|
Post by Oily on Nov 19, 2004 16:19:38 GMT -5
Quick rundown of UK education system - SATs (not like the US ones) at 7 and 11 and 14 (if in state school.) GCSE course - two years - until 16. Can leave school at 16, or stay on for "sixth form." Lower Sixth - AS Levels; Upper Sixth - A2 Levels. AS is half the A2 course, and is equivalent to half an A2 level.
Sciences, Maths etc are all answering questions. English and History are essays. Languages have writing, reading, speaking and listening sections. Subjects like IT, Art, DT are 60% based on coursework projects, with 40% of marks being the exam. Most subjects have courswork, being anything from 10% to 30% of the marks.
I kind of favour something Britain is moving towards - teacher assessed modules throughout the year, and an exam. A kind of diploma, that advances through various stages. And A* and A** grades at A Level to differentiate betwen the very best students, because our grading system has become diluted, so that 20% of A Level students get A (the top mark).
Britain has coursework, which can make up part of your final grade, and so the exam has less importance, but it's still a big part of your final mark.
Frankly, I take a curious pleasure in exams, because I can excel easily. I take notes, flick over them to learn them, and go and sit the exams, coming out with marks higher than people who swotted for hours. It's unfair, but so's life. I like the grades, because it means you can aim higher and higher. It really motivates people.
I do think curriculums need careful thought though. Seeing young children full of curiosity for learning and enthusiam...and then it's all leeched out of them. I have good teachers, I like to learn, but some lessons just drag so much. I think more emphasis should be placed on motivating and enthusing people, and teaching them interesting things ^^ Well, I can dream.
|
|
|
Post by Smiley on Nov 19, 2004 17:33:26 GMT -5
I definitely prefer grades. How else can I prove that I'm better than all the other students? ^_~
Really, though, I think that if a C was equated to an A, people wouldn't try as hard - I know I wouldn't, and I'm one of the hardest workers in my class. Why bother? A pass is a pass, right?
Standardized tests... well, I really liked them last year, mainly because we sat in alphabetical order and my crush has a last name right next to mine. But besides that, it was a mix of bubbles and essays. That makes it easier, and sort of eases the tension a bit - it gives you more of a chance to make an impression, you can express your ideas more. Bubbles don't allow you to explain yourself much, so if you chose an answer for a certain reason, you can't say why you did it, which definitely works against you.
I test very well, so I don't necessarily hate standardized tests. Sadly, teachers often teach just for the test, with which I don't agree. It's a measure of you over the course of three days (that's usually how long our tests take, anyway), while your actual grade in a class measures the entire semester. Which is more important? Which showcases your abilites better? And if you're stuck with a bad day, then your tests will reflect that - and people won't know or care.
If I controlled education, though, kids would have self-guided curriculums and would teach themselves. For each unit they would write a paper summing up everything that they learned, and then move on to the next unit. It's completely based on research and self-discovery, through the internet, books, magazines, etc. Students would probably be more involved in school because they can choose their own reign of study and do things that interest them. There would be certain requirements - such as "math" and "science," a really broad view of things - and perhaps a deadline (preferably one that can change, in case the student would like to research more in-depth). I know that I would definitely thrive in that environment.
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Nov 19, 2004 18:53:12 GMT -5
Quick rundown of UK education system - SATs (not like the US ones) at 7 and 11 and 14 (if in state school.) GCSE course - two years - until 16. Can leave school at 16, or stay on for "sixth form." Lower Sixth - AS Levels; Upper Sixth - A2 Levels. AS is half the A2 course, and is equivalent to half an A2 level. Sciences, Maths etc are all answering questions. English and History are essays. Languages have writing, reading, speaking and listening sections. Subjects like IT, Art, DT are 60% based on coursework projects, with 40% of marks being the exam. Most subjects have courswork, being anything from 10% to 30% of the marks. I kind of favour something Britain is moving towards - teacher assessed modules throughout the year, and an exam. A kind of diploma, that advances through various stages. And A* and A** grades at A Level to differentiate betwen the very best students, because our grading system has become diluted, so that 20% of A Level students get A (the top mark). Britain has coursework, which can make up part of your final grade, and so the exam has less importance, but it's still a big part of your final mark. Frankly, I take a curious pleasure in exams, because I can excel easily. I take notes, flick over them to learn them, and go and sit the exams, coming out with marks higher than people who swotted for hours. It's unfair, but so's life. I like the grades, because it means you can aim higher and higher. It really motivates people. I do think curriculums need careful thought though. Seeing young children full of curiosity for learning and enthusiam...and then it's all leeched out of them. I have good teachers, I like to learn, but some lessons just drag so much. I think more emphasis should be placed on motivating and enthusing people, and teaching them interesting things ^^ Well, I can dream. Wow, that totally went WAAAAY over my head.
