 years, after which you only just begin living as an adult.
It's the parents' fault for not getting on their kids' asses to study and do well. It's no coincidence that low-income areas have inferior students. The parents didn't care enough to do well themselves, why should they push it on their children?

[Elfer]

It's hard to be motivated if the content is uninteresting. With schools (particularly in the US) focusing more heavily on standardized testing, the curriculum tends to weigh too heavily toward test prep rather than actually trying to engage interest in the subject.

Standardized testing was pretty infrequent when I was in elementary and high school, but I remember it always being the most frustrating, stressful and intensely boring part of school. I was always relieved when the tests were over and I could go back to actually learning stuff.

Not that there aren't other problems, and not that students aren't less engaged these days, but I really think that constant testing does way more harm than good.

[basherboy357]

Oh, I can already tell you all this is completely true. Why? I'm a friggin' high school student that's why. Of course, i'm a bit different than most, I don't want to be a doctor or lawyer or anything, I honestly just want a regular job and to not move more often than once in maybe 7 years. But oh yeah, no one in any of the schools i've attended is motivated at all, and those that WERE motivated were dumb as a pile of rocks anyway. To give you an idea of how diverse my schooling environments have been, last year I started off in NC, spent most of it in CO, and ended it in CA. Yayyyyyy.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/16/11 01:27 PM, fatape wrote: This is contrary to most asian school models where even the most intelligent and higher achievers are degragated to feel like they need to do better constantly.

Comparing our education to Asian education is unreliable at best. The entire structure of Asian education beyond elementary school is worlds different than ours. Also the point you are making is not true. The cream of our crop are encouraged to do extremely well. I always had the whip of my parents behind me and the path of my teachers in front of me.

Of course this isn't the only problem , schools also need to update there methods for the technological era . In a world where you can have internet access at the touch of a button schools are quickly falling behind with old and outdated teaching methods.

Not really. Learning is learning, regardless of the technology around you. If the students were taught discipline and the willingness to learn by their parents, the method would not matter.

[RydiaLockheart]

I certainly understand her feelings, but you can't go spouting off like that. Some of the comments, like "the trash company is hiring," were way out of line. I was a librarian in Central Ohio for a year. If I ever talked shit about our patrons, online or off, I would have been fired. The same thing applies here. It's okay to think these things, or to commiserate to coworkers or people you are close to, but to put it in writing where there's lasting evidence is downright stupid. Hell, those of you in customer service industries--would you not also be fired for that?

That being said, there are many problems with education today, and throwing money at them is not going to help. Parents are one. If they don't give a shit about their kid's education and don't push the kid to do well, of course the kid will underachieve. This also applies to discipline.

Secondly, I've heard about the teacher not engaging the students. I remember when I was in school, I understood the material and zoned out, sometimes misbehaving, because I was bored. This was solved by moving me to an honors class. Children have different learning cycles and some learn slower than others. This doesn't necessarily mean those kids are stupid. Take my cousins for example. The older one isn't stupid, it just takes him a lot of repetition and extra help to get it to sink in. But he makes an honest effort. Meanwhile, his brother is in all the honors classes. Same parents doing the same things with both of them, so it's not like there's a hugely different influence there.

Let's face it: some teachers are downright boring. This has been a problem for ages, since there were schools. You have to figure out a way to get the class' attention too. Tall order, I know. My mom always solved it by being a disciplinarian, and I suppose that's one way. But I don't think making the kids afraid of you is the way to do.

[Gario]

Interesting scenario. Like many others, on the one hand I feel for the teacher's thoughts and on the other she should not have posted the things she did (since they were not directed, though, I'm feeling it might be an overreaction to have her fired, but that's just me). As a former teacher who taught GED mathematics, I can understand her frustration. There are a lot of students who simply don't care about it.

As a teacher I found the best thing to do was to make the students absolutely responsible for their actions. Since this was adult education I wasn't going to force them to show up, but there are time requirements for them to fill out, so if they were not there (or they were not doing any schoolwork in that time) they wouldn't get credit for the time. Mind you, I was strict, not mean - I never got angry at my students for irresponsibility, but there was never a time that I 'let them slide', either. I guarantee you, like it or not the students stopped slacking off and actually did their work in class, and a surprising number of my students succeeded because of it.

