Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!manis From: manis@ubc-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: education Message-ID: <887@ubc-cs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 5-Mar-87 11:38:26 EST Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.887 Posted: Thu Mar 5 11:38:26 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 6-Mar-87 21:39:06 EST References: <213@fornax.uucp> <876@ubc-cs.UUCP> <563@geac.UUCP> Reply-To: manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis) Distribution: can Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science Lines: 76 David Haynes says that the basic problem is that the premise of the school system is wrong. I agree with him, but I'm not really sure what to do with it. The basic problem is that people (no names mentioned) consider education to be a right, yet they're not willing to pay for it. When a government proposes to spend millions of dollars on some ill-defined economic development, there tends to be little public outrage. Should anyone propose reducing the pupil-teacher ratio in the public schools, call-in shows are deluged with outraged taxpayers complaining about the greedy teachers. Here in BC, the govt installed a beautiful rapid-transit system. It cost several *hundred* million dollars more than a competing system, yet the govt went with the more expensive one because it was glitzier. (As a user, I love it, I do admit.) The final cost has yet to be determined, because after a year of operation, the govt has yet to settle on a funding basis for the system. Far from being apologetic about its fiscal irresponsibility, the govt fought the last election over the code-word "negativity", which was what those who criticised any of its policies were guilty of. They were reelected, as was a civic party somewhat aligned with it, which campaigned on a platform of being "positive". Yet the govt is constantly reporting that it can't afford to improve facilities in the education system. A new Computer Science 12 is being phased in, and yet there was no money to buy textbooks for it. (The govt finally caved in on that one). I'd like to say that this discrepancy comes because the govt is composed of looney bozos, but that's not true. The govt knows what sells: spending hundreds of millions on a fantastic party (the Expo 86 concessions were handled by a Seattle company!) will sell because it will create loads of jobs, improve tourism, and redevelop the city, even if it creates not one long-term job, results in a net drop of tourism to the province at large, and leaves behind a vast, bleak mud-plain. So what is the alternative: take your children out of public school? That alternative is not practical for most people, first because the good private schools have long waiting lists, and secondly because of the cost of operating the private schools (no school could afford to give scholarships to a majority of its students). An alternative is the Seymour Papert/Jerry Pournelle theory: what with high-technology, we don't need schools. Give your kid a video disk with the Encyclopaedia Britannica on it, and s/he can learn far more than in any school. This one is fine for the kids who are enthusiastic learners, but the majority are not, for reasons I outlined in an earlier posting. What is needed is a parent or other adult who will end up acting as a teacher, in order to ensure that actual learning (as opposed to video-game playing) takes place. So I'd be inclined to look for a more gradualist approach: 1) Push for a reallocation of more financial resources to education, pegged specifically for teachers. (High-tech hardware is fun to buy, but often sits idle in the average school. Its proper place is not in a school, but in a library or other facility available to students and the community and large.) 2) Push for even stronger evaluation of teachers by both professional societies and by the districts. The criteria must be carefully defined so as to emphasise success at learning, rather than more easily ascertained measures such as examination performance. 3) Push the universities to develop real teacher-training programs, which emphasise intellectual rigour, and knowledge of the discipline. Under- graduate education programs should be eliminated, requiring instead that entering students already possess a bachelor's degree in arts, sciences, or engineering. Disclaimer: I am a professional teacher, and my salary (such as it is) is paid by the taxpayer. ----- Vincent Manis {ihnp4!alberta,uw-beaver}!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!manis Dept. of Computer Science manis@cs.ubc.cdn Univ. of British Columbia manis%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1W5 manis@ubc.csnet (604) 228-6770 or 228-3061 "BASIC is the Computer Science equivalent of 'Scientific Creationism'."