The Lost Art Of Writing

[Chevalier]

@ocularhp

 

I am 33 now and I grew right into the upcoming computer age. Most kids had access to the C64 (later Amiga) pretty early, but it took quite some time until the majority used computers for anything besides games. You learned typing pretty early (I think kids should play at this age, but this is another story), so it's hard to tell how it would turn out later. There are always talented people, that acquire certain skills faster than other. This is something we need to research further. Abandoning complete skills in school, just because they aren't en vogue anymore, is problematic.

 

Imagine we'd notice serious side effects, caused by the complete abandoning of cursive, too late. This might affect a complete generation adversely, maybe in a way not easy to correct.

 

The parallel teaching of cursive and print consumes barely more time than teaching print alone. I don't think this small amount of time is worth the risk. Actionism and Education aren't getting along pretty well, it's the education of our children that might suffer. The brain needs stimulation, the more the better. The individual skill *might* be useless, but learning is never in vain.

 

 

Even though I earn money with people unable to read something, I don't think it's a good thing to abandon cursive. Most of the documents are written in old german cursive (Kurrent), but I already had some documents written in contemporary cursive hands.

[kitsunec4]

You learned typing pretty early (I think kids should play at this age, but this is another story), so it's hard to tell how it would turn out later. There are always talented people, that acquire certain skills faster than other. This is something we need to research further. Abandoning complete skills in school, just because they aren't en vogue anymore, is problematic.

 

...I think a lot of us in the 20s age bracket all learned how to type pretty early, touch typing is the norm amongst my friends and I.

 

And I was playing. ^_^ It was called "Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing," anyone? Loved that game as a child.

Hah, also the only game that old computer could handle. I get a little nostalgic about command lines sometimes.

 

Definitely think that cursive shouldn't be summarily dropped from a curriculum, or at the very least, for goodness' sake, at least make sure kids leave elementary school with legible handwriting. Print, cursive, whatever mish-mash that they personally prefer, so long as it is legible.

[Chevalier]

Ah, ok. There are different types of learning and I had those parents in mind that drag their children to those "learn the material from elementary school plus 2 foreign languages Kindergardens". My neighbors are toruring her little son this way, and he doesn't seem to be happy. My Godchild learned typing pretty early too, but simply by using the computer. She knew the location of the keys before she was able to write a sentence. I'd prefer to teach my kids to write first, but I guess that depends on many factors.

 

My wife (and other European people around 25 I know) learned to type a lot later. She had her first real lecture in her 8th year in school (Switzerland) and this was already pretty early compared to Germany. Everybody learned it as soon as they needed it. The only exception were people in apprenticeships that required a defined cpm on the typewriter/computer. This is indeed something that needs to be fixed (they already did afaik), but nobody would consider dropping cursive in favor of typing.

 

I went to the library today, but I haven't found many studies on that matter. I found some stuff supporting cursive, but that's no surprise in a country that still teaches it in elementary schools.

[ocularhp]

You learned typing pretty early (I think kids should play at this age, but this is another story), so it's hard to tell how it would turn out later. There are always talented people, that acquire certain skills faster than other. This is something we need to research further. Abandoning complete skills in school, just because they aren't en vogue anymore, is problematic.

 

Imagine we'd notice serious side effects, caused by the complete abandoning of cursive, too late. This might affect a complete generation adversely, maybe in a way not easy to correct.

 

The parallel teaching of cursive and print consumes barely more time than teaching print alone. I don't think this small amount of time is worth the risk. Actionism and Education aren't getting along pretty well, it's the education of our children that might suffer. The brain needs stimulation, the more the better. The individual skill *might* be useless, but learning is never in vain.

 

I'm not exactly sure why you would think learning typing skills really excludes play, most of the typing programs we used were designed to be entertaining! A lot of people my age still look back fondly at the simple educational video games we used to learn basic typing, spelling and math skills. While I'm far from being pro-abandonment of handwriting - I find it hard to be pro-cursive, I'm pro-good (legible) handwriting! There was a good two or so years spent partially on cursive penmanship when I was in school - and after that time passed, teachers began demanding assignments were turned in with printed handwriting since most of us had failed to develop legible cursive writing in that time even though I remember what seems like endless hours of copying letter forms and having a teacher mark inaccuracies, etc... Maybe it's a problem with how we teach cursive? Or maybe it's a problem with the looped form of cursive typically taught - the sometimes large differences in letterforms in this form of cursive (in my mind) would not make it good for side by side teaching with print, italic cursive seems more reasonable in this case. I totally agree that learning is never in vain, but the real question is if there's something more valuable that we should be focusing on teaching children? Art programs can provide similar cognitive stimulation and potentially provide other benefits intellectually, but sadly are another area we're slowly pushing out of our educational system to meet apparent modern needs.

[Chevalier]

I visited a school in Germany in the first years and I don't remember most things you went through. Sure, it takes time to train the hand and memorize the forms, but I never considered it to be a painstaking task. We needed to stick to cursive (and the fp) until the end of the 8th grade. Of cause, not everybody had a perfect hand and teachers complained from time to time, but that's absolutely normal. A teacher demanding print, because he doesn't want to mess with the hand of the students ... well, I still have a strange feeling about that .. teacher's comfort over children's handwriting skills ... I think the main reason for my feeling is that I experienced completely different things in grade school. I changed to print during my year in high school and kept it afer I went back to Germany, but this was a bad decision (for me). I think I would have been unable to follow my interests without the cursive lectures in my early years in school.

 

I am still searching the studies I read a couple of years ago, but I don't have a lot of spare time lately. They were about the fact that cursive is stimulating the brain a lot more (and other areas) than print.

 

I am pro good handwriting too. I already wrote it earlier, it's not about the script the student uses later, it's simply about learning the basics. You are right, art programs might provide a similar stimulation .. and you found the problem already. Maybe cursive needs to be considered solely art today, I am perfectly fine with that, let's teach it in art lessons. I think the problem is that people without an art inclination are meant to decide over the fate of arts and cursive alike, so they might share the same fate one day. Productivity is the only thing that seems to count today. Many people misjudge the relevance of art and creativity for mankind (I guess most people here won't). It's just a matter of time until the rude awakening will teach people better.

[ocularhp]

I visited a school in Germany in the first years and I don't remember most things you went through. Sure, it takes time to train the hand and memorize the forms, but I never considered it to be a painstaking task. We needed to stick to cursive (and the fp) until the end of the 8th grade. Of cause, not everybody had a perfect hand and teachers complained from time to time, but that's absolutely normal. A teacher demanding print, because he doesn't want to mess with the hand of the students ... well, I still have a strange feeling about that .. teacher's comfort over children's handwriting skills ... I think the main reason for my feeling is that I experienced completely different things in grade school. I changed to print during my year in high school and kept it afer I went back to Germany, but this was a bad decision (for me). I think I would have been unable to follow my interests without the cursive lectures in my early years in school.

 

I am still searching the studies I read a couple of years ago, but I don't have a lot of spare time lately. They were about the fact that cursive is stimulating the brain a lot more (and other areas) than print.

 

I am pro good handwriting too. I already wrote it earlier, it's not about the script the student uses later, it's simply about learning the basics. You are right, art programs might provide a similar stimulation .. and you found the problem already. Maybe cursive needs to be considered solely art today, I am perfectly fine with that, let's teach it in art lessons. I think the problem is that people without an art inclination are meant to decide over the fate of arts and cursive alike, so they might share the same fate one day. Productivity is the only thing that seems to count today. Many people misjudge the relevance of art and creativity for mankind (I guess most people here won't). It's just a matter of time until the rude awakening will teach people better.

 

Upon briefly looking at current literature on handwriting through pubmed (the NIH's search engine for scientific literature) it seems that the processes involved for print vs. cursive (or really any two different type faces) and uppercase vs. lowercase seem to be independent neurological processes. I haven't been able to find anyone on pubmed or google scholar that suggests that one provides more neural stimulation than the other - just that there are apparent differences. Every reference I've seen to cursive providing greater stimulation are quotes from individual psychiatrists and I could not find links to scholarly articles with studies that supported these claims (this doesn't mean they don't exist, I know how difficult it can be finding articles - especially since coming from a genetics background I'm by no means an expert at searching for articles in this area).

 

I'm fairly art-inclined (at least as far as science people go), I think I feel much more passionately about keeping up arts programs than mandatory cursive (but there's no harm in including decorative lettering in arts programs! I actually might of enjoyed it more if I wasn't pushed into writing everything that way). I've always felt like even though my background in art definitely isn't useful in my day to day work, it's enabled me to do so many things that my peers may struggle with when I do have to make a presentation with visual elements or develop a figure or just general composition and organization of data.

[Mickey]

 

I'm fairly art-inclined (at least as far as science people go), I think I feel much more passionately about keeping up arts programs than mandatory cursive (but there's no harm in including decorative lettering in arts programs! I actually might of enjoyed it more if I wasn't pushed into writing everything that way). I've always felt like even though my background in art definitely isn't useful in my day to day work, it's enabled me to do so many things that my peers may struggle with when I do have to make a presentation with visual elements or develop a figure or just general composition and organization of data.

 

This isn't really an either or decision. Any public, elementary school teacher, worthy of the title, should be able to teach cursive as well as block printing and typing. Likewise, at the level of art instruction one used to find in public schools, they should be capable of art instruction. Likewise music. (There was a time when an elementary school credential in California required piano proficiency.)

 

The question should really be about all the other nonsense which is supplanting the traditional curriculum and whether it is sensible to entrust the education of children to people incapable of finding any other form of employment. Most classroom size reduction initiatives could just as easily (and more honestly) be called full union-employment initiatives. Ask yourself: which is better, a class with 40 kids and one, well-paid, dedicated, competent teacher or 2 classrooms each with 20 kids and someone cashing a check? (Apologies in advance to real teachers, Bless you all.)

[kitsunec4]

The question should really be about all the other nonsense which is supplanting the traditional curriculum and whether it is sensible to entrust the education of children to people incapable of finding any other form of employment. Most classroom size reduction initiatives could just as easily (and more honestly) be called full union-employment initiatives. Ask yourself: which is better, a class with 40 kids and one, well-paid, dedicated, competent teacher or 2 classrooms each with 20 kids and someone cashing a check? (Apologies in advance to real teachers, Bless you all.)

 

Two quick points:

 

Regarding the nonsense supplanting traditional curriculum, I don't think that it is so. If anything, I'm personally concerned about how stripped-down education curriculum has been trending to, as budget woes force many districts to cut into arts and music classes for their students.

 

I am personally of the opinion that smaller classroom size allow for a teacher to better help a student to learn, to interact and respond. There is only so much time available to each student if a teacher was overwhelmed with forty students in each class.

[ocularhp]

 

I'm fairly art-inclined (at least as far as science people go), I think I feel much more passionately about keeping up arts programs than mandatory cursive (but there's no harm in including decorative lettering in arts programs! I actually might of enjoyed it more if I wasn't pushed into writing everything that way). I've always felt like even though my background in art definitely isn't useful in my day to day work, it's enabled me to do so many things that my peers may struggle with when I do have to make a presentation with visual elements or develop a figure or just general composition and organization of data.

 

This isn't really an either or decision. Any public, elementary school teacher, worthy of the title, should be able to teach cursive as well as block printing and typing. Likewise, at the level of art instruction one used to find in public schools, they should be capable of art instruction. Likewise music. (There was a time when an elementary school credential in California required piano proficiency.)

 

The question should really be about all the other nonsense which is supplanting the traditional curriculum and whether it is sensible to entrust the education of children to people incapable of finding any other form of employment. Most classroom size reduction initiatives could just as easily (and more honestly) be called full union-employment initiatives. Ask yourself: which is better, a class with 40 kids and one, well-paid, dedicated, competent teacher or 2 classrooms each with 20 kids and someone cashing a check? (Apologies in advance to real teachers, Bless you all.)

 

Really? You think a classroom of 40 children and a "great teacher" is better than a classroom of 20 with a moderate teacher? At least in my educational experience, the only GREAT teachers were ones that had the time and availability to focus on individuals - in elementary school the great teachers I had were the ones for talented and gifted classes - where (for me at least) the typical class size was between 8-15 students. The Tennessee Study of Class Size in Early School grades showed better scores on standardized material IN THE LONG TERM for children who had early education in smaller classrooms throughout several different socio-economic groups - this is simply because it allows for more student-teacher interaction. When you have large class sizes, the individual attention every student receives declines significantly and behavioral problems in the classroom grow. This isn't some socialist, liberal, pro-union nonsense - this is information based on long term case studies of over 1000 children.

 

There are so many well-qualified, dedicated and competent individuals out there right now LOOKING for teaching jobs that just don't exist (especially for those wishing to teach in non-science/math related fields).

[Mickey]

 

Really? You think a classroom of 40 children and a "great teacher" is better than a classroom of 20 with a moderate teacher

 

You bet and the evidence of the world's private schools, even those in tough urban environments, continues to bear out that belief. All other things equal, classroom size is not very significant. It's the other things which count, which include the quality of instructor, general school discipline, and support from the community.

 

Back a bazillion years ago, when I was completing my first degree, the curriculum of which included a few ed. courses, student teacher ratios were discussed. The real break-over point, at least in the studies presented in my classes, was in the range of 8-12 to 1 before significant performance gains were seen over classroom sizes approaching 40. Resourceful teachers can actually leverage large size classes to their advantage, for example using the fast learners as tutors for the slow. This approach not only works as a force multiplier, it also keeps the bright students from becoming bored and thus discipline problems.

[Mickey]

 

 

Regarding the nonsense supplanting traditional curriculum, I don't think that it is so. If anything, I'm personally concerned about how stripped-down education curriculum has been trending to, as budget woes force many districts to cut into arts and music classes for their students.

 

 

What is replacing the important courses, which I consider art and music to be, if it isn't mostly nonsense? Fill-in-the-Blank History, for example, is a prime example of political payback substituting for real course work. (Creationism, taught as a stand alone course, is a similarly vile concept.) The Classical Greeks pretty much had it right 2000+ years ago. Doesn't it strike you odd that their curriculum worked pretty well up until the last few decades?

 

As for budget concerns, it's amazing what happens when you take a dispassionate look (read: union free) at classroom size and the need for professional administrators (also known as teachers who don't or can't teach). Increase class size by c. 30 percent, decrease staff a similar amount, and reduce the size of the physical plant accordingly. Do all that and you can reward the good teachers (pay them more) and not defund important programs.

 

BTW, I'm the child and grandchild of teachers. (I've also taught, though that was not my primary profession.)

[kitsunec4]

What is replacing the important courses, which I consider art and music to be, if it isn't mostly nonsense? Fill-in-the-Blank History, for example, is a prime example of political payback substituting for real course work. (Creationism, taught as a stand alone course, is a similarly vile concept.) The Classical Greeks pretty much had it right 2000+ years ago. Doesn't it strike you odd that their curriculum worked pretty well up until the last few decades?

 

As for budget concerns, it's amazing what happens when you take a dispassionate look (read: union free) at classroom size and the need for professional administrators (also known as teachers who don't or can't teach). Increase class size by c. 30 percent, decrease staff a similar amount, and reduce the size of the physical plant accordingly. Do all that and you can reward the good teachers (pay them more) and not defund important programs.

 

Really, you think that basic computer literacy classes are nonsense in this highly-wired information age? There were plenty of students in my class who knew little of how to actually sit down and use a word processor to format a paper correctly for submission to a teacher, due to lack of consistent access to a computer at home. Then for those of us that were already comfortable with basic tasks, it was a fun class where we got to learn more tricks and shortcuts in the software.

 

Regarding your criticism of "fill-in-the-blank history," I think that you have the wrong impression of what those classes actually are like in practice. The majority of the choices in history courses are Advanced Placement courses, and as AP courses, the focus was never so much on multiple choice questions, but clear thinking and analysis of a posed question in an essay.

 

I highly doubt that we're going to agree on what is a preferred teacher class size ratio. The current literature regarding classroom size, student behavior, and performance indicating that smaller classes are preferable are quite convincing to me, and also correspond with my anecdotal experiences in school.

[ocularhp]

 

Really? You think a classroom of 40 children and a "great teacher" is better than a classroom of 20 with a moderate teacher

 

You bet and the evidence of the world's private schools, even those in tough urban environments, continues to bear out that belief. All other things equal, classroom size is not very significant. It's the other things which count, which include the quality of instructor, general school discipline, and support from the community.

 

Back a bazillion years ago, when I was completing my first degree, the curriculum of which included a few ed. courses, student teacher ratios were discussed. The real break-over point, at least in the studies presented in my classes, was in the range of 8-12 to 1 before significant performance gains were seen over classroom sizes approaching 40. Resourceful teachers can actually leverage large size classes to their advantage, for example using the fast learners as tutors for the slow. This approach not only works as a force multiplier, it also keeps the bright students from becoming bored and thus discipline problems.

 

Cite studies, not anecdotes. All studies I see either claim there is a benefit to reduced classroom size (meaning sub-20) or that there is minimal benefit (but the reductions of classroom size may not of been performed appropriately) or are in regards to higher level education. I actually provided a name of a study which supports small classroom size in younger children (the age when they would be learning cursive). I imagine if you completed your degree "a bazillion years ago" that you really didn't cover many of these studies which were published in the late-90s to early 2000s.

 

Providing an anecdote, it's very interesting to me that you specifically bring up using fast learners as teachers for the slow in larger classroom settings - because this is exactly what an elementary school implemented when I was in fourth grade hoping to improve achievement among students. Myself and the other children in the gifted program were assigned groups that we were supposed to "lead" through work - but, guess what - most fourth graders don't like teaching! I wanted to learn new information and I wasn't patient enough to explain things that seemed to simple to me. Pretty much, teaching other children felt like a burden to me. I never had a disciplinary problem prior to fourth grade and I was sent to the principal's office nearly ever day until my parents were forced to withdraw me from that school and place me into magnet program for gifted students, three other students in my class also entered the program within a year. I'm not against group work, and there is information available about the potential benefits of it - but, teachers have to be able to gauge the willingness of participants, if groupings are appropriate and respect the feelings of students involved. I doubt that during ANY time in elementary school I would of been willing to teach a group of slower children.

Edited July 19, 2011 by ocularhp

[Mickey]

What is replacing the important courses, which I consider art and music to be, if it isn't mostly nonsense?

 

 

 

Fill-in-the-Blank History, for example, is a prime example of political payback substituting for real course work. (Creationism, taught as a stand alone course, is a similarly vile concept.) The Classical Greeks pretty much had it right 2000+ years ago. Doesn't it strike you odd that their curriculum worked pretty well up until the last few decades?

 

As for budget concerns, it's amazing what happens when you take a dispassionate look (read: union free) at classroom size and the need for professional administrators (also known as teachers who don't or can't teach). Increase class size by c. 30 percent, decrease staff a similar amount, and reduce the size of the physical plant accordingly. Do all that and you can reward the good teachers (pay them more) and not defund important programs.

 

Really, you think that basic computer literacy classes are nonsense in this highly-wired information age?

 

 

More than a week devoted to basic computer literacy is a vast waste of time. There is very little "computer literacy" which cannot be taught in a week's time and any significant skills involve specialized studies well beyond the scope of what is typically taught in such courses. I had no course in computer literacy, yet in the middle of my life, I taught myself to program in several languages (COBAL, FORTRAN, LISP, PROLOG, and C). My first "word processor" was emacs + LaTex. The basis for my mid-life education was a firm grounding in basic, college prep course materials. My university studies were in the arts, not science or engineering, so we're talking about the core curriculum of my secondary education, not including "advance placement courses" (which didn't exist) or university level courses. I've been on the internet since it was ARPANET.

 

There were plenty of students in my class who knew little of how to actually sit down and use a word processor to format a paper correctly for submission to a teacher, due to lack of consistent access to a computer at home. Then for those of us that were already comfortable with basic tasks, it was a fun class where we got to learn more tricks and shortcuts in the software.

 

 

Whoopee. A copy of "Word for Dummies" costs about 12 bucks and would cover the same material and more Add to it a copy of "Strunk and White" and the "Oxford Style Manual" and the kids would be much better served than they would spending months learning macros the next release from the residents of Redmond, Washington will make obsolete. The problem with too many computer literacy courses is that they are taught by computer illiterates, folks who wouldn't know a channel processor from a spanner.

 

Regarding your criticism of "fill-in-the-blank history," I think that you have the wrong impression of what those classes actually are like in practice.

 

I'm afraid I know exactly what those course are. As for "advanced placement courses," such did not exist (and, I suspect, were utterly unnecessary) when I attended public school. There had yet been little or no devolution of the basic course work to insure no child (or teacher) was left behind. Students who couldn't keep up were not promoted and teachers who couldn't keep up were "redeployed to the private sector," not moved to the district office.

 

I suspect we won't ever agree regarding optimum class size. Of course, I didn't see many sub 3 dozen student size courses until I was taking doctoral seminars.

 

Again my apology and respect to the real teachers out there. Bless you.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Mickey

[ocularhp]

Students who couldn't keep up were not promoted and teachers who couldn't keep up were "redeployed to the private sector," not moved to the district office.

 

I'm not sure where you live in where teachers who didn't keep up were moved into administrative positions, administration in most of the school districts I know anything about consist of many individuals with doctorates in education and other advanced degrees. Kitsunec4 and I are both products of more modern education that are pursuing doctoral degrees in biological sciences - we like statistics, data, information that supports ideas and for the most part in the arguments you've made against us you have not referenced any studies (meaning BY NAME not just saying that there is a study) and you're throwing around information about why they're pushing for smaller classroom sizes and what kind of people are running schools without any backing. As far as I can tell right now, you are expressing opinions but stating them as if they were fact. You FEEL that the reason they're pushing for smaller classrooms is because of teacher's unions influence, can you provide cause for one of the larger studies on the matter to be manipulating data to make it appear that small classrooms are better in elementary education? Seriously, provide direct links of these studies to teacher's unions - I would love to see that information if it exists!

[Mickey]

Students who couldn't keep up were not promoted and teachers who couldn't keep up were "redeployed to the private sector," not moved to the district office.

 

I'm not sure where you live in where teachers who didn't keep up were moved into administrative positions, administration in most of the school districts I know anything about consist of many individuals with doctorates in education and other advanced degrees

 

 

First of all, I live in California where a lot of unusable teachers (for various reasons) do end up pushing paper for the district. (S.F. has vast numbers of them.) Second, how much administration is really necessary? How useful is a doctorate in education, provided it has any use at all, to someone who does not teach? Administration is part of something called fixed overhead. The more of it there is, the less product is produced and or the lower the quality of the product. The curriculum in most states is set at the state level, not the district level. Most educational administration has nothing to do with education. It might be more sensible for districts to hire MBAs than D.Eds.

 

Kitsunec4 and I are both products of more modern education that are pursuing doctoral degrees in biological sciences - we like statistics, data, information that supports ideas and for the most part in the arguments you've made against us

 

 

(You ought to reread your last sentence and look up the term "outcome based reasoning.")

 

Why do you assume I've made arguments against you personally? In fact, I've made a point of expressing my admiration for real teachers. My issue is with the administration of education and influence of the education lobby on governance.

 

...you have not referenced any studies (meaning BY NAME not just saying that there is a study) and you're throwing around information about why they're pushing for smaller classroom sizes and what kind of people are running schools without any backing.

 

 

Studies can be made to say whatever the funders of the studies wish them to say. Without access to the actual methodology, raw data, and a discussion with the study referees, I wouldn't take the interpretation of any recent study with even a very small grain of salt. Let's be realistic and ignore studies, both the ones you haven't cited and the ones I read so long ago I wouldn't know where to look. (We're talking 40 years.) Do you truly believe our education system performs better now than it did 50 plus years ago when classroom size was frequently larger (often much larger) than 30? Similarly, do you think our public schools perform better than parochial schools, where classroom sizes are almost invariably larger than in public schools? Do you truly believe public school kids typically do as well as home schooled kids, whose teachers do not have degrees in education? Come on, the education system in the U.S. broke and the problem ain't just money.

 

As for unions, I've been a member of 6 and have been directly involved with contract negotiations on two occasions. The agenda of the union was always clear: bolster membership by increasing employment opportunities: the quality of the product is not our problem. (The only time quality was openly considered was when the local representatives went around the union officials and dealt directly with management.)

[ocularhp]

Students who couldn't keep up were not promoted and teachers who couldn't keep up were "redeployed to the private sector," not moved to the district office.

 

I'm not sure where you live in where teachers who didn't keep up were moved into administrative positions, administration in most of the school districts I know anything about consist of many individuals with doctorates in education and other advanced degrees

 

 

First of all, I live in California where a lot of unusable teachers (for various reasons) do end up pushing paper for the district. (S.F. has vast numbers of them.) Second, how much administration is really necessary? How useful is a doctorate in education, provided it has any use at all, to someone who does not teach? Administration is part of something called fixed overhead. The more of it there is, the less product is produced and or the lower the quality of the product. The curriculum in most states is set at the state level, not the district level. Most educational administration has nothing to do with education. It might be more sensible for districts to hire MBAs than D.Eds.

 

Kitsunec4 and I are both products of more modern education that are pursuing doctoral degrees in biological sciences - we like statistics, data, information that supports ideas and for the most part in the arguments you've made against us

 

 

(You ought to reread your last sentence and look up the term "outcome based reasoning.")

 

Why do you assume I've made arguments against you personally? In fact, I've made a point of expressing my admiration for real teachers. My issue is with the administration of education and influence of the education lobby on governance.

 

...you have not referenced any studies (meaning BY NAME not just saying that there is a study) and you're throwing around information about why they're pushing for smaller classroom sizes and what kind of people are running schools without any backing.

 

 

Studies can be made to say whatever the funders of the studies wish them to say. Without access to the actual methodology, raw data, and a discussion with the study referees, I wouldn't take the interpretation of any recent study with even a very small grain of salt. Let's be realistic and ignore studies, both the ones you haven't cited and the ones I read so long ago I wouldn't know where to look. (We're talking 40 years.) Do you truly believe our education system performs better now than it did 50 plus years ago when classroom size was frequently larger (often much larger) than 30? Similarly, do you think our public schools perform better than parochial schools, where classroom sizes are almost invariably larger than in public schools? Do you truly believe public school kids typically do as well as home schooled kids, whose teachers do not have degrees in education? Come on, the education system in the U.S. broke and the problem ain't just money.

 

As for unions, I've been a member of 6 and have been directly involved with contract negotiations on two occasions. The agenda of the union was always clear: bolster membership by increasing employment opportunities: the quality of the product is not our problem. (The only time quality was openly considered was when the local representatives went around the union officials and dealt directly with management.)

 

A) provide proof of your assertions about administration negatively impacting the outcome of the educational process, especially in very large schools or districts. I fail to see how my mega high school of 3000+ students could of been ran properly without a good administrative body.

 

Arguments against us means arguments you have made in response to statements that we have made. You have made statements asserting that there are studies showing 40+ classroom sizes are better without any information, I am fully capable of searching for and interpreting research studies thanks to my background in data analysis and interpretation. You are not providing sufficient arguments. You have done nothing to prove the influence of the "pro-union education lobby" on these studies.

 

C) Coming from a research background, I am fully aware of the influence that funding, interests of those conducting the study and other factors can have on the outcome. If you can point to probably cause for bias in extant (recent) studies that there was bias then let me know. Keep in mind, state educational boards and districts are often considered enemies of teachers unions! In case you have not checked personally, sufficient information about methodology and data analysis are available for many of these studies if you actually find the original source as opposed to documents discussing the finding. This is not incredibly difficult using search engines such as google scholar. Comparison of parochial and private schools to public schools are bothersome on several levels for me - first, while some schools (such as parochial ones) are more affordable, children from disadvantaged backgrounds are often underrepresented in these schools and they reap the largest benefits from reduced classroom size. On average, teacher to student ratio when considering all types of private schools. By the way, I did cite the study I am primarily referring to - I provided you with the same which should make it sufficiently easy for you to find on your own.

 

Obviously, I'm going to have a bias when thinking about the present state of the educational system vs. how things worked when I went through school. Do I think the education I received pre-undergrad sufficiently met my needs to be successful at undergraduate and help me achieve my career goals? Absolutely! Do I think the curriculum my parents were taught would of been more beneficial to me? Not at all! Do I think it was inappropriate for their time? Absolutely not. Do I think that system was perfect for their time? No. Do I think there is a need for educational reform currently? Absolutely. Changes made in approaches to science and mathematics education have led to the increased presence of women in many mathematics and science based fields as compared to my parents generation - which is obviously something I feel like I have directly benefited from as a female seeking an academic career in science.

[KateGladstone]

Re: " ... A copy of 'Strunk and White' ... "Can anyone please explain to me why that book is alleged to be good? My concerns with it include those summarized at these links:http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/2909/what-is-wrong-in-strunk-whites-elements-of-styleandhttp://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497/Further: if the book's advice is so grand, why did the book's authors so often ignore their own advice?

[Mickey]

 

 

 

A) provide proof of your assertions about administration negatively impacting the outcome of the educational process, especially in very large schools or districts. I fail to see how my mega high school of 3000+ students could of been ran properly without a good administrative body.

 

You present an apples / oranges condition to rebut. The administration directly required to run a 3000 student HS has nothing to do with number of feather-bedder in the district office. I went to an HS of about that size and we did have a fairly large administrative staff, BUT, with the exception of the Principal, V-Principal, and a couple of clerical staff, everyone else wore at least one more hat: teaching, coaching, etc.

 

 

Arguments against us means arguments you have made in response to statements that we have made. You have made statements asserting that there are studies showing 40+ classroom sizes are better without any information,

 

 

Actually I didn't. (So much for the superiority of modern "reading for comprehension.") I stated that I had read studies (40 years ago) showing that the break point for significant improvement in classroom performance was in the 8-12 range, (and I add, for clarity) not anywhere near the 20 or 24 so often promoted by union shills.

 

I am fully capable of searching for and interpreting research studies thanks to my background in data analysis and interpretation. You are not providing sufficient arguments. You have done nothing to prove the influence of the "pro-union education lobby" on these studies.

 

 

What studies? You have not cited one and you have the audacity to insist that I do. So far, all you have done is gainsay and claim superior expertise. (I worked as a researcher before you were even a twinkle in your daddy's eye.)

 

 

C) Coming from a research background,

 

 

Let me turn your insistence on documentation on you. Prove your previous assertion. If I'm willing to accept that you have any significant experience in research, you should be willing to accept that I read a study 40 years ago stating what I described, otherwise further discussion is pretty much pointless. Having now reread your closing paragraph, which answers questions not asked (my questions concerned the system as a whole, not differences in curriculum - even a great teacher can't teach something which hasn't yet been discovered), I'm fairly convinced further discussion is pointless.

[ocularhp]

 

 

 

A) provide proof of your assertions about administration negatively impacting the outcome of the educational process, especially in very large schools or districts. I fail to see how my mega high school of 3000+ students could of been ran properly without a good administrative body.

 

You present an apples / oranges condition to rebut. The administration directly required to run a 3000 student HS has nothing to do with number of feather-bedder in the district office. I went to an HS of about that size and we did have a fairly large administrative staff, BUT, with the exception of the Principal, V-Principal, and a couple of clerical staff, everyone else wore at least one more hat: teaching, coaching, etc.

 

 

Arguments against us means arguments you have made in response to statements that we have made. You have made statements asserting that there are studies showing 40+ classroom sizes are better without any information,

 

 

Actually I didn't. (So much for the superiority of modern "reading for comprehension.") I stated that I had read studies (40 years ago) showing that the break point for significant improvement in classroom performance was in the 8-12 range, (and I add, for clarity) not anywhere near the 20 or 24 so often promoted by union shills.

 

I am fully capable of searching for and interpreting research studies thanks to my background in data analysis and interpretation. You are not providing sufficient arguments. You have done nothing to prove the influence of the "pro-union education lobby" on these studies.

 

 

What studies? You have not cited one and you have the audacity to insist that I do. So far, all you have done is gainsay and claim superior expertise. (I worked as a researcher before you were even a twinkle in your daddy's eye.)

 

 

C) Coming from a research background,

 

 

Let me turn your insistence on documentation on you. Prove your previous assertion. If I'm willing to accept that you have any significant experience in research, you should be willing to accept that I read a study 40 years ago stating what I described, otherwise further discussion is pretty much pointless. Having now reread your closing paragraph, which answers questions not asked (my questions concerned the system as a whole, not differences in curriculum - even a great teacher can't teach something which hasn't yet been discovered), I'm fairly convinced further discussion is pointless.

 

I will admit that it is my mistake misreading the original statement, current studies place the range for "small class sizes" in sub-20 by the study performed long-term in Tennessee. Show me that this study was conducted long term by "union shills" because it is the most widely cited study in terms of classroom size and achievement. I originally referred to the Tennessee study on class room size - do you want me to google it for you? provide you with a link to pdf files? The Tennessee Study on Classroom Size in Early School Grades also know as STAR.

 

Secondly, as a researcher, I am not willing to accept information just because an elder read it 40+ years ago without any proof. Any decent researcher is well aware of this - even experts in the field are on occasion incorrect. I directly referenced an easily searchable study on classroom size in recent times which is significantly more than you have done. Your responses have been nothing short of condescending and I am completely and totally through arguing with you. Differences in the educational system itself ARE responsible for the changes in regards to female achievement in mathematics and sciences - we didn't learn something new that suddenly made this information accessible to another gender. These were changes based on who teaches, how they teach, how those teachers were taught to teach and how classrooms are ran. I have provided a citation on classroom size and achievement, I provided the name of the study in one of my initial responses (so much for that ol' timey reading comprehension by the by, thanks for the various signs of disrespect you have shown me due to my age).

 

Honestly, all of your arguments are filled with politically loaded words like "union shills", etc... which, in case you were not aware of this, makes it extremely difficult to respect or trust the views of someone when they're using this type of language. Half of your arguments about education are straight out of conservapedia articles that are completely incapable of citing any studies either!

 

Either way, I'm completely done with this. I know that I have searched for studies. I know that I have cited a study. I know that you have done nothing except spew anti-union propaganda and anecdotes.