I don’t usually read Jerry Pournelle’s blog; I’ve read a couple of books he’s co-authored, but haven’t been excited enough about what he puts on the blog to devote scare attention to it.
I may consider changing that…
On one of my email lists, they cited a post he did on the challenge our educational system presents to the American future – and it’s not the challenge you think it is.
“I said that to make sure you’ll stay awake for the rest of my talk.
And understand, I know Bill Gates, and he is not evil nor does he have
any bad intentions; my conclusions about him are connected to what I
believe to be the worst threat to the country.”I won’t go into the main body of what I talked about, but my
conclusions were simple: I believe that the worst threat to the United
States is our failure adequately to educate the smartest 25% of our
students; that there are no hopeful counter trends; and the result will
be disaster. Add to that our failure to train or teach skills to the
lower half of the population, and the disaster is made worse. These
trends have related causes.The underlying cause is our attempt to provide every public school
child with a university prep education. Bill Gates becomes involved
because his foundations promote the idea that “every American child
deserves a world class university prep education”; and the attempt to
do that insures that very few American children will receive a world
class university prep education, and most of the smarter children will
receive an education that is indifferent at best. The failure of our
schools to educate the smart kids will put the United States into a
terrible competitive position that will only get worse. We will
continue to live off our capital, both intellectual and financial.
That hit me pretty hard.
Last week, I went to a dinner featuring Stephen Squyers, one of the
managers of the Mars Rover program, where he presented the state of the
rovers and some cool images and video – massively cool, as a matter of
fact.
(sidebar: a surprise guest was some older, white-haired guy with a bit of a deserved swagger in his walk.)
In the discussion afterward, he was asked what – given an unlimited
budget and as a #1 national priority – he would do to further explore
Mars. he outlined an ambitious, multi-trillion dollar program to build
a long-duration base on Mars which sounded immensely attractive to me,
at least.
But I had one concern.
“Look in 1961, Kennedy had the infrastructure from World War II and the
Cold War to build on. Engineers, factories, laboratories. So dumping a
few billion into the machine to go to the Moon was adding fuel to an
existing engine. Do we have the engine today to do this, even with the
kind of funding you’re talking about? Do we have the trained talent,
not just for the top 5% of the jobs in the program, but literally at
the nuts and bolts level??“
He believed that we do.
I’m not so sure.
And while I don’t think that’s as bad as Pournelle makes it out to be, I think it’s a damn bad thing that we need to correct.
I don’t think it’s as bad Pournelle puts it. He seems to be focused on high school, which is not where I think NCLB is focused, which is grades 3 through 8 and basic math, reading (and later) science aptitude. I expect most school systems of sufficient size will, at the high school level, have a variety of courses for college prep or otherwise.
I think the question to be examined more closely is why so few students pursue careers in math and sciences. And some of those issues arise at the college level as well.
Malcolm Gladwell new book “The Outliers”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book) speaks to a lot of this. The book really made me rethink many of my preconceptions about success and society’s role in the successful.
I think a lot of people got Gladwell’s point backwards (he shows pretty conclusively that the ‘bootstrap’ idea of success is incomplete, that opportunity is a function of society in ways we rarely consider). He points to a Bill Gates and the fact that his rare genius only really mattered because he was fortunate enough to have access to one of the first networked computers to play with as a child. IE- there are lots of Bill Gateses out there, but not all of them caught that break.
Gladwell’s point isn’t that you are either born under a good sign or you’re screwed (as some critics seem to have taken away), but that society can’t necessarily ‘build’ geniuses on demand (and shouldn’t try). What we can do is try to provide the tools and opportunities so the gifted can discover themselves.
And Pournelle’s point goes against this philosophy in a way. Trying to set kids on life paths isn’t giving maximum opportunity to as many as possible. Are we really wise enough to do that anyway?
