School: Preparing for life or Babysitting?

[Tsuwabuki]

Originally Posted by xyzone

Which means you left since there's nothing to do with those places as they are.

...Actually, no. I left because of the recession. Dallas had a hiring freeze, Austin was hiring less teachers. Others simply couldn't offer enough to allow me to teach and pay my bills. Hmm.. Those cities are in TEXAS. I'm a Texan. I got myself into debt to be a teacher. I had to get myself out. I would've much rather taught in Austin at the time, and one of my friends (a former JET) is teaching high school as an English teacher in Austin.

Now, I stay in Japan because I have built a life here. It's my home. That's really what comes down to.

I can assure you not many people in a general American forum would backup your viewpoint that the public schools are working and headed in the right direction. Except, maybe, in a teacher's union forum.

Are they working? For some students, yes. Are they headed in the right direction, in some ways. But the problems between districts and states are different. Not every school has the same issues as every other school. I believe teachers are working hard, collectively, to do the best they can. Are there bad teachers? Yes. Sadly. This is true of every industry. Do I think they are the majority, or even a significant minority? Doesn't ring true.

Well, you know my motivations now that I've stated them. I really don't have either the energy nor the desire to pursue a futile and tedious excursion to prove myself to you. Maybe had I been educated better I wouldn't be so cynical and lazy.

Fair enough. It's an internet forum. We choose our priorities. I happen to be an educator, and so I admit, I can rarely take myself "off shift." I'm always trying to teach. I'm sorry your education was so piss poor. What did you do to make the most of it?

I already told you where I got my viewpoint. My experiences in school, statistical data of test score comparisons. I saw total idiots starting college, some who seemed to belong more in middle school. Spoon feeding union teachers in prior schooling who are just there because it's a gig, not paid well, not trained well. Students who failed work got passed under the lowest minimum requirements. I saw it, I lived it. Even by the state's own standards, massive failure in testing, yet no consequences to the school for it. Nothing like the charter type schools in Europe. Keep in mind, I am talking about Texas, among the worst school systems in the country. Yet it's not an isolated case by far.

I'm from Texas. My experiences do not match yours. Especially when it comes to the quality of teachers. I would not say I saw total idiots starting college. I did see plenty of people who did not take education seriously. That is not the same thing.

Texas IS one of the "worst systems" in the nation. I believe we are 48th. That's pretty despicable. Education took a serious hit under George W. Bush. Believe me, I know. I wish I didn't. However, this was largely because of the funding he removed after he took over from Anne Richards. He removed funding for head start programs. He cut equipment and facility funds. He cut funds for alternative certification. He cuts funds for after school programs... This was not because of the teachers. Perry hasn't done much better. In fact, he hasn't done better at all.

We don't get paid well, no. But not trained well? Seriously? I don't buy it. All the teachers I know, including myself, went through far more training than my Japanese counterparts. Texas training standards are different, but not incomparable to other states. Several of my teachers had master's degrees. School librarians are required to have master's in library science. Administrators have master's in education. I plan to get a master's in philosophy.

And I'm in not in a teachers union. Certainly not one in Texas.

You want to just dismiss all that by telling me you know better than what I saw with my own eyes or that mine is an isolated event, or that people I've talked to from California and other states who also went to public school said the same thing and agreed with me, for pete's sake? Ok. Whatever

.

No. I wanted you to cite sources. I still do. I am genuinely curious. If schools are that much worse than I thought they were in the four years since I graduated from college, then now that I'm debt free, I might just have to move back (assuming I can get hired by recession hit school districts) because my country really needs me!

There's no need to go into detail. My comments were anecdotal. Take them or leave them. I already said it all in a nutshell. Everyone I've had a discussion about it with sees the same thing. It's almost common knowledge how worthless public schools are, even if some want to pretend like nothing is wrong. Typically the school staff. It's basically like telling a DEA agent that marijuana has been scientifically proven to be harmless. They'll throw bureaucracy in your face.

Sounds to me like a bunch of bitter teenagers who hated their school experiences and want to blame it on the teachers and administrators. I hated school. Absolutely hated it. I was miserable. I had very few moments of genuine happiness. You know what I really hated? Being an adolescent. Hard to judge my school experiences independent of that fact.

I love teaching. I love when I can encourage someone to learn. I love it when I can be a kid's "moment of genuine happiness" like teachers I can name were for me. Do I think they're going to look back on adolescence and think it's awesome because of me? No. Do I think that our students will notice at 14 or 15 that the changes we manage to make has made their schooling better? No. They might at twenty. I would hope by thirty.

