Marijuana.com

MrIMStoned

"Today's public education system teaches the children how to "work a system", nothing more. Oh, and get along with large groups of random strangers."

Those two things are among the most important things you need to know. Two people are at a job interview. One man was home schooled and is slightly more intelligent and well read than the second man who went to public school. Whose going to get the job? The smarter man or the man who can throw down at the water cooler?

__________________
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

 

Buzzby

You seem to envision the educational process as one in which teachers must tease students into paying attention in order to learn anything. That was never how it worked for me. I was an active scholar, not a passive vessel. Being a student requires some discipline. When students lack all discipline it's not a problem with the schools. It's a problem with their homes. "School is boring. Fuck it. I'll just get stoned." That's the attitude of someone who takes no responsibility for their own role in the educational process.

There were kids who were bored when I was in school. Being bored is a sign that you're not paying attention. My friends and I were never bored. We were excited about learning, we asked questions, we challenged the teachers and each other. There were classes that were less interesting than others. There were a few that I really detested. That's life. You have to put up with shit and do your best. In the areas that interested us we learned far more than what was in the curriculum because we read and we picked the teachers brains both in class and after school.

I think the generations raised on TV rather than books have developed an extremely passive attitude towards education. If it's not spoon fed in thirty second "sound bites" they get bored.


Wow! An extra free hour to read something for fun or education. I rode the bus to work for 16 years. I loved it.


Those are the passive, unfocused, undisciplined people who didn't bother to take school seriously and probably went to school stoned as an excuse for their lack of self-motivation.


The American family is in desperate need of overhaul. If you don't teach your children to value education and encourage them to do something beyond watching TV and playing video games, their problems in school are your fault, not the school's.

__________________

TheNewGuy

You both have good points actually. I think Cassius is right in that public education needs an overhaul, not because our teachers aren't "spoon-feeding" the curriculum correctly, but because the teachers don't really "teach" half the time.

It isn't about "teasing" the students into paying attention. When I was in Highschool, I'd say that 70% of the teachers didn't "teach" the material, they just read it from an answer book, then tossed worksheets at the students and expected them to understand everything.

The best teachers I had (there were maybe 5-6 who actually knew how to teach) were the ones who knew how to relate what they were teaching to real life experiences, not the ones who just read useless crap from a textbook in a monotone voice and expected everyone to remember it.

You want a gold star? A pat on the back? What about a cookie? I think its nice that you were a good student and everything, but times are different. Teachers can't expect students to give a damn anymore. If they don't adapt to the times, and learn how to teach the material in a way thats easier for the typical student to digest, things are just going to get worse. While students should have a certain amount of interest in what they're learning, we have to be realistic: Teachers need to make sure they are teaching in a way that gets the information across to the majority of students, not just those who already like learning.

Thats also a good point though. Theres also a problem with parents not spending enough time making sure they're the ones raising the kids, and not TV. The more emphasis parents place on discipline and education, the easier the kids whole life will be. At the same time, I was raised on TV and video games (my parents worked alot, not really thier fault, gotta buy food and pay the mortgage bill) and I turned out fine simply because I exposed myself to more than MTV and sitcoms.

Heres the sad thing, and the reason I'm siding more with Cassius: I learned more from TV, movies, and video games than I did from school. I'm not exaggerating, I honestly learned more from a combination of sitcoms, PBS, video games, and movies than I did in school, except math-wise. I would get into class, and the stuff being taught in school would just reaffirm what I had already learned (unintentionally) on the previous day's episode of Seinfeld. Thats sad. I think I learned more about the Cold War from Metal Gear Solid then I did in any highschool class. What does that tell me? It tells me that either A: The "no child left behind" act is really the "no child put forward" act, or B: The teachers aren't teaching in a way that relates whats being taught to real life situations. If the material isn't related to real life, the students will just ask "why do I need to learn this". The answer from the worst teacher I've ever had was "because I say you do". Good teaching right there.

