Is the easiest way to improve public education is to help the dimmer children?

There is a lot of talk about how public education fails. Many solution revolve around testing, intensive reading programs, and the ilk.

Half of the population has below 100 IQ. For these people college may be an interesting way to spend time but it they will not sauced even with the most diligent work at challenging majors.

Wouldn't we be setter off preparing the left side of the bell curve for jobs which they can do? Vocational training in a broad spectrum of skills would help a great deal. However, this sort of thing is not spoken of much. Why is that?

denominator. Judging from our elected officials the last dozen years it appears to be working fabulously.

the basics - math, reading and writing. This is depressing because many if not most of the state tests have been "dumbed down". This has caused schools to concentrate on the basic courses and target those who need help. This emphasis has cost advanced students to some degree. The tests have also shown problems with the schools. Curricula has been improved in many states. "Teaching to the test" now means teaching the state curricula - in many cases an improvement. School weaknesses have been identified and can be dealt with. The tests need improvement without doubt. The law needs amendment to handle special education needs. What we can't seem to deal with is home environment.

...but there are a lot of parents who wont' take the TV out of their kids bedroom and make them read books.

:thumbsup:

Yesterday, it was so cool.. Shes only two so I don't think she was reading it so much are reciting from memory and it was just brown bear but I think shes going to love reading... Such a gift as I never took to it no matter what my mother tried.

You can make a kid read books but you cant make them like it..

That automatically sets up half of a group for failure.

I remember the difference between taking college liberal arts vs. science classes. In a history class, everyone could do well. In a science or math class, you could get a 92% and you could get a D. In fact, I took an economics test once where the highest score in the entire CLASS was a 7 out of 100. But because of the bell curve, my 4 got me a B, if you can believe it.

Second of all, I agree that there should be more vocational training, but I think you can have it in the same schools, the way some guys used to go off into shop, or something. We weren't so separated.

where there was a Bell Curve. I always heard about them, but none of my professors had one. There was one test once where a professor added 10 pts. to every single test taker. But, that's the closest to any curve I received in college. Thank God. I think that a curved exam would infuriate me.

A prof throws out the 5% of highest scores and the 5% of lowest scores and curves the rest. Curves are only applied to individual exams and things like papers and homework are straight graded on percent.

It's the system. We emphasize reading/math over other subjects because the focus on achievement tests.

This country is full of WAY too many children who...

live in homes with lead paint
have various learning disabilities
have no bedtime so they stay up until midnight every day of the week
eat one meal a day, that being school lunch
have parents (or usually A parent) who doesn't notice their children--whether it's from apathy or overwork doesn't matter to the child
have no books, no computer (or at least one that isn't full of violent video games), no educational DVDs, no entertainment outlet whatsoever except for a television

Shall I go on? The thing is, when you dump well-fed, well-rested, well-supervised children into the same classroom with kids who just ARE, and then tell the teacher she has to get ALL her students up to standard "or else," the teacher will spend most of her time attempting to teach, and mostly attempt to maintain discipline among, the handful of kids who are going to be left behind no matter how many brazillion dollars we give Shrub's little brother.

Either way ya go, it's not the child's fault. In such glaring incidences of child abuse, a teacher is required by law to report them.

reading and writing would be the only thing they focus on until the third grade...

Sure you can read about history as part of the lesson, or science, or .... but make sure by the time that kid is 9 that they can read like nothings business, for two reasons:

The only truly bright people out there are self learners and you cant do that if you don't read and comprehend well.

Writing and Reading is the basis for communication with peers and with history, want a kid to think critically? have them two books which shoot the hell out of the theories purported in the other and tell them to have fun.

Sure make it fun, have them do experiments and then write about them, and grade the writing not the experiment.

"Citizen 6572A -- your IQ is substandard. Report for vocational training immediately!"


Anyway, point being, I don't think it's up to the state to decide who's too stupid for college.

