The world is changing, but education isn't. Why?

[Kalidas]

I was an educator from about 1980 until 2010. We tried very hard to rid the education system of all of these outmoded practices, not always successfully, I admit. When is the last time you were in a school? The last few years I spent a couple of days at the beginning of the school year writing IPPs. (Individualized Program Plans) Many of the old guard objected.

I certainly emphasized individuality, as did many others. But what you say may have some merit in some places. I met a former student a few weeks back, who is now 23 or so. She said to me, "The other teachers tried to change me, but you accepted me for who I was, and tried to work with that." Some others saw her as a bossy little girl, whereas I saw her as a kid with great leadership potential, given a bit of help.

Critical thinking? Of course. Take a look at any basal reader and look at the questions. Bloom's taxonomy is written all over it. Of course we tried to get kids to think and problem solve.

I agree with point 3 to some degree, and think there should be earlier choosing towards skilled trades in particular. Not all kids are cut out to be academics, and they could blossom in pre-apprentrice electrician courses, as an example.

But frankly, here where I live, the most inhibiting factor for change is cost. The government doesn't want to spend the money it might take.

agreed I do not think that half of high school (junior senior year) should be mandatory. If by that time a child is disinterested in school or just plain not trying (I don't mean not understanding I mean literally not trying),for these children finishing High school is a waste of time and that time would be better spent at a trade school learning to work a profession. Junior and Senior year is spent mostly getting good grades, advanced classes, and college prep. Not everyone is cut out for college.

I think that is a big issue we have. the idea that college is for everyone. It's not there are plenty of wonderful important jobs that do not require college. I say as long as it is what you want to do, go for it. Sadly this though of college being needed is slowly making college almost mandatory. there are jobs that I remember as a kid not needing college that now needs college.

 

[Vinayaka]

agreed I do not think that half of high school (junior senior year) should be mandatory. If by that time a child is disinterested in school or just plain not trying (I don't mean not understanding I mean literally not trying),for these children finishing High school is a waste of time and that time would be better spent at a trade school learning to work a profession. Junior and Senior year is spent mostly getting good grades, advanced classes, and college prep. Not everyone is cut out for college.

I think that is a big issue we have. the idea that college is for everyone. It's not there are plenty of wonderful important jobs that do not require college. I say as long as it is what you want to do, go for it. Sadly this though of college being needed is slowly making college almost mandatory. there are jobs that I remember as a kid not needing college that now needs college.

Who makes more, an electrician or a teacher? Of course it's not always about money, but there are some very interesting trades out there. Other people were born to drive trucks. They just love it. e have this scorn thing built into the educational system. Conspiracy theory? Maybe. The longer you keep them in school, the l;ess work force we have, the less unemployment.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What alternative do you propose? Additionally, how will this be balanced with other facets of the person that may not be on the same level as a child's capacity for learning, such as social skills or emotional discipline? How might pushing some people through the education system faster influence society more broadly in terms of socioeconomic status and labor laws? There are many of nuances to consider here before ditching the idea of grouping children by age in the education system, I think.

There are a lot of things to consider, but there are also a bunch of things schools can do to improve in this area without having to physically move kids into different years.

Again, my focus is primary, so I accept there are differences in secondary in terms of structure. But in Australia, most schools have mixed age groupings already. This isn't done on the basis of academic ability, they are just literally mixed age groupings. So rather than being a Grade 4 teacher, I was a grade 3/4 teacher, and I had kids from both those years in my class.

My comment would be that on the whole, the mixed grouping caused no issues. If the ages were more diverse, then I can see that it might. But this is a vastly different scenario to the one where you take the smart kid and skip them through year levels (or take the slow one and hold them back). It doesn't isolate kids of a certain age.

I think it's also vital that lesson planning considers what to do with the kids capable of completing the tasks given quickly. There are a couple of things I mean in this.

1) Don't give them the same task. Give them a similar task. Again, isolating a single kid is not what I mean here. When I was teaching maths, I would choose a topic (let's say multiplication) and teach multiple aspects of multiplication in the same lesson. It took some organisation, but it worked astoundingly well. Rather than getting kids to do 20 problems, I was getting kids to do about 6 which were pitched somewhere along a continuum. The idea is that everyone was working on multiplication, but (hopefully) at the level that was achievable to them, but only just achievable (ie. challenging).