I told you they are little more than social events, and perhaps even social engineering. I learned near to nothing in school. I actually lost my interest in pursuing a high career in biology there. I learned more in 1 month of browsing the internet after high school than my whole time attending. The kids are apathetic and cynical, the teachers, such as yourself, are deluded and detached. Nothing of much academic consequence ever occurs in the average public school. So, yes, "Go look at it". If you don't want to, I don't care. Believe whatever helps you feel comfortable.

Man if I knew then what I know now... But, of course, hindsight is 20/20. I had so many opportunities to learn that I ignored. I had so many opportunities to play sports, work in activities, make excellent grades, be published beyond what I was fortunate enough to do. I spent most of my time on the internet talking about Sailor Moon. While I still love doing that, and I certainly can't complain about how successful I am now, and I am very happy, if I had taken personal responsibility for my education at a younger age, well... there's no telling what I might have accomplished. Just because I had good teachers didn't mean they could do the job for me.

I don't keep up with the latest failure of the school systems nor would I remember the specific sources. Most if it was in periodicals from a while back. Go research the matter yourself and I'm sure you'll find plenty of material. Or just call me a liar and move on. I really don't care either way. I'm not going to get into a futile and tedious internet link wargame. I know for a fact that the public school systems in the US are generally a government monopoly, a bureaucracy that is set up to answer to no one for performance. Do you deny this is true, or are you under some impression that all piss poor schools suffer some sort of funding or administrative consequences related to academic performance in any way?

As a matter of fact, I have researched the topic. Not extremely recently (meaning last few months), but definitely in preceding years. Which would make sense, given my career and nationality. I am well aware of the problems. I just don7t think that equates to babysitting just for socialising without any benefit to American society. Certainly not as mind-washing propaganda camps for the US military, which you explicitly stated in your first post.

And frankly forget links. I'd rather you cite bibliographical data from books. Love me some books. Hardcover books. Yellowed pages, with that crisp woody smell... ebooks will never be the same.

The public school systems in America are not a monopoly. Especially not in Texas. School districts compete against each other and private schools for enrollment and funds. You do know you could have petitioned to go to a higher rated school in your area, right?

I don't know your system and like I said it's really none of my business. What I do know is the system where I was in, and I do know that it's not tilted towards passing any tests. Even by the state's own tests they perform poorly, at least in states like Texas.

My system is the Japanese system, which you commented about earlier. You made statements about the Japanese system, and I offered my personal experience teaching inside of that system.

America is not the educational leader it once was, I will certainly agree with you there. In all states, not just Texas. However, I do not believe that the majority are failing TAKS (it was TAAS when I took it), although scores in lower income and border areas are indeed dipping in ways that are worrisome. But the teacher and school are only part of team of players, including the student, and the student's parents. Teachers cannot do it alone.

Part two:

[Tsuwabuki]

I'll tell you what it is primarily tilted towards. Kids showing up. That's it. I know people who went to court for being absent. This is because the schools lose funding per absence if they stack up. All while they teach nothing. It's mere and simple bureaucracy to warehouse kids.

I was in school from 1988-2001. K-12. I was in college from 2001-2006 (I was a Music Education major, changed to English, changed universities, lost about 18 hours of credits and I worked too, hence five years). I moved overseas in November of 2007.

I didn't know anyone who went to court for being truant. I am aware that schools lose funding for absences if they stack up. I learned A LOT in my classes. I realise now I could have learned a lot more if I had paid more attention. I never felt warehoused, especially when it came to music and English, which I loved. I also took several AP courses because I wanted to, but even my regular classes never felt inadequate. If anything was inadequate, it was my sense of personal responsibility.

Then like I told you, you either have been away for quite a while or are looking/remembering through rose tinted specs. Maybe things went to hell since you left? There are always good and determined teachers. I observed it myself. There was at least one math teacher who I had some year. He left after one year, probably much like you did.

Left November 2007. So it wasn't that long ago. I don't think the system could completely collapse in two years... And believe me. It's pretty impossible to look back at my own academic experiences with rose colored glasses. As I said, I was pretty miserable. I don't think I was ever genuinely happy about much at all until I moved to Japan. That covers a lot of different career attempts (journalism, the navy, politics, public relations, marketing, did a few month selling shoes...) as well as my education background.

I do know that even in the US, I loved teaching, and would have been quite happy to stay if I could have found a job paying about $28K a year, which is what I needed to pay off student loans, get an apartment, pay for my car, etc. Obviously, I'd need benefits at well.