Think about this- 40 years ago we had a much different idea of what the next ‘breakthrough genius’ that would change the world would look like. Would it look like the nerdy computer kid with terrible grades? I doubt it. But THOSE are the people that changed the world, due to circumstances nobody foresaw. The next revolution won’t be executed by the kind of people we think it will, that’s pretty certain. If we start shuffling kinds off and offering those magic keys to a select group, we will very likely miss out on super gifted people who dont fit the profile.
Gladwell also showed pretty conclusively that IQ was a much less useful indicator for success than we would assume.
Finally- the best, easiest thing we can do to get our education system righted is to end summer vacations. Gladwell again shows that amazingly a huge proportion of the success gap in education between income levels isn’t what happens in class, its what happens out of class. Rich kids spend their summer in museums and being tutored, poor kids forget everything they learned. Kill summer break and we’ll instantly have far better educated kids.
I largely agree with you Mark, but I’m not sure it’s just the rich that can provide greater opportunities. I think one definition of the middle class is that group of people that maximize social benefits the most. You know, the people that attend PTA, get involved in school, take their kids to the libraries, hector city councils, etc.
But largely that’s what’s missing from Pournelle’s critique. Parents of at least moderate means are self-selecting into schools and programs, during, after-school and summer. Parents that are are at least quasi-nerdish fill their children with vacation trips to places like the National Vice Presidents Museum.
Not all schools are equal in their distribution and not all parents are equal either. I’m not sure the “top 25%” are not getting the attention they need.
Postscript: IQ Tests = Suspect; Summer school = public good
Pournelle has an excellent point regardless.
A possibly-relevant anecdote… in the 10th grade, my high school had a week-long examination preparation program for English classes. All students were taken out of their normal classes, mixed into small groups, and studied basic composition for five days. The practice didn’t do me much good – I’d been scoring high enough to graduate high school since the first grade – and certainly if someone had sat down and thought about it, they might have said “it’s probably not necessary to disrupt the gifted and talented classes, which have a 100% pass rate anyway.” But all students were to do it, so all students did…
The problem lies in that treating students on the left and right sides of the bell curve is inherently unfair to both. If you set a standard that challenges the intelligent kids, the others don’t have a chance of meeting that standard. However, if you set a standard that the less intelligent kids can meet, then the intelligent ones are definitely getting the short end of the educational stick. But the egalitarian ideal prevents you from treating those students separately. And of course the school district can’t arbitrarily flunk 40% of its population, because the parents would complain, so you end up taking the bright kids and making them do tons of drill they don’t need.
I’ve had teachers tell me “I know and you know that you don’t need to do this, but other kids in the class need to do it if they’re going to learn, and I can’t make them do it if I don’t make everyone do it.” The ones that didn’t subscribed to the idea to the point where it didn’t even occur to them that they should mention such a thing. This attitude is the biggest problem with education of gifted students.
I don’t feel that I got a bad education; frankly, at a certain point, a kid is going to get a good education if you let them at a library every few days. But to the extent that my education was valuable, it was because of the educators who put down the teacher’s manual and let me go my own way, which was generally to make a beeline for advanced textbooks. The classes I got the least out of were the ones where I was expected to do exactly the same work as the rest of the class and nothing else; I spent a good number of those asleep from pure boredom.
Pournelle’s point expands on that somewhat. There’s a big difference between the top 25% and the top 1% (and, if I may be immodest, at least some difference between the top 1% and where I was at, heh), but the principle is still the same.
I don’t blame the government for NCLB; it was a reaction to a specific problem, which was the total failure of schools in certain areas to teach anything at all; it should never have been possible to get a high school diploma and still be illiterate, but it happened often enough that something did indeed have to be done. Having at least minimal teacher accountability is no bad thing. But at the same time, if the teachers are accountable for nothing but transmission of certain (very) minimal standards of ability, then we should have no reason to expect that anything but that shall in fact be done.
Hello AL, can I first ask about the next topic – your energy bill? Do you tend to get a lot of sun where you are? My area is not so reliable for the sunlight.
Anyway, in regards to the education issue, I think the this hits the nail on the head;
“The underlying cause is our attempt to provide *every public school child* with a university prep education.”