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Nov 19, 2004 18:56:29 GMT -5
Anyways, that's not the main problem with the American education system. The real problem is much, much simpler - money. Yeah, but the problem with that is, it's hard to get people to support spending taxes on education, because not everyone cares. Everyone cares about medical insurance, or social security, because it effects everyone eventually. But education is only important to the ones who are in school, or who have children in school. No one else wants their hard-earned money to be spent on someone else's kids.
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Nov 19, 2004 19:18:08 GMT -5
Yeah, but the problem with that is, it's hard to get people to support spending taxes on education, because not everyone cares. Everyone cares about medical insurance, or social security, because it effects everyone eventually. But education is only important to the ones who are in school, or who have children in school. No one else wants their hard-earned money to be spent on someone else's kids. That's part of it. Along with the fact that those making the laws and deciding the spending are 50 years old - they've been out of any kind of schooling whatsoever for decades and, as is human nature, if it doesn't affect them, they don't care.
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Nov 19, 2004 21:58:56 GMT -5
If I controlled education, though, kids would have self-guided curriculums and would teach themselves. For each unit they would write a paper summing up everything that they learned, and then move on to the next unit. It's completely based on research and self-discovery, through the internet, books, magazines, etc. Students would probably be more involved in school because they can choose their own reign of study and do things that interest them. There would be certain requirements - such as "math" and "science," a really broad view of things - and perhaps a deadline (preferably one that can change, in case the student would like to research more in-depth). I know that I would definitely thrive in that environment. I'm actually doing a sort of 'course' on that right now. It follows the American syllabus in Biology, and is done through computer. I don't really like it - it's fine, but having someone explain things to you as opposed to reading it just seems to make better sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Nov 20, 2004 5:00:08 GMT -5
Should their be grades in education? Should we group kids based on intelligence or based on age? Is standerized testing good or bad? Is there a better way to easily test and compare results between schools? Kids should never, ever be grouped based on 'intelligence' Performance is one thing, but any kids grouped by intelligence would really only be grouped by percieved intelligence. In some studies I was watching, they did find out that the expectations teachers have for a student have a huge impact on how well a student does. This is for several different reasons- Oportunity to respond; children with higher expectations on them are given more of a chance to respond. More time is given to them to formulate a responce, and more detailed feedback is given to them. Also mediocre responces from these children are not accpeted and the child is encouraged to think more critically. One of the more important things given to the children expected to do well is personal attention and more importantly- praise. An expirement done about this at an elementary school. The principal was working with researchers but the teachers were not clued in. Childrens names were drawn from a hat, and the teachers were given these names and told that those children had scored amazingly high on an aptatude test and would develop very well over the next year. The teachers were told also to not tell the children or let on about it. The children that the teachers were told would do well, though there was no basis for the random choice, *did* improve at a greater rate then their peers that did not get the recomendations. (This was gauged through testing) Classes are often over crowded and teachers do not always have time to give children the personal attention that they need. Some teachers will spend more time on the children they think have the most potential. The opposite is that children with low expectations of them will often not get the attention and special encouragment that they need, and will get lost in the shuffle of modern education. If children were grouped by intelligence then the children who were considered less intelligent would not get the proper oportunities that they would need to excel. As for letter grades, there are many different ways you can fail and pass. You can fail by doing nothing at all, you can fail by not doing enough or not doing what you have done right. You can pass by the skin of your teeth, or by doing pretty well, or by busting your butt to do well and the people who work extra hard and go beyond what was called for should be recognized for it, even if it's just with a letter grade. There is a lot wrong with education in this country. I thin some people are a little snobby about it- this one guy was going on once about how modern education churns out people with no critical