They're working in a flawed and failed system, so it doesn't matter. You make it seem like magnificent teachers are lining up for every school in the country. That's a laughable image. I told you there are well meaning and individually skilled teachers, but nobody can do anything with a garbage system alone. The filler isn't good teachers. A good teacher to enter a crap school district is pissing in the wind. The weight of the mediocrity is unsurmountable. The only possible solution is to dismantle entire school districts-- everything except the buildings, and rebuild them with a system that works such as charter schools. It won't be done in time, if ever, and that is what sucks.

There are good teachers lining up to work at any school that will pay them a living wage. We can't work, if it means racking up more debt. The fact of the matter is that the low-income school problem is self-refreshing. Low-income schools have low tax allocations. Low tax allocations mean less money for teachers and equipment and facilities. This in turn means larger class sizes, less individual attention, more students fall through the cracks. They end up living in the same are, contributing to its low-income tax allocation. A vicious cycle.

The answer, I believe, which will get the states' righters up in arms, isn't charter schools (which there's nothing wrong with, I like charter schools), but a nationalised system that allocates federally collected tax money to each school equally. Regardless of tax income of the area. Add onto that federally mandated tests, federally mandated goals, federally mandated textbooks, etc. It'll never happen because of the US political structure. So we have to do the best we can with what we have. The answer is not to blame the teachers, but to support them.

Doesn't matter what the buildings look like if the system is flawed and does not work. Although the ones that are falling apart are simply a double whammy. Both a waste of time and depressing dumps, not to mention sometimes violent; at least mine weren't, and that's the only positive thing I can say about them.

Seems like this got dropped when I split the post... I can't remember what I said, but I think it was a return to the vicious circle mentioned above. Especially in regards to violence. Also, violence happens in Japanese schools too. Last year a student (one of the ones that failed out) threw a desk at a teacher. And I live in the middle of nowhere.

You do American youth and future a disservice.

Why is that? If you say because I am teaching in Japan and not the USA... I would say you're right. And yes, I do feel guilty about it. If you say it because I refuse to stand by while you paint American teachers with a broad brush, then I'm sorry. Blaming the teachers is not the answer.

I never said there weren't cliques in all schools nor that socializing isn't important. I said it shouldn't be the main reason to be there nor the only one, as it often is.

I agree that it shouldn't be, I don't agree that it often is.

Well that's probably because you have standards there. Here they would have sent him/her to court and forced him/her to attend, just so him/her could show up and not affect the farce of a system that only rewards the schools with attendance records and not anything else.

Oh believe me. Japanese junior high school is quite compulsory. We made them attend anyhow. Doesn't mean we could force them to do any work.

Is that a fact? I guess someone forgot to tell that to the French teacher I had in 10th grade. He was a sub who stayed the whole year because the regular teacher had left on maternity leave. Yeah, he was a real magnificent teacher, not just some guy telling kids to open a book and read while they chatted the whole class. It also only happened that one time in my special case school, not anywhere else in the area. An aberration, really. Except for all those other crappy teachers who basically did the same thing most of the year.

Substitute teachers are not trained teachers. Anyone can be a substitute as long as they have a degree. This is fine, as long as they only fill in for a day or two. You're telling me they let him stay the whole year without him at least gaining alternative certification or undergoing supervision with a certified teacher??? That's outrageous! You had every right, and I mean every right, to complain all the way up the chain on that one. I would have. In fact I wish I knew what school district this was so I could read them the riot act. You are absolutely right. That is atrocious. It should never have happened, and I apologise for it.

Even substitute teachers? That one in French was the only one I knew of for sure, but others felt just as bad. Who's to say? I didn't have access to the teacher's qualifications.

See above. Subs are only supposed to fill in for one or two days. They are not supposed to be teaching, they are merely supposed to be supervising. What your school did is unforgivable. I am also fairly certain it's breaks all sort of State Education Board policies in Texas. I'll see if I can pull up the relevant statutes. That's... I believe you. I certainly believe you. But I'm appalled.

This paragraph alone is quite telling. 3 years in several schools, eh? Same as every other new teacher with high qualifications who starts up in a crappy school they don't like. They leave, as they should.

...that was my school career, not my teaching career. My parents moved a lot. My mother was already a librarian, but my father retired from the Air Force, then got a degree from one university, his master's from another, and has changed jobs twice in the last ten years.

Well I would imagine so because it would be quite a worthless achievement if it was in an American public school. Much less in Texas. where George W. was governor for a long time, and then voted for president twice by most. And later same for Palin as VP.

It was in a public school in Texas. One that you would probably term a "yuppie school" I suppose. High income, high tax allocation. And I'll have you know that Travis County (Austin) and Harris County (Dallas) went for Kerry and Obama. So did at least one other country (Brownsville's maybe?). I never voted Republican. I didn't have to tell you that, but I'm telling you anyway.

