Evolution under attack in Texas:

Originally posted by sonhouse
That would be where inspiring teachers come in. If the teachers are the result of the previous generation of so-so education, what do you think the next generation is going to get in the way of teachers?

Inspiring teachers can help but I was questioning how one can require
students to learn.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
How would you go about "requiring" students to learn?
Are you going to turn pedagogy upside down with your revelations?

You require students to learn by requiring them to pass a competency exam.

If you don't pass the exit exam, then you don't move on. It is as simple as that.

Originally posted by humy
"learning" what? I was talking specifically about algebra (and nothing else ) which is a language of sorts.

It is a well known documented fact that Children of virtually all ages find it easier and quicker to learn a foreign language than an adult. This is because the child's brain generally has greater flexibility and adaptability and the ability to rapidly ...[text shortened]... ngineering, extremely sadly, she would just have to forget it! -and that just would not be fair.

That's why I said it depends on what age you classify children and adults. A young adult in their low 20s will almost certainly learn a new language quicker than a 6 yo assuming an immersion scenario.

One reason children appear to learn quickly is because they know relatively little compared to an adult, literate English speaking adults will recognize around 700 words in the Spanish language without ever hearing a single word of spanish in their lives but they tend to have problems with sentence structure that a child won't have because children don't have an understanding of such differences between the languages, they haven't developed dogmas. Thus, the rate at which an adult learns slows in a classroom setting with traditional techniques.

Immersion is the best way to learn and children learn almost everything in this way all the way until they hit first grade. That is the only reason they seem to learn quicker, otherwise, with all other variables being equal, a healthy young adult will learn quicker than a child.

Educators are slowly catching on to this technique. We are figuring out the key reasons why immersion works so well and are translating those keys into the classroom and dispensing with repetition techniques that actually damage the ability to learn.

Originally posted by MISTER CHESS
That's why I said it depends on what age you classify children and adults. A young adult in their low 20s will almost certainly learn a new language quicker than a 6 yo assuming an immersion scenario.

One reason children appear to learn quickly is because they know relatively little compared to an adult, literate English speaking adults will recogni ...[text shortened]... e classroom and dispensing with repetition techniques that actually damage the ability to learn.

Oh I think you might be right because I just found this:
http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/myths.html

Nevertheless, not learning algebra, at least just basic algebra, at school would surely be very bad for a child's education and will very greatly and detrimentally limit their realistic career choices after they leave school.
How many physicists are there here or do any of you know of that never learned and understood basic algebra at school? -very likely answer: zero!

Originally posted by humy
Oh I think you might be right because I just found this:
http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/myths.html

Nevertheless, not learning algebra, at least just basic algebra, at school would surely be very bad for a child's education and will very greatly and detrimentally limit their realistic career choices after they leave school.
How many physicists are the ...[text shortened]... ou know of that never learned and understood basic algebra at school? -very likely answer: zero!

We don't need many physicists. We need more physicians. How often do physicians need algebra II?

Originally posted by humy
Oh I think you might be right because I just found this:
http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/myths.html

Nevertheless, not learning algebra, at least just basic algebra, at school would surely be very bad for a child's education and will very greatly and detrimentally limit their realistic career choices after they leave school.
How many physicists are the ...[text shortened]... ou know of that never learned and understood basic algebra at school? -very likely answer: zero!

Oh, I agree with that. In fact I believe maths should be a much higher priority than it is currently. Some may feel it is a waste of time but the benefits to one's brain from learning advanced maths is tremendous.

Originally posted by MISTER CHESS
Oh, I agree with that. In fact I believe maths should be a much higher priority than it is currently. Some may feel it is a waste of time but the benefits to one's brain from learning advanced maths is tremendous.

I don't believe that learning advanced math is a waste of time. I believe that forcing kids to take a class that they do not learn from is a waste of time.

If you have been a teacher then you know what I mean. If you have not been a teacher in public education, then your opinion is one based on ignorance.

Originally posted by Eladar
I don't believe that learning advanced math is a waste of time. I believe that forcing kids to take a class that they do not learn from is a waste of time.

If you have been a teacher then you know what I mean. If you have not been a teacher in public education, then your opinion is one based on ignorance.

I believe that forcing kids to take a class that they do not learn from is a waste of time.

So are you implying that kids cannot learn maths so it is a wast of time trying?
If so, then it is strange that both I and, with just one exception, all the kids that I knew at school learned maths just fine; the exception being a certain psychopathic moron (who I will not name ) that I later learned ended up in jail immediately after he left school. I think the connection between him being a psychopathic moron and failing to learn maths (or anything else for that matter! ) at school couldn't be more obvious.

Not only that, I for one didn't feel maths was “forced” on me in particular (else, with that attitude, I suppose I would feel whatever was taught to me was "forced" on me and reject to ALL education at school no matter what was taught! How about throwing out English i.e. reading and writing as well? ) because I for one WANTED to be taught it! -because I knew it was obviously for MY future and MY benefit!
In fact, if I was not taught maths at school, I would have surely have complained very bitterly about it!

