Re:How the Tough Got Going in Kentucky
by skywhopper on Friday January 08, 2016 @07:32AM
(#10864397)
The image comparing the classroom layout in 1915 vs 2015 is misleading, but also silly. The US educational system has served a lot of people very well throughout those 100 years using exactly that setup. Such rhetorical strategies drive me nuts. Lots of things are different, but change for change's sake is never a good idea.
Re:How the Tough Got Going in Kentucky
by thrownaway2424 on Friday January 08, 2016 @09:56AM
(#10865227)
Look how nice that 1915 room is! It's really a place designed to make the occupants feel ennobled. The ceiling is 20 feet high and there are huge windows. The 2015 classroom looks like a real wrist-slitter.
Re:How the Tough Got Going in Kentucky
by tommyallen on Friday January 08, 2016 @10:54AM
(#10865706)
Change for the sake of change can reveal good ideas. Every time I hear someone talk like this, I can't help but think of what we wouldn't have now if we kept sticking with things that "just worked."
In my opinion, introducing change that isn't a patently bad idea will always be a step towards something positive. If the change proves that an old idea is still the better idea, then we will have a better defined idea.
Re:How the Tough Got Going in Kentucky
by t3f on Friday January 08, 2016 @09:39AM
(#10865111)
I have to disagree a bit here. It's true that the system has worked for many people, but you can not tell me that it's perfect. There are multiple styles of learning and comprehension that each individual is predisposed to. It's possible that this school has found another teaching style that improves on that model. It is encouraging that a school system is willing to allow it's educators to work with changing that model and adapting to better suit their population. Perhaps this design isn't the best for X% of the students in the class, but maybe it reaches more students in the class as a whole? The article is pretty light on detail, so i'm completely speculating on my own here.
Re:How the Tough Got Going in Kentucky
by setpatchaddress on Friday January 08, 2016 @02:34PM
(#10867554)
Boy, I don't. I find it repulsive. I'm naturally a "deep learner" by that classification system, but the author of that blog seems to be implying that everyone has a choice in the matter, which does not match my observations.
If it's actually true that people can be divided into those categories, it would be interesting to look more deeply, to understand why people differ in this way. Otherwise, you're just pointing at yourself and saying "look how smart I am!"
Re:How the Tough Got Going in Kentucky
by DickingAround on Friday January 08, 2016 @10:58AM
(#10865750)
I think the argument he's making isn't that it's perfect but instead that this logic doesn't hold. Old techniques are not inherently bad. They're only bad if we actually did discover something new in the meantime. In this case I think we have learned since then, but the article doesn't say that; it just says the old stuff is old and thus bad.
Re:How the Tough Got Going in Kentucky
by arethuza on Friday January 08, 2016 @08:39AM
(#10864710)
There are cultural differences around smiling so its possible that they are trying to look serious and studious - assuming that the US attitude to smiling has changed over the years.
NB On my first visits to the US 20+ years ago I was surprised at how you would get big beaming smiles* from people for no apparent reason... but then again I'm from a notoriously dour part of a dour country.
[*] I of course eventually realised that people were giving me big beaming smiles because they were paid to!.
Re:How the Tough Got Going in Kentucky
by WorldMaker on Friday January 08, 2016 @10:48AM
(#10865660)
Certainly the US attitude towards smiling has changed with regards to camera technology. I'm too lazy to look up primary referents on the subject right now, but long shutter times encouraged people not to smile to avoid grotesque photos and then as shutter times got faster photographers began to eventually "mandate" smiles to prove that they had better cameras until eventually it was weird in the US not to smile in a planned photo.
Re:How the Tough Got Going in Kentucky
by thrownaway2424 on Friday January 08, 2016 @10:30AM
(#10865514)
Considering the picture was taken indoors, at night, with 1915 film technology, all of the people in the picture would have to hold perfectly still for several seconds. That might affect their countenance.
Re:How the Tough Got Going in Kentucky
by monkmartinez on Friday January 08, 2016 @12:12PM
(#10866410)
I like the 1915 layout. I also send my kids to a "traditional" school that emphasizes; writing, reading, and math(no common core). Teacher stands at the front of the class and teaches. The kids are required to memorize basic math facts, poems every two weeks, and give book reports since kindergarten. They are expected to recite the poems in front of the class in a loud, concise manner.
They are taught how to think critically with math/science work-sheets that force concentration on math/science in a way that, I think, actually applies to everyday life. There is very little technology in the classroom, also something my wife and I chose.
Rows of seats with windows all along the entire length of one side in every class room if the kids want to day dream/look at clouds a bit. They have homework from kindergarten and my kids get it done the second they come in the house (30-45min a day)... Only because they want to go ride their bikes, and play in the neighborhood :)
Re:How the Tough Got Going in Kentucky
by snowwrestler on Friday January 08, 2016 @03:09PM
(#10867819)
Why would you call out "no common core"? It sounds like your kid's school is likely well in line with, or exceeds, the Common Core.
