The real problem with education

[Turin]

Can we really manage to give people an "adequate" education? <snip> Most people go into high school seeking to do well just so they can get into a college. And then you have another situation with the majority of people seek a higher/college level education whether they really have the ability (or even the desire) to benefit from it or not.

Vocational education has been gutted nationwide in favor of the "everybody goes to college" model. Which is profoundly stupid, of course, and it hurts kids who don't have the ability, inclination, or money to graduate from college, but that's the way it's been for at least 20 years. So industrial arts is perpetually on the chopping block. NCLB has made it worse. You don't make Adequate Yearly Progress with a great industrial arts program, even if you're training underprivleged children for a real career in a stable business that will pay good money and let them make a better life for their kids and contribute to the community.

Just tying these two ideas together, it seems like in the "perfect world" we would have an educational system that allowed those who were not academically strong to learn skilled trades (like from an industrial arts program), allow those who are artistically inclined to persue those interests, and prepare a small group of very strong students for advanced degree work (college and beyond) in their future. It seems to me that the only reason this country (the US, I don't really know how it is elsewhere) has gone to the "everybody goes to college" model is because everyone knows a high-school degree is fucking worthless. If people who graduated with a high school degree had a level of basic skills at life plus some basic knowledge of whatever career direction they want to go into, the degree would be worth something.

Of course, there's two problems with this. One, being that this takes some serious funding... and from what I've seen and heard in some districts (like nearby Camden, NJ, which is a cesspool), just paying the heating bill is difficult for schools in the poorest communities right now.

Second, that having a school system that gets people ready for skilled trades requires that the economy can actually support it. I think this ends up being the biggest problem in the long term, even if you somehow have an "unlimited" amount of school funding. Because the US economy is not a manufacturing economy anymore... there's only so many welders, automobile mechanics, carpenters, etc, etc, that the economy can support. We don't want to end up with a situation where we have 60-70% of our kids being given trades education and then sending them into an economy where only 15% of the jobs are suitable for them (I'm just pulling those numbers out of my ass at the moment, but I think I'm in the ballpark).

[Turin]

Psuedo edit: Argh... WTF happened to my quote tags?

[His Divine Shadow]

On the aspect of positive reinforcement, perhaps schools need to have more competitions that are non-athletic. Actually, I think schools would ideally ban all "school pride" events that have anything to do with athletics; the obsessive focus on athletics is destroying the purpose of schooling in America.

When I was in university, we engaged yearly in the solar car competition, among other kinds of competitions. Even people who did not participate in these competitions took pride in The Team: the guys and girls who participated and worked hard to try and compete. And unlike something geeky like, for example, the science fair, the solar car competition is a multi-disciplinary real-world hands-on project. It's not enough to have a guy who knows math or chemistry; you also need guys from the shop class who know how to machine things, people who know how to put on a good media presentation, etc. It's like a microcosm of a product design cycle at a real manufacturer, and it's far more uplifting and meaningful IMO than these fucking "oooh, my football team has more giant steroid-laden assholes than your football team!" competitions. When people look up to that sort of student instead of the roid-filled moron, we'll be making some progress in school.

Still, athletics are needed even without all the extra glory and such that are attached to them now and maybe even more effort should be directed into whipping children into shape. Kids need to get a good excercise right from the start. Because even if they begin to excerise later in life, its too late to get the benefits that a solid base-condition developed during childhood will give you, damages that cannot be undone with exercise will already have occured then as well.

[Darth Wong]

Still, athletics are needed even without all the extra glory and such that are attached to them now and maybe even more effort should be directed into whipping children into shape.

Physical education does not require team sports.

[His Divine Shadow]

Still, athletics are needed even without all the extra glory and such that are attached to them now and maybe even more effort should be directed into whipping children into shape.

Physical education does not require team sports.

No but football(soccer here) and such can be played purely for exercise as well, as was the case when I was in school, how good you where wasn't really the issue, only that you worked until you where exhausted.

Rather irrelevant but I just remembered the fact that I myself was also forced into running competitions involving schools all over the country(grades 3-6). I hated running and I hated the competitions and I wasn't very good but all that training it entailed sure did me alot of good now that I look back.

[RedImperator]

Can we really manage to give people an "adequate" education? <snip> Most people go into high school seeking to do well just so they can get into a college. And then you have another situation with the majority of people seek a higher/college level education whether they really have the ability (or even the desire) to benefit from it or not.