For that simple reason it is easier to teach to the lowest common denominator and insulate certain children from the tough love they are wanting… needing. It is my estimation that all children prefer to have a sense of compassionate, patient and authoritative order in their lives when they can get it. However, for some their respect may need to be earned – non physically of course – but our PC culture severely limits the tools a teacher can employ to earn it, so they teach to the lowest common denominator. I say this because my mother was an undereducated star amongst PhD level special needs educators, she had the abiding affection and attention of all the kids the educated teachers could not control. I speculate it was because my mother’s abilities weren’t muffled by higher education or unions, and her purpose was higher than the laws of man, so she was not intimidated by trial lawyers. Personal excellence is rarely, if ever achieved, under muffling circumstances without the purpose of a higher calling – be it to a deity, or the self inflating thing that is human government. I can imagine the results of self important politicians inflating a government whose citizenry is largely muffled to mediocrity, as I’m sure you can. It seems inevitable that it will occur, sooner or later is the question.
Just my thoughts from Georgia, where we remain at the bottom of education.
Sorry for the length, I come from a long line of teachers, (so we engage this discussion at often). There are some things, you can’t teach. But there are many things we are failing to do:
1) Allowing students to pass through with limited skills.
Advanced students should be given advantages, but many already are. For example: Most community colleges offer AP credits to high school students (for example).
In contrast, poor student (or 1 misbehaving student) has a significant impact on the ability of an everyday classroom. As difficult as it may be, holding students back should be a priority, at all levels.
Many high school graduates at my Community College that can’t read (or compute) at an 8th grade level. This makes that diploma worthless. For many students who are not succeeding, we attempt to move them into voc tech programs. Places where they can be successful right away even if they’re struggling. That is a good goal, in my mind.
I agree every student does not need to succeed in college. But we would be in a better place if every student TRIED to succeed through college. But for many, there is a desire to ‘pass’, but not a desire to learn.
2)Placing a value on “how to learn”
We live in a society that currently does not put a high value on learning. AT least compared to Europe, Israel or East Asia. This has led to our disconnect.
Let’s look at our teen idols: Football stars, Pop stars, reality tv. Many teenagers do not celebrate academic achievement, and so we should not be surprised to see it fail. (AL the fact that you see an Astronaut as a celebrity immediately puts you in a different generation than mine, or the current one passing through schools.)
Parental involvement is a big part of this. Studies have shown that parents who are involved in the PTA have children with massively different levels of success. Additionally, when the PTA is comprised on Mothers & Fathers, there are only small differences in M/F test scores. Where that doesn’t happen, female scores are astronomically higher.
Why does this happen? Because many parents show an interest in sports, but not in academics. Without parental influence, there is nothing the schools can do.
And it doesn’t end in highschool. As we break up across the internet, most people (and thus students) break into their own stubborn groups. Politics are a perfect example: Why learn when Rush (or Daily Kos) explains the answer so cleanly?
How do you change this trend?
1)Place an emphasis on pass or retake, at all levels. Unless students see failure has consequences, there is no reason to expect them to improve.
2)Reemphasize learning as a society. How do you do this? I’m not sure. We need to create new heroes whose fame is driven by a desire to succeed in business or science, not by incompetence (ie today’s IDOLS). If we can’t do that we won’t improve.
3) More computer classes. Kids today spend their whole lives on computers. Many of them have skills we did not have at the same. I think we should definitely push computer learning/programming/web design at a very early age. Why not have an inter-school ‘facebook’ style account open to students/teachers/parents only? That pushes literacy, friends and learning simultaneously?
3)And I agree, remove summer vacation. Three 2-3 week breaks would be preferable.
I think Pournelle is making a different point (rather than the general argument about the decline in the quality of education); he’s saying that what we’re doing is a bad job of giving everyone a “college prep” curriculum, which may not fit them, and which has an impact on us nationally, because we no longer have skilled craftsmen/tradesmen.
And that’s because as a culture, we’ve come to devalue that kind of work – which is a huge problem, in my view.