It doesn't have to be a negative, the way you describe. It can include things like X-ray technician, video game designer, all kinds of jobs for which you don't need a traditional four-year degree. I have a friend whose son is about to enter college, and he is considering going to a school for writing video games versus a traditional university. I think it would be great if high schools could catch on to these trends, particularly public schools, so everyone could get a fair shake.

I have absolutely no problem with vocational training. I have a problem with the government mandating that certain people must go t vocational training because they don't have a high enough IQ for college.

Our systems are more about the institution than they are about the students.

If someone fails to meet the requirements for admission to their state's university system, then the state is effectively telling them they're too stupid for college. That's an awful way to word it, but it's basically accurate.

The state is not telling them they are too stupid they are telling them they are too ignorant. The person can go learn some more and try again its not a measure of IQ but knowledge.

Most state universities rely on this or the ACT for admissions. Many parts of these tests measure G (general intelligence) - analogies and what not. It is not measuring knowledge but intellectual horsepower, as far a G (general intelligence) is concerned. You could know every fact in the world but if you can't assemble these facts you will not score high on test that measure G.

It measure who likely you are, as you stand now, to succeed at the post high school level:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT

SAT consists of three major sections: Mathematics, Critical Reading, and Writing. Each section receives a score on the scale of 200–800. All scores are multiples of 10. Total scores are calculated by adding up scores of the three sections. Each major section is divided into three parts. There are 10 sub-sections, including an additional 25-minute experimental or "equating" section that may be in any of the three major sections. The experimental section is used to normalize questions for future administrations of the SAT and does not count toward the final score. The test contains 3 hours and 45 minutes of actual timed sections,<7> although most administrations, including orientation, distribution of materials, and completion of the biographical sections, run about 4 hours (10–25 minutes per sub-section) long.

--

When you give someone a test with the types of questions on the SAT you are not getting how 'smart' they are you are getting how much they know. For example if I give the SAT to someone who was never taught algebra it does not matter how innately smart they are they will get a very poor score on the math section where as if I take someone who is of average intelligence and teach them well they will do better than the 'smart' person who was not taught at all.

The SAT is *not* an IQ test

--

Are there people who will never be able to do well on such a test no matter what? yes but were talking way *way* down the scale 95% of people should be able to swing a 'good' score. THe thought that someone with an IQ og 90 is pretty much bound to get a lower score than someone with an IQ of 130 is straight bunk!

But it is not solely a test of past learning. "It measure who(sic) likely you are, as you stand now, to succeed at the post high school level." That is agreed - but IQ figures pretty highly in doing challenging work at the university level as well as score high on the SAT.

"THe thought that someone with an IQ og 90 is pretty much bound to get a lower score than someone with an IQ of 130 is straight bunk!" There is where we disagree. All the test prep in the world will not get someone in the low average intelligence to score in the 90th percentile on the SAT or ACT. It does not happen.

"That is agreed - but IQ figures pretty highly in doing challenging work at the university level as well as score high on the SAT."

Not really, my sister has an iq of over 150 and in HS I (120's) was helping her with her physics. IQ is only a part of the equation and one easily overcome by hard work. Never should it be used as a measure of whether or not someone belongs in a school. IQ test themselves are seriously flawed and somewhat culturally biased.

"There is where we disagree. All the test prep in the world will not get someone in the low average intelligence to score in the 90th percentile on the SAT or ACT. It does not happen."

Bravo Sierra I know people who got 1200's (pretty high back in the day before they dumbed down the tests) who had IQ's in the 80's. I myself got in the low 1300's which was 200 points higher than my genius sister. People regular ally take the test multiple times to get higher scores with practice and some study program can boost scores substantially. I took one in HS that raised my PSAT score from a 1000 to a 1400 (again back in the day the former was an ok core and the later was very good) are anecdotal I know but unless you provides some real evidence for your claim that success on the SAT is *completely* limited to IQ its still better than what you have to offer.