Vocational education has been gutted nationwide in favor of the "everybody goes to college" model. Which is profoundly stupid, of course, and it hurts kids who don't have the ability, inclination, or money to graduate from college, but that's the way it's been for at least 20 years. So industrial arts is perpetually on the chopping block. NCLB has made it worse. You don't make Adequate Yearly Progress with a great industrial arts program, even if you're training underprivleged children for a real career in a stable business that will pay good money and let them make a better life for their kids and contribute to the community.

Just tying these two ideas together, it seems like in the "perfect world" we would have an educational system that allowed those who were not academically strong to learn skilled trades (like from an industrial arts program), allow those who are artistically inclined to persue those interests, and prepare a small group of very strong students for advanced degree work (college and beyond) in their future. It seems to me that the only reason this country (the US, I don't really know how it is elsewhere) has gone to the "everybody goes to college" model is because everyone knows a high-school degree is fucking worthless. If people who graduated with a high school degree had a level of basic skills at life plus some basic knowledge of whatever career direction they want to go into, the degree would be worth something.

Suppose you expanded the definition of "skilled trade" to include a lot of office monkey jobs for which you need to go to college today? With maybe two years of finishing school afterwards. I have a hard time believing you couldn't teach someone to be an accountant or a middle manager in six years if his business education in high school was solid enough. Then if he wanted to go on and study more advanced concepts, he'd only need two years of college. It would save him money, and it would save business schools the strain of having to teach the most elementary concepts to everyone who enrolls. Remember, this ass backwards system we have now is putting the college system under increasing strain. We're churning out more and more fluff degrees because the colleges don't know what to do with all these people.

Of course, there's two problems with this. One, being that this takes some serious funding... and from what I've seen and heard in some districts (like nearby Camden, NJ, which is a cesspool), just paying the heating bill is difficult for schools in the poorest communities right now.

This would require an entirely new model of school funding. Property taxes aren't going to do it--that system is inequitable right now and ought to be reformed.

Second, that having a school system that gets people ready for skilled trades requires that the economy can actually support it. I think this ends up being the biggest problem in the long term, even if you somehow have an "unlimited" amount of school funding. Because the US economy is not a manufacturing economy anymore... there's only so many welders, automobile mechanics, carpenters, etc, etc, that the economy can support. We don't want to end up with a situation where we have 60-70% of our kids being given trades education and then sending them into an economy where only 15% of the jobs are suitable for them (I'm just pulling those numbers out of my ass at the moment, but I think I'm in the ballpark).

Two answers to that: first, I would say that the absurdly high prices tradesmen can charge for routine jobs seems to indicate a relative shortage of them. It shouldn't take $300 for a plumber to run a snake down the drain. So I think the market can bear more tradesmen.

Second, if you have the schools training people for service jobs that today require a bachelor's degree, then you have a much bigger market available. A lot of kids aren't going to want to be plumbers, carpenters, and mechanics anyway (what do we do with the girls, for example, who typically aren't inclined to take those kinds of jobs?).

[Darth Wong]

I see a helluva lot more want ads in the newspaper for skilled trades than for qualified historians or even people with "business" degrees. What the fuck is a business degree for, anyway? Every person I knew in university with a business degree was learning how to be a CEO. But the last time I checked, nobody hires kids out of college to be CEOs; they have to start at the bottom, and as far as I can tell, these "business" grads have no more real skills worthy of acquiring an entry-level job than a high-school kid.

[Durandal]

Two answers to that: first, I would say that the absurdly high prices tradesmen can charge for routine jobs seems to indicate a relative shortage of them. It shouldn't take $300 for a plumber to run a snake down the drain. So I think the market can bear more tradesmen.

That has nothing to do with a shortage of workers and everything to do with union collusion. If you live in Chicago, you can't turn a wrench in your apartment without a union say-so.

[Crown]

<snip>
Is there any way to reverse this trend?
<snip>

Hmmm ... I write the following with great care, knowing full well that I just snipped an entire opening post leaving only a single line, so I hope that I don't offend.

What I'm trying to figure out is whether you are asking; what can we do to combat the morons who are already grown up and can't tell the difference between theology and their asscrack, and how we can improve the education system (generally) or how we can improve the educational system such that it won't produce these idiots in the future?

I'll start with the first problem; keep the issue out of the court of public opinion. The public at large is obviously too stupid to rule on it one way or the other, so fuck 'em. Just like we don't have foreign policy in the court of public opinion, so too, we shouldn't have such issues either, however, unfortunately this obviously a case of closing the barn long after the horse has bolted.

