chapman@fornax.UUCP (03/02/87)
I sure a lot of people have noticed what I am about to comment on and I'd like to hear what people think about it. Every year thousands (tens of thousands?) of bright eyed little kids go off to start in kindergarten. They are by and large very inquisitive, adventurous and enthusiastic. Twelve or thirteen years later they exit the school system. Only now they (with a few exceptions) actively resist learning anything. Learning and thinking have become a chore to be avoided. Why? Would smaller class sizes help (I think so)? A different type of setting? Different training for teachers? A lot of these people end up becoming a drain on society. Certainly they are not taking part in it as best they could (as far as my recent posting regarding an educated voting populace is concerned). Should we put more effort into them when they are young to save having to look after them all their lives? Would a one generation effort be sufficient? john *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
chapman@fornax.UUCP (03/02/87)
> resist learning anything. Learning and thinking have become a chore > to be avoided. > Just a p.s. to my posting. Did you know that the average canadian newspaper editorial is pitched at a grade eight reading level (according to one of my old english teachers)? Isn't that disturbing? *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
rob@arcsun.UUCP (03/02/87)
In article <213@fornax.uucp>, chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: > Every year thousands (tens of thousands?) of bright eyed little kids ^(hundreds of thousands) > go off to start in kindergarten. They are by and large very inquisitive, > adventurous and enthusiastic. Twelve or thirteen years later they exit > the school system. Only now they (with a few exceptions) actively > resist learning anything. Learning and thinking have become a chore > to be avoided. > If in fact kids do possess any adventurousness at all, it is by and large eliminated within 3 days of entering any organized institution, including day care. Within these settings kids rapidly become very set in their ways, and any deviation from the norm causes them mental anguish. (Picture 24 kindergarten students whining "But Mrs. Soandso always reads the story AFTER the special person cleans the chalkboard"). Enthusiasm fades (in general) by grade 3. Inquisitiveness seems more a part of individual personality and stays fairly constant. (Source for these pronouncements: Denise Aitken, teacher). > Why? Would smaller class sizes help (I think so)? A different type of > setting? Different training for teachers? > In most cases, learning is a chore. If you already believe you are getting along fine, why bother to learn anything new? I resisted learning EMACS for ages because vi was a perfectly good editor. It is only when you can see a benefit from something that learning it becomes worthwhile. The task of convincing students that school programs are useful (and indeed making and keeping them useful) is a prime objective of education. > A lot of these people end up becoming a drain on society. Oh, I don't know. You and I seem to be doing fine. :-) In my opinion, more concentration on continuing teacher education is the key. This will prevent the change from bright-eyed first-year teachers to old battle-axe burnouts who believe that society values them only as expensive baby-sitters. Rob Aitken { ...ubc-vision, ...alberta}!calgary!arcsun!rob Disclaimer: The Alberta Research Council does not pay me as a spokesman, so they cannot claim anything I say as theirs. So there.
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (03/02/87)
John Chapman asks what turns bright, inquisitive kindergarten students
into dull adults. Here are some reasons which I've encountered in my
experience as a teacher, both at the secondary and post-secondary levels:
1) Society in general prizes passivity. Advertising, television, videos,
and movies, all of which children are exposed to for longer and with more
immediacy than school, encourage a ``consumer'' philosophy which is alien
to creativity and curiosity. (Mavor Moore in last Saturday's Globe & Mail
had an interesting column on ``media education'').
2) Schools are often places where a child's creativity is not really
encouraged. Teachers who keep their kids in line generally rate higher with
administrations, and a teacher who does make the effort generally faces
extremely limited resources for field trips, books, etc. As well, many
teachers don't really understand how to enhance their students' creativity
(while still teaching the basics of the subject).
I speak from experience on this subject: I did a teacher training program at
SFU about 13 years ago, and the major things I learned were: (1) erase the
blackboard completely before you write on it, and (2) make sure that you
have your attendance book up to date at all times. I did take an outstanding
philosophy of education course, but it wasn't required, and many of the
students didn't seem to benefit from it.
3) Parents often don't care about their children's learning. Parents often
don't do anything when a child is doing poorly in school, or tell their
kids, "never mind, I was never any good at math either". I once encountered
a grade 11 academic student who had never learned how to do fractions! Tell
me that her parents were taking responsibility for her education.