The trick is consistency, though. If one teacher is very lax and lets the students get away with whatever they want and another teacher is as strict as I was it's not going to work. The lax teacher (holding the lowest standards) will be the baseline, and the students will understandably be upset at the strict teacher for not following the baseline. If students were consistently held accountable for their work (or absence of it) then I could guarantee that the school system would improve quite a bit.

There obviously are other factors involved, too (parents giving motivation at home, students having a goal, etc.), but teachers play a critical role in this. Unfortunately the teachers need to be working in concert or else it's not going to work - Munroe's experience will be the result.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/17/11 12:22 AM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I certainly understand her feelings, but you can't go spouting off like that.

Very diutto, but then again, this is a HUGE problem that some teacher had to say in a provocative way. Parents have been sinking the education system by half-assing their parenthood and then passing the buck to teachers to do more than teach, and we as a society have ignored it.

That being said, there are many problems with education today, and throwing money at them is not going to help. Parents are one. If they don't give a shit about their kid's education and don't push the kid to do well, of course the kid will underachieve. This also applies to discipline.

Parents aren't just one factor, the parents are the main factor. Yes teacher quality, cirriculum, peer group, and such have an effect, but the parent is the alpha and the omega of their kids' education. It's pretty easy to see. Take a peek at the parents who care, and the parents who don't. The children of the parents who care succeed at an exponentially higher rate than the children of parents who don't care. I can guarantee that this trend will be the same across all qualities of school and teachers.

Secondly, I've heard about the teacher not engaging the students.

That's true, but even the most engaging teachers have trouble getting to students who's parents don't care, and the worst teachers can still tach those who want to learn.

Let's face it: some teachers are downright boring. This has been a problem for ages, since there were schools. You have to figure out a way to get the class' attention too. Tall order, I know. My mom always solved it by being a disciplinarian, and I suppose that's one way. But I don't think making the kids afraid of you is the way to do.

Boring teachers are actually a life lesson. Having been in the workforce for a while I can testify that it has a large number of seriously boring sections. Just because filling out hundreds of documents in an hour, or eliciting testimony on the effects of meth on addicts in a trial are as boring as watching paint dry, doesn't mean I can say "fuck it" and just stop caring about my job. We need to stop making excuses for why it's the teachers' fault and start focusing on the parents and the students, because, let's face it: TEACHers are there to teach, not to motivate from step 1, or to babysit.

[orangebomb]

At 2/16/11 11:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

For years the Red States have fed us Grade A shit in telling us that it was the public school's fault. This article combined with what everyone already knew, but cared to little to realize, shows that it is the students who are the problem.

I can see where you're going with this, but just because some kids have no incentive for learning, doesn't mean that she should blame the students entirely. Yes, there are a lot of lazy kids {who probably have lazy parents as well,} who don't give 2 shits about school, and are not going to bother to listen to the teacher, for many reasons that are rather asinine, but as I said, that doesn't give the green light to attack the students as a whole.

:Students in high school, and now bleeding over into college, don't care about learning. They don't care about achieving, or growing, or prospering. They just want to do as little as possible while still reaping the benefits.

The thing is, when you live in America, even the lowest paying jobs can net you a decent living if you play your cards right. {which is unlikely, but I've seen weirder things happen}, with that in the back pocket of students, that would naturally give underachieving students something to fall back on, in case they drop out.

As for students not caring about achieving or prospering and whatnot, I have to disagree somewhat, I've seen some of my fellow classmates in HS actually care about learning and achieving success, but they simply don't want to say that publicly, for fear of being ostracized by others within the peer group.

One comment stuck out to me in the article "It's a teacher's job ... to give the students the motivation to learn." I wholeheartedly disagree here. The teacher's job is to teach; to give motivated students an avenue through which to learn. It is the parent's job to motivate their students.

It's true, the primary job of a teacher is to TEACH, everyone knows that, but sometimes, there are ways that the teacher needs to give motivation to students, so that the students have a higher chance to succeed, even if it is in a small way. The parents should be the motivating factor more so than the teachers, but of course that isn't always the case, especially in lower-class households where there is little incentive to learn, and try to find an easy way out to their problems, most of those ways are negative.

