China runs at 1,742 hours in school with 1,374 instructional hours per a year of 221 days.
Korea runs 1,442 hours in school with 1,067 instructional hours per a year of 225 days.
US runs 1,303 hours in school with 1,061 instructional hours per a year of 180 days.
Japan runs 1,593 hours in school with 1,057 instructional hours per a year 223 days.
Canada runs 1,358 hours in school with 979 instructional hours per a year 188 days.
Englad runs 1,271 hours in school with 953 instructional hours per a year 190 days.
"Kids in the U.S. spend more hours in school (1,146 instructional hours per year) than do kids in the Asian countries that persistently outscore the U.S. on math and science tests — Singapore (903), Taiwan (1,050), Japan (1,005) and Hong Kong (1,013). That is despite the fact that Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong have longer school years (190 to 201 days) than does the U.S. (180 days)."Even if I scratch Japan off that list, it's only one of four.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_kong: In accordance with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and reflecting the policy known as "one country, two systems" by the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy as a special administrative region in all areas except defence and foreign affairs.
There you go nate1984....
There I go what?
Here in the states, having smaller classrooms while nice, is still unrealistic. I can't find the numbers off hand, but figure out how many children there are, and divide it by 10. That is a helluva lot of teachers. Then you have to pay those teachers. Since while most schools do receive federal funding, teachers are usually paid by the local city school district. It would place huge burdens on already bankrupt urban school districts coffers, likely collapsing them all together. So how do we pay for them? Tax the crap out of everyone? It's just to unrealistic right now. If someone wants smaller class sizes, they have the option to pay for it via private schools. Which is exactly what you are paying for. Smaller class sizes and the teachers to go with them.
Perhaps this wouldn't be an issue if the American governments at all levels didn't piss away money frivolously. That's the real problem.
I had my share of good teachers, but had my bigger share of shit teachers. Though I find the ones that ended up being better either had another job that they used the skills in or were old.
Old as in they had made enough in the private sector that they could come back and teach like they probably wanted to their whole life. What do you think would happen if teacher's pay was on par with what these people made in the private sector?
Now, because I'm bored as hell, and dumb, I shall address XinWind.
I see 3 flaws in this statement of yours.
Wall of fucking text! Your post lacked logic in a lot of places.
1. Teachers will go after favorites and work with the people who already got most of the subjects down and the ones with weakness will usually get ignored regardless of how much they get paid. All the teachers will think is they learned the material and thats good enough. Like Foh has said its pretty rare to see teachers who actually cares for the student.
For the last fucking time: The current teachers are the bottom of the barrel, so what do you really expect? Do you really think
all of the American workforce is like this? You're saying that the teachers are a certain way, and
no matter who in the world takes a teaching position they will be the same. Retarded.
2. You do realize even with how your idea will work out about smarter students moving ahead and getting challenge and stuff that over 50-80% of students would rather take easier work. They just wanna know they are at grade level work thats it. A lot of students dumb their selves down to make sure they don't get more difficult work. Almost all of my high school that I went to was exactly like that.
3. Most students don't wanna challenge and push their limits..... What they want is to get the fuck out of the school already. So placing them into school for a longer period will make sure they hear the information they need to learn and understand they need to be there.
Yes its about education and not about anything else like a paper that says you graduated, but with all honesty how much of this is logical and would actually happen when you think about people's actual attitude towards things and what they wanna do.
Wrong for multiple reasons, but all I'll say is: The disposition and attitudes people pick up at an early age, likely from their parents, persist far into adulthood. Once said dispositions and attitudes die off
because they are in an environment that doesn't let them thrive, which you won't currently find in most schools I think you'll find over 90% would not slack anymore.
Tabula rasa!
We might be 2 different cultures, but still humans. We still have similar thoughts and attitudes towards things. A lot of the learning methods are very much alike and the information is a lot alike. Looking at how other people run and teach is how we learn also and make our own methods of teaching and look at what is more effective. So what relic did say is quite relevant and is a great way to look at this.
No. Comte is rolling over in his grave.
So with your statement of quality over quantity. You're saying a student who gets better information and how they are taught would be better, but what good is information if you don't get time to understand it fully, what good is it if the teacher doesn't get more time with the students to understand the students more, and see the students mistakes and show them where they messed up. Also students are already being taught well with great amount of information and teachers working with their students a lot.
Me as a student who hasn't been gone from school not that long ago. I know I learned more from my classmates than the teacher because of 1 factor group work and sharing how we got to the answer. With more classmates the chance of this is greater and will allow the other students see where they could improve. After that the students can ask the teacher where they messed up at and ask for the teach to explain what happened.
Wouldn't it have been better if the student could go directly to the teacher (who should be the smartest in the room) right off the bat, and skip the part where they lean on other students?
We are in school to learn not just from the teacher, but also from one another. Quality is good and well, but if there is no time with it all. Its no better than not even learning the work. A lot of students needs more time with the work from what I have seen. A lot of students don't study outside of school and having more time in school will make sure they are learning.
Nanny state arguments can fuck off.
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: You support a system that makes students the way you described in 2 and 3 earlier in your response, then claim these changes are necessary to combat this problem. Well, if the institutions didn't create this behavior, we wouldn't need to fix it.
Also something I forgot to say. A good middle size class with a decent teacher allows other students to help students who don't fully understand the material and allows the teacher to work with other students also. So a smaller class won't do much, but slow down the class a bit more and burn more time so less time with students would be placed into effect.
With more time not only does the teacher get more time with the students, but other students can help each other more AND get help from the teacher after that. It brings in more time for studying, understanding, gaining help, and even socializing which is a big thing we need in the future.
You already made this point, you didn't forget it.
So with what I said I think having more time in school is a smart way to have more effective learning.
Also sorry if my grammar sucks and stuff I have never been too bright in that area =X.
Bright enough to understand the complexities of the educational institutions, but not bright enough for grammar. Amazing.
I'm sorry, but this statement is so false it ain't even funny. Increasing pay won't do nothing, but attract more greedy teachers who are there for the money not helping the students.....
An elevated level of competition would make them help the students whether they want to or not.
Greed doesn't have shit to do with it. When I graduate I need to pay for the family I know my girlfriend will want to start (and I'd love to start a family with her), pay off student loans, and pay current living expenses. I
will take my masters in mathematics and go to the private sector to fulfill these financial requirements. Teaching, for me, will have to wait until my financial burden is reduced such that I can be comfortable on a teacher's salary. It's your loss, and your children's loss, that I won't be in that classroom my whole working life.
Another thing the teachers who actually stay are the ones who actually care for the students and actually wants to be there to TEACH not for the money.
But earlier you said this:
1. Teachers will go after favorites and work with the people who already got most of the subjects down and the ones with weakness will usually get ignored regardless of how much they get paid. All the teachers will think is they learned the material and thats good enough. Like Foh has said its pretty rare to see teachers who actually cares for the student.
So which one is it? You're contradicting yourself.
If they aren't well qualified as you say they wouldn't of gotten the job in the first place.
No. I have more than one college teacher I could point my finger at to prove this. If they're getting in at the college level, then my lord, think of the implications for K-12. I look back at my high school teachers and realize over half of them were complete idiots.
