Even the boy who can’t or won’t learn his alphabet can be praised and petted for something – handicrafts or gymnastics, moral leadership or deportment, citizenship or the care of guinea pigs, hobbies or musical appreciation. Anything he likes! Then no boy and no boy’s parents need feel inferior.
I'm going to throw out there that this was already the case in previous centuries. Except then there was no dishonor in working with your hands. Now everyone wants Junior to be a lawyer or a doctor, and so kids are pushed into college prep work that they may not be suited for.
I think it is very important that people grow up with something in common. Everyone my age watched Mork and Mindy growing up, for instance. And 21 Jump Street in the teen years. We all have that in common and thus we can bond. I don't think this is any different from the sagas that were told in Viking Longhouses. I know, I know, form/poetry/beautiful chanting/blah/blah/blah.
I don't buy that part. I think that mass entertainment has always been something that appeals to the masses, which of necessity means that it's probably not tremendously high-brow at the time (Shakespeare anyone?). We just think it is now because it's old
The chaff is forgotten and the wheat lasts forever in our memories. I mean, I remember Mork and Mindy, but there are shows from that time period that didn't last, either.
I think that the education system is trying to be that bonding thing at the moment. And it's just not meant to be. My son maxed out his math testing this year, and the evil blond daughter scored a 92 percentile over-all. And they did it because although a well rounded education is expected from them, they also get to emphasize their strengths. My son is spending his summer doing mechanical science kits because that's what he's good at and loves.
So while I agree with what CS Lewis says, I do not agree with the way many people choose to interpret it. I do not think that graduation standards should be relaxed to keep everyone feeling fulfilled. I *do* think that there should be recognition of the fact that after 8th grade, not everyone is cut out to analyze Antigone. And in fact, that kid who had trouble with chemistry is probably one of the few on his block still making six figures a year as a plumber while all those folk who could write a pretty paragraph were laid off a year ago.*
And with our current community college system, a kid who gets tired of being a mechanic can go back to school without much fuss and retrain later on.
*Not making fun of lay-offs by any means, just pointing out that the current focus on all college prep/no middle ground school system is contrary to the realities of society.
Perhaps people should be praised for something about which they deserve praise, but going to extremes just to give praise is ridiculous.
My son always scored high in English/reading types of things. I liked reading stories that he wrote because he always had a way of developing an interesting climax (he wrote with something of an O Henry feel).
My son was not a dummy, though, and did not like false praise. I remember telling him I liked a story that he wrote. He said, "You're just saying that because I'm your kid." I was able to point to his story and tell him specifically why I thought I enjoyed it.
I one of those from the "old school." I believe all children should be educated with the same curriculum give or take a few advanced specialty courses. IN high school that means 4 years of math, 4 years of English, 4 years of history, 4 years of science, and at least 2 years of a foreign language. Period.
Everyone won't get A's, many might get D's, or even F's, but they will have been exposed to the disciplines throughly. They will recall enough to earn a living and be productive informed citizens.
This whole idea that manual labor doesn't require this or that technical course is bullshit. Plain old bullshit. Just try to get a Journeyman's card in any skilled trade without the equivalent of 2+ years of college level technical disciplines. You will not do it. If you've never been exposed minimally to it, you can't even f'ing catch up.
Long before I graduated from college I was in skilled trades (it paid my way through) and stayed there for some time after leaving the uniformed service as well.
In fields I am interested in, such as biology/zoology of wild life, the Phd's I respect the most are those who've actually done ground work, tracking, and co-habiting in the wild.
Dirty fingernails are a badge of honor, not failure.
RadioMattM....If he writes like O.Henry, he is very good. I was weaned on O. Henry and Kipling among many others. I still have complete original sets of their works.
Aridog - I don't agree because of the way curriculums have been changed. Even in the time since I attended school (I graduated high school in 1992), they've been dumbed down so much and there's so little consistency that a lot of it is less than useless. If it weren't there wouldn't be so much emphasis on remedial courses in college.