It is obvious that those kids that don't learn such very basic things like maths would generally have a pretty crap future at least career wise for it would greatly limit career choices. I suppose you can always choose to be a toilet cleaner if you don't know maths and insisted on never learning it.

Originally posted by Eladar
You require students to learn by requiring them to pass a competency exam.

If you don't pass the exit exam, then you don't move on. It is as simple as that.

-and if you learn no maths, you will most likely not pass the competency exam.

http://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca/ppc-cpp/test-examen/gct1-ecg1/index-eng.htm

"...
The GCT1 has three types of questions:

Understanding Written Material
Solving Numerical Problems and
Drawing Logical Conclusions

..."

And then you DON'T move on. It is as simple as that.

But, much more to the point; what? you spend ALL those years learning exactly what at school? The bare minimum just to pass a competency exam!? Well, school want be teaching you much then! must have spend most of the time in the class endlessly going over and over the same pretty dry stuff of what you have already learned in previous years without going to any next level and learn anything more interesting. Might as well stopped school after the first year.

Originally posted by humy
-and if you learn no maths, you will most likely not pass the competency exam.

http://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca/ppc-cpp/test-examen/gct1-ecg1/index-eng.htm

"...
The GCT1 has three types of questions:

Understanding Written Material
Solving [b]Numerical Problems and
Drawing Logical Conclusions

..."

And then you DON'T move on. It is as si ...[text shortened]... xt level and learn anything more interesting. Might as well stopped school after the first year.[/b]

Education isn't much for anyone who doesn't learn. It would be better for everyone if those who don't wish to learn were not in school at all.

Schools are jammed packed with kids who don't want to learn, which is why they pass people on to the next level if they've learned anything or not.

Originally posted by humy
-and if you learn no maths, you will most likely not pass the competency exam.

http://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca/ppc-cpp/test-examen/gct1-ecg1/index-eng.htm

"...
The GCT1 has three types of questions:

Understanding Written Material
Solving [b]Numerical Problems and
Drawing Logical Conclusions

..."

And then you DON'T move on. It is as si ...[text shortened]... xt level and learn anything more interesting. Might as well stopped school after the first year.[/b]

Solving Numerical Problems does mean they have to be Algebra II problems. Like I said before it is not necessary to solve Algebra II problems to practice medicine or to do a number of other necessary jobs. It is stupid to hold someone back from graduating from high school just because they do not have credit in Algebra II. That ablility can be easily obtained at a later time if it is ever needed.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]Solving Numerical Problems does mean they have to be Algebra II problems. Like I said before it is not necessary to solve Algebra II problems to practice medicine or to do a number of other necessary jobs. It is stupid to hold someone back from graduating from high school just because they do not have credit in Algebra II. That ablility can be easily obtained at a later time if it is ever needed.[/b]

Here is the thing: A HS student most often does not know WHAT he or she will be taking in college. It is best to be well rounded educationally and algebra trains you in problem solving techniques that can have benefits in other areas even if it is not directly involved in math. So you can't say when a kid is 16 in most cases just what they want to do 2 or 3 years down the line, for the most part. Of course there is the occasional kid highly motivated to a single path but how many kids out of a thousand are that motivated at 18 much less 15? So a general education will have paybacks in many ways later no matter what the discipline.

Saying algebra is not needed for medicine is the kind of thinking that has gotten the American so-called educational system down to third world country levels.

Your anti-science stance, yours and your buddies is working quite well, science is in the toilet here in the US which is what you want after all. Can't have people actually using their brains to think through your line of BS.

Originally posted by Eladar
Education isn't much for anyone who doesn't learn. It would be better for everyone if those who don't wish to learn were not in school at all.

Schools are jammed packed with kids who don't want to learn, which is why they pass people on to the next level if they've learned anything or not.

I don't know which schools you are talking about here. Can you give just one specific example?
All the schools I have been to (and I have been to quite a few when I was young ) certainly were NOT "jammed packed with kids who don't want to learn"! With just one exception (which I already mentioned ) , all the kids I knew WANTED to learn! -mainly because they had the intelligence to know it was in their long term interest and they would only be destroying their own future if they didn't learn. Now, unless things have changed since then and all the kids have all mysteriously turned into psychopathic morons like that one exception and thus dooming the education system to be sent down the toilet, we should still be sending them to school.

Originally posted by humy
I don't know which schools you are talking about here. Can you give just one specific example?
All the schools I have been to (and I have been to quite a few when I was young ) certainly were NOT "jammed packed with kids who don't want to learn"! With just one exception (which I already mentioned ) , all the kids I knew WANTED to learn! -mainly because they ha ...[text shortened]... ming the education system to be sent down the toilet, we should still be sending them to school.

Have you ever taught or are you basing your opinion on your small circle of associates?

Originally posted by Eladar
Have you ever taught or are you basing your opinion on your small circle of associates?

Are you basing your opinions upon empirical statistically significant surveys of large
numbers of school children from a representative range of backgrounds in a representative
range of schools... Or are you basing it on your own limited perspective as a teacher where
the students likely to stand out and be noticed are the trouble makers and those that don't
want to learn?