If not, what do you see as the real problem with our education?

Everyone has their share of the blame in this situation, more so than others.

In the case of public schools, the local and state governments can be blamed for cutting back on money for upgrading computers and technology, having up-to-date textbooks and other such stuff, most notably in the poorer towns and cities in America. I've always believed that you can't teach with outdated material and teaching methods, and expect the kids to be the next rocket scientists, or brain surgeons, it doesn't work that way.

The teachers get some blame as well, because they couldn't adapt to today's standards of students. If you're not finding ways to get them to understand the material that can appeal to the students, then you really shouldn't be teaching anymore. What she did on her blog was attack the students as a whole, instead of going after the underachieving ones that have no motivation to learn, and that's not right at all.

The parents are not spared from blame, either. It's the parent's job to make sure that their child is not failing school and doing his work. It can be an obvious balancing act, but then again, that's the decision they make when the decide to have kids.

And finally, we get to the students, {not all of them, mind you}, who don't want to bother learning because of outside interests, pressure at home, or simply not giving a fuck. I would think that if they would care about their lives down the road, they should at least make the effort to learn.

[morefngdbs]

At 2/17/11 12:22 AM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I certainly understand her feelings, but you can't go spouting off like that. Some of the comments, like "the trash company is hiring," were way out of line. I was a librarian in Central Ohio for a year.

;;;
With all respect RydiaLockheart I disagree.
One of the problems we have as I see it is we no longer are allowed to speak our minds. Not even on your own 'blog' site ! ! ! !
People's "precious FEELINGS" , are more important than the truth. Which IMO just helps expand the problem & does nothing to help alieviate it.

My brother is a teacher.
He no longer teaches in Canada. He couldn't stand the apathy in the High school system.
That students know, that they pretty much just have to attend & do nothing & they get a passing grade. They are lazy for the most part. Disrespectful ,belligerant & disruptive in class. He tried expelling 2 students for fist fighting in one of his classes & he got called on the mat by the administration about it !
He told them he would no longer teach if they were allowed back in the class, they insisted, he quit.

As supposedly one of those who is considered 'good' or an example in my field I have voluntered to attend school 'job fairs', with the idea that many students don't want to be college graduates, & want to work in a job that still can pay well without a degree. Like Mechanics, rigging, welders, machinists etc
But I've stopped going , these kid's all want the same thing, something for nothing & as much as they can get, without having to do anything to earn it. When you explain to them REAL life doesn't work like that, you watch their eyes glaze over & you realise these people have NOTHING to offer except a high video game score many can barely read...& this is a high school grade level students.
They are whiners, complainers & they certianly don't want to do anything like HOMEWORK or extra studies...it gets in the way of texting , video games, on line activities etc.
My brother got so frustrated with our system here he applied to teach over seas. Where he is doing very well, teaching not only at a University level, he also teaches elementary children 'Canadian English'

THis isn't every student...but it is a percentage of students ,that is increasing, not decreasing !

Our "system" & those in charge of it are the problem.
Pushing children through grades whether they deserve to grade or not is the problem.
Teachers not being allowed to teach, but having to fit 'everyone' into the same mold...isn't working & as long as we're dealing with humans, can't work. There are simply too many differences between us.

Huge classrooms with 1 teacher & 30 + students !
In my Province we have 8 school boards for a Province of under 1 million people & a declining school enrollment where we have about 128,000 students.
The administration is getting huge & costing a large chunk of the education budget. Instead of having 3/400 administrators & support staff, imagine if they fired almost all of them & hired 300 more teachers !
But no, forward thinking like that hasn't got a chance !

[LazyDrunk]

I'd like to know if this teacher has had therapy for her years of obviously detrimental experiences with teens in school.

Had she been instructed to keep her opinions to herself, avoided online bitching, and kept a journal to show to friends and family detailing her frustrations, she likely wouldn't be in trouble.

But maybe she would.

Why does that feel wrong?