If I had written the way my high school students wrote when I was classroom teaching (the use of "cuz" was the norm), I would have been failed on day one. In fact, I did have to repeat Geometry in high school. And I wasn't the only one.
There's a common breadth of experience that is needed - I fully agree with that. And a future mason may need advanced mathematics - if so I'm know that the courses are easily available for that. There's no telling people they CAN'T take a class. I just think that there shouldn't be the forced curriculum set. At this point, a huge percentage of high school seniors I know would benefit a great deal more (as would society) if they were required to take a home economics class that taught checkbook balancing, the principles of interest, and even basic car/home care. They can't do this stuff, and they can't do the chemistry even though they got an A in the class. It's just not helping anyone.
I do really argue against the high school level courses being on a fixed course. I had too many students with no business in the course I was teaching (they were pity-passes from earlier classes, and so completely lost and disinterested anyway) pull down the rest of the class that was trying to learn the subject. Unfortunately in the classroom, by necessity, you have to teach to the lowest common denominator. And in such a situation, no one is benefitted.
It's not a matter so much of "let them do what they like!", because there is tremendous value in learning to sit through and complete things you hate and find hard - I think it is a necessary component to growing into a functioning adult - but a matter of lax standards that hurt everyone in the long run.
I think the first step in reclaiming the respect and work ethic in the classroom is to stop requiring everyone take the same track in school. Because as soon as you start holding students accountable and failing them, you will see drop outs rise. That will happen in ANY instance where failure is an option. What I would like to see is another direction available for these students so that they don't go hibernate in the basement, unable to get hired even at McDonalds.
"I don't agree because of the way curriculums have been changed. Even in the time since I attended school (I graduated high school in 1992), they've been dumbed down so much and there's so little consistency that a lot of it is less than useless."
I 'graduated' in 1970 (yeh, I'm a dropout, although I have 2 HS diplomas and an uncounted nuber of college credits) and STILL know more than most I've met who graduated with honors after me.
AFW...perhaps I should have qualified my "old school" remark to mean a rigorous undiluted teaching of the subjects mentioned. I graduated from High School in 1960, prior to dumb down and dilution of course material. Check book balancing and basic finance was taught pre-high school, in the 7th or 8th grade mathematics class.
And, yes, at least for a while (roughly 1956 through mid 60's at least) there were prohibitions telling students what classes they could take.
And no, in my experience and time, there were no pity-passes. Nor were any high school classes graded on a "curve" reflecting the lowest common denominator. There was the 8 point differentiation scale...below 68 you failed and repeated a course. The was peer pressure to not let that happen, even if one had to cheat...and even by cheating they were at least exposed to the correct answers. Tests were graded with the correct answers annotated...e.g., you saw them even if unlearned.
Today we've lost track of the KISS principle. My entire high school curriculum was on one 8.5x11 sheet of paper.
BTW, a stone mason needs far more than math, he also needs physics (of structures and loads) and chemistry (of materials), and foremost, English in order to be able to read and comprehend plans with which he must work.
AFW...also should add that my first introduction to "Physics" was as a 13 year old high school freshman in Ancient History classes when we studied the columns of ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, followed by arches and keystone technology. My first exposure to graphic design/drawing was at my father's side where I learned about "perspective" in art at about age 8...it was a key element of building houses and barns in his time and he thought I needed to know it too. You can't even lay out a chicken coop or outhouse without it...and I am pretty sure your own "Pops" gave you similar guidance.
I said: "And, yes, at least for a while (roughly 1956 through mid 60's at least) there were prohibitions telling students what classes they could take."
The dates were in error, should be "1959 thru late 1960's at least" and are based upon what my brother dealt with versus me.
AFW...along the dumbing down and diluting meme you cited, I don't disagree.
I entered college as an advance placement engineering student, and I was still required to take 4 each 18 week courses in basic skilled trades (welding, metal working, machine shop, & rigging)...the theory being that if we were to go on to design something we'd damn well better know what we were talking about in the execution of said design.
