Re: The state of education in the USA.

On Apr 4, 1:21 pm, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 4, 11:21�am, tgdenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



On Apr 3, 9:45�pm, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 3, 1:27�pm, tgdenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

But as to my specific statement: You've given a perfect example with
your claim about the average salary of school teachers compared with
professors.

Obviously, without knowing the demographics of your county and your
state, in terms both of economics, and the seniority distribution of
school teachers and professors, we can conclude absolutely nothing
from your comparison.

Actually, that isn't what you said.

What isn't what I said???


In general, teachers probably earn
less than those of comparable certification. Locally, they do quite
well, district by district. My claim would be that it isn't just about
money. Those teachers that I know who have quit teaching more often
did so because of discipline problems, or frustration at the overall
system.

For what it's worth, teachers in Ohio earn more than the median income
in the state.



My sense of the problem (and I've said this to colleagues who were
close friends, so be offended if you like), is that the system
contains a large cohort of individuals at all levels who can't adapt
to the rapid technological change that has occurred over the last 30
years.

Doesn't bother me. I still work in several areas, both with and
without computation.

Your Algebra I standard has been obsolete a bit less than that---say 20 years.

An interesting assertion. I have been part of studies involving
technology and its effects in education for about 20 years.

"You have been part of" meaning you were studied or you were a
researcher who published the study?

In many
such experiments, the immediate results showed that with self-selected
students using new technology (say, graphing calculators), the results
in specific courses looked better. Many of those gains did not carry
through to higher-level material, including abstract mathematics
courses, where low-level algebra skills are used less. In addition, as
those same techniques were applied to the general population, the
results always were that the novelty effect wore off, and the
standards declined.


I would be interested in some more detail on these studies. What
courses are you talking about (abstract mathematics)? I also don't
get what you mean "applying the same techniques to the general
population".


Consider the SAT and ACT results. Every few years, the results are re-
normed to conform to the current average. Doesn't it bother you that
every single time, the re-norming is downwards? Surely, after 60+
years of education research, something should get better, once in a
while?

It doesn't bother me at all, since I don't expect that a non-
representative sample (SAT takers in the past) is going to predict the
results for the current population. I would be truly surprised if the
results *didn't* have to be re-normed, and down.


As with any labour-saving device, some skills are lost. The
physiological studies seem to show that the study of mathematics is
more than a memorization process, and involves new synaptic
connections, which I refer to as "mathematical reflexes".

Once again, what you are saying is kind of vague. Can you be more
specific, or perhaps give an online reference to these studies you
keep talking about?

-tg



Teaching
students to push buttons, which is what much of the new technology
inevitably does, is no more useful than teaching golf by watching it
on TV - perhaps the next trend in education to reduce phys. ed.?








As I've also said to my friends, the fact that
one's skills are obsolete doesn't lessen the significance of their
initial learning or subsequent experience, but it has to be applied
*to the new situation* to be made *useful*.

I also recognize, as I said earlier, that this may not happen until a
generation or two dies off, which is a real problem given the pace of
change.

-tg


.