Why basic education fails - everywhere

[aelf]

Partially, yes. But most of all I am complaining that we don't give people the tools to handle the influx of information on society and its troubles, structures, institutions, developments etc. Of which a substantial understanding of social sciences is a crucial part.

Public policy! Education! Such does not have to rest on the reality of capitalism. Just look at mandatory classes focusing on literature. We don't have that because the market demands it. We have that because we believe it to be valuable beyond immediate market demands, valuable in a bigger scope of things.
But I think the reason we don't do what I suggest, the reason we don't make an effort to give " people the tools to handle the influx of information on society and its troubles" is because it would also make life a lot harder for the "ruling class". Less fool-able citizens means more work and worries for them. So I fear we can't wait for a political will to arise. The people need to demand it. But there we really have a problem. How to make this happen? Some kind of private initiative would have to be the start. Like how environmental movements gained huge momentum out of private initiatives. But environmental issues are still a lot more tangible and hence more easy to communicate than what I advocate. So yes, quit a challenge.

I think a major difference is that social sciences are often subjective in a way that hard sciences cannot possibly be.

I mean, whether or not communism worked or has ever been tried is a good example. Some would say it has been tried, and failed; some would say it hasn't been tried. That's where the critical thinking comes into play: parsing the differences and seeing relative benefits of each argument.

With the hard sciences, the critical thinking is more related to interpretation of complex subjects and theories, and the development of new subjects and theories. Scientists need to be skilled at analysis and interpretation as well. And, of course, if they're more of an applied science type, they need to know how to take their ideas and make it reality: they are acquainted with natural laws of practicality and availability.

The hard sciences also require a much more comprehensive and detailed body of knowledge of its practitioners than do students of social science. Almost anyone can pontificate on the relative benefits of the embargo on Cuba; it is a rare person indeed that can create a new alloy.

I don't think critical thinking in the hard and social sciences differ fundamentally. That means if you have the tools for one, you have them for the other as well. The difference is in the kind of content you're dealing with. You can indeed say that the social sciences are more subjective, though I prefer to use the term contextual.

My point is that the problem is not really or at least not just about not having the tools. Human beings are contextually limited creatures. We often fail to bring the tools that we use in one context to another. I think that explains why people can succeed in the classroom but fail outside when they could have succeeded if they just applied what they learned in the classroom, and why we get scientifically-minded people who have irrational views about society.

So teaching critical thinking isn't just about giving people the tools to do so - that is being done, at least in some societies, though admittedly not entirely successfully. You also need to get people used to the application of those tools in different contexts. And, as I mentioned, I think part of the reason why that is not being done well has to do with the lack of material/financial incentives. But it's probably also true that while there is an interest in paying lip service to the application of critical thinking, modern society finds the it too troublesome for its efficient functioning to really encourage people to think critically about everything.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The hard sciences also require a much more comprehensive and detailed body of knowledge of its practitioners than do students of social science. Almost anyone can pontificate on the relative benefits of the embargo on Cuba; it is a rare person indeed that can create a new alloy.

Almost anyone can pontificate on creating a new alloy. As you've found, people can even pontificate on rocket science. That's not exactly a 1 to 1 comparison.

 

[downtown]

Basic education clearly doesn't fail EVERYWHERE. If you live in the west, and have a fair amount of money or prestige, you're going to end up attending a pretty good school.

Systemwide, we often fail to reach higher level critical thinking skills because we have failed to cover the basics. If you can't read (and lets not forget, in many countries, even in the west, embarrassingly high numbers of students are failing functional literacy tests!!!), you aren't going to be able to synthesize and analyze arguments well.

 

[Crezth]

Almost anyone can pontificate on creating a new alloy. As you've found, people can even pontificate on rocket science. That's not exactly a 1 to 1 comparison.

Oh... great post, actually. Alright, I concede the point.

I don't think critical thinking in the hard and social sciences differ fundamentally. That means if you have the tools for one, you have them for the other as well.

This is a fair point, I think. I'm not a cognitive scientist (although I can certainly pontificate on it).

