copyright?

I like the new Three R's.

Gate's is not really saying they're obselete - that was said by him for headline effect).

What he's saying - high school dropout that he is - is, they are not enough. And they never have been so I'm not sure he made an actual point - except those Three R's. Still like those.

I like that he's putting his efforts towards the education system but I'm a little uncomfortable with it as well.

Since when is Bill Gates and authority on Education? There is no mention of experts informing his views. Furthermore, the three R's he proposes are nothing new. Those are issues that have been talked about for 10 years now at least. The real questions revolve around a course of action to create change with relation to those three R's. Authorities really can't come to any sort of agreement on the appropriate course of action, let alone agree on the finer details.

What also seems strange is that there is no mention of literacy. Literacy is the single greatest determinant of a person's success in life. Not just in school, but in life (in any terms we might use to measure or define success...literacy is the key).

Parents need to know about this relationship and need to start their children on the road to literacy from infancy. As it is, most parents assume that schools are their too make their children literate. This is misleading.

Secondly, there is no mention of the two-tiers of education in America (private vs. public). Though this is a controversial subject, most education academics agree that the two-tier system is unethical and detrimental to students in either system.

In any case, what I am happy to here is that there is no mention of technology. I figured Bill might take the opportunity to infer that American children are not technologically literate. This would really distract from the important issues, in my opinion.

It's good to hear that Mr. Gates is taking an interest in Education issues, but its too bad that he seems to be going it alone, instead of pointing us to the experts in this field.

Sydney -- It's not just literacy that is a critical factor for success: it's information literacy. One of the reasons that the educational system is failing in many ways is because the U.S. is still stuck in a model of Teacher Lecture --> Student Memorize. That might have worked in the past, but because of the Information Age, students need to learn how to learn on top of what to learn.

In other words, knowing when Columbus "discovered" America, the year of the Spanish Armada, etc. etc. is nice... but a critical skill that a student must possess for future success is the ability to a) know what kind of information is needed b) know where to look for it c) find it efficiently and d) assess whether it is accurate information to meet the need of the question.

So "1492" is answer that was last acceptable in 1992 or so.

Agreed, those are important issues;

1) students need to learn how to learn for themselves (but, again, textual literacy is the most important factor herec-- is still teh most common means by far of conveying information. students need to learn to enjoy reading and have access to all levels of reading)

2) Students have to construct their own knowledge.. This means educators have to set up experinces that let students construct their own learning so that they can learn on their terms, and have it "sink in" as well. An example of this would be to have students do a hands on activity which 'displays' certain principles in action. Students learn it this way rather than form a text or teacher centered learning. Technology, group activities and hands on work shops are the most common means of achieving this.

So I think we are on the same page here. I think your point is a good one-- but I think that literacy is not antithetical to that point.

Sometimes I'm amazed when you throw the proverbial stone into the pond. Thanks to all for your insightful commentary.

Today's educational system is clearly flawed. It was flawed when I was a student during the sixties and early seventies; it was flawed when I was a teacher during the eighties, and in spite of current debate and positive changes that are slowly being made, it continues to be flawed. I think William Glasser says it best in his book, The Quality School (1990) "Schools should be a place where students have the freedom to take control and responsibility for their learning, and to make autonomous decisions in regard to their learing." I believe students should be given opportunities to have control to learn what they want, when they want. As Glasser puts, "non-coercive" instruction (ibid).

I don't agree with letting students let whatever they want, there has to be some baseline of knowledge they need to function after completing their schooling, but they should be encouraged to learn, and challenged to learn, and to apply what they have learned. That starts earlir than high school. High school should definitely be training students for further education, and maybe the apprecticeship system can also be applied to the Information Age.