2) Have ongoing projects which are of interest to the kids. Don't ever have them doing 'busy work' designed to keep them out of your hair. Have them doing open-ended tasks, and push them to complete them at the highest level they can.

Someone mentioned IPPs earlier, and whether these are formally written up or not, good teachers should ALWAYS be considering the individual students, their capacity and their needs.

Organizing kids based on social ability and academic ability is probably ideal, but there are issues to consider. However, the goal of setting them tasks and challenges which are in no way based on the 'norms' of their age grouping is perhaps more easily attainable.

I ask these questions part because I was one of those kids who could have skipped a couple of grades. My parents decided not to do this because my capacity for learning simply wasn't in the same place as other aspects of my person. Instead, I was encouraged to participate in extended learning programs and after school activities that provided me with additional opportunities. It seems that these kinds of programs are a good compromise, though I hear that many of them have been cut since my tenure in the K-12 system.

My sister and I were looked at for...I dunno...accelerated schooling, I suppose, but in different ways. Our primary school wanted to skip my sister ahead a year, and only the social aspects held them back from doing that. I don't think (but can never be sure) that it would have helped her much.

When I got to the end of primary, I was offered a scholrship in an accelerated high school program that would have have me graduate high school in 4 years. My parents turned it down for social reasons. I wish they hadn't. I smashed high school for a couple of years, was bored stupid, developed bad habits, and slid through. An easy way for me to fit in and conform was not to be TOO smart, and the school I ended up going to was not academically strong. Being around other 'smart' kids would have meant I'd try to conform by being as 'smart' as I could...
When I reached Uni, I ended up being good friends with a girl who did extremely well at high school, but had chosen to do teaching anyways. Her work habits rubbed off to some degree (I was never a studier, but at least I took the work seriously) and we both ended up with Honours.

My point is that smart kids work out clever ways NOT to stand out sometimes, but that happens when they are in their own year level as well, not just when 'accelerated'.

 

[xkatz]

I was an educator from about 1980 until 2010. We tried very hard to rid the education system of all of these outmoded practices, not always successfully, I admit. When is the last time you were in a school? The last few years I spent a couple of days at the beginning of the school year writing IPPs. (Individualized Program Plans) Many of the old guard objected.

I certainly emphasized individuality, as did many others. But what you say may have some merit in some places. I met a former student a few weeks back, who is now 23 or so. She said to me, "The other teachers tried to change me, but you accepted me for who I was, and tried to work with that." Some others saw her as a bossy little girl, whereas I saw her as a kid with great leadership potential, given a bit of help.

I graduated in 2011. You sound like one of the few teachers at my highschool I was always fond of

I agree with point 3 to some degree, and think there should be earlier choosing towards skilled trades in particular. Not all kids are cut out to be academics, and they could blossom in pre-apprentrice electrician courses, as an example.

YES! We need to encourage trade skills as a valid alternative to a college education. Such jobs will always be in demand and doing a trade is just as good as being a scientist or lawyer IMO.

But frankly, here where I live, the most inhibiting factor for change is cost. The government doesn't want to spend the money it might take.

We need to change how schools are funded. I believe education is a fundamental right in this country and all schools and their students deserve an equal opportunity to succeed .

 

[Fresh]

To be honest, I am afraid to go out in the real world after I finish university.

Through elementary all the way to grade 12 they insisted on teaching us functions and polynomials. I sat through the classes regurgitating everything I was taught. For every year that passed by: I forgot what I learned from the previous grade and instead learned what the new grade taught. Read, memorize, and regurgitate on exams, and I managed to do fairly well.

Now that I am done I have never felt more unprepared. A majority of the information I learned is useless and provides no purpose for me out there.

However, with that being said... changing the education system will be no easy feat. If there were better ways to learn then I'm sure these changes would have been implemented by now. It'll take time and will be a slow (but necessary) process. I currently can not think of a single way to make education better. Perhaps like the first video explained, collaboration between students is key?

 

[Quintessence]

Thanks for asking.