[Columbine]

Originally Posted by MMM

I didn't say "pointless"...I said "seemingly pointless" in that a student can't see the point of a course of study, even if it becomes more clear later in life.

Actually learning about packaging design, industrial food industry, industrial manufacture and nutritional analysis sound fascinating and quite useful for some people in the future.

Learning that something isn't for you can be just as useful as learning it is.
Again, sound like useful lessons.

That's interesting, because at least where I live "growing your own" is becoming a very new and real thing (again) in local education.

I am all for the knowledge for knowledge's sake argument, but at the same time, it has to be sensible. Sure, the things I mentioned might be of benefit of SOME people, but the practical lessons, enjoyed or despised would be of practical benefit for all people. I'm not talking about elective classes here, i'm talking about the compulsory ones we took pre-GCSE. The packaging design, industrial food industry, etc are fine for those with a genuine interest in pursuing a class or career in that direction, but are a waste of time for those only learning, as you say, that it isn't for them. Which is relatively ironic as now i have a grasp of cooking and DIY i really enjoy them, but i certainly didn't at school.

I think in the last year, there's been a push to bring gardening back into schools and so on. There's been a lot of 'dig in' campaigns, but interestingly, not run by the government as much of the state school campaigns are. It's been done through things like big companies and the BBC instead.

[Salvanas]

Originally Posted by MMM

Oh Salvanas...

You do not understand that art is more than paintings and sculpture.

Without art, there would be no architecture. We would still be living in caves.

Without art, there would be no cuisine. We would still be eating twigs and berries.

Without art, there would be no clothing. We would still be wearing felts and leaves.

Without art, there would be no news or exchange of information. The telling of a story, the painting of a picture in the mind, is an art.

Without art, there would be no advances in science. We would still think we live on a flat rock in the center of the universe.

Without art, there would be no media. Imagine no games, movies, TV, novels, music...no entertainment whatsoever.

Without art there would be no technology. It takes creative thought to advance, and without art we would still be rubbing sticks together to start a fire.

To denounce artists is like denouncing oxygen. You may think you don't need it to live, but wouldn't last five minutes without it.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself fully, or people didn't read the line: "Note: Artists as in photographers, and painting. There are some arts, like literacy, which is needed in life."

I am fully aware that the word art means much more. I mean, I'm aiming to be a historian. What good of a historian would I be if I denounce ALL art as useless

As I stated again in another post, is that artists ARE needed. But not at the huge amounts it's attracting these days.

I'd rather have 50 less artists, and 3 more fully qualified doctors.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by MMM

Oh Salvanas...

You do not understand that art is more than paintings and sculpture.

Without art, there would be no architecture. We would still be living in caves.

Without art, there would be no cuisine. We would still be eating twigs and berries.

Without art, there would be no clothing. We would still be wearing felts and leaves.

Without art, there would be no news or exchange of information. The telling of a story, the painting of a picture in the mind, is an art.

Without art, there would be no advances in science. We would still think we live on a flat rock in the center of the universe.

Without art, there would be no media. Imagine no games, movies, TV, novels, music...no entertainment whatsoever.

Without art there would be no technology. It takes creative thought to advance, and without art we would still be rubbing sticks together to start a fire.

To denounce artists is like denouncing oxygen. You may think you don't need it to live, but wouldn't last five minutes without it.

I think both you and Salvanas are talking about different things... The definition of art you've just used can be used for anything. Someone could say there is an art to taking a piss! It doesn't mean it's art! I think Salvanas does have a point... the majority of people I know that are "artists", studying Art, illustration, cinematography etc are people that failed at school!

[MMM]

Originally Posted by xyzone

No, I never said that. I don't know where you got that. And I don't have any Japanese neighbors.

My mistake...that was Tsuwabuki. But I agree with him. Many if the students I taught didn't even know who the prime minister was at the time.

Originally Posted by xyzone

This quote confuses me -but I assume you meant American/Japanese? If so, then change the subject from government to whatever is common knowledge to adults in Japan. Maybe the cause of tsunamis, or something like that. I don't know, you tell me. And is it a fact they teach nothing of the government structure in schools? Again, you tell me. The only reason I brought up government knowledge in the case of American students is because knowing the names of the 3 branches of government are ridiculously common teachings but that evidently nobody pays attention.

Again, I meant American, not Japanese. My mistake, but I appreciate you seeing through my error.

Again with the black and whites. People pay attention.

This is a bit of a cop-out of a response, because you are saying the fact a certain percentage of American students don't know who Thomas Jefferson is an indicator of the failure of the American public education system, but then turn around and say it is OK for Japanese to not have that same sort of knowledge in Japan.