RE: Temple,

Whether said for "headline effect" or not, Gates declarative sentence,
"America's high schools are obsolete," is a statement that resonates
with conviction. Yes, Gates is a high school dropout who went to make
billions, but that should not be a disqualifier for any opinion he may
have in regard to our current educational system. Like him/hate him,
his speech gives much to think about, not so much because what he says
is new but because he highlights what many other educators, parents and
community leaders have already been saying.... The three R's make
for a good start. Thanks for commenting.

i've gotta cast my Vote with Ski on this one for th emost part..

many kids, when left on their own, will usualy choose the path of least Resistance rather than take on the real Work required to achieve good results followiing the tenets put forward by the Glasser quote in comment #5

my Wonder on this Topic has always been why we, as a Nation, have advanced so far in so many fields, yet regressed horribly in the endeavor of Education our young people

think about it a second..literacy, mathematics, the study of languages and sciences...all are so much less now then when our grandparents and great grandparents attended schools with far fewer resources available

any of those people who attended the "one room schoolhouse" walked out with a far superior mastery of not only the basics, but a wider array of KNowledge than many nowadays who graduate from colleges

the changes in school structure and the philosophy of Teaching after World War 2 seems to have been a turning point, as near as I can tell...the shift from "synthesis" of a wide range in Knowledge base to mere Analysis of single subject specialities

greek, latin, calculus and a broader variety of History were the norm....

good luck finding a high school that even teaches those subjects any more, most of the teachers at those schools have not studied them...now we have whole generations of Educators with a lower baseline of Knowledge than the average high school student of 100 years ago...

why is that?

damn fine Question..i wish i knew, or had the Answer

but i believe it stems from the gutting of the curriculum post WW2...it appears as if the seminal change revolves around the "warehousing" of more and more students into single facilities, the assembly line "factory" model of changing classes at the whims of a bell...too many teachers in a students life , varying from year to year, appears to stifle any sense of connection between student and teacher...it also appears to remove not only any sense of continuity, but any kind of overall view of the student as a whole person

they become files and test scores, rather than Individuals

on and on

what's the Answer? it will take far better Minds than that of your humble Narrator to work that problem out and proof the answer to such a thorny equation...a crash program of research into the Science of Education itself, without any ulterior Agenda except to better Educate our generations to come...

nuff said?

Excelsior!

many kids, when left on their own, will usualy choose the path of least Resistance rather than take on the real Work required to achieve good results followiing the tenets put forward by the Glasser quote in comment #5

That's not what people who run democratic schools see every day. In those schools, students do learn in a non-coercive environment -- they choose what they want to learn and when, and many of them choose challenging subjects simply because they're interested in them.

The students in democratic schools are given freedom *and* the responsibility that comes with it. And they usually accept and handle both pretty well because they live it.

The phenomenon you're describing, Gonzo, occurs after students have been deadened by years of compulsory public school education, where they learn that the only things that matter are what's on the test and who's going to the prom with whom.

When students are truly free to choose what they want to learn, they're invested in it and they "take on real work."

"The place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and hands, and then work outward from there. Other people can talk about how to expand the destiny of mankind. I just want to talk about how to fix a motorcycle' Pirsig, Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, 1974, p. 267).

This post certainly has generated considerable response, more so than I had expected. Already I have been given much to think about to the point where I feel compelled to elaborate more specifically in regard to the significance of Gates' speech. But that won't be tonight. I have to up at 5am for work, and I'm already toast for tonight, sleepwise. Without question I am discovering "blogging" to be an incredible forum. That this is the next wave of mass communication goes without saying. Thanks to all again for sharing your ideas.

Goodnight.

Scot

Oh, and the idea that students need to go to school to "learn how to learn" is completely bogus. Children are natural born learners. School usually teaches them how *not* to learn but how to get by with the minimal amount of work required for the grade they're willing to live with.

That's not learning. That's gaming the system.

Oh, man, am I out of it today....

School usually teaches them how *not* to learn but how to get by with the minimal amount of work required for the grade they're willing to live with.

Change that "but" to "and" and "minimal" to "minimum."

I'm going to get some sleep!

good points bhw...and i am more than willing to look at the results of an environment such as you describe

the prospect generates some exictement that the Answer to this dilemma could be within reach

as i had said, i leave this Problem to better Minds than mine...