[Ravariel]

At 2/16/11 11:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote: One comment stuck out to me in the article "It's a teacher's job ... to give the students the motivation to learn." I wholeheartedly disagree here. The teacher's job is to teach; to give motivated students an avenue through which to learn. It is the parent's job to motivate their students.

One little nit to pick... It is a part of the teacher's job to motivate students... but it is not only the teacher's job to motivate students. A large part of the blame there must also lie with parents and the system.

Do you agree? If so, why do you think students are so unmotivated?

Because we don't engage them. And by that I mean, we have a "standardized" curriculum which ends up fitting everyone equally poorly, we are too fucking afraid to separate children by ability or interests in order to best help them, we have a criminal shortage of teachers, and a "teach to the test" that is the most boring way imaginable to learn new information.

In my chemistry class we built dry ice and water soda bottle bombs: viola, sublimation taught, kids have a blast (pun intended). Magnet schools and gifted and talented programs are not enough... we need to have the balls to send the kids who are interested in cars, hunting and outdoor activities to schools that focus on trade skills and resource management instead of math and literature, and to let the kids who are gifted move at their own pace, and maybe graduate sooner as per their own abilities. We need to remove the stigma from "remedial" courses and things like woodshop and encourage and make attractive these paths for kids, instead of saying they must gain all of this useless knowledge then pass tests so they can go to college to then finally learn what they really want.

Also: raise teacher salaries significantly... it should be a career that is at least as financially attractive as a CPA or basic office job.

So... basically... a complete revamp of the entire system... should be easy enough, no?

[Bigfoot3290]

I completely agree with the OP. Teachers aren't employed to dance around in front of the class and tell stupid jokes to try to appear "cool." I mean, a teacher should be enthusiastic and passionate about the material, but it should be up to the parent to motivate the child. And the thought of self-motivation?! Blasphemy!

[KemCab]

At 2/16/11 11:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Students in high school, and now bleeding over into college, don't care about learning. They don't care about achieving, or growing, or prospering. They just want to do as little as possible while still reaping the benefits.

Actually, that's pretty much what I want to do. I taught myself practically everything before high school. I still barely read the texts in college and still usually get an A in most classes. It's a matter of self-motivation. However, other people, who are not nearly as intelligent as I am (I'm dropping the pretense of modesty here, herp derp) will do the same thing and will probably remain dumb as rocks in my eyes -- even if they become valedictorians or graduate from an Ivy or whatever.

One comment stuck out to me in the article "It's a teacher's job ... to give the students the motivation to learn." I wholeheartedly disagree here. The teacher's job is to teach; to give motivated students an avenue through which to learn.

Yeah. My professors could care less about "motivating me" to do anything. It is taken for granted that I care about work here -- well, at least enough to pass with a decent grade.

It is the parent's job to motivate their students.

No, that's the kid's job. There is only so much a parent can do. Whether a student is motivated or not is ultimately up to the student. You can't magically instill motivation into someone.

Do you agree? If so, why do you think students are so unmotivated?

Because Western society is decadent and lots of careers are pretty much worthless now.

[adrshepard]

At 2/18/11 12:55 AM, KemCab wrote: Actually, that's pretty much what I want to do. I taught myself practically everything before high school. I still barely read the texts in college and still usually get an A in most classes.

Well, as long as you "usually" get an A in "most" of the ones that matter to your future career, that's ok. But you might have to learn something to do it.

No, that's the kid's job. There is only so much a parent can do. Whether a student is motivated or not is ultimately up to the student. You can't magically instill motivation into someone.

It isn't magic; it takes years of work and nagging. True, it's up to the kid himself in that he can choose to actively resist it, but its far easier just to cooperate. In time he starts believing it himself.

Because Western society is decadent and lots of careers are pretty much worthless.

Don't be knocking a doctorate in English Poetry, now.

[RubberTrucky]

I disagree on the issue that it's not the job of a teacher to motivate.

Teachers should always motivate and bring a subject in such a way that it is exciting. Not to say that teachers have to transform every class into one of entertainment. But it is far more helpful to have a teacher who knows his subject, is ready to help his/her students out and manage them through personal contact and give homework that challenges them and demand the appropriate amount of input to increase the overall prestation of the students. This really works.