I'll skip to the last one; there is no feasible way we can achieve any such kind of result and still maintain a semblance of free societies. We would have to go North Korea in order to get close to it, and frankly even then I have my doubts since fundies seem to fester and prosper with just the thought of oppression, with actual oppression they'll be lining in the streets to demonstrate their religious righteousness.

Now, to the (general) improvement of the school system (which I suspect was the main thrust of your post to begin with); I can't seriously believe that you're advocating the 'shame game' at all. First because your a parent and second because your a dog owner and third because you're a working professional (strange combination I know, but I hope I don't offend).

You can pick up any book on parenting or dog ownership or management and they'll all tell you the same thing; positive re-inforcement and incentives trump disiplinarinism and negative re-inforcement nearly every single time (I note that later in the thread you mention the solar car challenge, so I know that you aren't blind to this). So I'm wondering why you are even suggesting such ... infantile practices to be re-introduced into the classroom? Do you believe that they would actually work? With a child?

Now as to some other improvements of the education system; we can incorperate a common European trend where children are 'streamed' into different schools (which focus and target them for different qualifications early on). This shouldn't be a one way ticket though, students who might be a bit slow in 6th grade (for whatever reason), shouldn't be punished to be brought up to be nothing but dishwashers - the option and ability for them to 'elevate' themselves should exist.

This would have the benefitial side affect of grouping 'like minded' students together easily - which will reduce the occurance of one attention seeking barely literate moron interupting an entire class of other students that can and want to apply themselves ...

[RedImperator]

Two answers to that: first, I would say that the absurdly high prices tradesmen can charge for routine jobs seems to indicate a relative shortage of them. It shouldn't take $300 for a plumber to run a snake down the drain. So I think the market can bear more tradesmen.

That has nothing to do with a shortage of workers and everything to do with union collusion. If you live in Chicago, you can't turn a wrench in your apartment without a union say-so.

I considered that, but the prices are high outside of union towns, too.

[Ericxihn]

Frankly, I don't think we have the resources for something like that. We don't even have a music or industrial arts program anymore, and the art program (formerly one of the best in the district) has been gutted. We don't even have the shop equipment anymore--it all got sent somewhere else in the district (or sold for scrap). As cool as a competition like that sounds, I'd be stunned if we have the money, material, or facilities for that.

But hey, all the 9th graders now get TWO English and TWO math courses--a regular class and a PSSA Prep class. Hooray for No Child Left Behind! Hooray for teaching to the test just so you can stay in operation!

Look into FIRST robotics. its a pretty big organization, so you can probably find corporations willing to sponsor you as part of their community service. You can probably also find people willing to donate shop space for a couple months each year. That's what my team did for the last eight years.

It has all the advantages of the solar car competition Wong mentioned except its cheaper and easier to find corporate sponsors.

[His Divine Shadow]

I've noted the same kind of situation here with skilled tradesmen. Maybe I should give up coding and computer administration in favor of being a car mechanic or plumber?

[Darth Wong]

You can pick up any book on parenting or dog ownership or management and they'll all tell you the same thing; positive re-inforcement and incentives trump disiplinarinism and negative re-inforcement nearly every single time (I note that later in the thread you mention the solar car challenge, so I know that you aren't blind to this). So I'm wondering why you are even suggesting such ... infantile practices to be re-introduced into the classroom? Do you believe that they would actually work? With a child?

With a 2 year old, who has the same mentality as a dog? No. But as kids get older, and particularly as they move into the teen years, they become capable of comprehending both positive and negative reinforcement on a conscious level. The use of negative reinforcement has to start somewhere, because that's the way society eventually forces everyone to function. Or would you seriously suggest that we stop firing adult workers for incompetence or sloth because negative reinforcement never helped anyone?

[RedImperator]

You can pick up any book on parenting or dog ownership or management and they'll all tell you the same thing; positive re-inforcement and incentives trump disiplinarinism and negative re-inforcement nearly every single time (I note that later in the thread you mention the solar car challenge, so I know that you aren't blind to this). So I'm wondering why you are even suggesting such ... infantile practices to be re-introduced into the classroom? Do you believe that they would actually work? With a child?

With a 2 year old, who has the same mentality as a dog? No. But as kids get older, and particularly as they move into the teen years, they become capable of comprehending both positive and negative reinforcement on a conscious level. The use of negative reinforcement has to start somewhere, because that's the way society eventually forces everyone to function. Or would you seriously suggest that we stop firing adult workers for incompetence or sloth because negative reinforcement never helped anyone?

