Public schoolers: How's that indoctrination workin' out?

Uh, what was the question again?

Seriously, I haven't seen any post saying public schools are perfect. But for the vast majority of kids, it's the only option. We seem to be taking this "discussion" in a different direction. Public schools need work, no doubt. But don't confuse that with the dedicated professionals who have devoted their lives to trying to educate the kids no one else wants, in spite of the conditions. When you start going there, you're itching for a fight.
 
FACT Students from private schools are more likely to drop out of university than their government-school counterparts.

OK, fact, as in verifiable truth based on verifiable data, right? WRONG!!

THIS is what you cite as "proof" of your proposition.

Popular wisdom has long held that students from private schools are more likely to drop out of university than their government-school counterparts." (in Australia)

Popular wisdom can be fallacious as often as correct. An educated man should know that.

Popular wisdom held for centuries that the earth was the center of the universe. Popular wisdom held that the earth was flat. You get the drift.




Do you think the practices of home schooling differ so greatly from AU to in the US that the facts cited in the article hold no water?


I have absolutely no idea as to whether or not homeschooling in Australia differs from homeschooling in the U.S. or indeed even if there IS homeschooling in Australia.

The only time the article comes even close to citing "facts" is: "a recent Federal Government study of undergraduate completion rates shows that about 64 per cent of students who began an undergraduate degree in 1992 had completed it by 1999" and even there the author doesn't give the name or authorship of the study so that it can be verified.

And the article of course isn't even from a U.S. publication or even about U.S. education. And no I DON'T think the "facts" cited in the article hold water in the U.S.

Anyone with even the slightest education in analysis would know that to use outside data as a proxy requires mountains of correlative data to support that methodology. (One reason why it's rarely done)



Quote:Though it's beyond me how a supposedly educated man can openly advocate against knowledge, thanks for your opinion and advice (I guess).

Supposedly educated? LOL. Your patronizing insults at this point fall on deaf ears due to me becoming desensitized to them because of their frequency. Try insulting me only once a week and it would make more of an impact.


Not patronizing insults Scott. I started from the premise that you have a masters degree (you supplied that info yourself).

I first "supposed" that anyone who had a high school diploma would have at least a basic idea of statistical analysis. I first learned it in (I think) my sophomore year in analytical algebra.

I then "supposed" that if not learned in high school (I understand that standards have fallen since the sixties) certainly the basics of data analysis would have been taught in one of the math classes that surely must be a prerequisite to being awarded a bachelor degree.

I couldn't imagine anyone even being accepted into a masters program without having even enough math to at least understand basic statistical analysis, especially a masters in education where policy, funding, etc is based almost entirely on statistics.

Your degrees notwithstanding, apparently all of my suppositions were wrong, and you are only supposedly an educated man (or would like to have us think so).

It would seem from your posts here that you are in fact so uneducated as to believe opinion trumps data, a totally ridiculous proposition on the face of it.

You are apparently so uneducated as to believe that an article that does not cite data has relevance (though it's what you have constantly and dishonestly accused me of so maybe you are just being disingenuous and you don't actually believe it). In this case it's an article about a foreign school system (with NO data cited) that has no relevance to the school system of any other country. (As any educated man would know.)

We can only believe from your post that you are so uneducated as to believe that the unsubstantiated statement "Popular wisdom (in Australia) has long held that students from private schools are more likely to drop out of university than their government-school counterparts", somehow provides proof for your proposition that "FACT Students from private schools are more likely to drop out of university than their government-school counterparts." (in U.S. schools).

The only rational conclusion I can reach is that you are apparently so uneducated that you don't even realize how uneducated you are.

It's only my supposition, but it seems as though you may have thought the piece of paper you received on graduation was the objective in going to college. Sorry to be the one to have to inform you, but it wasn't.

Education (knowledge) and the ability to assimilate it is (or should be) the objective of schooling, NOT the degree they hand you at the end.
 
Originally Posted By: Hyperwrxsweatybetty.Regarding the 1% comment. I stand behind it and I dont think you understand it or you'd agree.

you are probably right, im just another stupid product of the public education system. maybe if you use smaller words.....
 
