Thread: there is no hope for the young poeple

Originally Posted by Ron Dunn

Spirit, are students more literate today than 50 years ago? No.

Are they more numerate? No.

Do they have a better knowledge of history or geography? No.

Can they all stand around in a circle, give each other hugs, and sing Kumbaya? Yes. Well, probably not sing.

Children aged between 12 and 17 went through exactly the same changes in their lives 50 years ago ... 100 years ago ... and they survived just fine. What started to screw them up is when we went soft on kicking their backsides occasionally, and moving them out of school when they reached their limit.

We took all the risk out of their lives, wrapped them in cotton wool, and told them how special and talented they were ... and now we wonder why they are completely self-centred, completely unaware of risk and responsibility, and academically incompetent.

As one who was a student 50 years ago and had a good education for the time, who went to uni as a mature age student in my late 40s and who now teaches TAFE students, I have to disagree on just about every point. They are certainly more literate than we were. Not only do they read at least as widely, but generally their writing is of a much higher standard.
As a student doing a maths degree, who had used a reasonable level of maths (not just arithmetic) at work, I often found myself getting help from students less than half my age, and sometimes from my children.
When I did history at school, it ended with 19th century Europe. We didn't do geography, and science consisted of physics and chemistry - no geology, biology or computing. I've really had to bring myself up to speed just so that I can talk to my students without sounding ignorant.
Oh, and if I remember correctly, Kumbayah was early '60s.

Funny, but I vividly remember in my teens my old man made a lot of the same points as have been made here.

What's that mean? It means that we're old, and they're not

When I look at my grand children, I don't think there is much wrong with the current generation.

Sure, a lot of them can't spell if their lives depended on it. But then, they don't have to, they have SMS, we didn't. They just communicate in a different way.

They are absolutely hopeless at mental arithmetic, but then they have calculators and Excel, we didn't.

Give them 2 kids and a mortgage and they will all grow up and be miserable like the rest of us.

Alex, how do you explain the fact that every university decries the numeracy and literacy skills of current entrants? Why are some universities discussing remedial summer classes for new enrolments?

Have you seen the way these kids write? No longer is a pen (or pencil) a tool of finesse - but a blunt instrument bludgeoned around the page. They're taught to hold a pen like a cockatoo clutches a perch!

I was in Vietnam a couple of weeks ago, and visited my wife's niece's school. I was blown away by the relative beauty of the script I saw being taught and used - it reminded me of the way my Great Aunts used to write.

I wish I had a way to run a test, but these days I'd probably be arrested as a paedophile as an adult male going near a primary school I'd love to take a set of class readers from the 1950s and take them to the equivalent grades to see how well they manage to read. I'd also love the chance to try some basic arithmetic from the same period, WITHOUT giving the little darlings access to their calculators, PDAs or handphones.

Our standards slip away every year, because we just don't care about measurement any more. Measurement allows a whiff of competition between students, and that MUST be bad ... they all have to achieve the same mediocrity, right?

I take very little notice of what those running universities say these days. They are mostly economic puppets. They are a bit like used car salesmen in that they will say anything to increase their income stooping low enough to pretend they need even further fee paying courses to bring kids up to speed.

I think we have had a few pathetic conservative right wing governments who have turned universites from places of learning to places run by boring straight laced conservative accountants making universites business units with budgets and instant outcomes to satisfy loud mothed business people.

I too teach younger people and sure, some areas seem to have lower standards but many other areas are far superior to my boring British colonial education set by boring conservative politicians.

For example, I recall when our kids were at school. Instead of being good little pupils memorising crap history dates they had to address issues such as "Why was Captain Cook sent to discover Australia?" which is far more relevant than memorising the name of his ship, the date he was born, the date he so called discovered Australia and the date he died. This was at Primary School level.

The horrible rotten education system that I survived placed more emphasis on the colour and the size of your margins rather than what was written to the right of them.

I have not read any novels since being tortured in HSC (1973) by the crap that was forced upon us in English.

Fortunately my areas of expertise were in maths and science so I survived.