 

[Shaihulud]

I would rather people be more aware of physics or biology than social sciences to be honest, better to be an Engineer as a career. Basic education makes you aware of social science, but it seldom makes you care about it. basic education prepares you for a career in learning whatever you will like to concentrate on in the future. from this point of view, I do not see basic education as failing.

 

[Tahuti]

My take on social sciences is that it should be learned autodidacticly: Since critical thinking and social sciences are subjective, copying it from one another without questioning - even from authoritative figures - would kill the very purpose of critical thinking.

In actual sciences, copying from one another is not only possible but arguably the best way to learn it, since trying to figure it out yourself will likely end you up unnecessarily reinventing the wheel - unless you're trying to invent something new of course.

 

[Crezth]

In actual sciences, copying from one another is not only possible but arguably the best way to learn it, since trying to figure it out yourself will likely end you up unnecessarily reinventing the wheel - unless you're trying to invent something new of course.

No. Understanding difficult concepts and procedures often involves engaging with the material in a way that is inexorably tied with critical thinking. You can't get explained through every step of the way and copying someone's homework doesn't teach you anything.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

So teaching critical thinking isn't just about giving people the tools to do so - that is being done, at least in some societies, though admittedly not entirely successfully. You also need to get people used to the application of those tools in different contexts.

That's a good and important point. And IMO that is where basic education does fail (for downtown: almost) everywhere because we don't teach how to handle the media, politics etc nor how to handle the topics they are concerned with (both the expertise of social sciences).
Which means we could - but simply don't make an effort to have responsible citizens.

 

[Tahuti]

You can't get explained through every step of the way and copying someone's homework doesn't teach you anything.

As someone studying computer science, I can relate to this: You should be able to explain why algorithms and such work the way they work, lest you won't have learned anything. What I was trying to say is that, when applying sciences you can afford to learn it from someone else but critical thinking is best figured out indepedently rather than learnt from someone else.

 

[timtofly]

Obtaining critical thinking skills from reading and writing is far better than critical thinking obtained by FP video games. I think that parents are the key and if "alone" time at home is greater than parental involvment concerning education, it is not education, but the environment of the kid itself that is the problem.

My daughter has great analytical skills, but cannot learn anything in 4th grade, because 3/4 of her class are just there to fool around instead of learn anything. The teacher spends most of the time baby sitting instead of teaching. The same thing happened in 3rd, so it is not the teacher, but the short sightedness of the students, who refuse to take advantage of a good education.

 

[aelf]

Yes, obviously kids are rational creatures who should be able to think for the long term. That's not even a very good assumption to make about adults, so relying on parents to teach their kids critical thinking skills is also not going to achieve anything.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

critical thinking is best figured out indepedently rather than learnt from someone else.

Critical thinking is best figured out by practicing it in different contexts - so yes, you can not just read how it is done in principle and there you have your critical thinker. And as I don't think it is feasible to argue that overall people do that sufficiently by themselves, we need someone (the teacher) who makes them do it.
Of course, that is a kind of specific task we would first need to educate teachers in (they may be able to do some critical thinking - teaching it in different contexts relevant to different fields of science and society is a different beast). And that IMO is challenging enough that it would need to be accompanied by higher salaries to attract the personal necessary to make it a success.

 

[timtofly]

Yes, obviously kids are rational creatures who should be able to think for the long term. That's not even a very good assumption to make about adults, so relying on parents to teach their kids critical thinking skills is also not going to achieve anything.

If parents never parent, how would kids even question authority? If the teacher is the only authority figure, how can they teach?

 

[Crezth]

As someone studying computer science, I can relate to this: You should be able to explain why algorithms and such work the way they work, lest you won't have learned anything. What I was trying to say is that, when applying sciences you can afford to learn it from someone else but critical thinking is best figured out indepedently rather than learnt from someone else.

I thought you were arguing that critical thinking was a tool uniquely suited to the social sciences, or that the actual sciences have no need of it. I see what you mean, now.

 

[downtown]

I always roll my eyes hard at people who harp on about the need for reform in the education system. Yes, yes, it needs to be reformed. Now how exactly does it need to be changed?

This isn't a difficult question...although the specific problems vary from country to country.