Originally Posted By: nmleonI think you misunderstand the universe of private education Mike. I'm not saying that private schools have the same ratio of students from different socioeconomic strata. Quite the contrary, "diversity" is a (largely) government school concept made "legally mandatory" by the various federal laws, starting with the Civil Rights Act of '64.

Private schools are under no such restraints. They can (and do) have schools that are for ONLY underprivileged, ONLY for learning disabled, ONLY for behavioral problem children, Only for whiz kids, etc. Further, private schools are generally specific to a neighborhood or area. They DON'T (and aren't required to) bus middle class suburban students 2 hours to a ghetto school to achieve some sort of integration.

Government schools (and government school teachers) work under enormous handicaps as compared to private schools, but virtually all of those hanicaps are BECAUSE THEY ARE GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS.

Common sense does NOT have to dictate at some point when data are available. DATA should dictate what "common sense" should be.

We would not be human if we did not have biases. The question is whether our biases are grounded in reality.

Analysis are often done by biased researchers. Their research may then support their bias or not. The honest researcher will report the data he finds and adjust his bias accordingly. One of the reasons for peer review is to make sure that researchers ARE honest.

Here's a real world example that most of here are probably at least a little familiar with.

Before John Lott did the original analysis that later led to his first book (More Guns Less Crime?) he was biased FOR gun control. "Common sense" told him that freely issuing CCWs would cause more crime (his words). Of course we all know that his analysis reached an opposite conclusion, and professor Lott was honest enough and educated well enough in the efficacy of data analysis that he changed his bias based on factual data.

mleon,
I think I understand the universe of private education quite well. I've worked in private schools for 3 years, public for 11, and now a charter. My father was in public education for over 30 years, retiring as superintendent, and now is the director of a private school.
I leave you with one last question to ponder. If we continue to follow the findings of others, how do we move forward and learn for ourselves? The world is not flat, and the sun does not revolve around the earth.
Mike
 
Originally Posted By: sweatybettyOriginally Posted By: Hyperwrxsweatybetty.Regarding the 1% comment. I stand behind it and I dont think you understand it or you'd agree.

you are probably right, im just another stupid product of the public education system. maybe if you use smaller words.....


Lucky you have a daughter with some smarts. Your posterity has hope.
 
mnleon- I read your first 50 words then glossed over the rest of the babble as it appeared to be the same riff-raff all over.

I did stand up from my desk and give you 3 cheers when you related an experience that had no data or statistics. I caught that at the end and read it. You're coming around.
 
Originally Posted By: HyperwrxOriginally Posted By: sweatybettyOriginally Posted By: Hyperwrxsweatybetty.Regarding the 1% comment. I stand behind it and I dont think you understand it or you'd agree.

you are probably right, im just another stupid product of the public education system. maybe if you use smaller words.....


Lucky you have a daughter with some smarts. Your posterity has hope.

Ive noticed that when you cant or wont answer a question you go back to the insults and name calling.
cry.gif
whatever........
 
You admit over and over in these threads that your stupidity is a result of going to public schools. If you say it, you're funny. If I say it, I'm insulting you?

Get a clue.

 
Originally Posted By: HyperwrxYou admit over and over in these threads that your stupidity is a result of going to public schools. If you say it, you're funny. If I say it, I'm insulting you?

Get a clue.
sorry, im just a funny guy.
grin.gif


how about just answering the question? one more time, here it is.

hyper, i noticed that you haven't responded to this.
if only 1% of all adults are competent to teach, then the public school system is a horrible failure.
shouldn't any student who passes a class be able to teach that same class up to the level he/she was taught? or do they need that super duper ninja nea teaching degree?
 
OK, here's my explanation of the 1% comment.

First we need to get some background as to why I would make such a claim. I was speaking of the merits a public high school would have over a parent teaching home school curriculum. My point was a 50+ public school staff can teach 50 different areas better and with more knowledge than a parent can. I don't care how you slice it- that's 100% true by pure logic.