I was strapped, punched, kicked, slapped and expelled by so called pillars of the community teachers (conservative right wing god fearing fools) up until I was 17. This happened at Victorian Government schools.

Yes, I do have tertiary qualifications but no thanks to the rotten Primary and Secondary education system that I endured.

No, I didn't sit back and complain - I served on School Councils for 15 years with a few of those years as President of a School Council. I served on these councils in order to attempt to improve on the pathetic system that I went through. I know of many others who did it for the same reason.

I think the current system although not perfect, is miles ahead of that in the past but that wouldn't be too difficult. I agree there is always room for improvement.

Let's not talk about the good old days because they weren't very good at all in my opinion.

Very interesting. The posts by Alex, Ron, BigShed and WoodBorer are widely different in approach and could be vehemently opposed by each other, but all make good points. Let's take all those points as true, with some latitude of interpretation. What then? All the following is only MHO, of course.

- Kids are not more stupid than before. Even assuming that the human brain itself has not evolved much from the times of Plato, better nutrition and enormous expansion of access to information would point to improvement. Too bad for those who live too close to a lead smelter, progress has its victims, has it not?

- What is important to learn has changed dramatically and the exponential increase of knowledge requires our relatively unchanged brain to deal with it much more selectively than in the relatively simpler earlier times of learning some standard crap by rote. Don't they say that medical knowledge is now doubling every five years? Teaching to think is the key, and at least now this is recognised, although getting from the principle to the practice is still difficult.

One problem is that Australia is caught in a time warp. Up to 30-40 years ago it was not that important, life in the colonies was simpler. Until 1948 If you wanted a PhD you went back to Mother England to get it. Now that the world has became smaller, distance is not a "tyranny" any more, but it is not a protection either: being 10 year behind the leading edge is now an obvious problem. The fact that some bright people are at the leading edge in some particular field does not disprove the general statement.

The bottom line is in the old saying that those who know how, do it; whose who know a little, write about it; those who know **** all, teach it. The little truth behind the joke is valid everywhere, but it is magnified here because it is enshrined in the education system. Those too educationally challenged to get the marks for enrolling in a course leading to a profession can scrape enough marks to enrol in a teaching degree. Furthermore, while in continental Europe for the past 50 years people teaching academic subjects to children older than 12 had to be "lecturers" with a masters degree in the subject they teach, here they are "teachers" who are supposed to know how to "teach" anything from finger painting to calculus, with the obvious results. In this respect the excuse of isolation and distance is still invoked. The obvious answer is to use electronic media for the lectures, retrain some teachers to guide the process to maximise the effectiveness for each student and sack the others, but the profession closes ranks to protect its incompetence, wouldn't they all?

Over.

Some interesting comments there F&E.

I think you will find in the case of Alex and myself that we took up teaching after semi-retiring which in our case negates your point about those who don't know teach.

The education system like many government and private organisations rewards those who are skilled at their job by removing them from that job in the case of promotions. For example, principals are paid more than class room teachers. Principals are heavily into administration, politics and managing. If you are a good classroom teacher but would like more $'s then in most cases you have to leave the classroom and work in an office!

Those who are good in industry are strongly dissuaded from becoming teachers. For example, you immediately drop pay and sign an agreement to accept any posting within the state on completion of your teaching qualification. That's what I was told by the Victorian Education Dept in the 80's when I made enquiries.

I don't agree with electronic lectures on the basis there is little to no feedback between the person delivering the lecture and the student. It becomes obvious whether or not your message is hitting the spot when you are face to face enabling you to change tactics and or pace in either a positive or negative direction.

I don't agree on the idea of necessarily having extremely highly qualified teachers. Good teachers are good teachers and poor ones are poor no matter what their qualifications. It's about communication I feel.

There are some quite complex concepts that I have learned brilliantly from people with very few qualifications and I have sat in lectures and not taken in anything from people with alphabets behind their names and of course the opposite. In other words I feel there are natural good teachers.

Poor outcomes with many students can be traced back to their upbringing rather than their standard of education.

