In today's Chronicle, there is a discussion on Community Colleges offering bachelors degrees. In that, there is a discussion on having 3 year degrees. And here's the misunderstanding:
"Sonny Ramaswamy, president of the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, said his organization determined that the learning outcomes for the three-year programs were comparable to those of a four-year degree, and that graduate schools would accept them. He pointed out that three-year degrees are common in much of Europe and in his native India.
"Why is it the rest of the world thinks that an undergraduate degree can be accomplished in three years, and we don't?" Ramaswamy asked."
What he completely misses here is that 3 year degrees in Europe follow 13 years in public schools. So Europe (and some of India) has 13+3=16 years to a bachelors, while the US has 12+4=16 to a bachelors. Cutting that to 15 years potentially does a great disservice and, at the very least, what he says above is misleading.
I was shocked by this: "Last summer, another panel — this one the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, a regional accreditor — approved a plan by a pair of four-year colleges in Idaho to offer bachelor's degrees consisting of just 90 credits, 30 fewer than normal."
How low can we go?
https://www.chronicle.com/article/race-to-the-finish
Québec does three year degrees. But you have to complete two years of Cégep first (kind of like an associate's). High school ends after grade eleven, however.
What is the general consensus amongst most academics as to just what is the minimum amount of course-equivalent credits one ought to be required to obtain in order to earn a bachelor's, and how many of these need to be formal course credits earned by, ahem, successfully completing an actual college class?
There is nothing inherently wrong with a three year degree. After all, we already have two year degrees. The quality question can only be answered if one knows what's in the three years and what subjects are offered.
The noise comes from four year programs that feel threatened by the competition and are comfortable in their accreditor cartels. How about a bit of variety?
For the sake of transparency, it shouldn't be called a Bachelor's Degree, however.
It also overlooks the fact that most American K-12 education is so very, very poor. American high school grads are often years behind students in other countries when they head to college.
One interesting angle on this is second degrees. Getting a second degree, (not a graduate degree, a second Bachelor's degree), usually doesn't require an additional 4 years, since the electives are kind of transferable.
Presumably, in the limit as (number of degrees) goes to infinity, the number of "additional" courses required will be just the required courses for the major itself.
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 22, 2024, 12:57:11 PMOne interesting angle on this is second degrees. Getting a second degree, (not a graduate degree, a second Bachelor's degree), usually doesn't require an additional 4 years, since the electives are kind of transferable.
Presumably, in the limit as (number of degrees) goes to infinity, the number of "additional" courses required will be just the required courses for the major itself.
Oh, what an evil thought! That would just be another way of fueling the higher education arms race.
I doubt that is the intention of whoever is trying to get permission to offer the degree and market it as a substitute for a Bachelors, not a complement for a Bachelor's.
As I said, quality depends on what's in there. Take England: Three year degree focusing on a single subject. Sounds pleasing to me. Even having half a melange of the usual suspects in a US three year degree would at least save money. But it also depends on the subject. I can't imagine an engineering degree lasting only three years. One's bridges would collapse.
Quote from: apl68 on March 22, 2024, 12:50:57 PMIt also overlooks the fact that most American K-12 education is so very, very poor. American high school grads are often years behind students in other countries when they head to college.
Apparently, some years are a waste of time. Therefore, reduce K-12 to 1-10!
Quote from: dismalist on March 22, 2024, 01:21:44 PMQuote from: apl68 on March 22, 2024, 12:50:57 PMIt also overlooks the fact that most American K-12 education is so very, very poor. American high school grads are often years behind students in other countries when they head to college.
Apparently, some years are a waste of time. Therefore, reduce K-12 to 1-10!
CUNY used to have remedial courses for Reading, Writing, and Math, because of the large influx of students who couldn't read, write, or do math. I'm not sure if these courses are still mandatory as I recall reading about the Reading courses being eliminated, and then the Writing courses because of the impact of these courses on the students' self-esteem.
ETA: Just found this article:
QuoteCUNY Ends Traditional Remedial Courses (https://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2023/01/12/cuny-ends-traditional-remedial-courses/)
January 12, 2023
University Finishes 7-Year Phaseout of the Outdated Non-Credit Bearing Remedial Courses
Now Offers Targeted Students Corequisite Support in First-Year Math and English Classes
Quote from: waterboy on March 22, 2024, 07:34:03 AMWhat he completely misses here is that 3 year degrees in Europe follow 13 years in public schools. So Europe (and some of India) has 13+3=16 years to a bachelors, while the US has 12+4=16 to a bachelors. Cutting that to 15 years potentially does a great disservice and, at the very least, what he says above is misleading.