Here is my exact quote in its entirety:

Quote:What I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt is that there is less than 1% of all adults that have the knowledge to competently teach the following high school level classes:

* Literature
* Writing/composition
* Speech
* Algebra
* Geometry
* Algebra II
* Trigonometry, calculus, and statistics
* Biology
* Chemistry and physics
* Earth/space sciences, advanced biology, advanced chemistry, and physics
* U.S. history
* U.S. government
* Economics
* World history and geography
* Foreign Languages
* The Arts
* Computer Applications

I didn't include auto shop, industrial tech, agriculture, robotics, home economics, band, orchestra, and a ton of other electives that can be taken at high school.

What you might have misunderstood was my meaning 1 parent or a couple can not teach all the classes above to the competency level that a team of university taught teachers can.

Take for instance a Spanish teacher, a computer programing teacher, and a physics teacher. Even just those 3 classes alone would prove a real challenge to a parent home schooling couple as the material that needs to be taught is tough.

Sure you have a parent who knows Math real good, or another one who knows Spanish and yet another down the road who knows auto mechanics cuz he has a auto repair shop. These are 3 separate people. As I said there is probably 1% of the general population that can competently teach all the classes a high school offers.

Home school parents of high school kids MUST have other ways to teach the curriculum I don't know of. Some computer program or some other support group with people they use to teach specific subjects. I don't know since I don't do it.
 
Originally Posted By: sweatybettyOriginally Posted By: HyperwrxYou admit over and over in these threads that your stupidity is a result of going to public schools. If you say it, you're funny. If I say it, I'm insulting you?

Get a clue.
sorry, im just a funny guy.
grin.gif


how about just answering the question? one more time, here it is.

hyper, i noticed that you haven't responded to this.
if only 1% of all adults are competent to teach, then the public school system is a horrible failure.
shouldn't any student who passes a class be able to teach that same class up to the level he/she was taught? or do they need that super duper ninja nea teaching degree?

Knowing something and being able to teach it are two different things. Your sarcasm shows true colors.
 
Originally Posted By: HyperwrxOK, here's my explanation of the 1% comment.

First we need to get some background as to why I would make such a claim. I was speaking of the merits a public high school would have over a parent teaching home school curriculum. My point was a 50+ public school staff can teach 50 different areas better and with more knowledge than a parent can. I don't care how you slice it- that's 100% true by pure logic.

Here is my exact quote in its entirety:

Quote:What I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt is that there is less than 1% of all adults that have the knowledge to competently teach the following high school level classes:

* Literature
* Writing/composition
* Speech
* Algebra
* Geometry
* Algebra II
* Trigonometry, calculus, and statistics
* Biology
* Chemistry and physics
* Earth/space sciences, advanced biology, advanced chemistry, and physics
* U.S. history
* U.S. government
* Economics
* World history and geography
* Foreign Languages
* The Arts
* Computer Applications

I didn't include auto shop, industrial tech, agriculture, robotics, home economics, band, orchestra, and a ton of other electives that can be taken at high school.

What you might have misunderstood was my meaning 1 parent or a couple can not teach all the classes above to the competency level that a team of university taught teachers can.

Take for instance a Spanish teacher, a computer programing teacher, and a physics teacher. Even just those 3 classes alone would prove a real challenge to a parent home schooling couple as the material that needs to be taught is tough.

Sure you have a parent who knows Math real good, or another one who knows Spanish and yet another down the road who knows auto mechanics cuz he has a auto repair shop. These are 3 separate people. As I said there is probably 1% of the general population that can competently teach all the classes a high school offers.

Home school parents of high school kids MUST have other ways to teach the curriculum I don't know of. Some computer program or some other support group with people they use to teach specific subjects. I don't know since I don't do it.


good enough. thanks for the answer
 
Originally Posted By: jeffoOriginally Posted By: sweatybettyOriginally Posted By: HyperwrxYou admit over and over in these threads that your stupidity is a result of going to public schools. If you say it, you're funny. If I say it, I'm insulting you?

Get a clue.
sorry, im just a funny guy.
grin.gif


how about just answering the question? one more time, here it is.

hyper, i noticed that you haven't responded to this.
if only 1% of all adults are competent to teach, then the public school system is a horrible failure.
shouldn't any student who passes a class be able to teach that same class up to the level he/she was taught? or do they need that super duper ninja nea teaching degree?