Trends wont do mind you Ive already acknowledged people of extreme intelligence may have an easier time obtaining a good score but I have never seen anything in my life that shows a threshold for what someone with an iq of 90 can accomplish...

Sorry but unless you're IQ is over 140 or under 80 its not preventing you from doing something in life and its sure not handing you anything on a platter. To take a kid in the 3rd or even 12th grade and say well you have an IQ of 95 have a great life as a plumber (not that thats not a good life) because you cant be a scientist is utter crap. Just like undersized people who work hard can make it in sports (Spud Webb) people who's innate intelligence is somewhat lower that the superstars can play the big game.

...the roar of your posting smells like farts. Oh yeah, and subject-predicate agreement in your first graph.....

were expensive to operate & helped common people figure out what they might like to do for a living - just ask any over 40 aged craftsman how they got started - so they were eliminated. Instead schools offer a lot of canned dry shit that does nothing but prepare people to take standardized tests or one sort or another.

We have a generation that can't set a table, make a bed, or use any kitchen appliance other than the microwave.

Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 Reauthorization

http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/education/vocationaltechnicaledact.htm

Background
Congress is required to reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 this year. The U.S. Chamber has previously adopted principles regarding vocational education. The proposed principles focus on vocational education issues relevant to the business community which include:

* More jobs now require some postsecondary education, but not necessarily a 4-year degree.
* During the last 30 years, the workforce has changed dramatically, demanding that all students complete high school possessing a core set of academic skills needed for postsecondary education and high-wage jobs.
* Shortages of skilled workers exist in certain technical fields, such as health care and manufacturing, with looming retirements ahead.
* Economic development relies on quality education and career preparation programs to develop a skilled workforce.

The following statement of principles addresses issues of state standards, employer needs, comprehensive state plans, regional labor market information, alignment with No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and dual enrollment programs.

U.S. Chamber Position
The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act funds programs in high schools and community colleges to enhance skills necessary for participation in the workforce. These programs need to be restructured so that they integrate academic excellence with skill acquisition and enable students to successfully enter postsecondary education or the workforce without remediation.

The main reason for continued support of career and technical education is economic. The United States needs, and will continue to need, a highly skilled workforce, with strong academic, occupational, and technical abilities. Individuals with greater skills and education have higher standards of living. Career and technical education helps students develop occupational and technical skills and achieve success in the labor market. The following list of economic and labor market trends outlines the value of career and technical education.

More...

----------------------------------

Take a look at 'alternative' high schools.
http://www.linkroll.com/vocational-school/a-closer-look-at-high-school-vocational-training-courses.php

Where "all the children are above average"..

Funny how we have no problem giving the children who are athletically gifted the means to pursue athletic achievement.

Greater parental involvement is a key that is often overlooked. I taught for 20 years in various public schools, and the kids with the most trouble were often those who were ignored or neglected by their parents. Low self esteem is taught long before anyone enters a classroom.

Another key is to realize that not everyone learns the same way. What I'd like to see done in school is to have tracks based upon performance, and not just on tests. My husband is a master mechanic, but don't ask him to spell or parse a sentence. To my mind, the core curriculum should be about basics such as reading, math, and basic research (how to find answers and how to follow directions). Now all these can be taught in a variety of ways--for my husband, this would have been by learning how to rebuild an aircraft engine; for me it would have been by writing a serious book on family history.

would be my favored approach.

Let students decide where they belong best and they are apt to choose the most productive path for themselves AND the country.

Edit: irony--poor typing skills! :rofl:

The IQ test only measures a part of human intelligence - most psychologists accept multiple intelligences these days. I happen to test very well on standardized IQ tests - meaning that I have good written/verbal skills, excellent spatial intelligence, and pretty good mathematical skills. That does not mean that I succeed at all measures of intelligence - I am below average for social intelligence, for example - recognizing body language, verbal cues, etc., and I am absolutely horrible at kinesthetic intelligence - hand/eye coordination.