Yes, students in Japan learn about hurricanes and tsunamis...and students in the Midwest learn about cattle and agriculture.

Do I wish all students of American (and Japanese, for that matter) understood the government they live under? Absolutely...but that is partially a bias on my part, as it is important to me. Would I rather they learn that then how to, say grow food without E.Coli? Well, not if it is the food I am going to eat. There are different priorities for different areas.

Originally Posted by xyzone

So maybe Japanese/American could learn something from each other. This is something I already considered long ago and which I generally consider true. Either way my focus here was the broken public schools here. It needs to be said because it's the first step in fixing it, although I am just about finished caring because there doesn't seem to be any hope of that happening.

I do agree with you. The system that worked 50 years ago in the US doesn't work now. I think a lot of that is simple finances. The best investment in a tax dollar is toward education, but cuts lead to being forced to invest more into heathcare, welfare, courts and prisons, etc...but that is an argument for another day.

Originally Posted by xyzone

No, it isn't. I'm only vouching for what I know is the trend. I know for a fact there is no surplus of competent and dedicated teachers in this country. They are not paid enough and the contractors are indifferent. I also said many times in the mess of posts above that I am aware dedicated and even skilled teachers here exist, but they are not going to lift a broken system on their backs. Unless they are unlucky, they leave bad schools and go somewhere better. Sad -- but true.

I think there is some truth to this, and I appreciate you clarifying your point. No teacher goes into teaching for the money, and it is one of the few career paths that require a high level of education for the pay of a full time fast food employee. I would also agree that getting good teachers to stay in "bad schools" is one of the great difficulties of the education system as it is. I know Chicago is looking at putting really good principals into "bad schools" as a way to keep good teachers there. As different school districts experiment with different systems, let's hope there are some positive results.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Salvanas

Perhaps I didn't explain myself fully, or people didn't read the line: "Note: Artists as in photographers, and painting. There are some arts, like literacy, which is needed in life."

I am fully aware that the word art means much more. I mean, I'm aiming to be a historian. What good of a historian would I be if I denounce ALL art as useless

As I stated again in another post, is that artists ARE needed. But not at the huge amounts it's attracting these days.

I'd rather have 50 less artists, and 3 more fully qualified doctors.

Imagine picking up a newspaper or magazine that was devoid of photographs.

How much money would have been made in donations to Haiti without the pictures sent to our newspapers and TVs?

And I read your clarification, and I still think my post has merit. You can pick and choose which artists are worthy of existence and which are not, but you can't pretend there is no interconnectivity between creative thought and human advancement.

Even if you think someone's existence has no social worth, I am glad you weren't the one to give Da Vinci the heave-ho so another barber/bloodletter could have a job.

You may not see the worth in a said artist's or photographer's work, but if it inspires someone in a way that makes the world a better place, then who are you to say their existence is meaningless?

[noodle]

MMM, just out of curiosity, does imagination = art, for you?

[MMM]

Originally Posted by noodle

MMM, just out of curiosity, does imagination = art, for you?

It depends on how imagination is applied....but to answer your question, no I would not say imagination is art.

I am as interested in getting in a discussion about defining art as I am in water torture. My point still stands that without artists we would still be living in caves. I think that being an artist doesn't mean you can't be something else. There are certainly doctors, lawyers and business people who are artists in both the traditional sense as well as artists in their own right.

Salvanas says he would sacrifice 50 artists for three doctors, but there are all kinds of doctors. I would hope the artistic talents of those poor artists are transferred to those doctors so they can find the most creative and effective ways to solve their patients' dilemmas.

[Tyrien]

Originally Posted by Salvanas

Perhaps I didn't explain myself fully, or people didn't read the line: "Note: Artists as in photographers, and painting. There are some arts, like literacy, which is needed in life."

I am fully aware that the word art means much more. I mean, I'm aiming to be a historian. What good of a historian would I be if I denounce ALL art as useless

As I stated again in another post, is that artists ARE needed. But not at the huge amounts it's attracting these days.

I'd rather have 50 less artists, and 3 more fully qualified doctors.

If you're aiming to be a historian and claim to know how important art, creativity, and design have been through the course of human history then you should know how important it is to embrace creativity today.

I would not rather 50 less artists and 3 more qualified doctors because that's now how we work as humans. I don't want someone becoming a doctor if they do not want to. I don't want MY doctor thinking every day how much he'd rather be doing something else but couldn't because he was not allowed to.

Now here's a video to help illustrate what I mean by saying how important creativity is today, and that we cannot have an over saturation.

Tim Brown on creativity and play | Video on TED.com Mind you, this video is about 27 minutes long.