To my knowledge, that is no longer done today, at least according to my acquaintances at the U of Wisconsin Engineering School (where I began it all), and where I took additional extension courses in the 1990's.
Ari - I graduate college in 1998 with a degree in Political Science/emph. Public Administration.
I remember telling my Dad the night before graduation (and it was said in quite a hysterical manner), "But I don't know how to DO any of this!"
My Dad said that I would learn it "on the job." That seems ridiculous to me. I should have learned budgeting, planning, public works procedures, etc. WHILE IN SCHOOL. Isn't that what school is for? My first employer shouldn't have had to introduce me to municipal budgeting!
I ended up pestering the people in my Dad's city to learn the basics (forced internships?). Not everyone is as lucky as I in having such connections, though.
Oh - also. One of the reasons I vehemently disagree with forcing students into school paths is that the best students I ever had were those in a lower income Catholic school. Their parents were, in many cases, either only high school educated or not even high school graduates. But these kids applied themselves more rigorously and worked towards goals more single-mindedly than any child I taught in schools in more upper-class areas.
Administrators might have looked at their families and their situations and tried to force them into the job training path - but they were serious college material.
On the other hand, some of my fortunate (monetarily) students? They weren't going to get through college without cheating and a generous allowance from Mom and Dad. They needed a failure or two to open their eyes.
I like this discussion and I don't want to interrupt, but I have a few random points to toss out.
- education needs to become much more effective, because (IMHO) the workplace is becoming ever more complex. I do believe unemployment is high at least in part because the marginal productivity of the unemployed is negative. We are seeing the "true" level of unemployment for the first time in decades, because it's not being hidden behind bogus economic activity fueled by unsustainable debt. So if education doesn't improve, unemployment will rise, growth will stall, and the deflationary spiral will cause a Depression.
- I agree with Ari that covering the basics is important regardless of aptitude. While I've never been a formal educator, I've done a bunch of teaching. (afw, those people who "learned on the job" were taught by folks like me). What I discovered is that what some teachers perceive is a lack of aptitude is often simply a lack of flexibility on the part of the teacher. Not everyone learns things the same way - I can't stress this enough.
So to get more effective, education needs to become more flexible. Flexible not in the competencies mastered, but in the _way_ those competencies are mastered.
- the one true thing which is necessary is student motivation. The attitude of entitlement is poison. This is a kulturkampf worth fighting because it is existential.
- on another note, for motivated students, the fields of technology have never been more open. Software became democratized with the advent of cheap computers - then anyone could write software without access to expensive mainframes. More recently, hardware, robotics, and now bio-tech are becoming democratized with low cost platforms.
Why does this matter? Because the reward for even a modest amount of curiosity and motivation has never been greater. The gratification of making things work has never been closer or cheaper. It was once the case that an almost unnatural patience and persistence was required to get a program to run, a chip to work, a robot to move. No longer. And that sense of accomplishment is key, because it is addictive, and breeds more patience, more persistence, more motivation, and hence more accomplishment.
Oh, Ari, I agree with you while I disagree with you. And I can do that because I'm a female. :)
And my Dad has been right about a great many things. I'm appreciating that as I get older.
Now, I put Where the Red Fern Grows on netflix download for my kids to watch this evening. I think I'm going to be drying tears with a towel before bedtime...
(we're reading the book, but only about halfway through it. They like it so much they begged for the movie. Now I wonder if they'll be emotionally ready to finish the book.)
Even the boy who can’t or won’t learn his alphabet can be praised and petted for something – handicrafts or gymnastics, moral leadership or deportment, citizenship or the care of guinea pigs, hobbies or musical appreciation. Anything he likes! Then no boy and no boy’s parents need feel inferior.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to throw out there that this was already the case in previous centuries. Except then there was no dishonor in working with your hands. Now everyone wants Junior to be a lawyer or a doctor, and so kids are pushed into college prep work that they may not be suited for.
