Classrooms where kids are involved like in 2WL's thesis do a lot better than the traditional sit & learn model. Good on ya.

And you're right, semck83, fighting against slavery never worked. Neither did the woman's suffrage movement. Why will these "people" never learn... Kids involved in discussions and teaching each other do better in the things that help them succeed, especially poor kids, with social skills, self-confidence, and doing better in core subjects. And a good general statement for anyone is that it helps to know where you are and what barriers you will face to move forward. Argue against that and you won't get far yourself.

All of the teachers I know prefer to teach in the poor/middle class schools because the rich kids don't care. Too much of a sense of entitlement makes them hard to teach. So, I agree Draugnar, everyone needs to be involved and relate to what they are taught to do better, not just the poor kids.

"The teacher -- if he's competent -- has actual knowledge that the students do not"

Gee, who told you that semck? You must have had some good teachers.

Obviously the teacher is smarter than the students. And, of course, math works a little differently, but that's not the point. The idea to for students to build new knowledge within their own frameworks of understanding. They create meaning based on what they already know. The teacher's job is to activate that prior knowledge and create discussion topics, assignments, and tests that accurately reflect what has been learned and formulate scenarios where students can actively engage in learning. I, or any other teacher, could stand up and lecture all day but that's not the kind of learning that students need nor want.

@abge,

Right, because symbolic integration is what's usually on the line in inner-city algebra I.

I take no issue with 2wl's point that it pays to motivate students and help them understand the usefulness of what they're learning, nor for that matter that it's good to relate it to things they're interested in.

Once again, though, he went much, much farther. A teacher who assumes the role that 2wl prescribes is not really there to *teach* at all, and he won't. Undoubtedly, the problem of student motivation in inner city schools is a problem. Desisting from teaching the students anything is not the solution.

You could go with difference of funding of city schools vs. abo schools and the conflict of cultures and the politics that help to keep it that way.

Giving poor students an idea of the forces creating their unfortunate socioeconomic circumstances is hardly the same as ranting against the white man and teaching them to fight the power. Its about understanding, recognition, and providing the opportunity to improve their lives through education.

"The teacher's job is to activate that prior knowledge and create discussion topics, assignments, and tests that accurately reflect what has been learned and formulate scenarios where students can actively engage in learning."

Right, of course. The prior knowledge that the students already had about how the water cycle or the intestines work, or how to use the quadratic formula, or how we got out of the great depression.

"I, or any other teacher, could stand up and lecture all day but that's not the kind of learning that students need nor want."

Except, of course, rich kids, right. You know, the people we want building our bridges and computers for us, and running the country.

Read what I typed at the same time as you, semck, before you continue to make an ass of yourself.

"and providing the opportunity to improve their lives through education."

There will be no opportunity to improve their lives through education if there is no education. You keep talking about prior knowledge. Where is this prior knowledge supposed to come from, pray tell? Did the previous grade actually, you know, teach math?

I actually interviewed at a very rich private school last year for a technology librarian position and, in retrospect, I'm a bit glad I didn't get it. Entitlement is a horrible thing and completely disconnects you from the world. I mean, not only is there poverty, war, slavery, genocide, and a million other problems that entitled kids simply do not care about or relate to, the real shame is all those oranges that goes unpicked each year that rich, private school kids care nothing about.

"Right, because symbolic integration is what's usually on the line in inner-city algebra I."

No, not in Algebra 1, but by the end of HS they better be able to if they want to be an engineer.

I only use that as an example bexause I don't really remember what was learned before that. Triangles? IDK. The point is I think you can trade a little bit of knowledge for a lot of motivation, and that is a trade worth making.

I think 2nd is saying something similar. I don't think he's advocating that a teacher should never "teach", just that knowledge can be transfered in ways other than a traditional lecture.

Although I will say that the generalization of rich kids not caring a out anything is just as bad as the generalization that poor kids will never accomplish anything.

Teachers should obviously teach, but they should do so in a context that builds upon students' prior understanding and worldview. Semck is just a very literal man who reads the words on a page and doesn't go any further than that.

Generalization of rich kids is from my friends' first-hand experience, and it's one that they will list fantastic exceptions to. Still, it was prevalent enough to make a strong impression and change career choices.

Generalizations can be useful as long as it is realized that it is a generalization and not true for everyone all the time.