Originally Posted by Frank&Earnest

Very interesting. The posts by Alex, Ron, BigShed and WoodBorer are widely different in approach and could be vehemently opposed by each other, but all make good points. Let's take all those points as true, with some latitude of interpretation. What then? All the following is only MHO, of course.

- Kids are not more stupid than before. Even assuming that the human brain itself has not evolved much from the times of Plato, better nutrition and enormous expansion of access to information would point to improvement. Too bad for those who live too close to a lead smelter, progress has its victims, has it not?

- What is important to learn has changed dramatically and the exponential increase of knowledge requires our relatively unchanged brain to deal with it much more selectively than in the relatively simpler earlier times of learning some standard crap by rote. Don't they say that medical knowledge is now doubling every five years? Teaching to think is the key, and at least now this is recognised, although getting from the principle to the practice is still difficult.

One problem is that Australia is caught in a time warp. Up to 30-40 years ago it was not that important, life in the colonies was simpler. Until 1948 If you wanted a PhD you went back to Mother England to get it. Now that the world has became smaller, distance is not a "tyranny" any more, but it is not a protection either: being 10 year behind the leading edge is now an obvious problem. The fact that some bright people are at the leading edge in some particular field does not disprove the general statement.

The bottom line is in the old saying that those who know how, do it; whose who know a little, write about it; those who know **** all, teach it. The little truth behind the joke is valid everywhere, but it is magnified here because it is enshrined in the education system. Those too educationally challenged to get the marks for enrolling in a course leading to a profession can scrape enough marks to enrol in a teaching degree. Furthermore, while in continental Europe for the past 50 years people teaching academic subjects to children older than 12 had to be "lecturers" with a masters degree in the subject they teach, here they are "teachers" who are supposed to know how to "teach" anything from finger painting to calculus, with the obvious results. In this respect the excuse of isolation and distance is still invoked. The obvious answer is to use electronic media for the lectures, retrain some teachers to guide the process to maximise the effectiveness for each student and sack the others, but the profession closes ranks to protect its incompetence, wouldn't they all?

Over.

you are a hard man frank
Teenagers don't just need to learn at school ,schools play main function in this going stage
Humans a pack animal YES or NO schools have to manage this in a positive way ,they may not listen but they are always watching .Roll modeling that's what teacher should be, teenagers should be exposed to as many good roll models as possible, peers and adults .

Originally Posted by Wood Borer

Some interesting comments there F&E.

I think you will find in the case of Alex and myself that we took up teaching after semi-retiring which in our case negates your point about those who don't know teach.

The education system like many government and private organisations rewards those who are skilled at their job by removing them from that job in the case of promotions. For example, principals are paid more than class room teachers. Principals are heavily into administration, politics and managing. If you are a good classroom teacher but would like more $'s then in most cases you have to leave the classroom and work in an office!

Those who are good in industry are strongly dissuaded from becoming teachers. For example, you immediately drop pay and sign an agreement to accept any posting within the state on completion of your teaching qualification. That's what I was told by the Victorian Education Dept in the 80's when I made enquiries.

I don't agree with electronic lectures on the basis there is little to no feedback between the person delivering the lecture and the student. It becomes obvious whether or not your message is hitting the spot when you are face to face enabling you to change tactics and or pace in either a positive or negative direction.

I don't agree on the idea of necessarily having extremely highly qualified teachers. Good teachers are good teachers and poor ones are poor no matter what their qualifications. It's about communication I feel.

There are some quite complex concepts that I have learned brilliantly from people with very few qualifications and I have sat in lectures and not taken in anything from people with alphabets behind their names and of course the opposite. In other words I feel there are natural good teachers.

Poor outcomes with many students can be traced back to their upbringing rather than their standard of education.

can l ask a question
how can the schools or will the school do something different stop the flow of students slipping though the system and getting lost

Originally Posted by Ron Dunn

Alex, how do you explain the fact that every university decries the numeracy and literacy skills of current entrants? Why are some universities discussing remedial summer classes for new enrolments?Universities always have and always will complain about the literacy & numeracy skills of their current entrants. Today, they have some justification. A higher proportion of students than ever before are going to Uni, including, probably, a number who shouldn't be going to uni. Also, today, we have more students than ever for whom English is a 2nd language. You'd have to expect their English literacy to be a little below par.