thinking skills and no desire to learn outside of what they are expressly taught. I think that we all know many exceptions to that kind of cruel generalization. However I also know many people who I feel were failed by the education system. I knew (I was a teacher's aide in my senior year for Freshman Seminar) a large number of ninth graders who were barely literate. I have no idea how they made it to High School. The papers that they turned in were quite literally unreadable. To a large extent I believe that there should be personal responsibility, but I also feel that schools often pass through people who should not have been passed, just so they no longer have to deal with them. "Who cares if they can't read? At least they're not in my class anymore..." I had some guidance counsellors who thought that all of my performance problems could be solved by drugging me into oblivion. In reality I think that having teachers that didn't publicly embarass me or 'make an example' out of me would have helped me much more. School was a battle ground for me, a total nightmare for most of my education. The worst years were easily fifth through seventh grade. (Though my troubles started in third grade, I think...) Those three years the biggest damage to any shread of self worth I may have had were my teachers. I was filed away and written off... Ah, but I guess I'm coming off as pretty bitter about the whole thing. Despite all that it is truly amazing what can be done by even one teacher who cares, or even simply seems to care. Even if it is something maybe as simple as telling a person that they did a good job, that they are good at something, making them feel like they have worth. You want so badly to please that teacher, you'll try so hard to make them notice you again. Really, it's been asked what would give a student incentive to try. In seventh grade I wrote a book report (One in an endless sea of hundreds....) but this time I was allowed to pick the book. I read and did a report on the Andromeda Strain. The teacher took a look at the title of the book I read, didn't even read the report, put an 'A' on it and handed it back to me. Didn't read even a single word of that stupid report, she just was surprised that I could read a book that 'hard'. Easily the most empty and worthless A ever. I would have loved even a B if she had read what I took the time to wrote. (This was a teacher that some people called 'so nice!', who wouldn't even learn my first name.) What was that supposed to do? It was not hard book, it was not something I was proud of. I thought I had done a good job on the paper, but after that I wondered why I had tried, when I would have gotten an A no matter what I wrote. I do recognize that a lot of my academic problems were my own darn fault. Most, I'm sure. However I don't think some teachers realize how much even the simplist of words can help or hurt a person. Especially if the same things are told to you day after day. It can really wear on you after a while. I think that most people, if given a proper chance, can really surprise you. The way the education system is now, many people will never get that chance.
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Nov 20, 2004 10:53:04 GMT -5
Well, I don't think the entire education system has gone to ruins. I didn't have any problems with my teachers. But then again, I may have gotten lucky with my teachers. My art teacher was the biggest influence on my education, and is the reason I'm where I am today. But it's only because she cared so much about our learning. In fact, she rebelled more against the rules than we did.
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Nov 20, 2004 15:18:45 GMT -5
No, of course the whole system isn't in ruins. Some parts of it are great, I'm sure. It's just that there are some really bad bits here and there... Funding is a big problem too.
I know my last post sounded pretty bitter, but I did have some very great teachers and different points. My mythology teacher was wonderful, my Elementary school art teacher, my World History teacher, to name a few.
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Nov 20, 2004 16:05:35 GMT -5
Another problem with education is that it's one-size-fits-all. Kids who don't want to work are lumped in with those who can't and those who want to. However, the system can't diversify too much, because of funding.
Though, TEOW, some teachers just love the "challenging" pupils instead though. Most of my normal teachers ignored me, because I was doing well anyway, and they knew I would be fine. But I was under stretched and so frustrated and bored. I blossomed in a private school, so happy just to be working and creative. I loved having a system that allowed me to work and achieve. I was sometimes just ignored in state schools - I would sit there, having done the work, while people around me struggled.
I would quite like to set up the "no frills" private schools our government is proposing. A smaller fee than normal for a private school. I could cut down the hours, condense the lessons, offer a few facilties and good teachers. I would motivate and encourage self learning and prod people into higher standards than ever ^^ I'd really like to fund one of those schools, when I get rich.
