Styles of Education | INFJ Forum

Styles of Education

TheLastMohican

Captain Obvious
Retired Staff
May 8, 2008
6,233
496
676
MBTI
ENTJ
Enneagram
Type me.
President Obama has praised the South Korean school system. The students have exceptionally long hours (and consequently less sleep than most), most rigorous testing schedules, and high familial and peer pressure to achieve and qualify for top colleges. The results are impressive: scores among the highest in the industrialized world.
Some complain, however, that the schools stifle creativity by focusing on rote memorization, and deprive children of proper socialization and free time by loading them down with homework and supplemental tutoring. Some South Korean officials see their education system as deeply flawed, costing them enormously for standards that ought not be that difficult to maintain. And considering the benefits of minimizing cramming and maximizing sleep for optimal performance, I think they are right to be concerned.



Vindication of this view (to the point of alarm) can be found in Finland. The Finnish school systemhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8605791.stm is a recipe for disaster: the shortest hours in the industrialized world, one of the later starting ages (7), and a habit of pairing together the highest and lowest-achieving students for instruction instead of separating them.

But it works.

Somehow, the relaxed schedule in Finland produces the highest average scores in the world, topping even South Korea's hyper-competitive classes.
The system is defined by uniformity: all the country's schools perform at approximately the same level, and the way the classes are mixed, the poorer students are given extra help so that they keep up with the class averages. Learning is very much a group activity, with relatively little emphasis on exams and personal performance. It is simply designed to be engaging, and the information sticks.
There are criticisms that the Finnish system shortchanges the brightest students, however, not allowing them to speed ahead when they are capable of doing so, but instead keeping them around to help along the others. There are currently programs in the works to make the most of the top percentiles' potential, but little is currently known about how well — or whether — they will work.


_______________________________

How do you think these education styles compare to those in the United States and other more mediocre nations? Should we move closer to one or the other? Is our current balanced approach workable (merely needing better administration for efficiency), or do we need to adjust our basic methods?
 
Last edited:
Well...I dont know what to think about these two but in america I think more schools should be structured like Charter schools.

Charter schools are public Elementary, Secondary, and High schools that are public school run like private schools.

They keep the classroom numbers down, and the parents play a pivotal role in these schools. The parents are REQUIRED 10 service hours a week in the school.


The classrooms (in elementary) are taught to ALL levels of children. The level of aptitude the child has determines the level the teacher teaches them in. But the goal of the classroom is to get every child to the top level.

The child has to apply for admittance into the school and be accepted.

At least this is my understanding of charter school structure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ecton
From my personal experience, the U.S. education fails on to points. Proper adiministration and effective motivation. I refuse to lay all the blame on the the teachers and admin, students share the blame to.

In fact throughout my highschool career I noticed only two or three teachers whom seriously needed to be removed. The first was removed for flat out failing to do her job, the second was in my opinion a little off her rocker as she knew less about what was being tought then I did. The last was an old fellow whom basicly stoped trying, he was retiring that year and he didn't care at that point.

Outside of these examples my teachers were stupendious, One of my math teachers was literaly a rocket scientist and my passing or failing(specificly lack there of) depended on me.

I found most of the problems came from founding and students, we started out as the best school in pasco county, when I graduated Ridgewood was a D school. The teachers were still basicly the same people with a few new add ons, the drop came from students complete lack of care. It got to the point where many teachers would stop working with the unmotivated and would focus on the ahievers.


so the real question is how do you motivate the students into caring?


as for charter schools, I dislike the idea of my mother having to serve ten hours a week at my school. She worked a 40+ hour work week, to tack on a another unpaid ten is absurd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ecton
as for charter schools, I dislike the idea of my mother having to serve ten hours a week at my school. She worked a 40+ hour work week, to tack on a another unpaid ten is absurd.

Usually, its either parent...I never said anything about the mother. I see nothing wrong with parents putting 2 hours a day towards the education of their child.

That being said, currently most of the people who take advantage of charger schools work only part time, or do not work. I think that parents SHOULD have more interest in their child's education. My daughter is in the 3rd grade and I STILL volunteer whenever I can to help out in the classroom.
 
so the real question is how do you motivate the students into caring?

x2
 
Yea, societal norms, expectations, and values come into major check on this discussion.
 
Usually, its either parent...I never said anything about the mother. I see nothing wrong with parents putting 2 hours a day towards the education of their child.

That being said, currently most of the people who take advantage of charger schools work only part time, or do not work. I think that parents SHOULD have more interest in their child's education. My daughter is in the 3rd grade and I STILL volunteer whenever I can to help out in the classroom.


My mom is a single parent, and we couldn't afford two hours a day. She worked 40hrs minimum a week throughout my school career, and that was just enough to get us by.