Knowing something and being able to teach it are two different things. Your sarcasm shows true colors.

that makes no sense.
 
Originally Posted By: sweatybettyOriginally Posted By: jeffoOriginally Posted By: sweatybettyOriginally Posted By: HyperwrxYou admit over and over in these threads that your stupidity is a result of going to public schools. If you say it, you're funny. If I say it, I'm insulting you?

Get a clue.
sorry, im just a funny guy.
grin.gif


how about just answering the question? one more time, here it is.

hyper, i noticed that you haven't responded to this.
if only 1% of all adults are competent to teach, then the public school system is a horrible failure.
shouldn't any student who passes a class be able to teach that same class up to the level he/she was taught? or do they need that super duper ninja nea teaching degree?

Knowing something and being able to teach it are two different things. Your sarcasm shows true colors.

that makes no sense.

I'll assume you meant the first part. Teaching something to others effectively and accurately, day after day, year after year, takes a special talent. Most anyone can "know" things. Not many can "teach". Anyone can push the keys on a piano. That doesn't make him a musician.

Understand now?
 
Originally Posted By: jeffo Anyone can push the keys on a piano. That doesn't make him a musician.

Understand now?

My guess as to his response, "I am a product of public education, what is a piano?"
 
Quote:I leave you with one last question to ponder. If we continue to follow the findings of others, how do we move forward and learn for ourselves? The world is not flat, and the sun does not revolve around the earth.

If you want to "move forward and learn for yourself", learn the math needed to do the analysis yourself, or at least as much as is needed to be able to understand and verify someone else's data analysis.

Data analysis is not popular wisdom. The world is not flat and the earth is not the center of the universe. When the common folk believed those absurdities, there were men who, not finding the "popular wisdom", "personal experience", or "common sense", a stisfactory explanation, collected and studied the data and thereby uncovered the truth.




Quote:Teaching something to others effectively and accurately, day after day, year after year, takes a special talent. Most anyone can "know" things. Not many can "teach". Anyone can push the keys on a piano. That doesn't make him a musician.


Most people who are competent piano players could teach a beginner how to play piano, at least up to the level of their own skill and given the plethora of piano teaching books, probably beyond.

There may be a piont to the proposition that the best teachers have more than just knowledge of their subject (something special), but it's also FACT that in general the best teachers were the best students.

Perhaps the people with the most interest in learning are inherently the ones that teach the best?
 
What I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt is that there is less than 1% of all adults that have the knowledge to competently teach the following high school level classes:

* Literature
* Writing/composition
* Speech
* Algebra
* Geometry
* Algebra II
* Trigonometry, calculus, and statistics
* Biology
* Chemistry and physics
* Earth/space sciences, advanced biology, advanced chemistry, and physics
* U.S. history
* U.S. government
* Economics
* World history and geography
* Foreign Languages
* The Arts
* Computer Applications

I didn't include auto shop, industrial tech, agriculture, robotics, home economics, band, orchestra, and a ton of other electives that can be taken at high school.

I'd like to know where you came up with the "less than 1%", or is that just another example of "common sense"?

I certainly think I could teach all of those classes at a high school level and I suspect that a good number of the folks here could teach (or most of them) as well.

I'd have to brush up on my German or Thai and Computer Applications (if that's programming and not usage), and I wouldn't particularly enjoy teaching Literature if I was required to force the students to read the Bronte sisters (only half joking, I loathed the Brontes), but given that I would be utilizing text books, I could teach any of those.

As has been pointed out before, I've learned all of those subjects very well, so of course I know the subject matter.




What you might have misunderstood was my meaning 1 parent or a couple can not teach all the classes above to the competency level that a team of university taught teachers can.

A "team" of average quality teachers is only average. A team of mostly average teachers with one poor quality teacher is less than average.


Actually I suspect I could teach any of those, to the level of competency (or above) of the average teacher. I'd bet money I could teach the science and math courses a heck of a lot better than the average high-school teacher. Remember, I've put 4 kids through high-school and know first hand the level of science and math the schools are teaching nowadays (not even counting the science teacher who was teaching my nephew that fish are amphibians).