Excelsior!

bhw -- Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Students must learn how to learn in an information-rich environment. Of course kids have natural skills, but in a world of information overload, it's not enough to simply learn subject matter. Kids must learn subject matter in conjunction with learning how access, use, process, analyze, and asess information.

That's what I mean by learning how to learn. Education needs to transition from a traditional top-down lecture-memorize environment to a subject content (the what) / information access (the how) environment.

Just one more thought to throw out. . .

"...if...a curriculum is to have any affect on the physical, mental, and emotional health of the students, it must have at its base an acceptance of the indidual student as a person of worth, to be attended to, understood to such a degree as it is possible for an adult to understand a child, and respected as an intelligent human being" Group C, Teacher, School, Child, 1964, p.66).

bhw -- Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

Eric, you probably were. I'm the one who is clearly cloudy tonight!

What you've explained makes a lot of sense. In other conversations, I've heard many people say students need to go to school to learn how to learn, and they weren't talking about what you're talking about.

So I gave you a knee-jerk response. Sorry!

I might add that I'm a bit grumpy because I'm dealing with one of these products of our public schools literally right now, a guy who is trying to blame me for his missing Works Cited page because I required him to submit a copy of his sources with his research paper ("I couldn't write my Works Cited page because you had my sources."). As if the Works Cited page wasn't due WITH the research paper and sources, but in some nebulous timeframe afterward.

Talk about not taking on the real work! Jesus H.

When I wrote that children needed to be taught how to learn, I meant that they need to need to know how to find answers to get beyond obstacles to progress.

Democratic schools my work, but isn't there some time of standard or curricula for the students to work within? By that I mean, don't they have to hit a certain # of areas of study? I am not really familiar with the schooling you describe.

Ski, I apologize to you, too, for my comment last night.

Democratic schools vary in their structure and governance. Some are 100% democratic, where the schools are run by school meeting and the votes on all matters are cast by students and staff. Since there are more students then staff, the students effectively are responsible for running their own school, including hiring and firing staff.

In those cases, those schools are completely curriculum/standards free. Individual students choose what to do all day, and they are unsupervised. The staff is there to assist when asked, and they would be fired if they tried to convince a particular student that s/he should be doing/learning something. It's literally the students' school. They they can watch TV all day or plant a garden or study differential equations. It's up to them.

Obviously, this type of school isn't for everyone, nor is it something most parents would be comfortable with for their kids. But it is a good fit for some kids and their families.

In other schools, a modified democracy exists, where students have a vote in only some aspects of running the school. Some public high schools have adopted a semi-democratic model, which helps kids feel invested in the school. But since they're public schools, they definitely have some sort of curriculum to follow.

A famous 100% democratic school in MA is the Sudbury Valley School in Framingham. It's been the model for other schools around the country that call themselves Sudbury schools.

Okay, I fixed the link above. Why the hell won't it show up?

Argh.

Here it is: Sudbury Valley

No problem, BHW.

I am very interested in education as a possible seecond career, so your posts are insightful.

I am a little curious about letting students watch TV all day, if true.
I see teachers as guides and motivators towards a meaningful/useful end, so TV watching as a course of study seems a bit too West Coast for me.

By standards, I mean performance and grades for certain things, you either now the right answer or not; you either did a process the right way or not. I also know there is more than one way to skin a cat, I am not so rigid as to stifle initiative.

The first time most people hear about Sudbury-type schools, they're skeptical, to say the least. I was, too. But I now see them as a viable alternative for some kids.

At Sudbury, there are no teachers. The adults are, by design, called staff.

And, to use some Sudbury-speak, nobody is "letting" the kids do anything. The kids are in charge, and they choose to do whatever they want to do.

If anything, the students are letting the adults work there.

It's a completely different way of looking at education, not unlike homeschoolers who unschool. Like I said, it's not for most parents/kids, but for some, it's a good fit.

By standards, I mean performance and grades for certain things, you either now the right answer or not; you either did a process the right way or not.

At a Sudbury school, I'd say the performance standards are set by the individual student's goals. What does s/he want to learn? How will s/he know if s/he learned it?