Don't let me confuse you into thinking that I don't think parents should be active in their childrens education. My mom constantly stressed my need for school and did everything she could so that I would turn out as best as I could. But she never had to volunteer to get my best, it will always in the end fell on me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ecton
Vindication of this view (to the point of alarm) can be found in Finland. The Finnish school system. is a recipe for disaster: the shortest hours in the industrialized world, one of the later starting ages (7), and a habit of pairing together the highest and lowest-achieving students for instruction instead of separating them.


How do you think these education styles compare to those in the United States and other more mediocre nations? Should we move closer to one or the other? Is our current balanced approach workable (merely needing better administration for efficiency), or do we need to adjust our basic methods?

There is one more thing about the Finish system that you didn't mention. After the WWII they started throwing a lot of money into the education system making a solid foundation. You can have the best teachers in the best possible system but if you don't keep them motivated to do their job (paying them fairly for what they do for one thing) that system will dissolve very soon.

Starting school at the age of 7 is in my opinion not late, I started it at that age although I could start earlier. You get to expand that childhood period where child is just a child and doesn't have obligations which will get in school giving them a year more.

Also pairing of highest and lowest-achieving students is good in some cases because that high achieving student can take some burden of the teacher when specific subjects are taught and learning from your class mate can be equally good as just plain learning from the teacher, sometimes even better, and that high achiever don't get to be bored in classes.

"How do you think these education styles compare to those in the United States and other more mediocre nations?" --- this sentence I don't like at all, and I'm compelled to ask what would be that other mediocre nations and mediocre in what way?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NeverAmI
so the real question is how do you motivate the students into caring?

You can't in all cases. The education system in the US needs to be rearanged in some way. All I know is, forcing more hours, getting rid of hours, adding uniformity, and forcing parent involvement, are ALL bad ideas. So many people fail to put the blame on the students because the feel that the student can do no wrong. The fact of the matter is in some cases, it is all on the student to why scores are bad. Some people are not meant for school, and are not meant to graduate highschool. This whole "get people to graduate at all costs" is the ubsurd part to me. If someone can't keep up in class, then they should fail. Of course do not deny them help. If the student fails to help themselves though, it is all on them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ecton and Gaze
Lol, well said Indigo.

"Which one of these inefficient metrics will provide the most improvement??"

Maybe it is time to dig a little deeper.
 
There is one more thing about the Finish system that you didn't mention. After the WWII they started throwing a lot of money into the education system making a solid foundation. You can have the best teachers in the best possible system but if you don't keep them motivated to do their job (paying them fairly for what they do for one thing) that system will dissolve very soon.
Precisely. The employment should also be made more fluid, so that the extra pay can attract better teachers to the public schools, and lousy teachers can be replaced. In my opinion, teaching should be a high-status job, with high standards and appropriately high wages.

Starting school at the age of 7 is in my opinion not late, I started it at that age although I could start earlier.
Kindergarten is mandatory in some states. The trend seems to be towards starting earlier.

"How do you think these education styles compare to those in the United States and other more mediocre nations?" --- this sentence I don't like at all, and I'm compelled to ask what would be that other mediocre nations and mediocre in what way?
I'm talking about the industrialized nations that have mediocre education results compared to countries like Finland and South Korea. Those that scored comparably to the U.S. include Poland, Spain and Norway. (The U.S. ranked lower on the TIMSS, which measures only science and math abilities; our strong point appears to be reading/language.)

I know little about how other nations administer education, but I thought there might be some members here who would have insights and opinions on the systems in their home countries.



Some people are not meant for school, and are not meant to graduate highschool. This whole "get people to graduate at all costs" is the ubsurd part to me. If someone can't keep up in class, then they should fail.
Agreed. If people only want to bother with the education necessary for employment, I think they should be allowed to opt out. Forcing everyone through only causes the standards to be lowered as means of accommodation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slant
Ahh, this is a discussion close to my heart.

I don't think the answer is working harder; it's working smarter. There are several private schools in poorer areas that do surprisingly well on very little, but they also employ people who want to see the kids learn. The teachers don't get paid a lot, but they tailor their teaching methods to effectively teach children differently than what the current teaching model is. They don't leave children behind, but they engage the children and they don't insult their intelligences.

Part of the teaching model problem in the US (in my opinion) is we classify children as "smart" and "dumb" depending on classes they take. We need to erase that. I think peer teaching is an excellent idea, as long as the student is okay with taking that responsibility. We are a social species, and we do learn from one another.

The model of teaching should not be rigidly enforced. There should be other teaching models, and more teachers in classrooms - and yes, teachers should be paid more. Teachers who cannot teach should be placed in their own "remedial" classrooms, and each teacher should be observed based on how well they reach their kids and help engage them in learning, rather than if they followed the "correct" teaching model (or the state-mandated model).

Why do you think some online or some video programs are effective? Children *can* read as early as three, or younger if parents are willing to engage them. Parents are also just as guilty because they are "too busy" and let other people babysit their kids while they work to support the dual-car family. Is it possible for one partner to work part-time, and have a smaller home, so the family itself can thrive?