We fire adult workers for incompetence and sloth to eliminate incompetent and slothful workers from the work force. Fear of getting fired doesn't motivate anyone to do any more than the bare minimum to keep his job. I've worked in environments where the management thought negative enforcement could actually produce positive results, and the results were 1) a workforce that did the bare minimum to scrape by, and 2) a poisonous work environment that produced epic turnover.

[Darth Wong]

We fire adult workers for incompetence and sloth to eliminate incompetent and slothful workers from the work force.

And we shouldn't eliminate kids who don't give a shit from the school system? We should heroically try to "save" them from their own lousy attitudes and dilute the limited resources we have available to help the students who are actually trying?

Fear of getting fired doesn't motivate anyone to do any more than the bare minimum to keep his job.

If the bare minimum to graduate high school were actually an acceptably high level, and students could be motivated to do that minimum, I'd say we're better off than we are now.

I've worked in environments where the management thought negative enforcement could actually produce positive results, and the results were 1) a workforce that did the bare minimum to scrape by, and 2) a poisonous work environment that produced epic turnover.

With all due respect that's utter bullshit. All successful companies use negative reinforcement, as well as positive reinforcement. A company that exclusively uses negative reinforcement is headed for big problems, but a company that totally swears off negative reinforcement is even more fucked.

[Crown]

With a 2 year old, who has the same mentality as a dog? No. But as kids get older, and particularly as they move into the teen years, they become capable of comprehending both positive and negative reinforcement on a conscious level. The use of negative reinforcement has to start somewhere, because that's the way society eventually forces everyone to function. Or would you seriously suggest that we stop firing adult workers for incompetence or sloth because negative reinforcement never helped anyone?

Of course not. Negative reinforcement has its place; for example misbehaivour should not be ignored indefinately and punshment must be inforced properly, I don't deny this.

However I merely pointed out that your post positively smacked of negative reinforcement entirely and not even a wiff of positive, which again I'll note was just bizare given you are who you are, and you should know better.

As to whether a teenager will respond better to positive or negative reinforcement, I also find this strange. Why must the subject in question be a two year old or with 'same mentality as a dog' for positive reinforcement to work? I don't understand. We are essentially discussing behaivour modification here, and as any psychologist will tell you; maximising the positives and minimizing the negatives will work better for you (over time) than the opposite, which will just create an atmosphere of tension, resentment, and hostility - not exactly the best atmosphere for learning. Further, it has always been my experience (as a supervisor at my old job) that I could always get the 'worthless' workers to work when all the other supervisors and managers believed that it was impossible - in fact that's why I was made a supervisor to begin with. It seems to me that behaivour modification works better when the subject has no idea that you are applying it on them at all something which positive reinforcement offers, but not negative.

You work in an office (I assume), you must have worked with some pretty shitty managers (safe bet) and some really good ones. I assume that you aren't a two year old and nor do you have the same mentality as a dog, but I'll pose the following scenario to you; how would you feel (and thus perform) over time with the following;

A manager who loves to ridicule you, demean you, doll out punishements for infringements on what is deemed the 'normal'. And yet when you perform as required (or above) all you get is a grunt.

Or, a manager who sets a good example by rewarding those who perform above par, by being reasonable yet firm with those who are slack, and who doesn't use such crude tools as ridicule and mental abuse to pull other's in line?

You might argue that it needent be an either/or, black/white situation - which is fine - but the 'shame cap' is just fucking too stupid to have been written by a parent, dog owner or somebody who has been working for one and half decades to credit as having been written by you. Who are you, and what have you done with Mike Wong?

The goal - or so I have been led to believe - was to encourage a better learing environment, I hardly thing that fear and ridicule are going to work very well, infact I'm absolutely sure of it. At best you'll get a grudging student who resensts 'intellectuals' even more, and worst you'll get Columbine High School 2.0.

[Crown]

I've worked in environments where the management thought negative enforcement could actually produce positive results, and the results were 1) a workforce that did the bare minimum to scrape by, and 2) a poisonous work environment that produced epic turnover.

I can say with 100% honesty that this has also been my experience.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I see a helluva lot more want ads in the newspaper for skilled trades than for qualified historians or even people with "business" degrees. What the fuck is a business degree for, anyway? Every person I knew in university with a business degree was learning how to be a CEO. But the last time I checked, nobody hires kids out of college to be CEOs; they have to start at the bottom, and as far as I can tell, these "business" grads have no more real skills worthy of acquiring an entry-level job than a high-school kid.