And grammar schools. Selective state schools, that pick children on ability but are free. I think the education system needs to be allowed to diversify.
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Nov 20, 2004 16:07:18 GMT -5
My mythology teacher was wonderful, . Wait a sec.... Mythology teacher? Was that a high school course? .... If so, I wish our school had a Mythology class..... ;___;
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Nov 20, 2004 18:48:51 GMT -5
In my High School we had block scheduling, so that we had four ninty mintue classes in a day, and one forty five minute one. The 90 minute classes were for one semester each, and the 45 minute one went all year. Mythology class was my full year class senior year. It was really great. Mrs Klein was also an English teacher, so she gave us great writing assignments.
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Nov 21, 2004 19:54:00 GMT -5
I like the ABCDF system. It lets you tailor it to your own needs: for me, keeping a perfect 4.0 is something challenging but doable. For friends of mine, keeping a B in most classes (and a C in that durned geometry) is challenging but doable. We both have goals to work towards. Pass/fail classes don't give that. I'm not un-fond of standardized testing. 'Round here, it only determines how much money your school gets. *shrugs* The only thing that really gets me is when standardized testing influences the coursework. I *would* like classes based on a combination of intelligence, age, and knowledge, though. I'm a quick learner, and classes geared towards the average student--all of elementary school, basically--tend to be boring at best and absolute torture at worst. The gifted programs (and Mom's battles with my teachers and the administration) saved me through elementary school. Now that I'm in a high school with a lot of customization in the coursework, though, it's great--Algebra II/Trig, being composed only of the folks who survived a couple of advanced math courses previously, can go at a pace that works well for me, and Algebra II can go at a slower pace that works well for other folks
|
|
|
Post by sollunaestrella on Nov 22, 2004 9:58:44 GMT -5
I like the grading system. It shows what areas need work and what areas you are really excelling. Like Smiley said, without that system, how can I tell that I'm better than everyone else? Standardized testing? A necessary evil. Actually, I kind of like it. It's fun. Why are you all looking at me like that? But no, I really think that standardized testing is necessary - to tell how schools are doing, students are doing, etc. You can't tell that from anything but testing. As for class groupings... I really, really wish they had been grouped more by performance than age. School basically bores me to death. Well, now that I'm in high school and there are more levelled courses, it's not so bad, and there's more work to keep me entertained (and a little bit too entertained at times, but nyeh, I can't complain after middle school). In middle school, even being a level ahead in math and in an "accelerated" English program, school was devilishly boring and slow. I was with all kids my own age. A lot of the time I had nothing to do. Like Oily, I was basically ignored because expectations were a little higher for me while teachers focused on getting everyone else to understand. I don't think there should be anything too ridiculous, like a five-year-old in an AP high school course or something, but I don't see any harm in moving some kids up a little bit higher than they might be able to normally.
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Nov 22, 2004 14:14:02 GMT -5
I like it when students in the same age level are grouped together with people of the same academic ability. That way, the quicklearner students can work at a faster pace, and not be so bored, and the other students can be in classes geared to their learning pace. I liked that better, because Geometry class was everyone, grades 9-12, who needed Geometry. Thus, we were stuck with the slow-as-continental-drift 12th graders who were repeating 12th grade for the third time in a row, and who couldn't figure out how to add. Oh gosh, I hated that class so much, because our teacher had to go so slow, and had to explain one basic idea for the entire class, while I was tearing out my hair from extreme boredom. Then again, if you group the smart people together, they become isolated, and taken out of reality. I knew this one girl who was all in accelerated classes for high school, with the best and the brightest, all people who wanted to try hard and all that stuff. And when we got into a discussion about drugs, she refused to believe that anyone in our school did drugs or horrible things like that, because she was completely isolated from them. (While I, on the other hand, knew from my art classes that there were a ton of druggies at school, and they even smoked pot in the art-hallway bathroom. -__-) But sheesh, she was so isolated, completely naive. She's in college now, I hope she's not devastated by reality.
|
|