I would imagine some sort of system that adequately distinguishes between various types of learners, or perhaps classed centered on acceleration

I wonder if there are already models out there that can do this and what the feasibility of it is. I don't know, but education specialists might.

This is just my guess, but I would imagine social skills to improve as a kid interacts with others from different age groups, possibly looking to older classmates as role models.

I confess I'm less certain of how well that would work for younger age demographics, because a year is a much more significant difference when you're talking K-12 then when you're talking people over 30-ish. It has to do with child development issues, but my knowledge of that discipline is too rudimentary beyond being aware that it would be an important consideration. There definitely are benefits to interacting with different peer groups, but I'm not sure how proper that would be to apply in this situation, I guess.

Labor laws? What would change their?

I was specifically thinking of individuals who accelerate through schooling at a very fast clip to the point that child labor laws would prevent them from being able to enter the workforce. You cannot enter the workforce younger than 14 in my country, so what happens to the brilliant kid who finishes high school at age 12 if we organize education by abilities? But there are some other legal issues I was thinking of as well that broadly pertain to the status of individuals under 18. Certain laws would inhibit their ability to enter into the workforce because it would bar things like renting cars, getting a lease on an apartment, etc. Something would need to be restructured if we're going to educate based on ability - with the expectation that some will finish their education well ahead of the rest.

But socioeconomic status; I don't know. I would think that intelligent kids would be less held back by a challenging background? What do you think would happen?

Extending from above, the same laws that inhibit the ability of minors to do certain things would also be a bar for socioeconomic status. That's what I was thinking about there: their potential being limited by being a younger-aged worker, not the background they happened to come from. There's not supposed to be a bias against hiring younger, inexperienced workers, but there is in practice. I wonder how these things would play out? there's a lot of legal red tape regarding kids under 18 to navigate.

 

[Me Myself]

Cause girls just wanna have fun.

 

[Vinayaka]

However, with that being said... changing the education system will be no easy feat.

I remember showing colleagues research on stuff, or a diagnosis on a certain student with suggestions on varied ways to teach someone with that learning style. Sometimes it was like talking to a tree.

You are so correct. But I think change starts in university. Certainly I found some of the newer teachers more conducive to change. Computer technology is a glaring example.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I confess I'm less certain of how well that would work for younger age demographics, because a year is a much more significant difference when you're talking K-12 then when you're talking people over 30-ish. It has to do with child development issues, but my knowledge of that discipline is too rudimentary beyond being aware that it would be an important consideration. There definitely are benefits to interacting with different peer groups, but I'm not sure how proper that would be to apply in this situation, I guess.

Well...like I said, K-6 classes in Australia are already commonly organised by having multiple year levels in the same room. It would be far more common for a class to be multi-year level than a single year level.
The difference is that this is still not generally done along ability lines.

Further, putting the 'smart' kids in one room, and the 'slow' kids in another is not enough in any case. Different kids will have different abilities in different disciplines.

Perhaps picture a pair of classes joining together for lessons, and then the entire population of the two classes being divided amongst 4-8 different related activities, focused at particular learning needs.

I was specifically thinking of individuals who accelerate through schooling at a very fast clip to the point that child labor laws would prevent them from being able to enter the workforce. You cannot enter the workforce younger than 14 in my country, so what happens to the brilliant kid who finishes high school at age 12 if we organize education by abilities? But there are some other legal issues I was thinking of as well that broadly pertain to the status of individuals under 18. Certain laws would inhibit their ability to enter into the workforce because it would bar things like renting cars, getting a lease on an apartment, etc. Something would need to be restructured if we're going to educate based on ability - with the expectation that some will finish their education well ahead of the rest.

Any kid that is accelerated to the point of completing high school before 14 is surely planning on entering university, else they shouldn't have been accelerated in the first place.

In any case, I would think acceleration to this degree would be abnormal. The top x percent of kids (studies vary...let's say 3%) are considered 'severely at risk' in Australian schools in the same manner that the bottom 3% are. The school system is unable to effectively teach them, and is effectively serving as baby-sitting, if not actually doing damage to them. Gifted children, who are the ones most likely to be accelerated to the point of completing school and then uni prior to being 18 and being able to get a car/apartment are not being served well by the current system AT ALL. The highest achieving kids in the current school system are likely NOT the absolute best and brightest.