Tracking people to different programs based on their IQ test does not make sense from a scientific standpoint, or from a social standpoint, either. What you are suggesting is to give up on half the population based on an arbitrary measure. This is even worse than No Child Left Behind.

I would suggest that we enhance basic education starting with pre-school programs such as Head Start. We need to teach children language skills and mathematical basics (adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing) early. Then we need to build on the basics through early education, and at later stages allow the students to self-select the programs that they would like to enter.

about being able to look at large groups of scores and having some idea of the effectiveness of a given curriculum.

I find most criticisms of the Bell Curve come from people who are not educators. Without some expectation of what valid results MIGHT look like, Everyone gets an A, or at least passes. In my research, I was able to document grade inflation over the last 25 years that put kids in college with Cs and Bs, that a couple of decades ago were Ds and Cs. This is partly because teachers were told to throw away the Bell Curve, because ALL students succeed and this is, of course, NOT the case.

Of course a professional DOES NOT BEGIN with the Bell Curve and engineer curriculum to fit it, but it is necessary, having designed valid curriculum, to have some way of looking at the results relative to a standard that tells you what kind of variance in scores a valid curriculum MIGHT yield.

Edited for spelling.

Right now his idea are up the the level of feel good ideas with little empirical backing.

The most popular idea is g (primary intelligence) with some allowances for specific abilities (s intelligences).

The only multiple intelligence theory with good scholarship is Robert Stern's triadic theory and even his three domains correlate reasonable well.

Smaller classes.

Year 'round school.

Attendance not required; teach those who show up and WANT to learn; let the others go until they decide to return and when they do return, have the courses, a la cart, that they need/want, at the times they need them to be.

School from 8a to 8p, 6 days a week, with scheduling options.

Authentic assessment grounded in Dewey-ian student-centered models.

Vocational tracking for those who want it, including internships and professional guild-memberships.

Open discourse on all aspects of curriculum, standards, and GRADING for all responsible participants and all participants will be accountable for their appropriate responsibilities.

... just for starters.

They call the intelligence distribution curve a bell curve for a reason. When you look at it, you realize that most people fall within a very narrow range of normal intelligence, meaning 98-102. The curve drops off very sharply on either side of that, meaning that relatively few are significantly enough below 100 to be called "dull normal." Stating that half the population is below 100 is inaccurate. Most of the population is sitting right there at 100.

Your second point is a valid one. Not all people are academically talented or interested. A parallel track for those with no inclination or interest toward academics should be established with real world training in a skilled trade plus managing one's own money.

I also think that keeping non academic kids in high school until they are 18 is a mistake. I'd rather see a basic diploma awarded at 16 and an academic diploma at 18. That would free kids at 16 to work part time or apprentice in whatever field appeals to them. A journeyman diploma would be awarded at 18 for the kids who complete the trade program. The academically talented kids would be tracked toward a college preparatory curriculum.

I've been a tutor at the college level, and it's sad to see kids with no real interest in academics struggle with them to please their parents. It would be so much better to have equivalent prestige awarded kids who specialize in a skilled trade. The financial rewards are already there for some of them--check what plumbers are getting lately?

I know it's set up so the mean is 100, but I've never heard what the standard deviation is. From your post, it sounds like it's small, maybe less than 5.

and it is less than 5 points.

At least it is for the Wechsler test, according to Wikipedia. The IQ curve is normalized so that the mean is 100 and the standard deviation is set to 15 points. In the olden days, IQ was set to (Mental Age/Actual Age), again according to Wikipedia.

Or just pay a whole lot more attention to grammar?

Tell you what. If you really believe this, get off the interweb and go find a job in the fast food industry.

NO teaching outside your certifications!

All student organizations and events will integrate their activities with appropriate curriculum.