I think it is very important that people grow up with something in common. Everyone my age watched Mork and Mindy growing up, for instance. And 21 Jump Street in the teen years. We all have that in common and thus we can bond. I don't think this is any different from the sagas that were told in Viking Longhouses. I know, I know, form/poetry/beautiful chanting/blah/blah/blah.
I don't buy that part. I think that mass entertainment has always been something that appeals to the masses, which of necessity means that it's probably not tremendously high-brow at the time (Shakespeare anyone?). We just think it is now because it's old
The chaff is forgotten and the wheat lasts forever in our memories. I mean, I remember Mork and Mindy, but there are shows from that time period that didn't last, either.
I think that the education system is trying to be that bonding thing at the moment. And it's just not meant to be. My son maxed out his math testing this year, and the evil blond daughter scored a 92 percentile over-all. And they did it because although a well rounded education is expected from them, they also get to emphasize their strengths. My son is spending his summer doing mechanical science kits because that's what he's good at and loves.
So while I agree with what CS Lewis says, I do not agree with the way many people choose to interpret it. I do not think that graduation standards should be relaxed to keep everyone feeling fulfilled. I *do* think that there should be recognition of the fact that after 8th grade, not everyone is cut out to analyze Antigone. And in fact, that kid who had trouble with chemistry is probably one of the few on his block still making six figures a year as a plumber while all those folk who could write a pretty paragraph were laid off a year ago.*
And with our current community college system, a kid who gets tired of being a mechanic can go back to school without much fuss and retrain later on.
*Not making fun of lay-offs by any means, just pointing out that the current focus on all college prep/no middle ground school system is contrary to the realities of society.
Perhaps people should be praised for something about which they deserve praise, but going to extremes just to give praise is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteMy son always scored high in English/reading types of things. I liked reading stories that he wrote because he always had a way of developing an interesting climax (he wrote with something of an O Henry feel).
My son was not a dummy, though, and did not like false praise. I remember telling him I liked a story that he wrote. He said, "You're just saying that because I'm your kid." I was able to point to his story and tell him specifically why I thought I enjoyed it.
I one of those from the "old school." I believe all children should be educated with the same curriculum give or take a few advanced specialty courses. IN high school that means 4 years of math, 4 years of English, 4 years of history, 4 years of science, and at least 2 years of a foreign language. Period.
ReplyDeleteEveryone won't get A's, many might get D's, or even F's, but they will have been exposed to the disciplines throughly. They will recall enough to earn a living and be productive informed citizens.
This whole idea that manual labor doesn't require this or that technical course is bullshit. Plain old bullshit. Just try to get a Journeyman's card in any skilled trade without the equivalent of 2+ years of college level technical disciplines. You will not do it. If you've never been exposed minimally to it, you can't even f'ing catch up.
Long before I graduated from college I was in skilled trades (it paid my way through) and stayed there for some time after leaving the uniformed service as well.
In fields I am interested in, such as biology/zoology of wild life, the Phd's I respect the most are those who've actually done ground work, tracking, and co-habiting in the wild.
Dirty fingernails are a badge of honor, not failure.
RadioMattM....If he writes like O.Henry, he is very good. I was weaned on O. Henry and Kipling among many others. I still have complete original sets of their works.
ReplyDeleteAridog - I don't agree because of the way curriculums have been changed. Even in the time since I attended school (I graduated high school in 1992), they've been dumbed down so much and there's so little consistency that a lot of it is less than useless. If it weren't there wouldn't be so much emphasis on remedial courses in college.
ReplyDeleteIf I had written the way my high school students wrote when I was classroom teaching (the use of "cuz" was the norm), I would have been failed on day one. In fact, I did have to repeat Geometry in high school. And I wasn't the only one.