Right now, Americans do not care about any of this. They want cheaper, easier higher ed options. So be it.
Quote from: Langue_doc on March 22, 2024, 02:20:13 PMQuote from: dismalist on March 22, 2024, 01:21:44 PMQuote from: apl68 on March 22, 2024, 12:50:57 PMIt also overlooks the fact that most American K-12 education is so very, very poor. American high school grads are often years behind students in other countries when they head to college.
Apparently, some years are a waste of time. Therefore, reduce K-12 to 1-10!
CUNY used to have remedial courses for Reading, Writing, and Math, because of the large influx of students who couldn't read, write, or do math. I'm not sure if these courses are still mandatory as I recall reading about the Reading courses being eliminated, and then the Writing courses because of the impact of these courses on the students' self-esteem.
ETA: Just found this article:
QuoteCUNY Ends Traditional Remedial Courses (https://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2023/01/12/cuny-ends-traditional-remedial-courses/)
January 12, 2023
University Finishes 7-Year Phaseout of the Outdated Non-Credit Bearing Remedial Courses
Now Offers Targeted Students Corequisite Support in First-Year Math and English Classes
Riotous! The article states that the non-credit remedial courses are being replaced by for credit co-requisite courses.
Nobody is being done a favor here, except perhaps the administrators.
Quote from: dismalist on March 22, 2024, 03:07:41 PMQuote from: Langue_doc on March 22, 2024, 02:20:13 PMQuote from: dismalist on March 22, 2024, 01:21:44 PMQuote from: apl68 on March 22, 2024, 12:50:57 PMIt also overlooks the fact that most American K-12 education is so very, very poor. American high school grads are often years behind students in other countries when they head to college.
Apparently, some years are a waste of time. Therefore, reduce K-12 to 1-10!
CUNY used to have remedial courses for Reading, Writing, and Math, because of the large influx of students who couldn't read, write, or do math. I'm not sure if these courses are still mandatory as I recall reading about the Reading courses being eliminated, and then the Writing courses because of the impact of these courses on the students' self-esteem.
ETA: Just found this article:
QuoteCUNY Ends Traditional Remedial Courses (https://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2023/01/12/cuny-ends-traditional-remedial-courses/)
January 12, 2023
University Finishes 7-Year Phaseout of the Outdated Non-Credit Bearing Remedial Courses
Now Offers Targeted Students Corequisite Support in First-Year Math and English Classes
Riotous! The article states that the non-credit remedial courses are being replaced by for credit co-requisite courses.
Nobody is being done a favor here, except perhaps the administrators.
I did research on this a few years ago and found that students one level below first-year composition did better in writing-intensive content courses than in remedial English. "Drill and kill" isn't as effective for adult students as is learning in context, reading well-written prose, and caring about what you are writing about.
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 22, 2024, 06:41:38 PMQuote from: dismalist on March 22, 2024, 03:07:41 PMQuote from: Langue_doc on March 22, 2024, 02:20:13 PMQuote from: dismalist on March 22, 2024, 01:21:44 PMQuote from: apl68 on March 22, 2024, 12:50:57 PMIt also overlooks the fact that most American K-12 education is so very, very poor. American high school grads are often years behind students in other countries when they head to college.
Apparently, some years are a waste of time. Therefore, reduce K-12 to 1-10!
CUNY used to have remedial courses for Reading, Writing, and Math, because of the large influx of students who couldn't read, write, or do math. I'm not sure if these courses are still mandatory as I recall reading about the Reading courses being eliminated, and then the Writing courses because of the impact of these courses on the students' self-esteem.
ETA: Just found this article:
QuoteCUNY Ends Traditional Remedial Courses (https://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2023/01/12/cuny-ends-traditional-remedial-courses/)
January 12, 2023
University Finishes 7-Year Phaseout of the Outdated Non-Credit Bearing Remedial Courses
Now Offers Targeted Students Corequisite Support in First-Year Math and English Classes
Riotous! The article states that the non-credit remedial courses are being replaced by for credit co-requisite courses.
Nobody is being done a favor here, except perhaps the administrators.
I did research on this a few years ago and found that students one level below first-year composition did better in writing-intensive content courses than in remedial English. "Drill and kill" isn't as effective for adult students as is learning in context, reading well-written prose, and caring about what you are writing about.
Great! Do it in High School.