So...let's say a kid finishes school at 12. My assumption would be that said kid is heading to Uni. Let's say they finish that at 16. That would be a rarity. We're talking about a very unusually gifted student. Rather than being forced to sit through educational years for no other reason than organisational, we can instead identify, plan, and utilise them.

If the kid graduates at 16 and is ready to become a scientist, I would imagine there are corporations around willing to pick up the taxi fare for a couple of years. This is a prodigy we are talking about. As for accommodation, the situation is no different to any other 16 year old.

Extending from above, the same laws that inhibit the ability of minors to do certain things would also be a bar for socioeconomic status. That's what I was thinking about there: their potential being limited by being a younger-aged worker, not the background they happened to come from. There's not supposed to be a bias against hiring younger, inexperienced workers, but there is in practice. I wonder how these things would play out? there's a lot of legal red tape regarding kids under 18 to navigate.

Meh...the barrier to hiring young people exists in certain industries, but people being accelerated to the point that it becomes meaningful are academic high achievers moving into areas where they'll be more interested in acquiring gifted talent.

 

[dgirl1986]

I don't know about the US but here it seems to be getting more and more intense for our young people. My sister was learning stuff in year 7 that I was learning in year 10.

 

[Reverend Rick]

If a child was able to complete a high school education by age 12, they should go to college. By the time they get a Masters degree or a Doctorate, they would be of legal age.

I don't know why we have to seperate the fast from the slow learner. Every child should have a cubical where they log on and learn at their own pace.

If there currently is an assignment to read a book, we don't limit anyone to read the next page because of a slower reader.

The teacher should monitor the students and give each one individual help as needed.

Teachers could also make videos of lessons. Why should classes have to be in real time progressing at the slowest students pace?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If a child was able to complete a high school education by age 12, they should go to college. By the time they get a Masters degree or a Doctorate, they would be of legal age.

I don't know why we have to seperate the fast from the slow learner. Every child should have a cubical where they log on and learn at their own pace.

If there currently is an assignment to read a book, we don't limit anyone to read the next page because of a slower reader.

The teacher should monitor the students and give each one individual help as needed.

Teachers could also make videos of lessons. Why should classes have to be in real time progressing at the slowest students pace?

It's funny...on the whole, I agree with a lot of your points. I agree about your point around the age of accelerated learners not really being a factor, certainly in relation to workplace laws.

I agree about individualised learning, and that the teacher is a facilitator, rather than some old chalk-and-talk model where the teacher imparts knowledge from the front of the room, and you hope the students catch it.

But I have a couple of issues, too. When you say log-on, are you meaning it literally? Do you really want to replace teaching with pre-recorded video-based lessons and activities?

If that's what you meant (and I'm not sure that it was) I would have MAJOR reservations about it. But I'd rather check what you meant before bothering to extrapolate.

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't know about the US but here it seems to be getting more and more intense for our young people. My sister was learning stuff in year 7 that I was learning in year 10.

I viewed this as a huge problem for the 'life' education. Some countries start their kids in school at age 3. It forgets or diminishes having fun, social interaction, physical education, and more. I just don't get the hurry. And then there is the readiness factor. There is a ton more to life than academics.

But when this race type thinking gets established, it can get discouraging. I knew a kid who could run, (track) and would have gotten a full scholarship to a US school. But the parents wouldn't allow it because it wsn't academic, sop ended up going in debt (far less than in the US though) to put the kid through university. Now he's a landscaper, not using his degree.

 

[Vinayaka]

Every child should have a cubical where they log on and learn at their own pace.

I've seen this model, and it was a disaster. Maybe some places it works. The teacher couldn't get around fast enough, so students spent a ton of time dawdling, waiting for the teacher. There was no social interaction, which is really beneficial, and there was no group work, which is also beneficial in so many ways.

It does work well for maybe 10% of students though, those who very self-motivated, smart, and non-social by nature.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've seen this model, and it was a disaster. Maybe some places it works. The teacher couldn't get around fast enough, so students spent a ton of time dawdling, waiting for the teacher. There was no social interaction, which is really beneficial, and there was no group work, which is also beneficial in so many ways.