There's a common breadth of experience that is needed - I fully agree with that. And a future mason may need advanced mathematics - if so I'm know that the courses are easily available for that. There's no telling people they CAN'T take a class. I just think that there shouldn't be the forced curriculum set. At this point, a huge percentage of high school seniors I know would benefit a great deal more (as would society) if they were required to take a home economics class that taught checkbook balancing, the principles of interest, and even basic car/home care. They can't do this stuff, and they can't do the chemistry even though they got an A in the class. It's just not helping anyone.
I do really argue against the high school level courses being on a fixed course. I had too many students with no business in the course I was teaching (they were pity-passes from earlier classes, and so completely lost and disinterested anyway) pull down the rest of the class that was trying to learn the subject. Unfortunately in the classroom, by necessity, you have to teach to the lowest common denominator. And in such a situation, no one is benefitted.
It's not a matter so much of "let them do what they like!", because there is tremendous value in learning to sit through and complete things you hate and find hard - I think it is a necessary component to growing into a functioning adult - but a matter of lax standards that hurt everyone in the long run.
I think the first step in reclaiming the respect and work ethic in the classroom is to stop requiring everyone take the same track in school. Because as soon as you start holding students accountable and failing them, you will see drop outs rise. That will happen in ANY instance where failure is an option. What I would like to see is another direction available for these students so that they don't go hibernate in the basement, unable to get hired even at McDonalds.
Ugh. I had a masterpiece of an answer to post that was eaten by the comment monster.
ReplyDeleteI'll try again later.
Blah.
And now it's up!
ReplyDeleteSheesh!
AFW said;
ReplyDelete"I don't agree because of the way curriculums have been changed. Even in the time since I attended school (I graduated high school in 1992), they've been dumbed down so much and there's so little consistency that a lot of it is less than useless."
I 'graduated' in 1970 (yeh, I'm a dropout, although I have 2 HS diplomas and an uncounted nuber of college credits) and STILL know more than most I've met who graduated with honors after me.
AFW...perhaps I should have qualified my "old school" remark to mean a rigorous undiluted teaching of the subjects mentioned. I graduated from High School in 1960, prior to dumb down and dilution of course material. Check book balancing and basic finance was taught pre-high school, in the 7th or 8th grade mathematics class.
ReplyDeleteAnd, yes, at least for a while (roughly 1956 through mid 60's at least) there were prohibitions telling students what classes they could take.
And no, in my experience and time, there were no pity-passes. Nor were any high school classes graded on a "curve" reflecting the lowest common denominator. There was the 8 point differentiation scale...below 68 you failed and repeated a course. The was peer pressure to not let that happen, even if one had to cheat...and even by cheating they were at least exposed to the correct answers. Tests were graded with the correct answers annotated...e.g., you saw them even if unlearned.
Today we've lost track of the KISS principle. My entire high school curriculum was on one 8.5x11 sheet of paper.
BTW, a stone mason needs far more than math, he also needs physics (of structures and loads) and chemistry (of materials), and foremost, English in order to be able to read and comprehend plans with which he must work.
AFW...also should add that my first introduction to "Physics" was as a 13 year old high school freshman in Ancient History classes when we studied the columns of ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, followed by arches and keystone technology. My first exposure to graphic design/drawing was at my father's side where I learned about "perspective" in art at about age 8...it was a key element of building houses and barns in his time and he thought I needed to know it too. You can't even lay out a chicken coop or outhouse without it...and I am pretty sure your own "Pops" gave you similar guidance.
ReplyDeleteCorrection:
ReplyDeleteI said: "And, yes, at least for a while (roughly 1956 through mid 60's at least) there were prohibitions telling students what classes they could take."
The dates were in error, should be "1959 thru late 1960's at least" and are based upon what my brother dealt with versus me.
AFW...along the dumbing down and diluting meme you cited, I don't disagree.
ReplyDeleteI entered college as an advance placement engineering student, and I was still required to take 4 each 18 week courses in basic skilled trades (welding, metal working, machine shop, & rigging)...the theory being that if we were to go on to design something we'd damn well better know what we were talking about in the execution of said design.