-----
Vincent Manis {ihnp4!alberta,uw-beaver}!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!manis
Dept. of Computer Science manis@cs.ubc.cdn
Univ. of British Columbia manis%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1W5 manis@ubc.csnet
(604) 228-6770 or 228-3061
"BASIC is the Computer Science equivalent of 'Scientific Creationism'."chapman@fornax.uucp (03/02/87)
> In article <213@fornax.uucp>, chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: > > Every year thousands (tens of thousands?) of bright eyed little kids > ^(hundreds of thousands) > > go off to start in kindergarten. They are by and large very inquisitive, > > adventurous and enthusiastic. Twelve or thirteen years later they exit > > the school system. Only now they (with a few exceptions) actively > > resist learning anything. Learning and thinking have become a chore > > to be avoided. > > > If in fact kids do possess any adventurousness at all, it is by and large Well let me get my rose coloured glasses on. There! As I remember it we we pretty adventurous as kids - I certainly got enough lectures on the topic (didn't take though :-) ). Most of the young children I talk to seem that way too - the most often used word seems to be "why". > eliminated within 3 days of entering any organized institution, including > day care. Within these settings kids rapidly become very set in their ways, Maybe we should keep them out of over-organized settings then? > and any deviation from the norm causes them mental anguish. (Picture 24 > kindergarten students whining "But Mrs. Soandso always reads the story AFTER > the special person cleans the chalkboard"). Enthusiasm fades (in general) by > grade 3. Inquisitiveness seems more a part of individual personality and > stays fairly constant. (Source for these pronouncements: Denise Aitken, > teacher). Well I won't quarrel with her experience but I would like to point out that she is relating her experiences in our current system - which I am (at least partially) convinced produces this effect (lack of enthusiasm, need to stick to established routines, etc.). Is this inherent in children? If not how can we stop doing this to them, and if so how can we steer them away from it? I would also like to emphasize that part of what bothers me is the attitude children develop towards learning - they not only don't want to do it themselves but they are suspicious (the be charitable) of those who do enjoy it. > > Why? Would smaller class sizes help (I think so)? A different type of > > setting? Different training for teachers? > > > In most cases, learning is a chore. If you already believe you are getting > along fine, why bother to learn anything new? I resisted learning EMACS for > ages because vi was a perfectly good editor. It is only when you can see > a benefit from something that learning it becomes worthwhile. The task of > convincing students that school programs are useful (and indeed making and > keeping them useful) is a prime objective of education. I agree, but we don't seem to be doing a very good job. Either 1. people are just like that and there is nothing we can do, or 2. ou school system is the wrong answer to the problem, or 3. something else. Personally I believe 2 is the most correct; which is not to denigrate the efforts of a lot of dedicated teachers working within the established system. > > > A lot of these people end up becoming a drain on society. > Oh, I don't know. You and I seem to be doing fine. :-) > > In my opinion, more concentration on continuing teacher education is the key. > This will prevent the change from bright-eyed first-year teachers to old > battle-axe burnouts who believe that society values them only as expensive > baby-sitters. It would certainly help (it would in most other professions as well). It seems worth asking what it is the produces the battle-axe burnouts in the first place though. > > Rob Aitken > { ...ubc-vision, ...alberta}!calgary!arcsun!rob > Disclaimer: The Alberta Research Council does not pay me as a spokesman, so > they cannot claim anything I say as theirs. So there. What would Denise change if she could do whatever she wanted with the school system? *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
rob@arcsun.UUCP (Rob Aitken) (03/03/87)
In article <217@fornax.uucp>, chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: > > <many deleted things> > Well let me get my rose coloured glasses on. There! As I remember it we > we pretty adventurous as kids - I certainly got enough lectures on the > topic (didn't take though :-) ). Most of the young children I talk to > seem that way too - the most often used word seems to be "why". I agree. Once they are in school, however, their "why's" are typically answered with "how" or "what". Perhaps it is society's emphasis on mundane rote learning that diminishes the children's enthusiasm. For instance, I find the reasons behind various conflicts far more interesting than the precise dates they occurred. This kind of subjective learning is much harder to measure, however. (Testing is another story...) > >.. Within these settings kids rapidly become very set in their ways, > Maybe we should keep them out of over-organized settings then? Maybe, but the sheer numbers of students tend to require some kind of organization. > >... (Source for these pronouncements: Denise Aitken, teacher). > Well I won't quarrel with her experience but I would like to point out > that she is relating her experiences in our current system - which > I am (at least partially) convinced produces this effect (lack of > enthusiasm, need to stick to established routines, etc.). > Is this inherent in children? If not how can we stop doing this to them, > and if so how can we steer them away from it? I have not seen any objective evidence one way or the other on the last questions. Routines make it easier to deal with life, but also make life more boring. This applies equally well to teacher and to student. Coming up with new ideas every day takes an incredible amount of work. > I would also like to emphasize that part of what bothers me is the attitude > children develop towards learning - they not only don't want to do it > themselves but they are suspicious ([to] be charitable) of those who do > enjoy it. I believe Vincent Manis' recent posting on media education and parental acceptance of poor academic performance explains much of this. > 2. [our] school system is the wrong answer to the problem, or > ...Personally I believe 2 is the most correct.... This may be true, but most efforts to change the system are met with the "Get back to basics! My kid is in grade 2 and doesn't know the capital of Lower Slobbovia yet!" breed of comment. Many people want school to be difficult. It was hard for them, so it should be hard for their children. > It seems worth asking what it is the produces the battle-axe burnouts in the > first place though. Too much work, too little credit. > What would Denise change if she could do whatever she wanted with the > school system? Her major problems are lack of resources, and poor procedures for dealing with discipline problems. A full response will follow later. Rob Aitken EAN: aitken@noah.arc.cdn UUCP: { ...ubc-vision, ...alberta}!calgary!arcsun!rob Disclaimer: Even if the Alberta Research Council knew about this news feed, it wouldn't want to be associated with it.