1) In order for public education to be truly successful nationwide, it needs to provide academic building blocks to {all} students. In the US, 25% of our high schoolers each year do not graduate...and without that certification, they stand essentially no chance of finding sustainable employment. In our urban areas, or with certain demographic groups, that number is closer to 50%. Other western nations, like France, struggle with the same problems. A comprehensive plan to bring up the bottom is critical.

2) Those entrusted with teaching K12 need to be academically and professionally prepared to do so. In our country, this is not the case...we consistently recruit from the bottom third of US university graduates, and from less competitive and demanding universities. We do not treat our teachers like professionals...we dont let them mentor their peers, we do not let them have autonomy over their own classrooms, but we do blame them when things screw up. Teacher compensation needs to be raised, so the profession can attract academically stronger candidates, and the current certification model from university education departments needs to be scrapped. An education degree and a high Praxis score does not correlate with strong teaching. Let's stop requiring them.

3) As a profession, teachers "eat their young". Teachers with the lowest seniority are routinely given the most difficult classroom situations, and current ed policymakers in the Bush and Obama white houses do not trust professional development of teachers. As such, 50% of teachers quit in their first 5 years. That's not sustainable, or smart.

Instead, open the profession up to anybody with a strong record of achievement and a bachelors degree. Have the first year of teaching be a fellowship program...the new teacher teaches for 1-2 hours a day under peer review, and observes or assists the rest of the day, while taking master classes. After that year, take your Praxis and get your own classroom. You'll see retention increase, and kids will benefit from it.

Once you do those things, you'll open up your schedule and ability to hit these higher order thinking skills.

 

[aelf]

If parents never parent, how would kids even question authority? If the teacher is the only authority figure, how can they teach?

Do you have a point?

 

[timtofly]

Do you have a point?

It is not the education system at fault. It is how society uses or abuses the ability to have an education system.

Those kids today who learn great analytical skills and do graduate, do so despite having lax parents and peers who just want to goof off. However, as long as society accepts these conditions, those graduating will fail or not graduate at all, no matter how much you change the educational system. Unless parents get with it, the only solution would be raising the kids seperate and just let the parents, do their own thing. That is basically what happens now, except kids are forced to cope with problems, that are interferring with their learning development.

 

[Crezth]

This isn't a difficult question...although the specific problems vary from country to country.

1) In order for public education to be truly successful nationwide, it needs...
2) Those entrusted with teaching K12 need to be academically and professionally prepared to do so...
3) As a profession, teachers "eat their young"...

Instead, open the profession up to anybody with a strong record of achievement and a bachelors degree. Have the first year of teaching be a fellowship program...the new teacher teaches for 1-2 hours a day under peer review, and observes or assists the rest of the day, while taking master classes. After that year, take your Praxis and get your own classroom. You'll see retention increase, and kids will benefit from it.

Once you do those things, you'll open up your schedule and ability to hit these higher order thinking skills.

(1) needs more detail (mainly as to the subtleties of this "comprehensive plan" you mention) but (2) and (3) are good points. The big problem with your proposal, however, is $$$.

 

[aelf]

It is not the education system at fault. It is how society uses or abuses the ability to have an education system.

Those kids today who learn great analytical skills and do graduate, do so despite having lax parents and peers who just want to goof off. However, as long as society accepts these conditions, those graduating will fail or not graduate at all, no matter how much you change the educational system. Unless parents get with it, the only solution would be raising the kids seperate and just let the parents, do their own thing. That is basically what happens now, except kids are forced to cope with problems, that are interferring with their learning development.

No one said that parents have been great. But since parents can't be counted on, the education system has to take up the slack. I have no idea what you mean by "as long as society accepts these conditions, those graduating will fail or not graduate at all".

 

[downtown]

(1) needs more detail (mainly as to the subtleties of this "comprehensive plan" you mention) but (2) and (3) are good points. The big problem with your proposal, however, is $$$.

RttT was written specifically to go after point 1, and that's a good 100 pages. I mean, if you want me to get into really specific pedagogical details on curriculum, I can I guess. The executive summary is that it places more targeted tracking on very young kids (before 1st grade), to better close the achievement gap while it is still small..and gives a huge carrot to convince states to drastically change their outdated data tracking systems and curriculum.

If you want a cheaper way to boost performance, get rid of summer vacation.