But I agree that parents should monitor their kids better. We've come in a dangerous place where parents no longer want to discipline their kids and would rather reprimand the teachers for them punishing their kids for 'stupid reasons' then to accept their kids are pulling shenanigans. This goes even further in the years when kids get independence and call upon courts to contest their grades.

So eventually, we do need teachers who put effort into motivating their classes and parents who need to keep a close watch on their kids.

[KemCab]

At 2/18/11 10:34 AM, adrshepard wrote: Well, as long as you "usually" get an A in "most" of the ones that matter to your future career, that's ok. But you might have to learn something to do it.

It's not like I don't have to study or refer to the textbook at all. I actually do, sometimes.

It isn't magic; it takes years of work and nagging. True, it's up to the kid himself in that he can choose to actively resist it, but its far easier just to cooperate. In time he starts believing it himself.

It could still backfire; still, it IS better than leaving the kid alone. But the nagging only worked for me to a certain point. I never cared about being first in my class or getting a perfect SAT score. I wasn't into meaningless competition.

Because Western society is decadent and lots of careers are pretty much worthless.

Don't be knocking a doctorate in English Poetry, now.

Or philosophy, lol. I tried getting into it and found that the vast majority of it is obscurantist garbage. Or "gender studies," "ethics," etc. -- the brain-dead spew of liberal academia.

[orangebomb]

At 2/18/11 02:39 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: I disagree on the issue that it's not the job of a teacher to motivate.

Teachers should always motivate and bring a subject in such a way that it is exciting. Not to say that teachers have to transform every class into one of entertainment. But it is far more helpful to have a teacher who knows his subject, is ready to help his/her students out and manage them through personal contact and give homework that challenges them and demand the appropriate amount of input to increase the overall prestation of the students. This really works.

I would have to agree, it's been shown over and over again that if the students are positively engaged with the material and the teacher, then they're more likely to succeed or at the very least understand the material. More than likely, if a teacher drones on and on about a certain subject, then chances are, the students aren't going to pay attention.

But I agree that parents should monitor their kids better. We've come in a dangerous place where parents no longer want to discipline their kids and would rather reprimand the teachers for them punishing their kids for 'stupid reasons' then to accept their kids are pulling shenanigans. This goes even further in the years when kids get independence and call upon courts to contest their grades.

Calling on the courts to contest their grades is extreme to say the least, but as a teacher, you need to know a simple question, Where do you draw the line? I can understand about repeated bad behavior {mouthing off, lack of effort, no homework done, etc.} where that would warrant their parent's attention, but for something like passing notes, or joking around in or at a bad time could be handled in a private manner.

So eventually, we do need teachers who put effort into motivating their classes and parents who need to keep a close watch on their kids.

For parents, it's a really tight rope they walk on with high school kids. You don't want to snoop around everywhere, badger kids about not finishing homework on and on, and setting unresonable limits on their free time, but at the same side of the coin, you don't want to leave them be and let them do whatever they want. I believe it's about balance and trust with kids, especially with teenagers.

[Halberd]

I didn't read the article but I read OP and replies.

Anyways I think she is partly correct and parents (and mainly just the parents) do need to be responsible for motivating and encouraging their kids to enjoy learning and realize the opportunities in front of them, and a lot of parents slack off at this. I spend nearly every day of my life listening to the kids in my year level talk about how they "ceebs going to school" and "dread going to school and doing homework" and how they wish they could just play soccer and screw around all day.

That said teachers still need to be able to inspire students and give them the advice they need and make subjects fun (a lot of low rate schools hire unprofessional teachers who don't care as much about teaching as they should) and especially in the later year levels/grades/forms (year 11 and 12 for example) say your learning economics it would feel good if the teacher knew what he was talking about and was able to make the subject interesting and was a friendly person who could tell you their life experience and career experience in economics. University professors do a good job at this I think.