cdshaw@alberta.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (03/04/87)
In article <181@arcsun.UUCP> rob@arcsun.UUCP (Rob Aitken) writes: >In article <217@fornax.uucp>, chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: >> <many deleted things> >> 2. [our] school system is the wrong answer to the problem, or >> ...Personally I believe 2 is the most correct.... >This may be true, but most efforts to change the system are met with the >"Get back to basics! My kid is in grade 2 and doesn't know the capital of >Lower Slobbovia yet!" breed of comment. Many people want school to be >difficult. It was hard for them, so it should be hard for their children. Well.... There was a significant amount of experimentation with education in the 60's. Basically educators had been saying the above for years before, and finally got what they wanted. The consensus is that it didn't work. The back to basics movement is in reaction to the 60's experiments. Which isn't to say it's the 30's all over again in schools, just that the topic matter is that same, because that's what the people need. Literacy is valuable, so you must teach it. It is an unfortunate reality that class sizes are too large. Let's do something about it. Complacency is probably half the problem. The literacy rate in this country is too low. Other countries have much higher because their people think that literacy is important. Japan comes to mind in this respect. >Rob Aitken -- Chris Shaw cdshaw@alberta University of Alberta CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !
david@geac.UUCP (David Haynes) (03/04/87)
In article <876@ubc-cs.UUCP> manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis) writes: >John Chapman asks what turns bright, inquisitive kindergarten students >into dull adults. Here are some reasons which I've encountered in my >experience as a teacher, both at the secondary and post-secondary levels: > >1) Society in general prizes passivity. Advertising, television, videos, >and movies, all of which children are exposed to for longer and with more >immediacy than school, encourage a ``consumer'' philosophy which is alien >to creativity and curiosity. (Mavor Moore in last Saturday's Globe & Mail >had an interesting column on ``media education''). > In fact, the school system is (was?) designed to enforce the average. How many times have you seen an entire class' progress slowed down because one or two members were not understanding a concept? How many times have the slower ones been left in the dark because the majority of the class has reached a certain learning point? Soap box time: I think the problem with the current school system is that the fundamental method is *wrong*! It encourages the art of knowledge regurgitation rather than stressing problem solving and creative thinking. How many people watched at least one episode of "The Paper Chase"? In that program the teaching method was an indication of the alternative to the current teaching methods. "You teach yourself the law --- I teach you how to *think* like a lawyer." >2) Schools are often places where a child's creativity is not really >encouraged. Teachers who keep their kids in line generally rate higher with >administrations, and a teacher who does make the effort generally faces >extremely limited resources for field trips, books, etc. As well, many >teachers don't really understand how to enhance their students' creativity >(while still teaching the basics of the subject). > Not encouraged is an understatement! I can still remember being told that there was no such thing as a negative number ("you can't take three from two") because we (the class) hadn't reached that point in our lessons yet. And yet, there is a *vast* quantity of high quality audio-visual resources just waiting to be used! Do teachers use them? Usually, audio-visual aids are viewed as "pacifiers" when the teacher does not particularly feel like teaching that day. Many teachers have *never* used a film or video-tape in their classes in their life! > >3) Parents often don't care about their children's learning. Parents often >don't do anything when a child is doing poorly in school, or tell their >kids, "never mind, I was never any good at math either". I once encountered >a grade 11 academic student who had never learned how to do fractions! Tell >me that her parents were taking responsibility for her education. > Sad, but true. Even more sad is being a parent watching your creative child being squashed by the school system and turned from a bright, inquisitive individual to an "average" person. >----- >Vincent Manis {ihnp4!alberta,uw-beaver}!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!manis Fortunately, for those who can afford it, and who happen to live in the right area, there are some alternatives such as Montessori schools and other private learning institutions. Unfortunately, we have to go to such lengths in order to educate our young. -david- -- ========================================================================== David Haynes (utzoo!yetti!geac!david) Geac Computers International Inc. +1 416 475 0525 x 3420 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, CANADA, L3R 1B3