Have you seen the way these kids write? No longer is a pen (or pencil) a tool of finesse - but a blunt instrument bludgeoned around the page. They're taught to hold a pen like a cockatoo clutches a perch! And when it comes to a slide rule, why goodness gracious. They don't even know how it works! On the other hand, they can usually use a calculator or keyboard much more efficiently than us old pharts.

I was in Vietnam a couple of weeks ago, and visited my wife's niece's school. I was blown away by the relative beauty of the script I saw being taught and used - it reminded me of the way my Great Aunts used to write.Very nice, but is it relevant to Australian children?

... I'd also love the chance to try some basic arithmetic from the same period, WITHOUT giving the little darlings access to their calculators, PDAs or handphones. Why? These are the tools they have. When I trained, we wasted hours doing calcs with 7 & 13 figure logs, and a surveyor from the Roman or Egyption empires probably would have said we had it easy because we didn't have to do the calcs longhand.
Who designed these high-tech calculators, phones & software? In most cases, it's people younger than you & me, and you don't design these things without a good knowledge of maths & science.

WB & Spirit have addressed some of the other issues more eloquently than I could.

Thanks Wood Borer. I see that we agree on two integral weaknesses of the system, the application of Peter's principle (everybody is promoted to his/her level of incompetence) and that "Those who are good in industry are strongly dissuaded from becoming teachers". For these very reasons, however, I am sure you would accept me saying, with all respect, that "I think you will find in the case of Alex and myself that we took up teaching after semi-retiring which in our case negates your point about those who don't know teach." is a non sequitur. It might, but not necessarily does, negate it.

You say that you do not agree with my proposed solution, but I actually agree with what you give as reasons for not agreeing: only, it appears that you do not see how these obstacles can be overcome and cling to them to resist change, which is of course consistent with the need for self preservation of the profession.

"I don't agree with electronic lectures on the basis there is little to no feedback between the person delivering the lecture and the student. It becomes obvious whether or not your message is hitting the spot when you are face to face enabling you to change tactics and or pace in either a positive or negative direction.
...
I don't agree on the idea of necessarily having extremely highly qualified teachers. Good teachers are good teachers and poor ones are poor no matter what their qualifications. It's about communication I feel."

This is what I meant by saying that some of the teachers should be retrained to "guide the process to maximise the effectiveness for each student", while electronic lectures (replacing the masters degrees of 50 years ago) guarantee the technical competence that many teachers do not possess: there is still room for teaching skills.

One obvious example is the teaching of languages. A teacher with pronunciation weaknesses is bound to pass on these weaknesses to his/her students. But if the students hear from a tape the "correct" (whatever that is agreed to be) pronunciation, the teacher can concentrate on managing the learning process.

F&E,

I think all our views have some degree of similarity, we have identified similar negative issues and we have all presented solutions.

Why have we come up with different solutions? I think we might be influenced by our individual life experiences and learning styles.

For example, my preferred learning style is using basic concepts rather than parrot fashion learning and so I teach using that style.

For example, it is merely coincidental that I happen to know the formula for the volume of a sphere. It is merely coincidental that I know the value of phi. Using basic concepts, I can quickly derive both along with the formula for the volume of many other solids and their variations using basic principles.

I don't need to remember the formulae for the gain of common transistor circuits or op amp circuits, I don't need to remember the formulae for motion. Using basic concepts I can derive these using a stick in the sand on a beach.

I don't need to remember the circuit diagram for two switches controlling one light - I can derive these from basic principles be it two switches or more.

I apply the same principles to designing woodwork joints and pieces of furniture. The only plans I follow are my own and they are again based on sound basic principles.

I know this style frustrates some of my students as they place more emphasis on the result rather than the method of solution.