Once the parent and teachers have done their job then the student should be responsible (like what Kemcab said) ideally once you are out of primary/elementary school and in high school you should be able to realize what subjects interest you the most and you should be mature enough not to be a bitch about it (I hate Italian and I'm lazy at homework but it's required and there are some things in you life you have to just deal with)

TL;DR: Parents need to raise their children properly and are mostly to blame, but teachers also need to be qualified and know how to teach and make the subject interesting. Students need to know their priorities and know their opportunities to the future and not fuck around. At a point students need to take responsibility for their actions and results and know what subjects interest them...or something.

[Ericho]

At 2/16/11 11:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Do you agree? If so, why do you think students are so unmotivated?

I think it mostly depends on whatever student or teacher is involved. There are bad teachers and students who are not interested. If anything, students should be motivated by their peers as well as their teachers.

If not, what do you see as the real problem with our education?

I really don't think the teachers are doing anything wrong. I think many people can be lazy or distracted. They should just learn more about how the real world looks.

[SmilezRoyale]

If you forced the youth of an entire country to learn a sport, but worse, you forced all of them to learn a specific kind of sport. Say, American Football, [As opposed to what we in America call Soccer] How can any reasonable person be surprised when the majority of American youth perform extremely poorly?

And of course the people who point out that spending 12 or more years of a person's life learning to play Football might not be best for everyone are viciously attacked for not caring about the students.

the very essence of state education is its uniformity. It isn't really until the last two years of high school that SOME students can make choices about what classes are part of their curriculum.

Frankly it's pathetic. The Government has failed to to educate America's youth. Now they are so desperate and irresponsible that they resort to blaming the students they put through their system.

But don't get me wrong. Teachers them selfs are put in a peculiar position since they're the ones, going back to our football analogy, who are trying to get every student to perform at the varsity level. It's no surprise then that these coaches/teachers resort to lowering standards. I don't blame specific educators for failing to educate. But I do blame the attitude that everyone should go to school and be educated more or less the same way as their fellows from ages 6-18, and the Politicians who both encourage and are encouraged by this attitude to adopt bad public policies.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/22/11 12:29 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: If you forced the youth of an entire country to learn a sport, but worse, you forced all of them to learn a specific kind of sport. Say, American Football, [As opposed to what we in America call Soccer] How can any reasonable person be surprised when the majority of American youth perform extremely poorly?

The point here is not that American student are performing poorly. The point is that American students aren't motivated to perform at all. Using your football example, it would a team that never practices and screws around then wonders why they lose all their games.

the very essence of state education is its uniformity. It isn't really until the last two years of high school that SOME students can make choices about what classes are part of their curriculum.

Uniformity is not the problem here. While uniformity might affect the performance results as a whole, uniformity theoretically should enchance the effort, due to competition. If nothing else uniformity should have little negative effect on the effort put in.

Frankly it's pathetic. The Government has failed to to educate America's youth. Now they are so desperate and irresponsible that they resort to blaming the students they put through their system.

The government has not failed at all. Take a peek at the motivated students. They succeed in public education all the time. I am in graduate school and the vast majority came from public school. The amount of quality student coming out of the public school system definitely show that it is not the system that is failing here. Like you said, not everyone can succeed in school.

But I do blame the attitude that everyone should go to school and be educated more or less the same way as their fellows from ages 6-18, and the Politicians who both encourage and are encouraged by this attitude to adopt bad public policies.

Like I said, uniformity should have little effect on how much effort is put in and how motivated the students are. There is just a general lack of respect for the value of education among the vast majority of Americans. This has bled over to their children and they fail to try in high school.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 2/22/11 01:00 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/22/11 12:29 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: If you forced the youth of an entire country to learn a sport, but worse, you forced all of them to learn a specific kind of sport. Say, American Football, [As opposed to what we in America call Soccer] How can any reasonable person be surprised when the majority of American youth perform extremely poorly?

The point here is not that American student are performing poorly. The point is that American students aren't motivated to perform at all. Using your football example, it would a team that never practices and screws around then wonders why they lose all their games.

Which makes sense. If you DID try to teach every american youth to play football, many if not most of them will not be motivated to practice football. Of those not motivated it may very well be that a good portion of them COULD play football at an acceptable or even superior level but are not motivated to do so because they don't enjoy it.

For example, in highschool in most academic topics I will only work as hard as necessary in order to get in the 90-95% range. If the teacher was easy in the assignments I simply took advantage of it.