It does work well for maybe 10% of students though, those who very self-motivated, smart, and non-social by nature.

I'd dispute it actually 'works' for those students. I would suggest they complete the work well, and enjoy the system. But part of education HAS to include strengthening the areas they are weak in, and that would include human relationships, group work, etc.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I've seen this model, and it was a disaster. Maybe some places it works. The teacher couldn't get around fast enough, so students spent a ton of time dawdling, waiting for the teacher. There was no social interaction, which is really beneficial, and there was no group work, which is also beneficial in so many ways.

It does work well for maybe 10% of students though, those who very self-motivated, smart, and non-social by nature.

We had a model when I was in elementary school that was for "gifted" students. It was funded for 3 years and then stopped, but it generated a lot of excitement in the community, the school, and those of us who were a part of it.

The middle school math teacher asked three students in 5th grade to come to his classroom to learn math at an accelerated rate. I remember being pulled from the classroom not knowing why (the three of us thought we were in trouble lol). We went to his room and he started talking about geometry, trigonometry, and calculus, and how we had potential to learn all of this. We sat not in rows, but facing together as a group. He gave us options of learning methods (books, group work, single pamphlets, testing, etc.). The three of us got excited about having options that all of us could choose from.

We were joined by other students. And our class grew from 3 to 10 to an entire classroom. Our teacher had fun. We had fun. We even competed in the state math team competitions and consistently ranked in the top 10 in the entire state - each of us (I was 4th one year). We learned trigonometry and finally pre-calculus by the time we were in 7th grade. The potential was huge, and together we even discussed as a group how we could help other students learn how to work together, have fun in math, and see all the options in learning.

The program was cut after 7th grade. We went back to regular classroom textbook learning afterward. Then we all went to high school and many of us made up the bulk of the Honors math classes all through high school....which only repeated everything we did before but was B-O-R-I-N-G. All of us used to whisper in class in high school to each other how we had done the material before in a more fun way (we had a game for sines and cosines back in 6th grade that made the material like making music).

The system we have now puts a stranglehold on teachers to teach by rote in an authoritarian fashion. Follow directions. Do as you're told. Stay quiet. Don't talk to your neighbor. There are a lot of teachers that feel limited with allowing group work and collaboration, integrated studies (like math and music together), and creativity and allowing kids options based on learning styles or time of the day.

Our studio offers opportunities for students of all ages to collaborate together to create dance pieces. It includes blocking, spacing, phrasing, interpretation, coaching, recruiting, etc. Right now we have that "laboratory" including students aged 6 to mid-30's. Multi-age collaboration is not only possible, but I've found it to be preferable in making a project together. Younger kids naturally look up during the process to older and wiser students, and older students naturally fall into a mentorship role to younger students. I don't force the relationships to happen. I move the project along and enforce deadlines and push them to make decisions when they as a group feel stuck in their explorations/testing phases.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

We had a model when I was in elementary school that was for "gifted" students. It was funded for 3 years and then stopped, but it generated a lot of excitement in the community, the school, and those of us who were a part of it.

The middle school math teacher asked three students in 5th grade to come to his classroom to learn math at an accelerated rate. I remember being pulled from the classroom not knowing why (the three of us thought we were in trouble lol). We went to his room and he started talking about geometry, trigonometry, and calculus, and how we had potential to learn all of this. We sat not in rows, but facing together as a group. He gave us options of learning methods (books, group work, single pamphlets, testing, etc.). The three of us got excited about having options that all of us could choose from.

We were joined by other students. And our class grew from 3 to 10 to an entire classroom. Our teacher had fun. We had fun. We even competed in the state math team competitions and consistently ranked in the top 10 in the entire state - each of us (I was 4th one year). We learned trigonometry and finally pre-calculus by the time we were in 7th grade. The potential was huge, and together we even discussed as a group how we could help other students learn how to work together, have fun in math, and see all the options in learning.

The program was cut after 7th grade. We went back to regular classroom textbook learning afterward. Then we all went to high school and many of us made up the bulk of the Honors math classes all through high school....which only repeated everything we did before but was B-O-R-I-N-G. All of us used to whisper in class in high school to each other how we had done the material before in a more fun way (we had a game for sines and cosines back in 6th grade that made the material like making music).