Marc
I’m still confused by Pournelle’s point. Don’t most high schools have vocational/trade programs? I checked my local school and indeed they do; and they teach “Algebra for the Trades (Apprentices).” Does Pournelle think that’s a good thing or a bad thing?
Yes, it is true the students currently choose their preparatory degree program.
Perhaps they shouldn’t be expected to make such a big decision so young in life? If not, then who should make them, the parents, the teachers, the administrators…? In actuality, does anyone have the basis to make a good decision if each students’ potential cannot be observed in an orderly classroom? How much potential is wasted because of classroom disorder? Can an orderly classroom be achieved in our culture of unlimited compassion?
That seems like a more direct line of questioning to me.
I just have a knee-jerk reaction action career-pathing kids. Maybe its paranoia, but to me this ties in with liberal eugenics, or at least the impulse that leads to it. I’m cautious of the ‘Gattaca’ future. I mean once you accept the logic Pournelle is talking about, why not just take the kids with the best genes and concentrate your resources on them?
Thats overstating things, and I certainly DO think you need advanced opportunities for gifted kids. But i think its opportunity, not entitlement, and you have to be careful to keep those opportunities open to different minds in different ways.
Einstein famously got bad grades, but more ironically he was shuffled into a school for electrical engineering that he hated and didn’t do well in. I think we have to consider how an Einstein would fare under the kind of system Pournelle suggests (granted, Einstein did ok for himself, but owing little to his formative schooling), and essentially he is suggesting the “German system”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany
As important as it is to cater to the obvious stand outs, i don’t think in our arrogance we should think we can hand pick the most likely type of student to ultimately succeed, much less change the world (hopefully for the better). I _really_ don’t want to miss that dyslexic kid from a poor family that will end up curing cancer.
How much potential is wasted because of classroom disorder?
I would argue a lot. My first semester teaching (at community college) I had two students who couldn’t shut up. And I was too nice too boot them out (although I asked them to shush continually). My average grade was about 4-5 points lower in that classroom.
Can an orderly classroom be achieved in our culture of unlimited compassion?
Yes, but it depends how much resources you’re willing to use. Better school districts tend to have better support systems for teachers… moving difficult kids into different classroom, or used trained staff and/or psychologists to work with the kids. (note: My mom did this for 30 years).
In general, lower income schools don’t have those resources. Even if they do; the students also have more family-related/povery-related problems that prevent them from being as effective. Add to the fact that low-income students are generally not as academically supported by families, and you also have a greater number of students who refuse to accept academic authority.
It’s for these reasons (and some others, including staff turnover) that inner-city schools tend to have higher budgets and much-lower ability to show for it.
Mark B, I have less of a problem of career-pathing kids once they get to a certain age, maybe 16. Old enough to drive, to f**k, to go to jail. Old enough to take responsibility for developing the skills and knowledge on a chosen path.
But I don’t understand the rush to decision. Around here, they give an I.Q. test to the students about three-quarters of the way through kindergarten for placement in a “gifted school.” Insane IMHO.
I just have this vision in my head that goes something like, “Thats it Johnny, you spend all your time building that robot and you’re failing English. Guess who’s going to coal mining school?”
Sorry AL, I misread your intent. Let me try to re approach this:
I think there are some things that everybody should know how to do:
Basic (and some more complex) algebra.
How to run a computer and a spreadsheet
Basic communication in a 2nd language (which I can’t do)
Use written & verbal information to communicate.
Understand some basic history/politics and how to learn more and ‘investigate’ facts
I think most of these things are, and should be taught in high school (although I wish everyone had a chance to experience the independent work & concentration of senior college program).
Afterwords, I think it would be better if everyone attended vocational school (or Community college vocational program). Having a skill definitely makes you more more valuable than a mere diploma
There is definitely a myth out there that the college education is a ‘gold standard’. While it does open many doors, a college education without intent or application is utterly worthless. And yet, vocational programs are very viable for many Americans.
I think part of this is the myth that anyone should be able to do anything. This is great for 5-year olds (or politicians), but we should ground that message better in the high schools. Ok, you’re not going to be a rocket scientist… but these skills would make you perfect for ____. It’s a good career making good money. Try it.