__________________
"Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~P.J. O'Rourke

Buzzby

How are they different? Has the average IQ of the American child diminished? Or have their families simply never pushed them to do anything that doesn't provide instant gratification? It is impossible to teach anything to someone who "doesn't give a damn". That's the problem, which is what I said in my last post.

There are always students who are interested in learning and those who "don't give a damn". The issue in classroom education is that if you target those who don't care, the good students won't learn anything. If you target the good students, the goof-offs won't learn anything. Teachers have to adapt to the whole spectrum of students. In classes of 30 students, no one will be happy (unless they pursue their own educational goals). In small classes, the teacher can give individual attention where it is needed.

In most places, tax revenues don't allow for small classes in public schools. Most parents can't afford private schools. Home schooling is a joke unless the parents have expertise in all the fields they're going to teach, besides stunting the kids' socialization. The only viable solution for most families is to teach their children to be self-disciplined and self-motivated.

MrIMStoned

You would't need to be an expert in everything to home school. Just a pile of text books to refresh your memory the night before you teach them. Other than that kids need to go to school and if they ain't learnin' they ain't raised right.

 

Arise -SWS-

I graduated high school in 2002, and I can definitely tell you that it goes beyond family values in determining a child's performance in school, and if they choose to use drugs.

First, the family...
Typically, what I saw was that if parents didn't emphasize the importance of good grades and the value of an education, or didn't pursue an education themselves, their kids didn't pursue theirs either. However almost half these kids stayed off of drugs and joined sports teams, so it showed that they were disciplined, just not for books. These were typically the kids who didn't take honors classes, but got by with B or C averages.
The kids from parents who actually spent time raising them, and cultivating their interests acted much like buzzby said he did. I'd fall in this group, all honors classes, attentive in class (the ones that weren't horribly taught), involvement in some kind of side activity, and pushing A or B averages. The thing is, that doesn't necessarily curb drug use either. About 33% of the kids in this group, including myself, smoked weed, and about 50% drank. I'll explain why in a few.
Finally the extreme dorks (magnet students) whose parents threatened to chop hands if they got less than 95% on anything were by far the most scholastically motivated group ever. They were also the biggest drunks, the biggest potheads and the biggest assholes you'll ever meet. Also, the girls were extremely slutty, a noteable one developed a COUNTY-WIDE reputation for giving head.

The Socio-Economic Factor...
Typically, working-class students got bad grades, but didn't really do more drugs than middle or upper-class students, not even close. Middle and upper-class students did by far the most drugs, and got better grades. In my opinion it's because they have more expendable cash, so the chance for experimenting with drugs is higher. Not only that, but the parents of middle and upper-class students either turned a blind eye to it, denied it, or allowed it, convinced by their academic performance and mostly unchanged family interaction that nothing was amiss. Also, during highschool teens' menatlities and physiques are changing, so it makes it harder to determine if they're fuckin up because they're maturing, or because they're on drugs.

Friends...
By far, the people you hang out with in highscool determine your drug habits. I mostly hung out with people who used drugs here and there, so likewise, I only smoked weed here and there. It wasn't until senior year that I smoked pot on a regular basis, and actually, I got a 3.8 GPA that year, my best ever in highschool. There were people who smoked more than I did, and some who smoked less. The bottom line was, it wasn't something you could narrow down to simple boredom. I wasn't bored, and yet I used my fair share of drugs. I could show you 100 kids who are bored as hell in school, and aren't using drugs also.

Boredom doesn't motivate kids to drink and use drugs, if anything family expectations, the degree of parental up-your-assedness, expendable cash, and curious friends are the culprits.

Somewhat related: I currently live in a "depressed" neighborhood. Most of the kids around here aren't into drugs, yet, I can tell that most of them aren't going anywhere in life. Your environment plays an enormous role in the choices you make, and inevitably, academic performance. If you live in the ghetto, then the ghetto is all you know and even worse, it's comfortable to you. So typically you'll strive for the pinnacle of ghetto achievement, which is sad to anyone else's scale. Middle class kids (such as myself) see both ends of the scale and thus strive for at least a middle class life stlye. In terms of drug use, I think this is the group least likely to mess up because moderation is where they're cofmortable. Rich kids typically go to excesses with their drug use but it doesn't matter because their parents will spoil them and give them money and jobs for the rest of their lives. It's extremely hard for them to fuck up because they just sponge of their wealthy connections and families.

Cassius

The fact that you go from "right" to "responsibility" in the same sentence without even a second thought, shows me that you missed the point of what I was saying.

Parents absolutely have the right to drug test their minor children if they choose. However, it is my belief that if they are in a situation where drug testing is necessary, they have ALREADY FAILED as parents. That doesn't mean the situation is irreparable, but it does indicate to me a huge lack of trust on the parents' part. I'm not saying that parents' should blindly trust their kids, but I _am_ saying that it is parents' responsibility to cultivate a relationship of trust with their kids. How can you guide your children through life if they do not trust you? How can they trust you if you do not trust them? What makes you think if you started regularly drug testing them that they wouldn't find a way around it, or even if they didn't, that they wouldn't accept your judgment on that matter but the obvious lack of trust would cause them to rebel in other areas and never tell their parents about it? If a kid has a mind to get fucked up, and you start randomly testing him, what makes you think he won't give up weed and start binge drinking instead, when you're not around?

You go from calling it a "right" to calling it a "responsibility" in the same sentence. Then you say you doubt parents would object to that "responsibility" being transferred to the schools. I say, part of the problem _is_ transferring responsibilities to the school.

Why not install mandatory metal detectors and frisk searches upon entry into any and all public schools? Why not have surveillance cameras in all classrooms? Why not subpoena library records so the schools can find out what kind of "extracurricular education" children are getting?

You have to draw the line somewhere, and to me the issue here is trust. To those who are given trust, they will be trustworthy. And it starts even before kids enter school. You're absolutely right that I am not a parent. However if I were and I had spent all of my child's life cultivating a relationship of trust with him, so that I felt if he made a decision that I wouldn't approve of he would STILL come and talk to me about it because I let him make his own decisions even if I didn't approve and he had learned to come to me for advice, but that in most cases he could take it or leave it -- then I would feel insulted ON BEHALF of my children that schools were destroying the trust I had created with my child.

This post is so full of assumptions that I can't possibly address them all without completely throwing this topic on a tangent. Suffice it to say, "getting a job" is hardly the "most important thing you need to know" how to do. Again, the mentality of entitlement, only this time it's corporate entitlement instead of government entitlement. "All I have to do is know how to get my foot in the door, and the big bad company will take care of all my needs and protect me for life."

Students like yourself, who clamor for education, hardly require any. Being capable of education on your own means that you don't need anyone else in order to further your education, you don't even need a school. That's great, but that's not the kids I'm concerned about.

Students who "don't give a damn", as you put it, are the ones who need to be addressed. You say it's the family's fault for starting the cycle of the instant gratification mentality. You're absolutely right. However, passing the buck and laying blame will get us nowhere. Should we just accept that it is the parents' fault, and let our country go to crap as adults are churned out not only with little or no education but with little or no desire for education?

It is my belief that inside every child is a person who desires to grow, to become more than what they are. It is also my belief that part of the job of a teacher is to activate this desire. It is also my belief that our current educational system, in a lot of ways, ties the hands of teachers in this regard. There are some very exceptional teachers out there that do this despite the system they are forced to work in, but they are few and far between. As TheNewGuy said, few teachers actually "teach" in public school these days. That is what I meant by "engaging their capacity for intelligence".

Agreed. But I'm not looking to lay blame here. I don't care whose "fault" it is. I care about the future of America. I care about the growing gap in math and science education by American graduates as compared to international graduates. I care about the reduced number of American students taking technical courses of curriculum. Does the fact that it is the parents fault for starting the cycle of instant gratification justify our public schools reinforcing and perpetuating that cycle? It is my belief that a good teacher can and does engage his students, despite what their familial inclinations are. It is my belief that a lot more teachers COULD be "good teachers" if the system was better suited to allow it. It is my belief that drug testing in schools reinforces the restrictions already in place on teachers, by reinforcing the mentality of students that it is "us against them". They will just find another way to get high or drunk, or something else entirely. Do drug tests detect sniffing white-out?

No it isn't. You just have to concentrate first on getting them interested so that they start to "give a damn". Then you can teach them.

Yes, teachers have an uphill battle to undo some of the conditioning that parents give them, particularly the conditioning of instant gratification. Yes, it is the parents' fault for them having it in the first place. No, it is not an acceptable excuse to "write off" those students as "not being willing to learn" and only spend time and effort on educating the students who want to receive an education.

Why? You said yourself you pursued your own education. You educated yourself out of class. You "read a book" on that hourlong busride, something educational or fun. You sought out the teachers after class to ask them questions.

So how can you say the good students won't learn anything? They already WANT to learn. They will learn whether the teachers teach them or not. However the teachers are always willing to give them additional help outside of class. Why is the 45 minutes of class so important to devote to the "good" students, when those students already are furthering their own education? Those students are the only ones doing the homework!

Don't you think the 45 minutes of class would be better utilized if the teacher could somehow interest the 25 students who don't give a damn, and TURN them into good students, than if they spent that 45 minutes teaching the five students who already do all the homework, have read chapters ahead, seek the teachers outside of class for additional questions/help/education?

I'd rather have 100 million of the next generation of America moderately educated, than 5 million of them highly educated and 95 million with little to no education whatsoever.

In fact, in graduate school, you pursue all your own learning anyway. They assume that by this point, you're interested in learning. So, you rarely if ever see your teachers. You "direct your own education" through research and thesis papers, eventually dissertations. The "teachers" are just there to review with you periodically to make sure you're still on the right track, and to help you IF you need it.

So why can't this model be applied to "good students" in secondary school? Why can't the teacher spend the majority of class time getting the WHOLE class interested in the subject matter, instead of going over the intricacies of last night's homework with the 5 students who are paying attention while everyone else passes notes and make spitballs?

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

Ilove#

I'm from canada, grad'd 2003, but as far as I can tell, we have many of the same problems as the US education system.

I have to agree with buzzby in that it is IMPOSSIBLE to teach someone who doesn't want to learn, and making them "give a damn" before teaching them doesn't change this situation, because then they give a damn, and thus are no longer impossible to teach.

I don't think it should be the teacher's job to get students motivated to learn, and then teach them. The education system is for just that, educating. It is far too big of a burden to have to do both, and the system just isn't funded well enough to undertake both. Furthermore, by the time children make it to a level where someone notices that they just don't give a damn about learning, it is already far too late to easily instill that desire in them. Parent's should be responsible for cultivating their childrens natural curiosity from a very early age, so they grow up wanting to know the "why?" of everything. The rest will come easily.

Cassius

Yes, they should be. But if they aren't doing it, are we supposed to resign ourselves to the fact that our country is falling far behind other countries in terms of educated citizens?

TheNewGuy

But you'll still complain about how bad things are?

People keep saying that all the problems are because of bad parenting. Ok, great, we've all come together and decided that today's parents suck at parenting. So now what do we do? Just say "well, thats how things are"? We can all agree that parents need to place alot more emphasis on education (and not by just yelling at thier kids when they don't do thier homework), but people are still missing an important fact: If the parents are failing, it is the teachers job to try and motivate the students to learn.

This is exactly what I was trying to say. IMO Teachers aren't doing thier job if they're just teaching to the students who are already doing all they can to learn. Teachers (especially in public schools) should be focusing on getting as many students as possible interested in the material, not just reading information from an answer book to those who already have a desire for learning. And the best way to do that is to teach in a way that relates the topic to the students day to day life. Few teachers do that.