What are the goals of teaching in your country?

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

In America we only care about standardized testing.

 

[Voltron]

here in the US to keep people as dumb and confused as posible but at the same time make them feel like they are Lucky to have and education.
Why would the government want smart people.....

 

[Son of Jamin]

To keep the populace illiterate on the issues that truly matters and keep them dumb, deaf and blind!

 

[Metusalemi]

Here is Michael Moore telling about the Finnish school system.

 

[m25105]

Here is the leftist hero Michael Moore telling about the Finnish school system.

Was Michael Moore misrepresenting the Finnish school system? Asking cause your post seem to be sort of making fun of him, or maybe I just read too much in to it.

 

[BillytheFish]

Thanks. I am curious though. I know many posters here are married and some have children. Wouldn't a parent be interested in finding out about the curriculum and policies of said states view on education?

In Texas, in some places as young as 4 years old they have the child pledge allegiance to firstly Texas and then to the United States. The fact that any child is doing that in any country is not acceptable in my opinion. My daughter will be enrolled in a school where indoctrination or narrow minded historical studies is not the goal.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Was hoping for more serious replies

I think you indirectly got your answer though about America.

 

[Metusalemi]

Was Michael Moore misrepresenting the Finnish school system? Asking cause your post seem to be sort of making fun of him, or maybe I just read too much in to it.

Not at all. It's a good video.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Thanks. I am curious though. I know many posters here are married and some have children. Wouldn't a parent be interested in finding out about the curriculum and policies of said states view on education?

As a parent I become enraged nightly about the way math is being taught now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...bout-common-core-math/?utm_term=.89e1dca7f7fe

 

[Islam Imamate]

In part is to create a common identity, also to have less mouthbreathers in society.

*Fewer

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'm writing this, due to the threads about teachers, and I got curious how it functions in other countries.

In Denmark, the goal of teaching is to make sure that the pupils/students have the knowledge and skills to be able to function in the danish society. They call it "dannelse" (in German "Bildung"), the closest word I think would be shaping, or forming. This means that teachers have to shape the students to be democratic minded, to be able to think for themselves, be critical, be able to tolerate ideas that doesn't align with their own, make group choices, have solidarity, and be equipped to handle the key problems they will face.
These problems are described as war, globalisation, pollution, climate change, terrorism, inequality, and so on.
The government also have common goals that they want the pupils to reach, in terms of knowledge and skills, and thus educators have to plant their course that aligns with the mandatory goals. An example could be "pupils have to have the knowledge about danish politics, and be able to explain and understand the difference in the political parties." The course planning is then left to the teachers, as long as the goal set by the ministry of education is met.

Personally, I am a great believer in Danish form of education and its focus on shaping the pupils to be democratic functioning members of society, able to contribute to the overall welfare of the state.

On a side note, it takes about 4 years to become a teacher, which includes 4 intern periods, and a bachelor's dissertation (plus the oral defence), and is considered a university level education. The colleges teaches, besides the courses that students wants to be specialised in, psychology, pedagogical skills, and didactics, as well as common teaching skills, such as class room management.

I can't say I'm aware of the specific goals of American education as laid out by the Department of Education but as someone who did go through the public schools its very much feels like its designed with tertiary education in mind. They separate the wheat from the chaff with promising students being funneled into gifted programs and the rest meandering through what amounts to little more than daycare with a lesson in the background.

I think we're seeing the limits of this model as increasingly jobs that require a degree are becoming increasingly competitive and a college education isn't the golden ticket it once was while in some states those skilled in the trades are in high demand. I actually went to a high school that offered technical training but even then most students didn't take the technical training aspect serious and many of them were BS anyway so in practice it functioned the way I described above.

 

[Swing]

As a parent I become enraged nightly about the way math is being taught now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...bout-common-core-math/?utm_term=.89e1dca7f7fe

I'm mostly in favor of the general idea in that article. Kids depend on tricks too much to the extent that by the time they get to my class they end up making a lot of basic errors. These are things that even some of my brighter students will keep screwing up regardless of how often I explain, in multiple ways, how certain shortcuts don't apply to some problems.

That said, Common Core is a bit of a mess. They want us to focus on depth, but then they cram far too many standards into some courses; so you get teachers relying on tricks just to get the kids through all the material that needs to be looked at.