PDShaw: partway through my kindergarten year, I started being sent to the third grade class for additional lessons. By second grade, I had my own curriculum. (It still amazes me that my small town’s school system had the resources for this at the time.) If that hadn’t happened, I might’ve been bored to the point of being a troublemaker.
IQ tests for kindergartners to detect whether they need special schooling might be a good thing, from where I’m sitting. Please tell me if I’m misreading you, but it sounds like your problem with this is that that IQ test is the Final Word on how a kid will fare. If so, I sympathize; I wouldn’t want to be pronounced “mediocre” and barred from university at age 5, either. (Which ties to the point Mark Buehner is making.)
But then, it’d also be great if Bella has doors opened when people notice she’s spelling five-syllable words. If she’s just naming colors and shapes like the other kids, that’s fine, too – just keep that door nearby for her to open whenever/if ever she shows additional promise. In other words, I like IQ tests for kindergartners, so long as that test isn’t the last one.
PDShaw: partway through my kindergarten year, I started being sent to the third grade class for additional lessons. By second grade, I had my own curriculum. (It still amazes me that my small town’s school system had the resources for this at the time.) If that hadn’t happened, I might’ve been bored to the point of being a troublemaker.
IQ tests for kindergartners to detect whether they need special schooling might be a good thing, from where I’m sitting. Please tell me if I’m misreading you, but it sounds like your problem with this is that that IQ test is the Final Word on how a kid will fare. If so, I sympathize; I wouldn’t want to be pronounced “mediocre” and barred from university at age 5, either. (Which ties to the point Mark Buehner is making.)
But then, it’d also be great if Bella has doors opened when people notice she’s spelling five-syllable words. If she’s just naming colors and shapes like the other kids, that’s fine, too – just keep that door nearby for her to open whenever/if ever she shows additional promise. In other words, I like IQ tests for kindergartners, so long as that test isn’t the last one.
PDShaw: partway through my kindergarten year, I started being sent to the third grade class for additional lessons. By second grade, I had my own curriculum. (It still amazes me that my small town’s school system had the resources for this at the time.) If that hadn’t happened, I might’ve been bored to the point of being a troublemaker.
IQ tests for kindergartners to detect whether they need special schooling might be a good thing, from where I’m sitting. Please tell me if I’m misreading you, but it sounds like your problem with this is that that IQ test is the Final Word on how a kid will fare. If so, I sympathize; I wouldn’t want to be pronounced “mediocre” and barred from university at age 5, either. (Which ties to the point Mark Buehner is making.)
But then, it’d also be great if Bella has doors opened when people notice she’s spelling five-syllable words. If she’s just naming colors and shapes like the other kids, that’s fine, too – just keep that door nearby for her to open whenever/if ever she shows additional promise. In other words, I like IQ tests for kindergartners, so long as that test isn’t the last one.
The kindergarten tests I am referring to are “nonverbal intelligence tests.”:http://encarta.msn.com/media_681514146_761570026_-1_1/nonverbal_intelligence_test.html They are designed with the purpose of isolating innate intelligence from aptitude. It should be irrelevant whether you’ve learned to read or write or speak or count.
The underlying belief is that there are children with high innate intelligence that are disadvantaged by income, family and schools. For example, some children with recognize more words in an aptitude test if there parents use a lot of words.
There is a body of research critical of these very notions. It questions whether such a test is merely a type of aptitude test focused on shape recognition and sequencing (counting). It questions whether aptitude tests are better. It questions whether children that are not mastering age appropriate skills, but do well on the test, should be considered gifted or might be harmed by doing so.
Our school district gives the test in kindergarten and those in the top 3-5% can send their kid to the “gifted” grade school. It does not matter whether the child was mastering skills during the year above and beyond classmates. I personally don’t believe this is a true gifted program. I’ve seen the parents of these children and I do not believe the test has isolated surrounding socio-economic factors either. This is a special program that the top 25% of students enjoy though the selection process is highly random.