I guess it's kind of similar to what kids learn from their parents. Think about a kid who learns how to give a car a tune up by helping his/her parent. There's no written standard or instructional plan they're adhering to, but the parent and child will know if the tune up is successful or not and whether or not the child has learned how to do a tune up on his/her own.

"I don't agree with letting students let whatever they want, there has to be some baseline of knowledge they need to function after completing their schooling"

-- Yes this is definitely the case. Part of the question is determining what these baseline skills are. There are a lot of students with severe learning problems, I think due to unseen effects of the electronic age. Namely, students now have a shortened attention span. Many of these kids can't even learn the baseline stuff because school is just requires too much concentration. For these students they try to get performance rich tasks that require a lot of hands on work and encompass all sorts of subjects, (math, English, science etc). A task like this might be building a sea craft of some sort. The project would last all semester and have multiple teachers. They would teach all their subjects in the context of that project. English would consist of reading on sailboats, and gramamatical lessons to reinforce..etc..

The idea is to have a student feel like they own their own work, and this motivates them to keep at it and to like learning. However, these projects have been tested, mainly, in Australian schools, and have so far, been deemed huge failures. Authorities say the problem is that teachers are used to teaching this style and as a result there is all sorts of gaps in the instruction and the consistency of instruction. Projects fail and students don't learn a thing.

So I think we do need the old teacher-centered learning. But this doesn't mean the teacher needs to lecture all day long. Students can get up and do activities as much as possible.

The question is do we look at the effects of capitalism and the electronic age and change that, or do we live with some of the unwanted sideffects and change our schooling to meet those needs.

One thing is for certain; kids are far far less inclined to read in a modern society and so finding ways to make them like it in high school is damn near impossible. Do your children a favour and don't let them play video games or watch television for more than 2 hours a day. Any more will go along ways to ruining your kids ability to concentrate in a learning environment. Also, make sure they eat properly and make sure your school doesn't serve junk food. These are big obstacles in creating positive learning environments.

The idea is to have a student feel like they own their own work, and this motivates them to keep at it and to like learning.

Not to mention that the learning is contextual and therefore relevant. If I'm learning mathematical concepts, what better way than learn in a hands-on, meaningful application instead of sitting at a desk?

However, these projects have been tested, mainly, in Australian schools, and have so far, been deemed huge failures. Authorities say the problem is that teachers are used to teaching this style and as a result there is all sorts of gaps in the instruction and the consistency of instruction. Projects fail and students don't learn a thing.

I'd be surpised if students hadn't really learned a thing. My guess is that students learned a lot, but that it didn't map well to the tests they were given. I bet the students were given the same exact tests/evaluations as students who learned in the classroom. Those students most likely followed a particular curriculum, which the evaluations were mapped to. The students doing hands-on learning probably did not, so naturally at least some of what they learned would be different from what classroom students learned, not to mention that they ways they learned to apply their skills were entirely different.

In fact, if they wrote an evaluation based on what the hands-on learners covered, I bet the classroom students would not perform well on it at all -- they'd have lots of gaps in their skills and knowledge.

This scenario brings up some questions: Why is it important that all students learn the same things on approximately the same schedule? Why isn't it okay for our kids to develop different strengths and interests? The one-size-fits-all education doesn't seem to be working, no matter how hard we try to fit all the square pegs into round holes.

Well... you have to remember the practicalities of setting up a system as complex as these rich-task ones in Australia is extremely tricky and expensive. It may compromise the learning of a more traditional style learner. No system is going to be perfect. We need to be trying to find the greatest good for the greatest number of students, and then add alternatives for as many of the challenged students as is possible.

There is difficulty in translating grading to match that of standardized state testing. Standardized testing in Australia was a big deal (compromising the educational systems integrity, and the students learning experiences).

However, I spent three hours driving down the coast of Australia with my professor who has taught for two years in one of these alternative schools using the rich-task curriculum. She was scared by the whole experience. She said they took two years of these kids learning and through it out the window.