Could I teach any of those as well as the best teacher out there? Of course not. That "best" teacher has probably been teaching for decades (and loving every minute of it).

A "team" is required in a high-school setting only because of the way the U.S. government school system is structured.
A century ago (and more) in the days of the "Little Red Schoolhouse" one teacher taught everyone everything, from 1st grade on.






Home school parents of high school kids MUST have other ways to teach the curriculum I don't know of. Some computer program or some other support group with people they use to teach specific subjects. I don't know since I don't do it.

Yes, and if you'd gone to the links that have been provided instead of making unsupported and unsupportable derogatory statements about homeschooling and homeschool parents, you would know that. They have a plethora of study programs, guides, textbooks, etc, to choose from and many support networks and groups.
 
Even if you knew all the content well enough to teach it, which I can not come to believe you possess, the ability to effectively teach a large group of students with diverse learning styles and skill levels all at once is yet another skill I seriously doubt you've mastered.

I personally think you are qualified to teach a class on driving trucks as that's what you do. Not knocking it, just stating the obvious. I am only referring to you knowing the content, not having the ability to teach it effectively.

If you'd cease posting a mudslide of studies, research papers, and articles long enough to be honest with people and make down to earth posts people can read with enjoyment the few times you DID post an article people (myself included) would read it with pleasure. At this point myself and others have become desensitized to your long rants.

There is a reason teachers are designated as 'highly qualified' in this day and age. It means they possess a higher understanding of the subject they teach.

Terms to Know: Highly Qualified Teachers

*Highly Qualified Teachers: To be deemed highly qualified, teachers must have: 1) a bachelor's degree, 2) full state certification or licensure, and 3) prove that they know each subject they teach.
*State Requirements: NCLB requires states to 1) measure the extent to which all students have highly qualified teachers, particularly minority and disadvantaged students, 2) adopt goals and plans to ensure all teachers are highly qualified and, 3) publicly report plans and progress in meeting teacher quality goals.
*Demonstration of Competency: Teachers (in middle and high school) must prove that they know the subject they teach with: 1) a major in the subject they teach, 2) credits equivalent to a major in the subject, 3) passage of a state-developed test, 4) HOUSSE (for current teachers only, see below), 5) an advanced certification from the state, or 6) a graduate degree.

A major in the subject they teach- So you think you have the knowledge of the material in the classes above to the level of a major of a Bachelors degree?
 
I certainly have the knowledge and the schooling to qualify at the majors level in at least the maths and sciences, I have 150+ credit hours that Stanford was willing to accept, almost all in maths and sciences.

I have the knowledge I'm sure to of all of the core subjects at a majors level except English (dangling participles were never interesting).

In a school where I had to follow someone else's curriculum I might have problems with reading/language arts (some "literature" is crap in my opinion), foreign languages (I'd have to brush up. it,s been 20 years since I conversed in German), and history (I wouldn't teach revisionist junk).

I do have experience teaching "large groups of students with diverse learning styles" as a training officer and as a safety instructor, groups of up to 150 people, though I believe the context of that particular sub theme was being able to teach homeschool.




Quote:There is a reason teachers are designated as 'highly qualified' in this day and age. It means they possess a higher understanding of the subject they teach.

I understand the rationale behind the idea as it was originally proposed in NCLB, but you are right, I don't quite understand the reason as it has come to be implemented.

There seem to be only two classes of teachers HQT and Not HQT. What happened to incompetent, competent, average, good, very good, excellent, and superlative?

The designation becomes meaningless when 92.7% percent of high school core classes are taught by teachers who are highly qualified (HQT) and yet only 68% are proficient or better at math, 73.5 at Reading/language arts, and 32.5% proficiency in Science. (AZ data, lol)

Of course looking at the requirements for HQT status explains a lot, especially the HOUSSE requirements. AZ gave up to 50pts for experience and 4pts per credit hour of college in the subject plus the options to "participate" in conferences etc (100 needed).

Not a particularly difficult designation to get, now is it?

Not worth a whole lot either judging by the results.


 
Back
Top