As for the examples in the article, I think certain things should be nixed. The butterfly method for fractions doesn't need to be something we focus on at all because it's going to severely hamper a kid when he needs to add rational functions and deal with lots of symbolic multiplication and addition. Cancelling zeros when dividing is totally fine, and I think that teacher is being silly. That's just pattern recognition and doing one step in your head.

I've also read/heard teachers suggest that we shouldn't say "rise over run" because it's not really always a rise. Again, I think that's dumb. Kids need to learn to apply context. When I take the elevator to go down two floors it isn't elevating, but we expect people to not be dumb about it. Nobody is asking for elevators to be renamed translation carriages.

 

[panamaican]

The goal in teaching in the U.S. currently seems to be about preparing kids for college. Making sure that they've learned whatever it is they need to learn to gain access to a university that will then prepare them for a career.

I'm not sure that model really helps that vast majority of Americans. My own recent reading suggests that our teaching at the pre-college level really should more like a classical liberal arts education (liberal arts in the education sense, not the political sense). But that seems to have lost appeal in the myriad budget cuts that school districts endure.

It's interesting that the more I read about education and education philosophies and look at what "elite" elementary, middle and high schools teach, the more I see a focus on character development alongside the raw academic skills. Yet, the public school debate seems to suggest that mainstream Americans don't want their underfunded, under performing schools touching character development. Yet if the schools don't teach character traits, how then to do you achieve the type of shared ethos that some people claim is disappearing from our nation?

 

[Swing]

The goal in teaching in the U.S. currently seems to be about preparing kids for college. Making sure that they're learned whatever it is they need to learn to gain access to a university that will then prepare them for a career.

I'm not sure that model really helps that vast majority of Americans. My own recent reading suggests that our teaching at the pre-college level really should more like a classical liberal arts education (liberal arts in the education sense, not the political sense). But that seems to have lost appeal in the myriad budget cuts that school districts endure.

It's interesting that the more I read about education and education philosophies and look at what "elite" elementary, middle and high schools teach, the more I see a focus on character development alongside the raw academic skills. Yet, the public school debate seems to suggest that mainstream Americans don't want their underfunded, under performing schools touching character development. Yet if the schools don't teach character traits, how then to do you achieve the type of shared ethos that some people claim is disappearing from our nation?

There really should be common ground that we can reach ideologically. Hard work and accountability should be things we can convince every kid to value, but unfortunately you have parents who will check their kids out of school before a difficult quiz/test because the kid isn't ready. God forbid their class rank suffers. Kids need to be allowed to fail so they can understand the value of working hard to succeed. And they need to realize they can still live terrific lives even if they aren't in the top 10 of their high school class.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

In all honest it depends on the kids and the school system as to the goal of school. If you send your kids to private school the idea is that they will be prepared to attend a university upon graduation.



If you're kids go to good public school systems then... We know that all kids aren't college material, but we deny it for several years and pretend that they can all learn at the same pace/level.

Around middle school we decide that little Johnny is really an idiot and our goal becomes to get him through the system so that he can get something a little better than a min. wage job.

In the mean time we've determined that Sally and Mike are in fact college material, but have been slow taught while waiting for Johnny to catch up for so long that we've actually held them back and we'll spend the next 6 years separating them and trying to catch them back up to where they should be in time to start college.

We give them all classes in civics/govt and hopefully they aren't true morons when they finish school, but if they are; we'll just say they learned enough and send them on their way regardless.

 

[m25105]

The goal in teaching in the U.S. currently seems to be about preparing kids for college. Making sure that they're learned whatever it is they need to learn to gain access to a university that will then prepare them for a career.

I'm not sure that model really helps that vast majority of Americans. My own recent reading suggests that our teaching at the pre-college level really should more like a classical liberal arts education (liberal arts in the education sense, not the political sense). But that seems to have lost appeal in the myriad budget cuts that school districts endure.

It's interesting that the more I read about education and education philosophies and look at what "elite" elementary, middle and high schools teach, the more I see a focus on character development alongside the raw academic skills. Yet, the public school debate seems to suggest that mainstream Americans don't want their underfunded, under performing schools touching character development. Yet if the schools don't teach character traits, how then to do you achieve the type of shared ethos that some people claim is disappearing from our nation?

Wolfgang Klafki (German didactic specialist) actually wrote a lot on the importance of ethics in the school system, and cited Wagenschein's (another German didactic specialist) exemplary principle model in terms of learning. Where, by focusing on a specific example you invite the pupils to learn in a Socratic manner, by drawing parallels with their own knowledge and the material that is being taught, which in turn makes the next transition to the next material much easier, since the pupil can reflect the acquired knowledge from before, add it to the preexisting knowledge and thus have an easier time getting insight.

In terms of class room environment, Mayer (another German) wrote that you need some core rules in the class that fosters a culture of safety, where pupils won't feel afraid to speak out, and use positive response, even if the pupil is wrong, so that instead of getting demotivated and become afraid of looking stupid in front of their class mates, they will be encouraged to speak up and answer. And to allow the pupils to help decide what they should learn. I really like Wagenschein and Klafki's focus on examples, and build upon it. You just have to make sure that the example you pick is relate-able to the pupil, so that the activation of their preexisting knowledge is more effective and that the reflection that they recognise in the material being taught, resonates more intensely.

 

[panamaican]

In all honest it depends on the kids and the school system as to the goal of school. If you send your kids to private school the idea is that they will be prepared to attend a university upon graduation.

A lot of what I see in private schools these days, admittedly limited, is a commitment to teaching kids values like: honesty, kindness, sincerity, empathy, service to others, global awareness. That's taught right alongside the college preparation skills. The religious schools do the same thing but they use the religion as the backbone of the character lessons.

I really think it's unfortunate the public schools no longer seem to actively teach these things as part of the curriculum.

 

[panamaican]

Wolfgang Klafki (German didactic specialist) actually wrote a lot on the importance of ethics in the school system, and cited Wagenschein's (another German didactic specialist) exemplary principle model in terms of learning. Where, by focusing on a specific example you invite the pupils to learn in a Socratic manner, by drawing parallels with their own knowledge and the material that is being taught, which in turn makes the next transition to the next material much easier, since the pupil can reflect the acquired knowledge from before, add it to the preexisting knowledge and thus have an easier time getting insight.

In terms of class room environment, Mayer (another German) wrote that you need some core rules in the class that fosters a culture of safety, where pupils won't feel afraid to speak out, and use positive response, even if the pupil is wrong, so that instead of getting demotivated and become afraid of looking stupid in front of their class mates, they will be encouraged to speak up and answer. And to allow the pupils to help decide what they should learn. I really like Wagenschein and Klafki's focus on examples, and build upon it. You just have to make sure that the example you pick is relate-able to the pupil, so that the activation of their preexisting knowledge is more effective and that the reflection that they recognise in the material being taught, resonates more intensely.

I'm not familiar with the named individuals from your post but I think "the importance of ethics" as a specific component of the curriculum, as opposed to a one time thing, is probably the most important area that education in the U.S. is specifically NOT teaching.

 

[Bamboozled]

The goal in teaching in the U.S. currently seems to be about preparing kids for college. Making sure that they've learned whatever it is they need to learn to gain access to a university that will then prepare them for a career.

I'm not sure that model really helps that vast majority of Americans. My own recent reading suggests that our teaching at the pre-college level really should more like a classical liberal arts education (liberal arts in the education sense, not the political sense). But that seems to have lost appeal in the myriad budget cuts that school districts endure.

It's interesting that the more I read about education and education philosophies and look at what "elite" elementary, middle and high schools teach, the more I see a focus on character development alongside the raw academic skills. Yet, the public school debate seems to suggest that mainstream Americans don't want their underfunded, under performing schools touching character development. Yet if the schools don't teach character traits, how then to do you achieve the type of shared ethos that some people claim is disappearing from our nation?

Character development like you said can be taught with things like communications or have classes where kids can express and debate ideas. Character development in the sense of morality isn't something I feel should be taught at schools. The kids can be exposed to new ideas but I don't think it's the states job to parent kids. But if the students can debate and express these ideas I think it's a positive.

 

[m25105]

I'm not familiar with the named individuals from your post but I think "the importance of ethics" as a specific component of the curriculum, as opposed to a one time thing, is probably the most important area that education in the U.S. is specifically NOT teaching.

Not surprised, Klafki and Wagenschein are mostly unknown in the English speaking world. But both are considered the heavyweights in the German and Scandinavian education system.