She said the parents stopped the whole program because the students were complaining. The teachers were also fed up as well. She expected that many of the students had to stay back an extra year to make up for what they missed. It was just a poorly conceived plan with way more practical problems than they foresaw.

Now, her experience comes from one school, but she's an academic who is very familiar with these programs across the country. She says all the schools using these programs were failing to some degree. However, she felt that in the coming years they may eventually get it right.

If I'm learning mathematical concepts, what better way than learn in a hands-on, meaningful application instead of sitting at a desk?

Good grief, where else would you apply mathematical concepts than at a desk? Did you derive Euler's formula in auto shop?

I can't apply the concepts of addition or subtraction at the grocery store to help my daughter learn to add or subtract?

well you certainly APPLY those concepts in auto shop. You might use them at the desk as well.

I just wanted to say that I'm not opposed to alternative forms of education, and we do need to make the classrooms mroe relevant. However, I think if we are going to spend a butt-load of money, lets spend it on raising the teacher-student ratio. This is somthing that we KNOW produces great results. More money, for more teachers.

I can't apply the concepts of addition or subtraction at the grocery store to help my daughter learn to add or subtract?

That has about as much to do with mathematics as memorizing the alphabet has to do with writing.

So addition and subtraction aren't mathematics?

JR, does geometry never get applied in the real world? Does algebra never get applied in the real world?

Or is mathematics all just high-falutin' mental masturbation?

So addition and subtraction aren't mathematics?

No, they're arithmetic.

JR, does geometry never get applied in the real world? Does algebra never get applied in the real world?

Is a desk not in the real world? Where are you right now?

Or is mathematics all just high-falutin' mental masturbation?

No more so than arguing about education.

I thought I got a great education from my public school...

Learning comes down to the student. The worst school can have very successful students. If a student wants to coast, they will. If they want to succeed, they most likely will succeed at that which they put their nose to the grind stone.

I graduated in 1995 from one of the best school districts in the state of Vermont... I had a lot going for me. I didn't go to college afterwards, because what I want to do doesn't require a college education like being a doctor. (Being a music producer)

However, I'm presently an IT Manager for a pretty big company and have to teach myself new things all the time. That is something that my High School Education taught me how to do. High School didn't teach me anything I wanted to learn, but certain teachers pushed me in the right direction to apply myself. (Call it dumb luck)

As a contrast to my dumb luck, look at a company based in Vermont that has just as strong of a presence as IBM (Vermonts largest employer). The name of that company is IDX. The CEO of that company went to school in one of the worst school districts in the state of Vermont. He busted his ass to get where he is and to ensure a future for IDX and it's employees.

Proving the point that it's up to the student.

The points that the article bring with the 3 R's is right on.

I think we need to add the factor of not letting the school be the only education the child/student gets. One thing home school has right is that they allow the opportunity for everything in life to be a chance to learn something new. Public school does focus too much on memorization without practical application. I think that if as parents people apply home schooling principles of teaching what a child wants to learn in a creative way that stimulates the childs growth, public school will end up supplementing what the child is already learning from the parents or friends in the home/community environment.

I think the Relationships R is part of the key to the whole thing.

If you can only learn at home, you're limited. If you're only learning from public/private school you're limited as well. If you can learn from anybody and receive the encouragement and correction from anybody. Your potential is unlimited.

We can't expect our kids to learn from us alone. We also can't expect the public/private school to raise our kids for us and teach them everything. There needs to be a balance. I think if we really looked at our present high school situation, the problem with education in this country is that in MOST locations the only place kids are getting a non-street education is in school. In those cases, the kids are not getting any non-street education from their home/community.

Just my thoughts... Doesn't mean I'm right.

John

So addition and subtraction aren't mathematics?

No, they're arithmetic.

And arithmetic is part of mathematics; in particular, it is part of our math curricula. The common use of the word math includes arithmetic.

Your beef seems to be with the everyday use of the word math. Why not just say that?

JR, does geometry never get applied in the real world? Does algebra never get applied in the real world?

Is a desk not in the real world? Where are you right now?

I'm at home, which is quite real.