Anyway, I could go on and on. But I like these ideas.
 
Wow. I wish the national debate were as well thought out as what people have said here. The blame game is intense everywhere else.

What do you guys think makes a good teacher for TODAY's kids?

Who makes a good student for TODAY's teachers?
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4yApagnr0s"]YouTube- A Portal to Media Literacy[/ame]

1:06:12. Long but I promise he is a good speaker and you'll probably enjoy this.

The video is about college education which obviously differs from all prior forms of education in a student's life. However he does have a good message and perspective on what it's like to be a teacher and what kind of expectations you have for students.

He talks about a lot of what I have to deal with from just TAing one semester. Students are both denied the ability to be the discussion leaders and question the material. Yet at the same time when they have no choice but to do so, like they have to do hands-on in my lab, they are mortified to even try to do it.

There is the possibility to improve the education system and I agree with Wesch here that the internet actually is an important tool and can only get more specialized toward educational purposes.


Edit: Although my video's primary discussion is about media literacy don't be fooled by the title. Dr. Wesch spends a great deal of time talking about how to engage students in a class room and how to change the ways of teaching to better fit how students think.
 
Last edited:
Offer money.
Humans will often do anything that has a reward attached onto it.

And so we teach them the value of knowledge as a reward. However, educating the masses might be threatening to politics and marketing.

"You mean we can't just slap tits on it, play some cool music in the background and show a happy idiot? SHEESH this is actually getting tough! We are NEVER going to sell as much of this crap now!"

Society has to change. Children need to perceive learning as having value, and not just some value but the most value. Right now, society seems to show that conviction with just enough knowledge to get by in the short term is the most valuable asset. Yes? No?

When I was in school, it was hard to follow strict learning because of the perceived necessity to be 'cool.' So how do you define cool? That is certainly a subjective term, but there does seem to be some sort of common theme in terms of our society. To me, it always seemed like confidence. Looks help, but they certainly do not make or break someone's reputation. Something that always surprised me in class was that my own personal idea of a cool teacher was one which could relay information in a very clear, blunt, and entertaining manner, someone who really knew what they were talking about. For others, it was about the teacher who can strut in nonchalantly and just 'chill' with the class. Sure that teacher would have us do work, but the children were usually happy to oblige. We never got nearly as much done and typically the teacher didn't have a very deep knowledge of the topic, but that was besides the point for most of my classmates.

Why is confidence so valued? What is the difference between confidence and conviction? What shapes this societal perception of what is valuable? I have always argued media is the source and that is why I despise it so much; perhaps I am wrong?

Does the media shape us or do we shape the media? Many humans seem apt to grow lazy and comfortable while ignoring improvement in various realms such as physical, mental, social, etc. Only when faced with a need to overcome do we find that we should have kept up the exercise of those. Is it merely a cycle that all societies go through given the opportunity and circumstance?

In terms of Amercian society, it is obvious that media and culture was highly influenced by consumerism developed by corporations based on the research and theories of Edward Bernays. Has this development been the downfall of intellectual pursuit in America?


If you really want an interesting perspective on the media then try this experiment. Stop watching it for a month. Write down your perspective of TV/The News/Newspaper, etc before your hiatus. Catalogue which shows/newspapers you observe normally. Give up the TV, the newspaper, anything like that for one month then write again. Finally return to the same media for few days, observing the same ones you catalogued and finally write a final description of what you think about them.

Maybe it's just me, but I find the content nauseating sometimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Siamese cat
Well...I dont know what to think about these two but in america I think more schools should be structured like Charter schools.

Charter schools are public Elementary, Secondary, and High schools that are public school run like private schools.

They keep the classroom numbers down, and the parents play a pivotal role in these schools. The parents are REQUIRED 10 service hours a week in the school.


The classrooms (in elementary) are taught to ALL levels of children. The level of aptitude the child has determines the level the teacher teaches them in. But the goal of the classroom is to get every child to the top level.

The child has to apply for admittance into the school and be accepted.

At least this is my understanding of charter school structure.

Kinda why I'm leaning toward a Waldorf education for my children.
I think children need time to develop the imagination and not be afraid to use it.
 
If you really want an interesting perspective on the media then try this experiment. Stop watching it for a month. Write down your perspective of TV/The News/Newspaper, etc before your hiatus. Catalogue which shows/newspapers you observe normally. Give up the TV, the newspaper, anything like that for one month then write again. Finally return to the same media for few days, observing the same ones you catalogued and finally write a final description of what you think about them.

Maybe it's just me, but I find the content nauseating sometimes.

I find the content numbing. It just takes your edge away, makes you say "whatever, I've seen worse" or "whatever, I've seen better" about almost everything because you are so overloaded with crappy commercials and not enough quality tv. And when I see that news speakers make faces and gestures while reading news I get so annoyed, because that shouldn't be in their job description but now is thanks to the PR and marketing people.
 
Last edited: