Long time coming...

I'm currently wrapping up a Honors BA in Political Science, and expect to be done in the Summer. In the 4 or so years now that I've been in the post-secondary education system the things I have encountered are just...mind boggling, and very similar to what Ms. Hurdle describes above.

The trouble starts early. Somehow, we've all come to accept that high school is the time to slack off. Kids will be kids, you know. And God knows, I did my fair share of slacking. But I did so knowing I would get into University--it was hard not to. With grades in the high 90s in my choice of University pre-reqs I was able to walk into my Chemistry 12 without a calculator, circle answers at random and leave about as quickly as I entered.

I don't want to make it appear like those relatively high grades were anything to brag about. They really weren't--they were a result of the fact that I read at a level that was appropriate to my schooling (dare I say even higher--gasp!) and knew how to write a 5 page essay. Apparently, these two "skills" were good enough for acceptance letters from UBC, SFU and Cap College. To be fair, I think the requirements for the last are that you be able to spell your name semi-correctly, and even that is negotiable if you're willing to pony up the dough.

Fast forward to 3rd and 4th year of upper division Political Science classes. I'm still surrounded by people who struggle, honestly, struggle to complete an essay. Half the time it's not even laziness so much as it is the simple fact that they were never taught how to do it. The trouble, of course, with a for-profit educational system is that it's a race to the bottom--no one does any more than they are being paid for. If there's no bonus in it for anyone, Timmy and Suzy don't learn how to write at a 3rd year level.

It's no wonder then that mildly successful students often misinterpret their basic proficiency with elementary subjects as "success" or even "intelligence." Surrounded as they are by peers who seem proclaim things like "Wasn't Hegel Canadian?" (actual quote) they fancy themselves geniuses. It's taken to absurd lengths then, really, as this mild sense of superiority translates into advocacy for soft fascism or at least something dangerously close. The things I have heard come out of the mouths of fellow students who I know for a fact aren't much better than the ones they so love to mock has been truly astounding.

Long time coming...(con't)

Obviously, a large degree of the fault lies with the individual--no debate there. But our administrations (political, educational--often the same thing) are failing our society. The teachers often do the best that they can with what little they are given to work with, the pupils failing to learn or become motivated but eager to participate bake cookies. The result? Well, Ms. Hurdle explains just that.

The problem is these same terrible schools are producing the same terrible teachers of tomorrow. Give it a few years, a decade or two. By the time we see even the partial results of an educational system that has been constructed entirely around the pursuit of profit (like the 1001 kids studying "business") it may very well be too late to change anything.

Not that those who are in positions of influence care: they did it on purpose. A kid with a business degree is going to devote his life to the status quo--to illusions of grandeur that will keep him pushing paper at 25, divorcing at 35, buying a Porsche at 50, and voting Conservative/Liberal his whole life.

If we expect politicians to change what they themselves have created, there's some sea side property in Arizona I'd like to sell you. It is society, people themselves, who need to fight this, resist and change it. Until we understand that it is in their interests to create drones, stories like the above will simply become the norm.

My contacts inform me that

My contacts inform me that it is the same problem all over the world.

The problem is the increasing and almost incredible pressures put on people, all they want is to escape.

Universities today are not places for "learning", but for "teaching", with many of the departments, especially economics and many sciences, totally controlled by big business. A degree has now become a ticket for a job with a hopefully high pay, but the ignorance of some students and even of professors is staggering. All they can do is repeating memorized slogans from some
long dead "prophets" and "leaders", without the ability to examine and think of what they really mean and the consequences.

The fraudulent theory of neoclassical market economics, now destroying the world and humanity, is the best and worst example in human history.

Ed Deak.

I agree with Fiat Lux,

I agree with Fiat Lux, education is an industry and everyone is expected to fit the mold. My son quit school after grade 10, tried to go back twice and quit twice because he got fed-up with the BS. When he quit he went out on his own and says that todays young have been taught to mooch-off of their parents. He has always worked and has had no problems in finding work. Since leaving school he has done more in his young life than even the average adult. He can have discussion on any topic and has even read books on quantum mathematics. He's a follower of Mark Twain's comment that "I don't want schooling to get in the way of my education" My advise to these post secondary instructors is to advise your students to quit school, go out into the world and experience life to it's fullest, and after how long it takes, go for college or university.

the consequences

In the past we have all had the misfortune to get a job working for a person who was not properly qualified.
Obviously this situation will be the standard in the future as hardly anyone will have a proper education.
So it is not a matter of producing drones, we have enough already.
It is a catastrophe when our future leaders go through life in a partying atmosphere!
Remember the old Red Skelton slapsticks, where he made fun of how stupid he was? It will no longer be a joke folks!
Get ready to think for yourself, be aware that the people who supposedly runs the systems are just silly goofballs.
Our newscasts are filled with little mistakes that we are supposed to take in stride, why should an announcer be prepared, right?
They are all brouhgt up on the slogan: "you deserve a break today"!
Like everyone deserves a reward, no matter how lazy or stupid!

on the other hand...

Assignments are meant to prove that the student has engaged thoughtfully with the subject matter, not jumped through pointless busywork-type hoops.