More and more it seems like people don't know what the "Common Core" even is. It's just becoming shorthand for whatever someone doesn't think they like about math pedagogy.
In short, the Common Core is a set of standards for math proficiency. It does not dictate any particular way of teaching math.
TL;DR: You push the candy into the side of the bag, deforming the side of the bag without puncturing it. You can reach your hand in the opening and tie a string around the candy nodule then cut the excess paper off. Now you've gotten the candy from the outside to the inside without having exposed the inside of the bag to the outside! Enodcytosis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocytosis) is awesome!
Re:How the Tough Got Going in Kentucky
by setpatchaddress on Friday January 08, 2016 @02:45PM
(#10867631)
It's literally impossible to perform the activity as specified in this lesson plan (in a normal classroom environment). Inserting your hand will cause some exposure of the inside of the bag to air.
Also: "Heresy kisses" -- Nice proofreading. Damn good thing this lesson plan isn't meant for students to view directly.
Is it too much to ask for commercially-supplied teaching tools to go through a basic quality control process?
Re:How the Tough Got Going in Kentucky
by cm2012 on Friday January 08, 2016 @08:44AM
(#10864730)
For a given definition of "in", you could push the candy in through the stretchy plastic to the center without breaking the wall. Or, if you push all the way through, it's probably going to be the smallest hole necessary.
Re:How the Tough Got Going in Kentucky
by bjelkeman-again on Friday January 08, 2016 @06:42AM
(#10864210)
It is interesting with standing space for some of your work. I find that I can't stand and do certain types of work (I have a standing desk I use a lot). Writing which require assembling a lot of information into something coherent is really hard for me to do standing. I could imagine that maths would be the same, but I haven't tried it. If you then have a class room with only standing space, maybe that isn't great. But it could of course be the opposite, that standing works better.
Re:How the Tough Got Going in Kentucky
by kwhitefoot on Friday January 08, 2016 @07:04AM
(#10864285)
Office work and education are different things. I have a standing desk and I use it standing about half the time. I mostly design, write, and debug software and I can do it standing as easily as sitting. But I couldn't do that work effectively in the classroom described in Gates' article. On the other hand, when discussing new features and brainstorming radical changes then that classroom looks just like the conference rooms that we do use for that.
Re:How the Tough Got Going in Kentucky
by powertower on Friday January 08, 2016 @01:53PM
(#10867222)
> What’s happening at Betsy Layne and other Kentucky schools show what’s possible when students are held to high standards and good teachers have the opportunity to become great.
Key point above for me.
The worst schools in America tend to almost always not hold students to any standard, with all bad behaviors excused via certain political talking-points that deflect blame onto everyone else (everyone but the student and the parent).
In my opinion, introducing change that isn't a patently bad idea will always be a step towards something positive. If the change proves that an old idea is still the better idea, then we will have a better defined idea.
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/edu-a0037478.pdf
http://www.wired.com/2015/01/need-know-learning-styles-myth-...
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/finding_common_ground/2014/04...
http://www.educatorstechnology.com/2013/12/the-myth-of-learn...
http://psi.sagepub.com/content/9/3/105.abstract
and I particularly like the concluding paragraph of this article:
http://anniemurphypaul.com/2013/10/forget-about-learning-sty...
If it's actually true that people can be divided into those categories, it would be interesting to look more deeply, to understand why people differ in this way. Otherwise, you're just pointing at yourself and saying "look how smart I am!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smile#Cultural_differences
NB On my first visits to the US 20+ years ago I was surprised at how you would get big beaming smiles* from people for no apparent reason... but then again I'm from a notoriously dour part of a dour country.
[*] I of course eventually realised that people were giving me big beaming smiles because they were paid to!.
They are taught how to think critically with math/science work-sheets that force concentration on math/science in a way that, I think, actually applies to everyday life. There is very little technology in the classroom, also something my wife and I chose.
Rows of seats with windows all along the entire length of one side in every class room if the kids want to day dream/look at clouds a bit. They have homework from kindergarten and my kids get it done the second they come in the house (30-45min a day)... Only because they want to go ride their bikes, and play in the neighborhood :)
More and more it seems like people don't know what the "Common Core" even is. It's just becoming shorthand for whatever someone doesn't think they like about math pedagogy.
In short, the Common Core is a set of standards for math proficiency. It does not dictate any particular way of teaching math.
By ripping a hole in the side?
TL;DR: You push the candy into the side of the bag, deforming the side of the bag without puncturing it. You can reach your hand in the opening and tie a string around the candy nodule then cut the excess paper off. Now you've gotten the candy from the outside to the inside without having exposed the inside of the bag to the outside! Enodcytosis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocytosis) is awesome!
Also: "Heresy kisses" -- Nice proofreading. Damn good thing this lesson plan isn't meant for students to view directly.
Is it too much to ask for commercially-supplied teaching tools to go through a basic quality control process?
Key point above for me.
The worst schools in America tend to almost always not hold students to any standard, with all bad behaviors excused via certain political talking-points that deflect blame onto everyone else (everyone but the student and the parent).