One of your points I don't understand is the comment about

"I think you will find in the case of Alex and myself that we took up teaching after semi-retiring which in our case negates your point about those who don't know teach." is a non sequitur. It might, but not necessarily does, negate it.

Speaking for myself, I don't feel I am teaching because I am useless writing about or professionally putting the subjects I teach into practice. I am semi retired and I thoroughly enjoy sharing with others my experiences and skills. Financially I don't need to teach at all.

I know AlexS quite well despite being in different states and I feel his views will be similar.

I am sure I have misinterpreted your point.

Mention was made of slide rules. It was only last week that I took one of my old slide rules into one of my woodwork classes that I conduct for year 7's at a local school. They were intrigued and fascinated that such a device existed let alone the functions it performed. It is currently on loan to the school.

Originally Posted by Wood Borer

One of your points I don't understand is the comment about

"I think you will find in the case of Alex and myself that we took up teaching after semi-retiring which in our case negates your point about those who don't know teach." is a non sequitur. It might, but not necessarily does, negate it.

Speaking for myself, I don't feel I am teaching because I am useless writing about or professionally putting the subjects I teach into practice. I am semi retired and I thoroughly enjoy sharing with others my experiences and skills. Financially I don't need to teach at all.

My apologies for not having been clearer. As you said, communication is much easier face to face...

All I was trying to convey is that it is a logic fallacy to say that because a couple of people who have semi-retired into teaching are competent in the area they teach, all those who semi-retire into teaching are competent in the area they teach. You might know yourself people who have lost their job in middle age for not having kept up to date in their profession and have found a job in teaching, for which they end up not even having the necessary enthusiasm. Besides, there is no guarantee that a semi-retired mathematician who today teaches calculus admirably will not be asked tomorrow to teach finger painting and, much more unfortunately, viceversa. Which is bad enough in primary school, but IMHO criminal at high school level.
.

Originally Posted by Frank&Earnest

My apologies for not having been clearer. As you said, communication is much easier face to face...

All I was trying to convey is that it is a logic fallacy to say that because a couple of people who have semi-retired into teaching are competent in the area they teach, all those who semi-retire into teaching are competent in the area they teach. You might know yourself people who have lost their job in middle age for not having kept up to date in their profession and have found a job in teaching, for which they end up not even having the necessary enthusiasm. Besides, there is no guarantee that a semi-retired mathematician who today teaches calculus admirably will not be asked tomorrow to teach finger painting and, much more unfortunately, viceversa. Which is bad enough in primary school, but IMHO criminal at high school level.
.

with your finger painting to vce maths point is just a bit of grandstanding frank only history teachers do finger painting as a second subject
schools are a business now they don't put people to far from their field

most of the time teacher subject stays the same only the year level changes

Originally Posted by Wood Borer

I know AlexS quite well despite being in different states and I feel his views will be similar.
They are.

Mention was made of slide rules. It was only last week that I took one of my old slide rules into one of my woodwork classes that I conduct for year 7's at a local school. They were intrigued and fascinated that such a device existed let alone the functions it performed. It is currently on loan to the school....in their ancient history museum

...but did they understand (or could they work out) why it worked?

This discussion has moved on quite a bit from the original topic, which was how hopeless or otherwise today's youth are.
My experience of school teachers is that they are not much different to what they were 50 years ago - a few are hopeless and should find another job, most are quite competent, and a few are inspiring. It would be a big step forward if the best teachers were able to get pay increases as recognition of their teaching ability, without having to go into administration.
I'd also like to see teachers have to work somewhere else before going into a classroom. When I was at school, a couple of the maths teachers had been WWII bomber navigators - they could certainly make maths more interesting. Another good science teacher whom I knew at uni had left school at 16, had 3 kids and only ever worked as a barmaid or waitress until
she went to uni in her late 30s. After she graduated, she worked in the lab at Cascade brewery, and had another baby, before becoming a teacher because of the more friendly hours. That sort of experience doesn't guarantee that someone will be a good teacher, but it sure helps.