rob@arcsun.UUCP (03/04/87)
In article <247@pembina.alberta>, cdshaw@alberta.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes: > > [some things about "back to basics"] > > ... There was a significant amount of experimentation with education in > the 60's. Basically educators had been saying the above for years before, > and finally got what they wanted. The consensus is that it didn't work. The > back to basics movement is in reaction to the 60's experiments. Much of the so-called "experimentation" in the 60's was simply an attempt to foist a "hip, feel-good, free" philosophy on unsuspecting youngsters, instead of the "square, imperialist" (or whatever) philosophy that had previously been imposed. The problem was that many students, given the option of doing whatever they wanted, chose to do nothing. > Which isn't to say > it's the 30's all over again in schools, just that the topic matter is > that same, because that's what the people need. Literacy is valuable, so > you must teach it. But is teaching literacy the *same thing* as teaching the definition of gerunds? This is why there is a need for genuine education research, not simply knee-jerk reactions against flower-child gurus. Rob Aitken {...alberta, ...ubc-vision}!calgary!arcsun!rob "If at first you don't succeed, well, so much for skydiving." - Someone other than me
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (03/04/87)
Some places in the US are trying out an interesting approach to the problems
of high college tuition and inadequate supply of pre-college teachers:
tuition loans that are written off if the new graduate spends a couple of
years as a teacher. This idea has considerable merit.
--
"We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henrymanis@ubc-cs.UUCP (03/05/87)
David Haynes says that the basic problem is that the premise of the school
system is wrong. I agree with him, but I'm not really sure what to do with
it. The basic problem is that people (no names mentioned) consider education
to be a right, yet they're not willing to pay for it. When a government
proposes to spend millions of dollars on some ill-defined economic
development, there tends to be little public outrage. Should anyone propose
reducing the pupil-teacher ratio in the public schools, call-in shows are
deluged with outraged taxpayers complaining about the greedy teachers.
Here in BC, the govt installed a beautiful rapid-transit system. It cost
several *hundred* million dollars more than a competing system, yet the govt
went with the more expensive one because it was glitzier. (As a user, I love
it, I do admit.) The final cost has yet to be determined, because after a
year of operation, the govt has yet to settle on a funding basis for the
system. Far from being apologetic about its fiscal irresponsibility, the
govt fought the last election over the code-word "negativity", which was
what those who criticised any of its policies were guilty of. They were
reelected, as was a civic party somewhat aligned with it, which campaigned
on a platform of being "positive".
Yet the govt is constantly reporting that it can't afford to improve
facilities in the education system. A new Computer Science 12 is being
phased in, and yet there was no money to buy textbooks for it. (The govt
finally caved in on that one).
I'd like to say that this discrepancy comes because the govt is composed of
looney bozos, but that's not true. The govt knows what sells: spending
hundreds of millions on a fantastic party (the Expo 86 concessions were
handled by a Seattle company!) will sell because it will create loads of
jobs, improve tourism, and redevelop the city, even if it creates not one
long-term job, results in a net drop of tourism to the province at large,
and leaves behind a vast, bleak mud-plain.
So what is the alternative: take your children out of public school? That
alternative is not practical for most people, first because the good private
schools have long waiting lists, and secondly because of the cost of
operating the private schools (no school could afford to give scholarships
to a majority of its students).
An alternative is the Seymour Papert/Jerry Pournelle theory: what with
high-technology, we don't need schools. Give your kid a video disk with the
Encyclopaedia Britannica on it, and s/he can learn far more than in any
school. This one is fine for the kids who are enthusiastic learners, but the
majority are not, for reasons I outlined in an earlier posting. What is
needed is a parent or other adult who will end up acting as a teacher, in
order to ensure that actual learning (as opposed to video-game playing)
takes place.
So I'd be inclined to look for a more gradualist approach:
1) Push for a reallocation of more financial resources to education,
pegged specifically for teachers. (High-tech hardware is fun to buy,
but often sits idle in the average school. Its proper place is not
in a school, but in a library or other facility available to students
and the community and large.)