There's no reason at all for undergrad business majors. The only useful major at the undergrad level that is business-related is economics, and only as preparation and groundwork to go to grad school in it. The rest of it is pointless and just produces office monkeys.

[Crown]

And we shouldn't eliminate kids who don't give a shit from the school system? We should heroically try to "save" them from their own lousy attitudes and dilute the limited resources we have available to help the students who are actually trying?

I've proposed an alternative for that, but again what are we discussing? Are we trying to foster an atmosphere of learning such that we can rule out more fundy assholes in the future? I hardly see how 'eliminating' kids who don't give a shit from the school system is going to help with that problem.

If the bare minimum to graduate high school were actually an acceptably high level, and students could be motivated to do that minimum, I'd say we're better off than we are now.

I agree, but I feel positive reinforcement (over negative) will help us get there faster than the opposite.

With all due respect that's utter bullshit. All successful companies use negative reinforcement, as well as positive reinforcement. A company that exclusively uses negative reinforcement is headed for big problems, but a company that totally swears off negative reinforcement is even more fucked.

I think that we can agree with this - all of us - but your opening post was just ... mind boggeling. Really, the shame game?

[Darth Wong]

However I merely pointed out that your post positively smacked of negative reinforcement entirely and not even a wiff of positive, which again I'll note was just bizare given you are who you are, and you should know better.

That's because positive reinforcement already exists in the school system; they've been preaching it for decades. Self-esteem and confidence-building and all of that. So there's no fucking point lecturing people about when the real problem is the total absence of any negative reinforcement. You can be a goddamned illiterate and you'll not only avoid any kind of negative reinforcement but you'll actually receive positive reinforcement in the form of a high school diploma! Why the fuck should I waste my time advocating something that's already present in spades in the school system?

As to whether a teenager will respond better to positive or negative reinforcement, I also find this strange. Why must the subject in question be a two year old or with 'same mentality as a dog' for positive reinforcement to work?

I never said positive reinforcement doesn't work, you lying shitstain. Are you deliberately trying to be a fucking troll now? What I said was that negative reinforcement is being totally underutilized.

I don't understand. We are essentially discussing behaivour modification here, and as any psychologist will tell you; maximising the positives and minimizing the negatives will work better for you (over time) than the opposite, which will just create an atmosphere of tension, resentment, and hostility - not exactly the best atmosphere for learning.

Ah, I see. You cling to the notion that every student can be saved. Well sorry, but I just see that as a fantasy. Some workers have to be fired for the good of the company, and some students have to be expelled and flunked. Any approach which ignores this is based more on fantasy than fact.

Further, it has always been my experience (as a supervisor at my old job) that I could always get the 'worthless' workers to work when all the other supervisors and managers believed that it was impossible - in fact that's why I was made a supervisor to begin with. It seems to me that behaivour modification works better when the subject has no idea that you are applying it on them at all something which positive reinforcement offers, but not negative.

Did you find success by giving them raises regardless of their job performance? Because that's what the school system does; you can graduate and keep getting advanced in grades even if you can't fucking read or write. Nobody ever tells you that you suck. There is no yearly performance review where somebody sits you down and tells you that you're not getting a raise because you fucked up.

You work in an office (I assume), you must have worked with some pretty shitty managers (safe bet) and some really good ones. I assume that you aren't a two year old and nor do you have the same mentality as a dog, but I'll pose the following scenario to you; how would you feel (and thus perform) over time with the following;

A manager who loves to ridicule you, demean you, doll out punishements for infringements on what is deemed the 'normal'. And yet when you perform as required (or above) all you get is a grunt.

Or, a manager who sets a good example by rewarding those who perform above par, by being reasonable yet firm with those who are slack, and who doesn't use such crude tools as ridicule and mental abuse to pull other's in line?

You might argue that it needent be an either/or, black/white situation - which is fine - but the 'shame cap' is just fucking too stupid to have been written by a parent, dog owner or somebody who has been working for one and half decades to credit as having been written by you. Who are you, and what have you done with Mike Wong?

Nobody, and I repeat nobody in a company has the kind of attitude that is exhibited by the marginal dregs of the high school population, so the kind of treatment I'm talking about is not necessary. Do you know why? Because people with that kind of horrendous atttitude are fired, genius. That's why nobody runs around continually trying to make them feel like shit. So if somebody advocated outright expulsion as an alternative, I'd be 100% in support of it. Unfortunately, it seems to me that people find that even less palatable than what I'm talking about.