If rich kids don't care about anything, I'm apparently not a rich kid, nor are any of my classmates, who collectively compose one of just a few schools around the United States that raised enough money a few years ago in order to build and sustain a school in Uganda with an exchange program to the United States as well. Nor am I the kid that's volunteered with Special Olympics and a number of local religious programs for seven years, nor is the guy sitting to my left a Wells Scholar who is currently assisting with potentially groundbreaking muscular disease research at Indiana University all while completing his exams, including five AP courses and two honors courses, of course at no pay.

On the other hand, there's not a single kid in downtown Indianapolis whose parents are below the poverty line and who is stuck in private school that's doing something amazing. In fact, there's no one doing anything or even trying, because they're all poor and have no hope.

None of this is true, and none of this is what I read from your statements, semck, but if I read what other people are saying as dryly as you do and respond with such emotionless yet tense responses with subtle mockery as you do, this is how I'd read what you say.

"the real shame is all those oranges that goes unpicked each year that rich, private school kids care nothing about."

don't worry, they didn't get the joke but I did

Eat the rich

"Nor am I the kid that's volunteered with Special Olympics"

Its too bad you didn't volunteer, you could have met some of the other site users.

Yeah, I would have been their coach when they attacked the referees during the state tournament. Too bad I didn't volunteer; I've really wanted to see krellin fight for a long time.

Semeck our public school system is broken. It pumps out good industrial workers and stifles creative thinking. It's an outdated system that needs to be vastly reformed if we ever hope to compete globally. It's easy to look on from the outside and blame all the problems on lazy students, but take it from someone who's actually on the inside: the system sucks. We need to move beyond the textbook era and take full advantage of the technology available to us; we can't do this very well through the current system. Quit trying to say that there's nothing wrong with the way our schools "teach" when there most definitely is...

@abgemacht,

"No, not in Algebra 1, but by the end of HS they better be able to if they want to be an engineer."

Hardly. I hadn't so much as taken trig by the end of high school and I'm currently in grad school for mathematics. As somebody who routinely tutors, teaches, and grades the exams of college students from the American high school system (students who largely did take some calculus there), and who all too often -- to my great chagrin and unhappiness -- sees their career dreams come to an end in a college math course, I can say with some confidence that the most crucial thing, which happens all too rarely, is that a student receive a genuinely good grounding in algebra in high school. (And yes, *preferably* also trig. My path was not in all ways ideal.).

@Slyguy,

I think you'll look in vain for a single word from me in this thread blaming anything on the laziness of students, or for that matter saying that our schools are doing a good job. I don't largely disagree with what you say, except that I'm more skeptical of technology than you are. There has been outstanding teaching in (some) American schools in the past (and is at the present) without the use of technology, which is a good prima facie case that technology is not a sine qua non of good or creativity-inducing teaching. I have little doubt that talented teachers can and will use it to stimulate and encourage creativity, but I also have no doubt that it's often used as a poorly considered magic bullet by people who don't understand what's wrong and vaguely hope that its mere presence will make things better.

@semck

I'm not quite sure what you're saying.

If a kid wants to be an engineer, having a solid understanding of calculus before entering college will help them immensely. Do you disagree?

Just for clarification - High School ends at 18, correct?

@Mendax

Yeah, more or less.

Then it amazes me that anyone going into engineering (for example) wouldn't have covered a deal of both calculus and trig. Over here, everything up to basic complex calculus and differential equations are covered, as well as the common trigonometric identities and hyperbolic identities.

Most people looking to go into an engineering or otherwise mathematical field at my high school have gone through at least Calculus B, and often times Calc C too, for college credit. A lot of students take finite and trig too.

Then there's me, quitting after statistics, because it was the only math even remotely applicable to my life in years. Some students go that route too, but I included a middle school honors class on my transcript so I wouldn't have to get into calculus this year. Instead I piled up history and science classes.

So, in my world, those are your two kinds of students.

@bo

Why do you make the arbitrary distinction between math and science? How do you plan on doing science without math? What good is math if not to help explain the world we live in?

Some sciences are further removed from math than others. Ornithology, for instance is further removed than physics from math.

Even something like Ornithology will be well served by a solid understanding of statistics.

I don't plan on going directly into science. I simply enjoy it. I consider myself a naturalist, and a solid understanding of biology and zoology can only help me. Besides, I took AP Stats and enjoyed the class, and if I have to take more math in college, I'd like to go deeper into statistics.