More "Advance Placement"

when I hit first grade. They never bothered to find out that I could read and write in Spanish. lol

When they bothered to test me two years later, they wound up skipping me two grade levels.

Beware trusting any bureaucracy with your children -- and beware trusting how any bureaucracy labels those children. :shrug:

task at hand. Later in life I found out that I had ADHD all my life.

Also, both of my sons.

I'm glad their kids will have better educated people to work with them. But, imho, parents can never leave it to others, especially now that our schools have been strip mined.

to square one. It's much better to teach kids how to be a critical thinker and were to go to find information and teach them how to enjoy a life time of learning. No, we don't want kids to be a one trick pony. IQ should not be a measure of one's educational ability.

mikey_the_rat

My wife is astonished at what I learned in home economics and shop class.

In much of the country, that's already happened. The regular curriculum has been dumbed down, and the AP is what regular high school used to be. It hasn't helped.

If you mean build up an industrial base which can provide good jobs to people who are diligent, responsible, but just never cared for education then yes. If you mean go the way of starting to run kids down certain tracks based on perceived ability or IQ then most assuredly not!

And IQ is a *terrible* measure of what someone can do, Ive known folks with IQ's in the 140s and 150s who just don't work hard and Ive known folks in the 90s who excelled in university because they worked their arse off..

So the real way to help *everybody* is a healthy, robust, and diverse economy with suitable worker protections.

get a little older. Then sometimes something happens and they turn on the steam and they are making straight A's. I was one of them. Don't direct that path until they are much older.

But yes, I think vocational programs are generally helpful while in high school, say the last two years.

...someone profits when it fails.

Take that No Child Left Behind shit or any other Faith-based Initiative.

Remember, the GOP way of running government is to defund it until it can be "drown in a bathtub".

Everyone cannot succeed in college.

There is no reason to force kids that can't handle college into college to make us feel good.

Countries in Europe figure this out by about the fifth grade and start directing students onto different tracks.

If you are one of the brighter students you are on the university track, if not, you are on the vocational track.

But the current system leads to a lot of problems.

Many graduating high school students are not suited for college -- which is fine, not everyone is -- but go anyway because of peer or parental pressure. They waste a year or more and thousands of dollars, are unhappy, and drop out with no idea what to do next. If we were more realistic about the array of options available to each student, students might be happier in the long run.

Back in the day you could walk out of HS get a job that could provide adequately for a family especially if there were two incomes. You did not get your HS diploma and then start with a minimum wage job.

Well those days are gone, without a HS diploma you might make a dollar or two over the minimum wage but not a living wage. Once the option of becoming a self sufficient 18-24 year old is off the table for those without a degree you need to encourage kids to at least go for the associates degree.

A lot of the jobs that require a college degree do not really require knowledge or skills that are obtained in college. So people spend upwards of $40,000 over 4 years to get a piece of paper that makes them eligible for these jobs. Can't blame them. But the debt they get stuck with can be a hindrance for 20 years.

Well-funded community colleges with competent instructors are a good way to solve this problem. They allow people to get some kind of post-high-school certification without the huge expenditure of time and money.

"Im sorry where is college education mandatory in the US?"

Its mandatory? Really? Only 27% of people in the US have a postsecondary degree yet our unemployment rate is *not* 73%.

"Everyone cannot succeed in college."

Ok but where do you draw the line who, other than the person in question, decides if they are college material? National college entrance exams? lets pigon hole them into certain social classes when they're young right?

"There is no reason to force kids that can't handle college into college to make us feel good."

YOu have yet to demonstrate where kids are 'forced' into school past secondary school.

"If you are one of the brighter students you are on the university track, if not, you are on the vocational track."

Yes a brave, new, world.... gag... Kids should be allowed to reach for whatever they want and yes some will fall and we then help them but we dont take whole tracts of life away because they 'dont seem bright'.

Education is not about learning to do a job-- it's about learning to think.