The goal - or so I have been led to believe - was to encourage a better learing environment, I hardly thing that fear and ridicule are going to work very well, infact I'm absolutely sure of it. At best you'll get a grudging student who resensts 'intellectuals' even more, and worst you'll get Columbine High School 2.0.

Oh right, because Columbine was caused by demanding teachers.

[Crown]

That's because positive reinforcement already exists in the school system; they've been preaching it for decades. Self-esteem and confidence-building and all of that. So there's no fucking point lecturing people about when the real problem is the total absence of any negative reinforcement. You can be a goddamned illiterate and you'll not only avoid any kind of negative reinforcement but you'll actually receive positive reinforcement in the form of a high school diploma! Why the fuck should I waste my time advocating something that's already present in spades in the school system?

I see that you did mention that in one of your posts; about shifting focus off athletic performance and onto academic performance - as to what I would interpret as positive reinforcement, I wouldn't list being a high school diploma (something that you have to put six years of effort) to be one of the 'already established' positive reinforcements. That is a goal or milestone. The fact that they give out too easily is neither here nor there.

Positive reinforcement - under what we were discussing - was for behaivoural modification in the class room (immediate results).

I never said positive reinforcement doesn't work, you lying shitstain. Are you deliberately trying to be a fucking troll now? What I said was that negative reinforcement is being totally underutilized.

Actually no, you implied that one would have to be a '2 year old, who has the same mentality as a dog' for positive reinforcement to work - unless of course I misread that and what you meant was that negative reinforcement wouldn't work on two year olds or those with the same mentality as dogs - which is more than possible - in which case I must apologise fully and whole heartedly for any confusion - my bad.

Ah, I see. You cling to the notion that every student can be saved. Well sorry, but I just see that as a fantasy. Some workers have to be fired for the good of the company, and some students have to be expelled and flunked. Any approach which ignores this is based more on fantasy than fact.

I cling to no such illusions, I even pointed out an alternative; funnel those who are going to end up as dishwashers out of the classrooms of those who are going to end up as scientists/engineers/doctors early. What a bizzare assertertion.

What I disagree is with your example of some of the negative reinforcements as actually being viable or useful in the context of the original post in any way shape or form. I again reiterate; I thought the purpose of this thread was to find a solution to the problem of churning out more ignorant fundies from the school system.

I think we can both agree that flunking them outright isn't exactly going to help matters at all, and I have yet to see how playing the 'shame game' is going to lead to foster results where 'dumber' students would respect intellectuals more - which I believe was also one of your points in the OP.

Did you find success by giving them raises regardless of their job performance? Because that's what the school system does; you can graduate and keep getting advanced in grades even if you can't fucking read or write. Nobody ever tells you that you suck. There is no yearly performance review where somebody sits you down and tells you that you're not getting a raise because you fucked up.

I'm sorry, but we are obviously living two different realities. Such was not the case during my experience at public school (primary or secondary). Grade cards had grades*, parent teacher night was hell if you misbehaived and tests had scores. If this is truely not the case in America (I wouldn't know having never really gone to school there), then perhaps we can start there.

My anecdote was meant to convey that often what people consider 'lost causes' are just workers (or students) who haven't been motivated by anybody or anything to work. I will point out that at this particular work place it was the same case as RedImperator mentioned in his post; 'an environment where management thought that negative reinforcement would produce postive results', I was the 'bell of the ball' when I got those guys working above par, and all it took was clever managerial tricks (usually in the form of positive reinforcement) to modify thier behaivour. But the higher ups thought all their Christmas' at once.

Nobody, and I repeat nobody in a company has the kind of attitude that is exhibited by the marginal dregs of the high school population, so the kind of treatment I'm talking about is not necessary. Do you know why? Because people with that kind of horrendous atttitude are fired, genius. That's why nobody runs around continually trying to make them feel like shit. So if somebody advocated outright expulsion as an alternative, I'd be 100% in support of it. Unfortunately, it seems to me that people find that even less palatable than what I'm talking about.

But again we get back to how we 'change the trend' of 'dumber' people being resentful to intellectuals. I once again must ask you, isn't this what we are discussing anyway? And how the hell is summary expulsion going to help with this?

The goal - or so I have been led to believe - was to encourage a better learing environment, I hardly thing that fear and ridicule are going to work very well, infact I'm absolutely sure of it. At best you'll get a grudging student who resensts 'intellectuals' even more, and worst you'll get Columbine High School 2.0.

Oh right, because Columbine was caused by demanding teachers.