2) Push for even stronger evaluation of teachers by both professional
societies and by the districts. The criteria must be carefully defined
so as to emphasise success at learning, rather than more easily
ascertained measures such as examination performance.
3) Push the universities to develop real teacher-training programs, which
emphasise intellectual rigour, and knowledge of the discipline. Under-
graduate education programs should be eliminated, requiring instead
that entering students already possess a bachelor's degree in arts,
sciences, or engineering.
Disclaimer: I am a professional teacher, and my salary (such as it is) is
paid by the taxpayer.
-----
Vincent Manis {ihnp4!alberta,uw-beaver}!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!manis
Dept. of Computer Science manis@cs.ubc.cdn
Univ. of British Columbia manis%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1W5 manis@ubc.csnet
(604) 228-6770 or 228-3061
"BASIC is the Computer Science equivalent of 'Scientific Creationism'."jmsellens@watdragon.UUCP (03/06/87)
In article <7739@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >Some places in the US are trying out an interesting approach to the problems >of high college tuition and inadequate supply of pre-college teachers: >tuition loans that are written off if the new graduate spends a couple of >years as a teacher. This idea has considerable merit. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario has had a similar plan for some time now for PhD students in accounting. They lend you X$ a year and forgive Y$ a year for each year you teach. A good deal if you wanted to teach anyway, and even if you didn't. (We need more accounting profs.)
acton@mprvaxa.UUCP (Don Acton) (03/06/87)
In article <887@ubc-cs.UUCP> manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis) writes: > When a government >proposes to spend millions of dollars on some ill-defined economic >development, there tends to be little public outrage. Should anyone propose >reducing the pupil-teacher ratio in the public schools, call-in shows are >deluged with outraged taxpayers complaining about the greedy teachers. I am not convinced that there is little public "outrage" to ill-defined economic development. All one has to do is consider all the hoopla currently surrounding the proposed construction of the Site C dam or controversy with respect to North East coal and the new grain terminals in Prince Rupert. Contrary to what Vince implies the people of BC were hardly in total agreement over Expo and I don't imagine too many people would have lost sleep if the fair had been cancelled when Jimmy Pattison made just that recommendation to the premier. I must admit teachers take a beating on call in shows but maybe that is because tax payers feel they are taking a beating themselves with respect to taxes. Education is an ongoing cost and each time someone proposes a change it seems to cost more. These aren't one time costs, but costs that stay forever and grow with inflation. Now if the taxpayer thinks he currently isn't getting good value, with respect to education, for his/her current tax dollar they are probably a little reluctant to shell out money for "ill-defined education" programs. Throwing money at a problem without addressing how that problem came into being doesn't help cure it or prevent a similar situation from arising. Maybe that is what bothers the callers. Donald Acton
rob@arcsun.UUCP (03/06/87)
In article <887@ubc-cs.UUCP>, manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis) writes: > 3) Push the universities to develop real teacher-training programs, which > emphasise intellectual rigour, and knowledge of the discipline. Under- > graduate education programs should be eliminated, requiring instead > that entering students already possess a bachelor's degree in arts, > sciences, or engineering. This is fine for secondary teachers, provided the teacher-training program teaches them enough about education, measurement etc. But what about elementary teachers? I can't think of any discipline which provides a sufficiently general program, and a knowledge of doped semiconductors is not going to help you with a child who cannot distinguish a 'b' from a 'p'. Rob Aitken {...ubc-vision, ...alberta}!calgary!arcsun!rob
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (03/08/87)
In response to Don Acton...
In 1984 and 1985, each time the BC Opposition criticised the economic
projections for Expo, the govt loudly announced that the NDP was opposed to
Expo. Mike Harcourt's early opposition to it, and Bob Skelly's later
criticism of it on economic grounds, were so damaging to the NDP that both
Skelly and Broadbent staged highly visible walkabouts during the fair to
show that they were in favour of it.
Then there's the noisy debate over who's going to get the next Skytrain
extension. I don't hear the mayors of Coquitlam and Richmond offering to pay
for it.
(My apologies to those of you unfortunate enough to live outside BC;
however, I suspect that it is true everywhere in Canada that megaprojects
sell, regardless of whether they do any good).
In response to Dave Brewer...
No, I don't know how napalm was invented. You tell me.
-----
Vincent Manis {seismo,uw-beaver}!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!manis
Dept. of Computer Science manis@cs.ubc.cdn
Univ. of British Columbia manis%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1W5 manis@ubc.csnet
(604) 228-6770 or 228-3061
"BASIC is the Computer Science equivalent of 'Scientific Creationism'."