It's kind of anachronistic to teach like learning something should be an arduous trial by fire, especially since much of what there is to learn isn't difficult to understand. It's almost medieval to torture students with endless exercises when all you want to do is find out if they know the difference between a simile and a metaphor or that force equals mass times acceleration. The fundamental assumption that rigourous evaluation promotes information processing is 100% false.

When I taught at the the university level, I never found students scrimped on assignments that were worthwhile. If the end product was something students could re-deploy in some other aspect of their lives, they took it seriously, spent time on it and were proud of it.

it's the bctf that is

it's the bctf that is fighting the implementation of standardized testing. without it teachers can do whatever they want, and some take full advantage. my son's grade 8 teacher covered exactly half of the math curriculum and almost two thirds of the science curriculum. the principal said there was nothing he could do about it. nice work if you can get it.

You actual think standardized tests will improve things ?

Rousseau,

Your BCTF snipe aside, you seriously believe that having some sort of SAT like exam will honestly improve this situation ?

I've spent a fair bit of time in Asia, where standardized tests take 100% of high school students attention. The result is total, complete disengagement with the teacher or even the subject matter - it's merely a process of learning how to jump through the right hoops. it's a large reason why - despite spending ludicrous amounts on English lessons - their natural english language skills remain low. A high TOEFL score doesn't mean your fluent.

Indeed, one of the very reasons wealthy Asian families send their kids to BC is the very lack of such tests. The pressure these kids endure is beyond belief.

lovable lazies?

Maybe it's not the "lovable" indolents who are the problem, as much as the lame teaching philosophy, typified by the comment: "What good would repeating the class do? If an exercise in futility, my trigger finger presses "Credit" on the computer keyboard while my heart sighs."

Maybe a little less heart-sighing would be in order, and a little more hard-boiled reality. Failing is a form of learning: you learn that in life, effort is rewarded. And disdain for the people trying to help you learn, no matter how "sweet" that disdain, carries a price.
The teacher here gets a D Minus.

Blaming the monster, the easy way out.

So I'll rise to the bait and bite. Rousseau, you blame the BCTF for the state of youth (my generalization admitted) in post-secondary schools because your son's grade 8 math teacher didn't complete the curriculum? Did you ask him/her why? Could it be that instead of rushing the whole class through the curriculum regardless of whether the whole/majority/some of the class actually mastered the concepts the teacher took the time to teach the children where they were - so that many children received real learning?

Or instead of rushing through the curriculum he/she spent time enriching one or more units of study to match his/her students' interests?

Or maybe the number of children who needed lessons re-taught because of illnesses / absences, learning problems, etc got in the way of completing the curriculum.

Or maybe the curriculum is too full to complete adequately in the time alloted?

Or maybe the days lost to testing could have been better spent teaching and learning?

Or could it be that the school principal / administrator who said that he could do nothing wasn't willing to do his job and supervise the learning situation in the classroom, and then react to it?

To say he could do nothing is a cop-out on his part.

Finally, if it is such 'nice work', why don't you teach for a living? I'm sure you'd be good at it - after all I want my children to have teachers who are open-minded and listen to all the sides of a story before slagging a whole segment of society.

By the way, I am NOT a teacher!!!!!

As to the actual issues raised by the article, failure as a result of choosing not to do the work is a logical consequence of one's actions is it not? The fear of repercussions from parents and students who demand marks for money - without regard to effort, that is an issue from elementary school and on up, and it is one that needs to be addressed.

Learning is not play - it is work, and as a previous poster has commented on - you get out of it what you put into it. A paper degree will get you in the door, but the skills and aptitude to do the work will get you the job - and keep it.

And why aren't we (the greater society) doing a better job of getting our young into trades - which we need and which are excellent choices to base a career on?

SSummer.

on the other other hand!

while i detest the mental drudgework of repetitive assignments, some concepts can only be taught by repetition. most people's troubles with math, science, and even essay-writing stem from not having the necessary work habits to prevent making mistakes, and my low grades in those subjects are really due to my laziness and desire to avoid that kind of work more than my "medical excuse" of being in a low percentile in working memory. those work habits can't be consciously followed on every assignment, they must be exhaustingly practiced until they become firm study habits and come naturally. it took me a long time to get a handle on that concept, especially in the face of my frustration. high school is all about developing those study habits in preparation for university, in my opinion.

Enough Blame to Go Around!

As both a high school teacher and sessional college instructor, I can tell you that universities and colleges share much of the blame for the "casualness" that Hurdle decries. Except perhaps for certain math and science programs, post-secondary institutions have lax entry standards. It's a problem that's particularly acute in the humanities and social science departments. All they ask for are minimum entry standards. Particular courses are not required. Courses that have fairly demanding standards and relevant skill development (like History 12 and English Literature 12) are only recommended. Not surprisingly, enrollment in these two courses have been declining for years, and along with them two courses that are pretty strong when it comes to reading, writing and critical thinking. Frankly, I am surprised that my college students do as well they do, considering how many take a smorgasbord of high school Weight Lifting, Photography, Keyboarding, Leadership, etc. Nothing against those courses – I've taught some of them – but many students graduate from high school with a high GPA, yet with very little to show for it. They aren't ready for academics OR an apprenticeship. The “third way” is a real problem that makes mincemeat of the traditional dualism between academics and trades.

Things are gettings worse. The recent move by some schools to ignore provincial exams will make it even less likely that students will take academic courses. We don't want our course work to endanger our GPA! At a time when high school educators laugh at GPA scores, our post-secondary institutions are now basing entry largely on this dicredited number. UBC is a laudable exception, but I doubt it will be long before it knuckles under.

When I explain these problems to instructors and professors, they seem incredulous. Too bad their deans and administrators only care about one thing: enrollment numbers. If instructors think high standards are important to BC universities and colleges, they are really näive.

Relevence

Until we challenge a student with relevent information from a contemporary world, and in such a way that it matters (ie. is not just an exercise), he or she might just very well remain passive. Universities have a challenge, and not an enviable one: the old bookish world is gone, yet the new one needs some of its backbone. Now is the time for sorting it out. Universities and schools, being conservative institutions, are slow to change. In a province in which the government thinks that educational change is met through additional testing and healthy foods programs, without addressing the curriculum gap, we have a long, long way to go. Let's not blame the kids. And let's not pick scapegoats. Our society has created this mess, and it mirrors our society. The real question is: How are we going to address it? It seems that you're working hard at it, Crystal. But what is the institution doing? And what is the government doing? The emphasis on testing seems to suggest that the government thinks that all is well, as far as curriculum goes — if only it could get more people to buy in. Although the kids don't seem to be buying in very well. There are lots of reasons why they shouldn't. The reasons why they should are all very abstract.

Big problem, one piece

There are a wealth of interconnected issues here, including, according to very fine teachers I know, serious disincentives of multiple kinds which impede the ability to properly teach. Many parents, for example, routinely focus upon grades rather than learning, and virtually torture teachers who are willing to apply the consequences of inadequate or uncompleted work.

However, one significant cause of the current situation, which I witnessed first hand, has to do with shifts which occurred as a result of women's greater freedom within the professional workforce.

While I was in university for my undergraduate degree (1973-78), I witnessed first-hand that it was almost exclusively the less-competent students, male and female, who chose teaching as a career. If you couldn't successfully complete a Math B.S., you did an Ed. degree in Math. The same phenomenon applied across English, Music, etc. I can remember one specific friend, a lovely person who could neither speak nor write with any great facility, who took this route. Her choice left me thinking, "Oh dear. These people are all going to be teaching my kids, or the people they've taught will be teaching my kids."
The link to Women's Lib? My mother pointed out that even in her generation, most professions were difficult for women. There were a few doctors and lawyers, but a very large number of the really smart women who went beyond high school went into either nursing or teaching, which were both therefore very competitive.

By the time I was in University, both were seen as "women's work" and for that reason, teaching in particular was therefore less desirable not only for men, but for ambitious women as well.

There were exceptions of course; dedicated, competent people of both sexes who were drawn to teaching for all the right reasons.

We need somehow to bring the perceived value of teaching in line with its true nature as a critical aspect of our culture, our public society, and our children's development in every area.

Further, I am no fan of standardized testing for children, but given both what I mention above, and the appalling inadequacies my children encountered in some of their teachers, I do think we MUST consider some form of evaluation of teachers, including insuring that they meet certain minimum standards of competence in broader areas, and, especially in high school, in those specialties we pay them to teach. Bad lawyers eventually lose their clients. In California, medical specialists must re-certify every few years. If the teachers unions want us to both view and treat them like professionals, they should suggest ways an means to provide incentives for good teachers, and to weed out the bad ones.

Smart Kids, Dumb Schools

If you really wanted to create an factory for mediocrity you probably could not do better than the "progressive" industrial school system we have brilliantly saddled ourselves with. On the one hand it is all about grades and standardized testing, on the other what is being graded and tested is - often - the partial coverage of a dumbed down and often antiquated curriculum.

Begin with reading. An entire generation of school kids has now read all 7 Harry Potter novels. What, 5000 pages minimum? These kids can read and read well. But there has been little attempt to leverage that self taught reading competence and enthusiasm. If you are teaching to the test - and there is no question that the testing in BC schools is being taught to - switching gears to take advantage of something like HP is next to impossible.

Then writing: writing is, primarily, a craft. The more you write, and have your writing corrected, the better at writing you'll become. How many essays, short notes, one pagers a student writes and has corrected is a pretty good indicator of how well that student will write. Doing a minimum of one piece of writing per day is a decent starting point for kids from about grade three on. And each piece needs to be corrected. (Note: corrected does not necessarily mean marked. One might get a mark for creativity, one is corrected on usage, spelling, construction, grammar and punctuation.)

Basic arithmetic is a craft as well. Or, perhaps, a tool which needs to be used to keep its edge. Again, actually doing arithmetic in a variety of contexts and at various degrees of complexity, makes kids numerate.

All of which is not a surprise to teachers or school boards or Ministries of Education. But where to find the time to do all that marking? And to deal with the social and language issues which come up in radically heterogeneous classrooms? Not to mention crowd control, fundraising and issue de jour?

So, by the time a student hits highschool he or she is lucky if they can read and write at grade level and, while they probably know basic arithmetic facts they are not fluent with numbers. Which slows them down some more. Slow them down enough and they will have no idea how to write a five page essay, do basic research, or solve a deliberately vague number problem. Worse, the smarter ones will realize how short changed they have been and they will, in many cases, have long since lost interest in the entire process of education.

My own solution is homeschooling. Other people look to private schools or alternative schools or mini-schools or that bastion of anti-ESL, French immersion (private school without the fees).

Most of all we want to give our kids a chance to actually learn things and to love learning. Industrial schools can't do that consistently.

The place whee it hurts

"while i detest the mental drudgework of repetitive assignments..."

Eh, could you run that by me again? Are you doing any serious work? Are you a parent? a Gardener? An artiste of any kind? Is there a position worth occupying in this world, as part of his life, that does not entail some 'repetitive assignments', in fact a massive number of them?? You really have me baffled here! I believe it is a foundation stone in the art of living, that one can endure 'repetitive assignmments' without flinching. In my day, it was called fortitude. And it kept the world a tidier place. I believe, if I read you correctly, that you are touching on something vital here, in a manner of speaking, stepping mighty heavily on the very point of pain. I spent years teaching my children how to be bored - without getting bored. I am told they generally accomplish what they set out to do.

teachers are not the problem

It is unfortunate, but expected, that elitist attitudes enter any discussion about teaching. I wish we could have these discussions without having to deal with straw men.

I do not expect that any of the teachers my child encounters will be expert mathematicians, or expert chemists, or expert musicians. I do expect that my child's teachers will be expert teachers.

Our post-secondary teaching programs are well designed to produce teachers, not mathematicians or chemists, etc. The problem is found in the core of Hurdle's piece - the lowering of expectations.

It is an issue that began with the baby-boomer generation (my cohort) and accelerated with generation X and Y and whatever the current crop is labeled.

Almost all the teachers I have encountered in parent-teacher discussions and regular school functions have been talented individuals committed to their craft. My child is now in high school and perhaps two teachers I have met over the years were, in my humble opinion, in the wrong profession.

Two out of perhaps twenty-five is a significantly higher success level than that which I encounter on a regular basis in the legal and medical professions. Sorry, nyog, I encounter truly incompetent lawyers practicing in large firms every week. Some are partners in their firms. The same is true in the medical profession albeit, happily, a less frequent discovery. In neither profession does the "market" protect the public.

learning

As a mature student who has just finished two years of college, i will add my voice to this discussion. I believe the quality of post-secondary education a person receives is, in large part, directly related to the individual's own efforts. Having said that i agree completely that students today seem very lazy and uninterested in learning anything at all. Texting, internet surfing, eating, and gossiping are all commonplace activities during many of the classes i attended. It's pathetic really. And as far as being able to write essay's and complete basic assignments i completely agree with Tulip's comments above. What is truly incredible to me is that many of these students, who often don't hand in work on time (or sometimes at all!), and who prove during class discussions that they have a very minimal grasp of the subject material being taught-actually pass!

So, here's a dilemmma: what does one do if they feel qualified and confident that they can do a particular job, but that job requires a degree that they don't have? I believe that there are many folks out there who, as has been mentioned above, are very clever, skilled, motivated, and who have gained invaluable experience just by living their life and having a variety of jobs. It's one thing to be able to write a coherent essay but it's quite another for someone to be able to make a life or death decision under pressure, or coordinate some kind of logistical operation by themself, or convince a difficult person to take a particular course of action. None of the 'important' things are ever taught in a classroom.

teacher are not the problem, cont.

However, returning to the teaching profession and without even opening the class size issue, it is clear to any observer that the resources necessary to teach children have been gutted. Even those teachers one might label as marginal labour under unrealistic expectations.

In much the same way as nurses have had non-nursing administrative and custodial duties added to their job functions - thereby reducing the time available to actually practice nursing, teachers have also had administrative work and physical plant type work added to their jobs as school boards are forced to cut corners to meet unrealistic budgets. The budget corners cut are not just on paper. The corners cut can be found in every classroom.

Teachers have also had all manner of special needs children streamed into regular classrooms further eroding their effectiveness. This misguided streaming does not effectively help the special needs children. It also has a significant impact on the time and resources available for the teacher to work with the rest of the class.

I think that at this point a teaching certificate should also require a degree in social work. Using the term ‘at risk’ is a benign sounding way to mask the problems brought into the school system when we demand that teachers also practice psychology, with both the students and their families. Injecting ESL students into the classroom too makes a tough job tougher.

Now, I do believe that there has been a lowering of the standards expected in western civil society. It is not just in our schools, but in our workplaces and social interactions. Some of that change is a result of happenstance; witness our reliance on electronic communication. I can no longer read the popular press or watch what passes for news on the television. But some, perhaps most of this change is deliberate. Our elites do not want a truly educated society. Our elites want consumers.

That is the issue you raise nyog. Education is seen as a product to be consumed. But, if the production line is faulty and the product no longer meets the standard expected, don't blame the worker on the line. Look a little farther and analyze the production inputs for the reasons underlying the deficiencies. We have a problem alright, but it is simplistic to lay it at the feet of teachers.

oops!

that last sentence should have read: none of the important lessons are ever learned in a classroom.