But children do need to be separated out into advanced, intermediate, and slow (or just disinterested) groups. There are differences in intelligence, and denying it doesn't do anyone any good. An advanced kid will become bored in a class that's too slow for them, and a slower kid will develop low self-esteem and just stop trying if they're placed in a class that's too fast for them.

the percent of kids who are 'gifted' is very small as are those with special ed needs.

In addition to standard education courses things like music, shop, home ec and the like need to be offered.

the percent of kids who are special ed needs is small? Got a link for that? :shrug:

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA, is a federal law of the United States.

http://idea.ed.gov/

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a law ensuring services to children with disabilities throughout the nation.
IDEA governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education and related services to more than 6.5 million eligible infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities.

Infants and toddlers with disabilities (birth-2) and their families receive early intervention services under IDEA Part C.
Children and youth (ages 3-21) receive special education and related services under IDEA Part B.

Not kids who need it because we screw them over...

6.5 Million kids with needs are not all in need of 'special ed' some have physical disabilities which means they probably need accessibility tools not a special curriculum.

But given there are over 80 million people in

by professionals and then a determination is made if they need services
and then what the plan will be, ie. an IEP or Individual Education Plan.

If a kid is behind for any reason you gotta get them the help they need

What I was saying as ideally, were it not for our broke system, the number of kids who need special education because of innate weaknesses in intelligence are quite small..

They are assessed for disabilities BY professionals!

It isn't disabilities CAUSED by ineptness of teachers.

It's usually cognitive or physical disability or both.

I was talking about education start to finish but thanks for putting words in my mouth, theyre minty fresh when someone else does all the talking for me..

Whom ARE you referring to then? :shrug:

Thank the GOP for cutting early childhood education programs like Head Start and implementing LNCB.

Poor diets, poisons in the air and water, etc...

But I think we over diagnose inborn disability as there is no way 1 in 10 people is born chronically disabled...

As to NCLB I dont blame only the GOP... Hillary and Kennedy and others voted for it..

according to this article but I think the banning of lead paint, etc. is a good thing.
Many kids were exposed as babies, as I'm sure you recall. Just as an example.

Onset and Prevalence of ADHD

Margaret Austin, Ph.D., Natalie Staats Reiss, Ph.D., and Laura Burgdorf, Ph.D.

http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=13850&cn=3

snip-->

Cross-Cultural Differences

Although ADHD is more frequently diagnosed in the United States, it has been found in every country that has been studied. Prevalence rates range from 1.7-10% in Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Puerto Rico, and the United Kingdom. Interestingly, the rates of diagnosis are rising in industrialized countries. These increasing rates may be explained in part by an enhanced awareness of the disorder in other countries, resulting in improved diagnosis and treatment.

1.7-10% is? why not 20%? 40%... I can guarantee you were I in school today and being the boy I was I would have been diagnosed with ADHD its often a chronic diagnosis which tries to make kids act like little adults...

--



I'm not sure if this is a real C&H but it gets my point across
--

Yes there are kids who are adhd and I would buy 2-4% but one in every 10 kids broken and in need of medication because they dont fit the mold were trying to bang them into? no way..

learning disabilities are real and seem to go hand in hand with ADD & ADHD. Hence, the IEP's.

That article says: http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=13850&cn=3

"By 1996, at least 40% of children referred to outpatient child psychiatry providers were diagnosed with ADHD. snip--> Using these prevalence rates it can be estimated that in a classroom of 25 to 30 children, at least one of those children will have ADHD."

ADD & ADHD has been around for centuries!
http://www.adhd.org.nz/define1.html

1 out of 25 is 4% which is as I said is the *high* end of what was believable...

People learn to adapt their strengths to counter act their weaknesses. A kid who tests 92 in 5th grade may test 110 in 10th.

Because what America really needs to compete in this world is a hugely expanded number of average people.

Meanwhile the smart kids, who could save us all, are bored out of their minds.