I left this quote exchange as it is for a few reasons. Firstly it once again begs the question of what the hell your goal is Mike? Are you trying to encourage a better learing environment and foster a respect for intellectualism, and how do you propose draconian, infinantile and petulant stunts like the 'shame game' will help with this goal?

Second because you are absolutely correct; Columbine wasn't caused by demanding teachers - thank you for pointing this out, but I was under the impression that Columbine was caused by a harsh social condition where outcasts were ridiculed, belittled and marginalised. So again I ask how some of the methods you suggested can help. Please note, I will write this so you understand; I'm not ruling out negative reinforcement accross the board as necessary for behaivour modification, I'm questioning how in the world your shame game is going to foster the attitude of respect and admiration for intillectuals.







*Except for the last two years where you either recieved an S (Satisfactory) or an N (Not Satisfactory) for work requirements, but you still did get graded for essays, projects and exams.

[Darth Wong]

I see that you did mention that in one of your posts; about shifting focus off athletic performance and onto academic performance - as to what I would interpret as positive reinforcement, I wouldn't list being a high school diploma (something that you have to put six years of effort) to be one of the 'already established' positive reinforcements. That is a goal or milestone. The fact that they give out too easily is neither here nor there.

Positive reinforcement - under what we were discussing - was for behaivoural modification in the class room (immediate results).

There we have the same problem, however; even report cards speak only in positive terms. Instead of saying that "Jimmy has problems with algebra" the report card will say something ridiculous like "Jimmy can perform at algebra with some assistance." The school boards actually hand out directives instructing teachers never to use any kind of negative language whatsoever; only variations of positive language. So you give a positive statement to the worst kid in the class, and a more positive statement to the best kid in the class.

Actually no, you implied that one would have to be a '2 year old, who has the same mentality as a dog' for positive reinforcement to work - unless of course I misread that and what you meant was that negative reinforcement wouldn't work on two year olds or those with the same mentality as dogs - which is more than possible - in which case I must apologise fully and whole heartedly for any confusion - my bad.

I have no idea where you derived the implication that I was saying positive reinforcement only worked on 2 year olds; this reminds me of that porn thread a long time ago when you kept thinking that I was defending child porn when I had never said or implied any such thing.

I cling to no such illusions, I even pointed out an alternative; funnel those who are going to end up as dishwashers out of the classrooms of those who are going to end up as scientists/engineers/doctors early. What a bizzare assertertion.

Funnel them where?

What I disagree is with your example of some of the negative reinforcements as actually being viable or useful in the context of the original post in any way shape or form. I again reiterate; I thought the purpose of this thread was to find a solution to the problem of churning out more ignorant fundies from the school system.

Correct. And negative reinforcement does not help the person who is being punished with it. The idea is for that person to serve as an object lesson to others, because he has been assessed as a lost cause. We live in a society where nobody is allowed to call stupidity what it is. Where even the most idiotic idea has to be "respected". What makes you think that this trend in adult society will be mitigated by surrounding kids with it in high school?

I think we can both agree that flunking them outright isn't exactly going to help matters at all, and I have yet to see how playing the 'shame game' is going to lead to foster results where 'dumber' students would respect intellectuals more - which I believe was also one of your points in the OP.

I think I see now the fundamental disagreement we're having, and it echoes throughout the rest of your post so I will attempt to address it once for the sake of brevity (leaving aside your claim that none of these problems happened when you went to school which is irrelevant to the present-day situation in North America). In my experience, there was usually 10% of the class that was exceptional, 80% of the class that was normal, and 10% of the class which was worthless, largely because of attitude. The negative reinforcement would only be applied to members of that last 10%. One could argue that it would not help them in any way, but it's not supposed to help them. It's supposed to remind everyone else that people who fall into this category deserve scorn rather than being dutifully advanced from grade to grade and worshipped as the anti-establishment "rebels" that they so often paint themselves to be.

And ultimately, the success of fundie propaganda (particularly the "middle ground" approach of ID) is partially due to the fact that nobody is allowed to call a spade a spade; you're blasted as an "extremist" if you come out and outright say that creationists are wrong or liars or ignorant. And this attitude starts in high school, where nobody is ever allowed to be negative.

[Crown]

There we have the same problem, however; even report cards speak only in positive terms. Instead of saying that "Jimmy has problems with algebra" the report card will say something ridiculous like "Jimmy can perform at algebra with some assistance." The school boards actually hand out directives instructing teachers never to use any kind of negative language whatsoever; only variations of positive language. So you give a positive statement to the worst kid in the class, and a more positive statement to the best kid in the class.