ESL students are only

ESL students are only problems in cities, where they can gang together, but are absolutely no problem out here in the boondocks, where they go to school and pick up the language perfectly within a few months. We have 3 right here in our partners' house.

Anybody can check this out,which makes ESL programs a waste of time and resources.

As far universal testing is concerned, it is nothing less than the sentencing of human beings into slavery at an early age.

People can not be measured by cookie cutter systems, because they're born with an incredible variation of talents and development potentials no mass produced testing can discover .

Teachers should indeed be psychologists to a great degree to be able to discover, encourage and develop the natural talents of children and young people. This, again, can not be done with mass production methods.

I was a lousy student, while devouring hundreds of books on a great variety of subjects and the only way I could pass was that some of my teachers have been merciful and perhaps sorry for my single mother. This couldn't have happened under a universal testing system.

E.g. I had to study 3 foreign languages in school, with the usual grammatical methods and after 3 to 7 years I couldn't form a simple sentence. How I passed I still don't know ?

Yet, when I landed all alone, as a homeless refugee, in a foreign country at the age of 18, I picked up the language in a few months. From then on I never took a single language lesson and found that I could learn a language just be listening and reading and became a competent information analyst, working on the dissection and busting of propaganda in 3 languages.

In short, the only really valuable subject children learn in school are the elementary "3 R"s. Everything else is spaghetti until they discover their own talents and our economic system that demands mindless robots, permits to use them, which happens very seldom and only to a few.

Ed Deak.

inadequate grade school teachers

It's the dumbing down of the populace via the mainsteam media: over-abundance of mindless male sports on TV; constant CMT videos of bimbos in their underwear; manufactured and manipulated McNews; Celeb focus and the removal of Canadian content. School textbooks now come from the States, where history has been warped since 1776. Most Boomer teachers are apallingly ignorant of Canada and current events. Alas, they have passed on that lack of knowledge to the next generation of teachers/students. Mind you, the lack of instruction on our country was ordained long ago by early NAU advocates. How many teachers actually know what NAU is? Or even care, I wonder? Most teachers have never even heard of Manifest Destiny! Ask them where Winnipeg is on a map and they'll point to Gimli or some place even further north. Get them to write. Ha! They can't, and they won't allow their students to write, either. Everyone must print! This slows down one's thoughts and the registering of those thoughts to a crawl. Critical thought? There's no time for it. Students get better marks if they appear to be obedient, nice robots and don't question their teachers. No social justice rebels will be forthcoming in the next generations--just greedy psychopaths or sweet drones. Guess which group will win.

So What's The Good of Learning Rocket Science....

....when there are no rocket science jobs? (Please feel free to substitute any course here) The days of mass employment are over, folks, yet the days of mass education still lumber on.

Cariboo:

Exactly! Dead Poets Society, anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Poets_Society

Used car salesmen

What's even worse is that they became Socred/Liberal cabinet ministers :-)

panamajack; who said

panamajack; who said anything about 100% of the mark being based on a final exam? Grade 12 provincials are worth 40% while Socials 11, Math 10 and Science 10 are worth 20%. At least when there is a gov't exam the teacher is somewhat accountable to cover the curriculum. otherwise, like i said before, they can do whatever the hell they want b/c there is absolutely no accountability at the end of the school year. there should be provincials in the four core courses from at least grade 8, but the bctf is dead set against it b/c it would show up the crappy teachers.

Learning is hard

Perhaps Ms Hurdle is in the wrong profession. It seems to me a teacher should above all want students to learn. Her students are not learning. Why then does she consider them "lovable"? (Because she wants them to love her?) Almost all the good teachers I've really learned from I have considered (at least initially) asses and hated their guts. That's because, real learning is hard. It upsets your applecart. It's not easy. It's something you initially resist (or it's not real, I think). The teacher is the messenger who has to tell students that real learning is hard and will require uncomfortable effort. Being human, students (at least initially) will want to shoot the messenger. But if you can get them through that stage and on to an intellectual engagement with the subject - and maybe even a love for it - they'll come to appreciate what the teacher has had to do. Unfortunately, not every student can be inspired sufficiently to make the effort. But that doesn't mean, I think, that teachers should insist they try.
It is no favour to give to a student a pass when he or she hasn't mastered a subject. It's the worse thing a teacher can give.

There IS a difference

"...absolutely no problem out here in the boondocks, where they go to school and pick up the language perfectly within a few months. "

This could be for another, possibly little known reason. In The great city, where I live in one of the 'elitist' neigborhoods, my children got a lacakdasial, sloppy, devoid-of-structure education, where I constantly had to do battle with mediocrity and not seldom had to step in as the actual teacher, along with my significant other. We were told the neighboring schools were no better, besides dope being more rampant. My children, of whom only one graduated from high school, say today that they would have been illiterate babarians, unable to identify countries on a map, if it had not been for our effort. When one fall it suited me to stay in the boonies, a small school, which has now been closed after a heroic effort to keep it open on the part of the local community, was the one available to my offspring by force of paying property taxes locally, and in this school in the boonies, there was schock on the faces of teachers, when one of my kids made clear that she had never started at the beginning of a textbook and worked her way through to the end, but that jumping, skipping, and replacing with semi-literate 'handouts' were the norm in her experience. I think the exception was that one of my boys worked his way through the grade one mathbook in Kindergarten class, and then was handed the same book to do again in grade one, for else it would not fit. He did not graduate, of course, but can more or less write his own ticket in the workplace, just as Ed describes.

I cannot account for why the teaching is better in the boonies. It could have something to do with the fact that the environment there selects for that foritude I referred to in an earlier post. Attitude is not important. It is everything.

Whinge whinge whinge

Wow, so many of the comments in this section are chalk full of confirmation bias. Not one shred of evidence beyond highly personal and very selective anecdote to support the value or lack of education being offered today.

Accusations of laziness directed toward younger generations are ubiquitous throughout history. Were they even remotely accurate we would have never have gotten out of the stone age, let alone be able to even remotely maintain our current civilization. If anything, the young people of today work harder for less, particularly when compared to the baby boom generation. They have to be satisfied with mindless snippets of entertainment, between endless hours of work, from which are squeezed every last bit of productivity in order to improve profit margins.

But what I find truly disgusting is the utter lack of acknowledgment of any form of accomplishment from so many of the above, except when it comes to their own kids or friends. I guess it's just everyone else who is the problem. [OFFENSIVE FINAL SENTENCE REMOVED FROM AN OTHERWISE INTERESTING COMMENT. -MODERATOR.]

It isn't the Lovable Lazies......

....it's the Leisure Society! It's the beginning of the Jetson Utopia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leisure_society
Mass production through automation (or sweatshop labour) is beginning to remove the necessity of the 9-2-5 drudge existence.

Now, the only thing that needs to be worked out is the distribution of all that stuff, when paydays are niggardly and becoming far-and-few-between.................

age requirements???

May i suggest something unique?? How about a minimum age requirement for collages and universities. Require people to go get jobs/life experience first and maybe the "bums in seats" will disappear.

Choices to be made

To everyone (with the caveat that the obvious goal of every teacher should be to complete the entire curriculum assigned to them by the government):

You have a choice to make;
a) completely cover the presentation of the content in your curriculum knowing that many of your students will not actually learn it, or understand most of it.

b) do not cover the entire curriculum with your students, knowing that by spending more time teaching fewer topics (possibly in more depth, or teaching the foundation skills they are missing) to the class, the children will know and understand the content and concepts that have been presented.

You have to make the decision for the majority of the children you face, not just for your child.

Which teacher do you want stimulating the learning of your child?

The logic that I believe in guides me to believe that the BCTF - or any other union or professional organization does not actually want to protect 'crappy (members)'. I believe that unions want to protect members from unfair processes, and from unfair public attacks.

If a teacher is 'crappy', then they need to be evaluated, and they need to face the consequences of their actions/inactions. That process needs to be fair, and it needs to be timely. The people who are responsible to do that are the administrators - and they have the power and the responsibility to act. Who is supervising them?

I also do not believe that teachers (who are the BCTF) are against assessment their ad campaign says - if you listen to it - that they believe that assessment should be used to guide instruction, and that it should be based on what has been taught, and how the content/concepts have been taught.

Maybe another problem here is the (as I mentioned earlier) amount of material in a course curriculum. Would it be better to reduce the number of topics covered, and increase the depth of study of each topic? And while I'm ranting....why not cut down on the number of different things schools need to deal with so teachers would have more time to work on the 'basics'- like the writing process(art) mentioned previously...

Solutions to a systematic problem?

Maybe there do need to be consequences - not just for the 'crappy teachers', but also for the children, and for the parents?

Growing up in Ontario in the 60's and 70's we collected credits for high school graduation right from grade 9 on up. And there were prerequisites that you needed to have before you could advance (ie; to be in Math 11, you needed to have passed Math 10). Now this concept could be modernized - course challenges etc. And what about the provision of intensive remedial support for those children who need it? Placing a child in the 'next level' when they couldn't handle the previous one makes no sense - and neither does making them repeat something and expecting a different outcome without doing a lot of things differently.

Back to the article at hand. The students selected the course. They read the syllabus/course outline, and they knew what was expected from the instructor. The individual person chose not to meet those expectations, so they should not have been 'passed'. Logical consequences need to be logical. Standards will drop as long as we (society) allow them to drop. Parents need to expect their children will work at learning. Parents need to expect that teachers will teach, assess, and mark accordingly - even when the resulting mark is an 'F'. Principals need to allow failure. Parents need to allow failure, and teachers need to allow failure. Then everyone needs to support the learner in learning from their failure, and helping them overcome it.

At the elementary level, a child's inability to work at the appropriate level is a scream for additional help and support, not repeating a grade.

At the secondary level, a child's poor mark (an 'F', or whatever) is an announcement that something different needs to be done. Did they not do the work? Why not? Can they do it, but they chose not to? logical consequence #1 (which should include doing the work, or demonstrating prior knowledge/understanding of the material in some other way) before they progress. Did they not complete the work because they couldn't do it? Then logical consequence #2 (remediation/learning help, etc., but not 'failure').

At the post-secondary level (you've met some minimum level of competence just to get accepted) just because you've paid doesn't mean that you get to pass - you still need to meet a minimum standard.

The bigger system is at fault here - we expect teachers to cover the curriculum, we expect teachers to teach, to support, to challenge, and to engage our young but we don't allow them the respect and trust to do it.

Evaluating at any level is not easy. Creating a plan for learning based on that evaluation is not easy either.

On the other hand....

The phenomenon described herein might just have a silver lining. With the increasing evidence of human-assisted global warming, many have suggested that conservation is the only possible way to reduce humankind's greenhouse gas production.

The "bums in seats" might be unwitting allies. It's a cinch that very few from the next graduating classes will be able to operate the complex machinery of our present global money-generating systems. As we watch the present culture begin to slide into oblivion and cast about for evidence of a replacement, it becomes increasingly obvious that it won't be a technical one. So, I guess if we wait a bit, present and future graduates-with-no-skills will take us back to a simpler time and Mother nature will surely benefit. Now, all we'll have to do is find a way to hide the mounds of useless junk; the technical detrius of today.

There's hope yet, folks!

Bad fit?

"...completely cover the presentation of the content in your curriculum knowing that many of your students will not actually learn it, or understand most of it."

Why do we keep accepting such a poor fit between the student population as we receive it, and the prescribed curriculum? Is the curriculum poorly done, or are kids dumber than expected? We need to understand what is wrong with this picture. It is claimed to be well-intended for teachers to feel that they must adjust so that 'most kids' will be able to hack their assigned subject matter, but this is exactly why we waste many of the potentially best students, who end up feeling totally suffocated by the dumbing down and waiting for everyone to catch up. Stuff like a deadline that is extended twice, because 'most kids' did not 'manage' to do the assignment on time totally screw those who did it on time. You can't teach anyone anything worse than that making an effort does not pay. It is hard not to see a sociopolitical agenda behind those choices. Why are teachers not screaming bloody murder about the quality of their base material, instead of whining for more money? could it be because that might upset the socio-economic order? As much as hinting, that maybe two paycheques, the good life, and minimal 'quality time' spent with the offspring has ramifications is probably a capital offense. Brain cells die from lack of exercise. It requires intelligent company to develop to school-readiness. It may, indeed, be time to pay the piper - in the original, literal meaning of the expression.

wetcoastponderer

Similar idea would be to make as a compulsory course, the setting up and running - successfully! - of a small business, before going on to either trades or academia.

We keep getting told that many of us will be self-employed in the coming years, yet few of us have any inkling at all what it takes to run a small business, which is after all, the backbone of the country.

perfect box students

- the students are not aberrations, they are exactly what you would expect from box students, students trained throughout their lives to be obedient worker-consumers, enough knowledge to run their part of the computer matrix without asking questions. More about it all here - They're Building a Box - and You're In It - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/box-intro.html

Good Call James Burns -

Nice comment, Burns. I do sometimes wonder about the generation that had to suffer the depression then fight World War II though. What did their parents say about them? Mind you, I guess their parents had to suffer through World War I. Having it "easy" is all relative, and often is related to the geography of where one lives.

Still, but you are right. Each generation displays different values before the previous generation is able to recognize and understand the reasons for the change in values.

To call the young lazy, is just plain lazy. Let's really look at where their energy and talents are used, or diverted.

Good article for promoting discussion though.

Ah, but you said it best. I gotta give it some more thought.

moat

To a certain extent, any succeeding generation of students is a result of the machinations of the previous generation. It is a bit of a mantra (or was) that "I want my kids to have it better than what I had" without really providing a definition. Usually, it got tranlated into "more stuff", which culminated in the retirement of (a significant portion of) the boomer generation. Succeeding generations will have a tougher go in accumulating "more stuff" (which is the measure of success in this society)......

Lovale Lazies

Ah, the same old complaint from instructors who are really not terribly creative in dealing with a situation they do like. I don't know how old Ms. Hurdle is but I sense a petrified teacher who wishes she were carrying a cane. If any of you have seen the movie "If", you may understand the type of ideal students Ms. Hurdle may be wishing for.

Every generation displays its own traits, and laziness is certainly one of them--since time immemorial. My suggestion to Ms. Hurdle is to try to get help from people who do not see students as bums and indigents but as young people who need our guidance and help to enjoy the forest and evetually find their way out.

I suggest to the likes of Ms. Hurdle to stop crapping and start to take their job seriously.

Hawkeye

Take Responsibility

Ms. Hurdle may not be the cause of her students laziness and lack of competence, (there is plenty of blame to be shared by governments, corporations, parents and the students themselves), but she has the chance to make a stand and not pass those failing students.
Instead she becomes a willing participant in the sham.
I wonder if Ms. Hurdle has any self interest in the "bums in seats" mantra..like ensuring her future classes will be full because she gives easy marks?
In addition she doesn't seem to give ESL students the attention or consideration accorded to others...perhaps because of the inherent power imbalance due to her position in society?

Students today

Crystal Hurdle's article is well-written, lively, thoughtful, and provides an accurate account of the classroom situation today. I, too, teach at Capilano College (in the philosophy department) and this year I issued the lowest average set of grades I've given in several years.