To my knowledge, that is no longer done today, at least according to my acquaintances at the U of Wisconsin Engineering School (where I began it all), and where I took additional extension courses in the 1990's.
Ari - I graduate college in 1998 with a degree in Political Science/emph. Public Administration.
ReplyDeleteI remember telling my Dad the night before graduation (and it was said in quite a hysterical manner), "But I don't know how to DO any of this!"
My Dad said that I would learn it "on the job." That seems ridiculous to me. I should have learned budgeting, planning, public works procedures, etc. WHILE IN SCHOOL. Isn't that what school is for? My first employer shouldn't have had to introduce me to municipal budgeting!
I ended up pestering the people in my Dad's city to learn the basics (forced internships?). Not everyone is as lucky as I in having such connections, though.
Oh - also. One of the reasons I vehemently disagree with forcing students into school paths is that the best students I ever had were those in a lower income Catholic school. Their parents were, in many cases, either only high school educated or not even high school graduates. But these kids applied themselves more rigorously and worked towards goals more single-mindedly than any child I taught in schools in more upper-class areas.
ReplyDeleteAdministrators might have looked at their families and their situations and tried to force them into the job training path - but they were serious college material.
On the other hand, some of my fortunate (monetarily) students? They weren't going to get through college without cheating and a generous allowance from Mom and Dad. They needed a failure or two to open their eyes.
AFW...
ReplyDelete1.) Your dad was right. College provides the tools with which to learn your trade or profession (or not), not the profession itself.
2.) You do realize that in your remarks about students you have essentially agreed with me :D
I like this discussion and I don't want to interrupt, but I have a few random points to toss out.
ReplyDelete- education needs to become much more effective, because (IMHO) the workplace is becoming ever more complex. I do believe unemployment is high at least in part because the marginal productivity of the unemployed is negative. We are seeing the "true" level of unemployment for the first time in decades, because it's not being hidden behind bogus economic activity fueled by unsustainable debt. So if education doesn't improve, unemployment will rise, growth will stall, and the deflationary spiral will cause a Depression.
- I agree with Ari that covering the basics is important regardless of aptitude. While I've never been a formal educator, I've done a bunch of teaching. (afw, those people who "learned on the job" were taught by folks like me). What I discovered is that what some teachers perceive is a lack of aptitude is often simply a lack of flexibility on the part of the teacher. Not everyone learns things the same way - I can't stress this enough.
So to get more effective, education needs to become more flexible. Flexible not in the competencies mastered, but in the _way_ those competencies are mastered.
- the one true thing which is necessary is student motivation. The attitude of entitlement is poison. This is a kulturkampf worth fighting because it is existential.
- on another note, for motivated students, the fields of technology have never been more open. Software became democratized with the advent of cheap computers - then anyone could write software without access to expensive mainframes. More recently, hardware, robotics, and now bio-tech are becoming democratized with low cost platforms.
Why does this matter? Because the reward for even a modest amount of curiosity and motivation has never been greater. The gratification of making things work has never been closer or cheaper. It was once the case that an almost unnatural patience and persistence was required to get a program to run, a chip to work, a robot to move. No longer. And that sense of accomplishment is key, because it is addictive, and breeds more patience, more persistence, more motivation, and hence more accomplishment.
Oh, Ari, I agree with you while I disagree with you. And I can do that because I'm a female. :)
ReplyDeleteAnd my Dad has been right about a great many things. I'm appreciating that as I get older.
Now, I put Where the Red Fern Grows on netflix download for my kids to watch this evening. I think I'm going to be drying tears with a towel before bedtime...
(we're reading the book, but only about halfway through it. They like it so much they begged for the movie. Now I wonder if they'll be emotionally ready to finish the book.)
AFW said: "Oh, Ari, I agree with you while I disagree with you. And I can do that because I'm a female."
ReplyDeleteDrat. I here that a lot here abouts, too. Judi's prerogatives are rational, and deliberative, whilst mine are genetic hardheadedness.