Wow, not what I experienced at all. How strange.

I have no idea where you derived the implication that I was saying positive reinforcement only worked on 2 year olds; this reminds me of that porn thread a long time ago when you kept thinking that I was defending child porn when I had never said or implied any such thing.

I think it was just the way my quote ended and your response started. I re-read it, and I see that you are 100% correct. My bad, it has really thrown this conversation south.

Funnel them where?

Technical school, trade school, basically a school where there is more of a focus on making them cope in the real world as best as they possible could. I guess this is my 'save every student' crunch. Not that we save them all in the same school, just don't throw them out on their asses right away. Someone familare with the Finish and German school systems can provided details.

Correct. And negative reinforcement does not help the person who is being punished with it. The idea is for that person to serve as an object lesson to others, because he has been assessed as a lost cause. We live in a society where nobody is allowed to call stupidity what it is. Where even the most idiotic idea has to be "respected". What makes you think that this trend in adult society will be mitigated by surrounding kids with it in high school?

A very different way of looking at it, it makes a machivalian sort of sense.

I think I see now the fundamental disagreement we're having, and it echoes throughout the rest of your post so I will attempt to address it once for the sake of brevity (leaving aside your claim that none of these problems happened when you went to school which is irrelevant to the present-day situation in North America). In my experience, there was usually 10% of the class that was exceptional, 80% of the class that was normal, and 10% of the class which was worthless, largely because of attitude. The negative reinforcement would only be applied to members of that last 10%. One could argue that it would not help them in any way, but it's not supposed to help them. It's supposed to remind everyone else that people who fall into this category deserve scorn rather than being dutifully advanced from grade to grade and worshipped as the anti-establishment "rebels" that they so often paint themselves to be.

And ultimately, the success of fundie propaganda (particularly the "middle ground" approach of ID) is partially due to the fact that nobody is allowed to call a spade a spade; you're blasted as an "extremist" if you come out and outright say that creationists are wrong or liars or ignorant. And this attitude starts in high school, where nobody is ever allowed to be negative.

I see; break a few eggs to make an omelet? Hmm ... I can't say I agree (or better understand 100%) with you, but it is a hell of a lot more reasonable (your logic) than the OP read (or I read it). I will give it some more thought, and I'm sorry that this is such a smash and grab, but I have to be back on base soon and I have to run to catch my train, so I'll have to leave it there for now.

Nite Mike.

[Coyote]

Well, I won't step into the DW/Crown fest...

Well, with all the emphasis on tests, the kids come out of school knowing how to take tests and that is it. Lilith points out that in her college classes kids seem to expect to have an array of answers provided for them, and they have to pick one. The idea of coming up with their own answers seems to boggle them.

This will of course stunt critical and analytical thinking as well as give a subtle clue that everything worth finding out has already been found out and it is just a matter of stumbling across the answer yourself when the time calls for it. This points in the direction of a very stagnant brain pool...

So as to the OP, singling out under-performers in a system that seems geared to consistently churn out legions of under-perfromers might just lower the bar of "average" so low that schooling becomes irrelevent. If a teacher is going to get fired because too many kids are going to fail the test in his class, what is the teacher going to do? Exactly what's happening now: every waking second in that classroom will be devoted to one goal and one goal only-- getting through the next test, and nothing else.

So going after low performers will work only if there is a high-performer standard to be reached for-- and with the idea that 'no one will fail (even if we have to jinx the system to let them scrape by!)' why work if you know that system and teachers will lower standards to save their own jobs and look good? College and University are different-- someone pays to get in, and so there's a cost for failure... but that bottom standard in high school will be lowered and lowered again just to make sure everyone passes.

[RedImperator]

I see that you did mention that in one of your posts; about shifting focus off athletic performance and onto academic performance - as to what I would interpret as positive reinforcement, I wouldn't list being a high school diploma (something that you have to put six years of effort) to be one of the 'already established' positive reinforcements. That is a goal or milestone. The fact that they give out too easily is neither here nor there.

Positive reinforcement - under what we were discussing - was for behaivoural modification in the class room (immediate results).

There we have the same problem, however; even report cards speak only in positive terms. Instead of saying that "Jimmy has problems with algebra" the report card will say something ridiculous like "Jimmy can perform at algebra with some assistance." The school boards actually hand out directives instructing teachers never to use any kind of negative language whatsoever; only variations of positive language. So you give a positive statement to the worst kid in the class, and a more positive statement to the best kid in the class.

You're kidding, right? That's the rule in Ontario?