Yes, the desk is the real world, but so is a sailboat. Students can't be taught how to estimate how long a sailing trip will take under certain conditions and then take the trip to see how their estimates stacked up? Or how to estimate how much food and water they'll need on the trip and then go make the purchase? Or how to navigate with the sextant, which requires them to learn and use geometry?

These can't be applied in a contextual setting? They must be done at a desk?

Or is mathematics all just high-falutin' mental masturbation?

No more so than arguing about education.

Touché!

bhw's way sounds more interesting; but money has cut back on most field trips is what I've seen and heard.

That needs to be fixed - at the HS level but especially the lower ages.

Kids need a bit of wonder before they want to see how that wonder happens, IMHO.

Two reasons why field trips are cut back;

1) The curriculum is so packed that there is no free time for activities considered "extra". The curriculum needs to leave more freedom for the teacher, and more freedom to incorporate social experiences into the semester.

2) Insurance. Everybody loves an opportunity to sue someone else. School boards have to buy insurance for everything they do now. As a result, there is less sporting activities, less field trips, less buss rentals, less hands on work in the science class (in terms of handling chemicals, doing demonstrations, dissecting live animals etc.). It's a really shitty situation.

A few months ago I tried to have the kids handle the heart and lungs from a cow (called a pluck). The idea was to have the student's blow into a tube that blows up the lungs, and then to cut open the heart and identify the tissues, valves, and chambers with their own hands. It's a fun exercise and the kids really like seeing the lungs expand and the alveolar sacs expand, and all that. On top of that they're more able to conceptualize the process of those organs having handled the parts. Better than reading it from a book anyway. But....my department head says, "nope, students can only handle materials preserved in formaldehyde". So we couldn't do it, despite the fact that classes have been doing this shit for many years. I guess somewhere in N.A. there must have been a case of ecoli poisoning or something and a subsequent law suit.

I wish they could write in a law that protects school boards from being sued (or from being sued for large amounts). Obviously this would be damn near impossible to do.

1) Is the one I've heard the most about.

The second is why their places to go are limited. The zoo. The Museum.

As a matter of fact, I remember touring McDonalds (behind the scenes) as a child - and a cookie factory. That just came back to me.

Can't remember why Mcdonald's - except I know we all got free Happy Meals. I think it was something along the lines of "the workings of a kitchen."

"Learning comes down to the student. The worst school can have very successful students. If a student wants to coast, they will. If they want to succeed, they most likely will succeed at that which they put their nose to the grind stone." John

Thanks for pulling the commentary back into perspective. The inherent problem with most schools is that they sometimes focus too much on trying to help the student succeed. The peripheral b.s. that too often takes the place of teaching, i.e. "classroom management, emotional problems, social skills, etc." are sometimes the very elements that restrict teaching and impede learning.

Giambatista Vico, "One only knows something if one can explain it" (1710).

" . . . We have to invent school experiences that give a lot of time back . . .invent curricula where each kid has a chance to develop private uniqueness and self-reliance," (John Taylor Gatto, Dumbing Us Down, 1992). Hmmm? If you want to read a good book that serves as a testament to the devastating effects of traditional education, this is it.

Gatto is all thatto.

Yes, he is. Pretty punny.

RE: Comment 25 posted by bhw

"This scenario brings up some questions: Why is it important that all students learn the same things on approximately the same schedule? Why isn't it okay for our kids to develop different strengths and interests? The one-size-fits-all education doesn't seem to be working, no matter how hard we try to fit all the square pegs into round holes."

You make a good point. The reason the "one-size-fits-all" doesn't work is because it is based on convergent thinking, which is based on the assumption that there can only be one acceptable approach or answer. What we need is to develop an educational system that is based on divergence, which is multi-faceted and mirrors the cognitive process involved in actually thinking about a problem or solution. Teaching based on convergence is pedantic, and as such does not involve the students in any real participation or discussion with a topic, problem or subject. Teaching based on divergence, however, does lead to mastery because it involves students in the process of discovering and solving problems that have relevance and purpose.