The system we have now puts a stranglehold on teachers to teach by rote in an authoritarian fashion. Follow directions. Do as you're told. Stay quiet. Don't talk to your neighbor. There are a lot of teachers that feel limited with allowing group work and collaboration, integrated studies (like math and music together), and creativity and allowing kids options based on learning styles or time of the day.

Our studio offers opportunities for students of all ages to collaborate together to create dance pieces. It includes blocking, spacing, phrasing, interpretation, coaching, recruiting, etc. Right now we have that "laboratory" including students aged 6 to mid-30's. Multi-age collaboration is not only possible, but I've found it to be preferable in making a project together. Younger kids naturally look up during the process to older and wiser students, and older students naturally fall into a mentorship role to younger students. I don't force the relationships to happen. I move the project along and enforce deadlines and push them to make decisions when they as a group feel stuck in their explorations/testing phases.

:clap:clap:clap:clap

Same thing with me, really. We streamed for maths in my primary school, and the teacher was...I dunno...eclectic I guess. Very smart guy. He made us learn our times tables to 20 rather than 12, plus our squares and cubes to 20. But they were just warm-up exercises.

He then asked us why they were important anyway, which kind of threw us. We weren't used to that. We did a lot of algebra, etc, but he'd just throw random stuff at us apart from that. One day he asked us how big the universe was...lol

Never gave us an answer on that one though. Just told us about a few different theories floating around, and told us to work hard and we might be the ones to figure it out. He tried to inspire us as well as challenge us.

Anyways...good post. You make a lot of good points.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Whoa. Is that the public system? What are these streams and how does a student move up in them?

I had a paid for education
But many of the Grammar schools ( for the brightest selected pupils) in the public sector also used the same system.


Each years intake was divided by general academic ability into streams
a stream was based mainly on English and became your class for that subject. all other non setted subjects such as geography, and history were also done in that class.
In some subjects like Maths, the sciences, languages were divided into ability sets from the whole year so it was possible to be in the bottom stream but Highest set for a particular subject.

I was in the highest sets for maths and the sciences, the middle stream for English and the lowest set for languages. ... I was later raised to the top stream.
Every class and set was expected to pass the "O" level exam at 16 ( there were no grades when I took it ...you passed or failed in each subject. based on a 65% mark)
the difference was the extent the syllabus was covered and the speed of the class.
Most boys in the bottom sets and streams scraped through.
In the maths papers I answered every question by half time, and had to cross out the excess question answers and got 95%. in Chemistry I was given 100%. In physics I missed the practical exam through Chicken pox, but was assessed as having passed on my theory and previous work.

During my time several boys from abroad were raised into higher years during their first term.

Today a sixth form boy boarding at that school would pay £27,000 a year a junior would pay £23,000 That could easily come to around £170,000 in total per child. Extras like music tuition and trips would be on top.

 

[Camatose]

At the this time eduction is very important. But it is in fact very boring in the school environment. I believe there's nothing wrong with students who reject school and hate it. Schools now-days is fairly boring and not a place where students would like to go to. Today's we can get information from so many different resources and the internet becomes the main center for knowledge and entrainment. What I wanted to say technology has influenced our lifestyle and we're looking now for entrainment in eduction. Unfortunately school doesn't offer neither the real eduction or entrainment instead school is about applying the authority on the students. The growth of eduction depends a lot on technology.

 

[dgirl1986]

I viewed this as a huge problem for the 'life' education. Some countries start their kids in school at age 3. It forgets or diminishes having fun, social interaction, physical education, and more. I just don't get the hurry. And then there is the readiness factor. There is a ton more to life than academics.

But when this race type thinking gets established, it can get discouraging. I knew a kid who could run, (track) and would have gotten a full scholarship to a US school. But the parents wouldn't allow it because it wsn't academic, sop ended up going in debt (far less than in the US though) to put the kid through university. Now he's a landscaper, not using his degree.

I kinda get what you are saying here. One of my besties was awesome at cycling. She totally kicked a** but her parents wouldnt let her compete and try to make it as an athlete because they didnt view it as a real career. Now she is a physio.