ADVERTISEMENT

OT: When a politician says they are FOR EDUCATION

A

anon_j0hjgb7us6s1a

Guest
What does that look like in your mind?

Rarely do I hear any more explanation to a statement like that unless it is just saying they will find MORE MONEY for education.

I was just wondering what others think it means.......because I am not sure I ever heard a politician NOT say it at some point.

Please don't make this about your political party.....just wondering what you think of when you hear it because I don't often hear any concrete plans from the politician
 
I always think it means more spending or support of the latest curriculum to sweep the nation.

I've got this thought that soon all education will be boiled down to the individual. Short intervals of individual work on a "pod" interlaced with classroom interaction.

The vague thought would be that each student has his own "program" and moves through each subject at his own pace. It's got to get to that point eventually, because nothing else works. Kids will always get left behind as long as we have traditional classrooms. Too many disparities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_j0hjgb7us6s1a
your two answers are very astute. We all hear it differently. Past experience with it or current occupation can affect what you think of.
.
 
There is nothing wrong with traditional classrooms. People keep saying that but no one in 30 years have came up with a better way. It's all up to the teachers. They have to let them teach the way the need to without cramming all these new theories down there throats, that fail anyway. This is time consuming, it confuses the kid,and it has teachers doing meaningless things so they can say they tried it. I am a traditional educator, I limit new ideas, I teach rigor, and I have found students respond better with structure, and when they know what to expect. I teach students science with at least a two grade or below reading level, but they they score at least 60% proficient on standardized test. I teach them my way, and I will not conform to ideas that does not lead me to a positive outcome.
 
When somebody tells me that they are backing a politician because he is'for education'.....I ask, "What does that mean?"
 
Really broad question, and I don't know that I have an answer personally, but to just sort of disseminate some information. The legislators in central Arkansas are currently trying to assist students with vocational training ranging from small engines to aircraft and everything in between. There is a push in Benton to build a state of the art center that will serve multiple districts, and I believe they will accomplish it.

At the very least, Kim Hammer and Alan Clark do not believe you shove new ideas down teachers throats or throw money at a problem to fix it. I don't know about the rest of them, but when those two say they "are for education" they mean a range between traditional classroom and vocational, and they spend a lot of time with school administration trying to figure out what needs to be done and how to do it. It's honestly impressive to see. I can't vote for either of them based on my location, but I would if I could.
 
It means they are lying yet again.

For some politicians it means they are giving the standard answer to the question w/o any thought on what it really means.

For others it means throw more money at it b/c that gives them more influence to peddle.

For some it means an opportunity for the government to have more control over the raising of kids and thus more opportunity to socially engineer the next generation toward their agenda. Same thing the Nazis intended to do.

We pay more per student than any country on earth by a wide margin with less results than many who pay much less. The more the federal government "does" for education, the farther we seem to slip.
 
As long as politicians are in bed with the teachers union, which protects teachers that fail to teach, education will never improve. Hell the more politicians try and fix something that wasn't broke, until they broke it, the more education will suffer. Of course there's no need for kids to learn to read, write, or do math anymore, as long as they feel good about themselves and a certain percentage of "victims" get passed along to the next grade, whether they can do the work or not. Remember the ultimate goal is NOT equal OPPORTUNITY but equal OUTCOME.
 
When I go to my kids elementary school I am encouraged. The way they teach the kids and encourage leadership and collaboration is very effective. I've seen my daughters confidence and leadership skills take off in the past 2 years. I wish we would have learned this way.

It's less about a teacher standing in front lecturing and keeping order and more about leadership, cooperation and freedom to express.

Because their test scores are so positive the VA Education Dept. allows them to be more flexible than other schools.

Not sure how that applies to the OP... But teachers should be allowed flexibility on how they teach and the good ones deserve a lot more money.
 
When I go to my kids elementary school I am encouraged. The way they teach the kids and encourage leadership and collaboration is very effective. I've seen my daughters confidence and leadership skills take off in the past 2 years. I wish we would have learned this way.

Not sure how that applies to the OP... But teachers should be allowed flexibility on how they teach and the good ones deserve a lot more money.
Teaching across the board needs to be valued more, in money and status.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Modern Cripple
I always think it means more spending or support of the latest curriculum to sweep the nation.

I've got this thought that soon all education will be boiled down to the individual. Short intervals of individual work on a "pod" interlaced with classroom interaction.

The vague thought would be that each student has his own "program" and moves through each subject at his own pace. It's got to get to that point eventually, because nothing else works. Kids will always get left behind as long as we have traditional classrooms. Too many disparities.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has invested hundreds of millions to test best practices (including the Finnish model I believe) and have found many effective and innovative ways to educate. They have invested heavily in Kahn Academy whose founder, Sal Kahn, is a very interesting fellow who is worth following and his (free) online lectures are useful for anyone from early primary education through graduate level classes. I've personally utilized Kahn Academy for PhD work and found it to be an excellent asset. He advocates a process of "flipping" the traditional classroom in primary/secondary education. Basically, lectures for homework (video), then drills (for instance, math problems) in class with realtime digital feedback on how individual students are faring. Advanced students may work ahead or help peers who may be having trouble. The teacher has the ability to identify and focus on the students who need the most one-on-one assistance to keep them at pace with curriculum. At least that is my take. Any rate, I think that savvy politicians are paying close attention to how these educational models are performing in test schools and justifiably so.

https://www.ted.com/talks/salman_khan_let_s_use_video_to_reinvent_education?language=en
 
  • Like
Reactions: gbbaber
No one will ever mistake John Calipari for a politician because he has never uttered the word education.
 
I totally discount what they say ..... even "professional" educators are clueless.

They do not adhere to W.E. Deming .... to paraphrase him education is the impartation of knowledge -- training is the impartation of skill.

The "education" system is oblivious to this as well as to "task-conditions-standards".
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT