Why Isn't Our Billionaires Learning?
Radley Balko | April 27, 2007, 8:55am
The lede to this article says it all:
Eli Broad and Bill Gates, two of the most important philanthropists in American public education, have pumped more than $2 billion into improving schools. But now, dissatisfied with the pace of change, they are joining forces for a $60 million foray into politics in an effort to vault education high onto the agenda of the 2008 presidential race.
There were quite a few proponents or education choice who warned Broad and Gates that they'd be disappointed with the results of their investments. Yet their response is to spend $60 million more to nudge 2008 presidential candidates to promise even more spending on public schools.
Far be it from me to tell Messrs. Gates or Broad how to spend their money, but I'd imagine that $2.06 billion would have bought a lot of scholarships for poor kids to attend private schools that have proven records.
thoreau | April 27, 2007, 11:05am | #
Calculus is the same today as it was when Liebenitz invented it. The same text book that someone in the 1930s used could be used today. Why do we constantly replace text books? Because the textbook industry are in bed with the education establishment and gang banging the taxpayer.
True to some extent, and textbook publishers are definitely part of the reason why books change every 2 to 3 years (or so it seems).
But college level math, even intro college level math, is not a good example for subjects that could be taught well today with 1930's textbooks. Leaving aside the changes (frequently good ones) in classroom methods, there are new technological applications for the math, and hence a need to write books with more relevant examples, since the students will be applying this math in other classes. Then there's the fact that with the availability of computing power, it's important for students to learn the subject with an eye toward computational work. If nothing else, instructors should be incorporating tools like Mathematica and Matlab into their courses.
Not to mention that some now suggest that even many college science majors need a bit less calculus (the courses tend to be designed for engineers, emphasizing things like volume integrals) and a bit more discrete mathematics, to prepare them for subjects like genetics.
At the high school level, it's arguable that we need to spend more time preparing students for basic numerical
reasoning, i.e. understanding probability, statistics, estimation, compound interest, and related subjects, to complement the preparation for calculus. This may serve many people better in their careers, their personal lives, and as educated citizens trying to read a newspaper.
So no, I can't agree that my great-grandfather's math book is good enough for today.
LarryA | April 27, 2007, 11:46am | #
I don't think this is an issue of private verse public, I think it is an issue of the parents taking an adversarial position against the schools.
In many cases the adversarial position is by the school. When my younger child would get into trouble the school never bothered to tell us about it. When we would go , or call, and say, "What can we do to help?" the answer was always, "Don't help. Just stay out of our way." When we tried to back up the school by reinforcing school rules, the school would work around the rules and undercut our efforts.
For instance our daughter started cutting classes. We got no notice this was occurring. We started warning the kid that excess absences (per state law) would result in her having to repeat the grade. Near the end of the semester the school called her into a meeting of the "attendance committee" without any parental input whatsoever, “forgave” a huge number of absences, and allowed her to pass. Nor was she unique. I know a half-dozen other concerned parents who experienced the same thing. That way the school wouldn’t be dinged for having to hold students back.
Turns out the students expected this, as it happened every year. Other students had passed the word, “Don’t sweat cutting.”
The only problem with that theory is that kids today are much smarter than children of the past. They have to be, as the world is a much more complex place to navigate.
Not. Complexity is producing a balanced diet starting with raising the ingredients, or shaping trees into something that will play a symphony. Technology makes things
much simpler, and far less risky.
Meanwhile, today's kids are able to do stuff much more advanced than the kids of the 60's would have dreamed.
Meanwhile, today's kids are able to
get machines they don’t know how to build to do stuff much more advanced than the kids of the 60's would have dreamed.
How is playing an mp3 on an iPod “more advanced” than playing a 45RPM record on a phonograph? As far as the kid’s “ability,” how is it “more advanced” to IM than to have a telephone conversation?
Say, Radley, care to provide any backup to the assertion that this political campaign is aimed at getting "even more spending on public schools?"
The example of every other “government needs to show more interest in X” campaign in history?
there are thousands of public school districts that are independent from each other and compete with one another for students.
If parents are able to sell their houses and purchase one in the other district, and the district doesn’t then change the boundaries because they have too many students.
One symptom no one seems to consider:
When I turned eight (1955) I joined the Cub Scouts. Every week, on den meeting day, we wore our uniforms to school. Part of that uniform was the Cub Scout pocketknife. It was maybe three inches long, with a blue plastic grip. It had a knife blade, screw driver, can opener, and bottle opener. It hung down into the right front pants pocket on a brass clip.
When we got our knives, adults taught us how to whittle safely, and how to keep them sharp. They also taught us we were responsible for using them properly. Then we were packed off to school, where we were trusted to exercise that responsibility. All this in the third grade.
Today (2007) schools expel honor student high school seniors if the law enforcement search team discovers a butter knife that was lost in the back seat of the student’s car.
I exercised more personal responsibility in elementary school than we permit in high school.
Neu Mejican | April 27, 2007, 8:51pm | #
"How is it possible for a blind, web-based IQ test to know what my peer group is? My score doesn't change if I 'tell' the test I'm 10 or 100.
"The claim was made that the cohort of today's kids, taking a test from the 60s, would score higher than the cohort of the 60s did on the same test. Does that not imply that the 60s group should score lower than modern kids on a test from today? If not, then what does that claim mean?"
Without more details it would be hard to say for sure, but it sounds like the test your using is comparing you to your peers defined as "other people who have taken said web-based IQ test." Otherwise, they may have collapsed the entire age range into a single norm curve. Many of the web-base IQ tests I have seen just use old norms collapsed across age groups... and seriously over-estimate IQ.
The Flynn Effect has been documented around the world with well controlled studies. A cohort of children from today taking an IQ test from 1960 would be expected to score, on average, about one standard deviation higher than the mean of the cohort on which the test was normed.
To say the least, it would be difficult to travel back in time and test the reverse hypothesis.
It clearly does not imply that someone who was a child in 1960 who is now taking a well normed modern test should do worse (have a lower score) than someone from a younger cohort taking the same test, since both would have scores normed on their age group. Being older (up to a point- if you were born in 1960, that trend will turn around on your before you would like) predicts that you will get more questions correct than those younger than you, but the same factor holds for all of your peers, so your score does not change relative to those you are being compared with.
If you are actually interested, the wikipedia entry on IQ tests is reasonable in accuracy up to the point at which you see warnings from editors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq_tests