I see the students (who I also find charming, friendly, and often ignorant, but not dumb) as only partially responsible for their own condition, except in the existential sense that we all have to be ultimately responsible for ourselves.

The larger problem, I think, is the social and political culture in which we live, which has the effect (intended or not) of renderng the students ignorant and distracted.

I see my teaching work as necessarily an act of resistance to the larger culture, which inundates the students with technological gadgets and toys (iPods, cellphones, video games, dumb mass movies, and Facebook-type websites that encourage them to pay attention to nonsense). It's that culture that produces their ignorance.

I continue to teach with joy and enthusiasm. Though it's difficult for students to even get an idea that there's a world outside the bubble in which they've been encased, some of them, remarkably enough, do. It may be a losing battle, but I can't think of one more worth engaging in.

I think it's misguided to blame the professors, high school, and grade school teachers or the Girl Guide leaders or the day care workers or the parents. All of them are working and living in a deeply corrupt culture, and the tide is running against those of us (parents, teachers and students) who wish to turn it back.

What's tragic about the situation of today's students is not that they're worse than students in some earlier Golden Age of studying, but that the opportunities for learning (in terms of institutions and numbers of people who can attend them) are greater than at any time in the recent past.

Stan Persky

Uninspiring teachers...

Funny but the teachers I loved the best were those who never complained about students. Instead these teachers, lecturers or professors disregarded the unattractive traits a student might display and offer something to get that student motivated.

I pity the students in Ms. Hurdle's class as she does not seem terribly creative nor energetic. My suggestion is that she should try to enroll in some workshops to sharpen any skills she may possess. Now, having a sense of humour is important but one either has it or one hasn't.

A bad carpenter blames her tools; a bad teacher, her students.

Hocklye

Question the relevance of what is being taught

I'm a bit late in joining this conversation, but as I read it I find myself continually coming back to the question. Does what is taught in schools have any relevance to the world we live in. I received a B.Sc 30 years ago and have been in the work-force ever since. I would say that perhaps 5% of what I was taught, particularly in high school, was actually useful.

I have two children, one in university and one still in high school. The one in university can play the game and get good grades but still doesn't really know what she wants to be when she grows up. The one in high school struggles daily to learn stuff that doesn't interest him. As a parent I find it very difficult to motivate him to learn what's on the curriculum, because I know that he will most likely never use any of it again. All I can do is try to help him get the marks and pass on to the next level.

There are so many wonderful things to learn about this world, but we end up turning most kids off by force-feeding them a standardized curriculum from an early age, killing any joy they will ever find in learning. Is it any wonder that when they get to college or university, they don't know how to learn and have little interest in finding out.

I don't have any answers however. Providing some sort of an education is an expensive proposition and to try to tailor it to all learning styles and interests would be prohibitive. But don't appear amazed that kids aren't interested. There isn't very much for them to be interested in. Hopefully after a year or two in higher education, they will learn the joy of knowledge and get off on research and from there go on to do something that interests them somewhat.

Jim Ryan

They say that school is supposed to set a foundation for an individual's quest (thirst?) for learning, which is evidently supposed to continue long after graduation....

I know that I for one detested what I was "being taught" in the senior grades, and directly put to use some math skills in my work, but little else.

It was my complete loathing of history (as taught in the system) that actually got me interested in the notion that our predecessors couldn't possibly have been as dull and plodding as was being suggested.

And it turns out I was right!

So I suppose in a doppelganger kind of way, school IS useful.

Lazy teachers

A teacher who is worth her salt should not complain about her students. She should, instead, find ways of getting these "bums" interested.

A teacher is a professional, very well paid and enjoy great fringe benefits. It is incumbent upon her to stop complaining and start improving her skills and knowledge in getting her students interested and motivated.

Hocklye

Students Today

“Lovable Lazies” puzzle us because they combine the personality of the good student with the work habits of the F student. They love discussion and charm the instructor, yet skip sustained effort. Typical F students skulk away by mid-terms; “Lovable Lazies” cheerfully turn up for the three-hour final exam, with no chance of passing the course.

I too have students like this. They aren’t bored or overwhelmed, nor, as one Tyee respondent suggests, cynically calculating costs and benefits. At technical institutes, students work very hard because they understand precisely that their cash buys them a course, and the grade leads to a degree and career. Crystal’s “Lovable Lazies,” however, don’t care if they fail.

Thus, the traditional twin motivations are ineffective. Interesting them won’t get them to work, and the reward of a good grade or the threat of failing is empty.

Perhaps universities have poached the functional students, leaving colleges with the “Lovable Lazies.” The type isn’t new: the flake --- the articulate but scattered person who wants to be part of the action without shouldering responsibility --- turns up everywhere, as I learned in volunteer organizations. And this intellectual style gets rewarded online, as Stan Persky points out, and may be the current dominant model of popular discourse.

This term, I will be aware that not every lively, engaged student makes an easy transition from the sound-bite, chat-room, instant-attention group atmosphere of class discussion to the sustained individual effort needed to develop those ideas into well-supported written work, where real intellectual development occurs. Serious reading and writing is lonely work in a world of instant messaging, and some students may need specific coaching in its particular challenges and rewards. They may not even understand that the most important intellectual work occurs in private.

Helene Littmann