This is part of the reason that in spite of taking classes for Spanish from age 13-17 and never getting lower than 90% on grades I still cannot speak a word of Spanish. I knew in my head that I could easily learn spanish in a short while if I gave more than 10% of my effort [which was enough to get the grades i felt acceptable] But i did not WANT to learn Spanish for the sake of learning spanish; i just wanted an acceptable grade.

On economics and history I would spend substantially more effort because I enjoyed the topic and found the knowledge useful and meaningful.

I hope American society is not so totalitarian that we insist people who are good at something be forced to do it, even if they get no pleasure out of doing it.

Uniformity is not the problem here. While uniformity might affect the performance results as a whole, uniformity theoretically should enchance the effort, due to competition. If nothing else uniformity should have little negative effect on the effort put in.

You're missing the point. Uniformity of curriculum and teaching method should never be conflated with uniformity of academic standards. Parents / Students have virtually no power over what students learn and how they learn it. By ignoring differences inherent in individuals and insisting that everyone can receive the same FORMAT [Not to be conflated with Quality] of education most people will have no motivation.

Frankly it's pathetic. The Government has failed to to educate America's youth. Now they are so desperate and irresponsible that they resort to blaming the students they put through their system.

The government has not failed at all. Take a peek at the motivated students. They succeed in public education all the time. I am in graduate school and the vast majority came from public school. The amount of quality student coming out of the public school system definitely show that it is not the system that is failing here. Like you said, not everyone can succeed in school.

The vast majority of students PERIOD come from public schools. The good and the bad. You're exemplarary evidence doesn't say anything about the larger picture. Secondary education in the united states **compared** with that of other OECD countries is dismally poor

And within the united states, time after time, Home schooled students, charter schools, and private schools outperform their public counterparts. All of which lends credence to my thesis that at the root of the education problem is the lack of choice on the part of parents and students, from which all the other problems stem.

It's unreasonable to expect people to 'respect' a kind of education which they have no say or control over.

[SmilezRoyale]

I would also like to point out that uniformity extends beyond merely classifications of subject matter. The vast majority of people may have a potential talent in understanding, for example, chemistry or literature. The way the subject is taught is also of the utmost importance, and numerous factors go into how exactly different students are taught the same subject.

[Ravariel]

At 2/22/11 03:59 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: And within the united states, time after time, Home schooled students, charter schools, and private schools outperform their public counterparts.

While I agree with you for the most part, let me pick a nit here. In academics, Home Schooling whoops Public Schooling cold (I was mostly homeschooled for 4 years and it was the best decision my parents ever made for my education), however, school is not all about academic learning. A large amount of social learning is also accomplished there that is seldom available in a homeschooled environment. I didn't start homeschooling till 8th grade so most of my social education had already taken place. Group dynamics, interaction, bargaining, and interpersonal relationships with peers are all very much at the forefront of the importance of schools.

As far as private and charter schools go, most private schools only outperform public schools by a slim margin and charter schools are all over the map.

It's unreasonable to expect people to 'respect' a kind of education which they have no say or control over.

I don't know about respect, but certainly the ability to tailor a curriculum based on the interests and abilities of the individual is the most effective way to foster motivation and a positive education, and choice certainly fits into that. However, the amount of choice allowed I believe is something that is negotiable. Most kids, were they given the choice, would skip out on one or more very important subjects due to personal preference, be it math, reading, writing, or history. Personally, most history is dry and boring. Names and dates stick far less well in my head than concepts, puzzles, and the construction of the new (be it through words, music or math). Don't give me specifics, give me generals and let me create specifics. Had I been given the choice, I would have skipped a lot of information that is actually important to understanding the things I am currently interested in. My parents would have had little to no inkling of my current path in order to foster those less desirable educational paths. And my parents were one of the ones greatly invested in my education... something that is a bit of a rarity. I don't know that we would be better off if we let all parents choose every educational path for their children. Certainly many would, but I suspect that a larger number would be worse off.

The question is how we can encourage a greater variety in education while motivating parents to become truly involved, instead of thinking of school as free daycare and nothing more.