Quote from: dismalist on March 22, 2024, 06:45:05 PMQuote from: ciao_yall on March 22, 2024, 06:41:38 PMQuote from: dismalist on March 22, 2024, 03:07:41 PMQuote from: Langue_doc on March 22, 2024, 02:20:13 PMQuote from: dismalist on March 22, 2024, 01:21:44 PMQuote from: apl68 on March 22, 2024, 12:50:57 PMIt also overlooks the fact that most American K-12 education is so very, very poor. American high school grads are often years behind students in other countries when they head to college.
Apparently, some years are a waste of time. Therefore, reduce K-12 to 1-10!
CUNY used to have remedial courses for Reading, Writing, and Math, because of the large influx of students who couldn't read, write, or do math. I'm not sure if these courses are still mandatory as I recall reading about the Reading courses being eliminated, and then the Writing courses because of the impact of these courses on the students' self-esteem.
ETA: Just found this article:
QuoteCUNY Ends Traditional Remedial Courses (https://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2023/01/12/cuny-ends-traditional-remedial-courses/)
January 12, 2023
University Finishes 7-Year Phaseout of the Outdated Non-Credit Bearing Remedial Courses
Now Offers Targeted Students Corequisite Support in First-Year Math and English Classes
Riotous! The article states that the non-credit remedial courses are being replaced by for credit co-requisite courses.
Nobody is being done a favor here, except perhaps the administrators.
I did research on this a few years ago and found that students one level below first-year composition did better in writing-intensive content courses than in remedial English. "Drill and kill" isn't as effective for adult students as is learning in context, reading well-written prose, and caring about what you are writing about.
Great! Do it in High School.
Uh... yeah.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 22, 2024, 10:25:33 AMQuébec does three year degrees. But you have to complete two years of Cégep first (kind of like an associate's). High school ends after grade eleven, however.
Yep. And Ontario used to go to grade 13/OAC, and Newfoundland used to finish high school at grade 11, and an undergrad at MUN was 5 years, not 4.
There are Canadians universities offering three-year degrees, non-honours of course. And colleges offering three-year degrees as well, in provinces where colleges are now degree-granting institutions. We don't, in Canada, have the same general education or liberal arts that most US universities have. Sure, programs have electives and specialized/restricted electives, but there's no liberal arts requirement. Comp is an elective, not a requirement, and while various writing courses exist, none of them are called composition. There's Academic Writing, Writing in Engineering, Writing in the Sciences, but none of those are required courses. It's a different system than the US.
Quote from: dismalist on March 22, 2024, 06:45:05 PMQuote from: ciao_yall on March 22, 2024, 06:41:38 PMQuote from: dismalist on March 22, 2024, 03:07:41 PMQuote from: Langue_doc on March 22, 2024, 02:20:13 PMQuote from: dismalist on March 22, 2024, 01:21:44 PMQuote from: apl68 on March 22, 2024, 12:50:57 PMIt also overlooks the fact that most American K-12 education is so very, very poor. American high school grads are often years behind students in other countries when they head to college.
Apparently, some years are a waste of time. Therefore, reduce K-12 to 1-10!
CUNY used to have remedial courses for Reading, Writing, and Math, because of the large influx of students who couldn't read, write, or do math. I'm not sure if these courses are still mandatory as I recall reading about the Reading courses being eliminated, and then the Writing courses because of the impact of these courses on the students' self-esteem.
ETA: Just found this article:
QuoteCUNY Ends Traditional Remedial Courses (https://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2023/01/12/cuny-ends-traditional-remedial-courses/)
January 12, 2023
University Finishes 7-Year Phaseout of the Outdated Non-Credit Bearing Remedial Courses
Now Offers Targeted Students Corequisite Support in First-Year Math and English Classes
Riotous! The article states that the non-credit remedial courses are being replaced by for credit co-requisite courses.
Nobody is being done a favor here, except perhaps the administrators.
I did research on this a few years ago and found that students one level below first-year composition did better in writing-intensive content courses than in remedial English. "Drill and kill" isn't as effective for adult students as is learning in context, reading well-written prose, and caring about what you are writing about.
Great! Do it in High School.
Our high schools really are not set up to provide good mentorship. My hat's off to high school teachers who are expected to do a great deal with very limited resources and parents and school boards breathing down their necks. We used to have this discussion with Polly all the time.
If you want that kind of teaching in secondary ed, we will need to spend a great deal more money on it and delegate that money evenly in all communities.
I'd say that it is much more likely that we'll revive funding for higher ed before we balloon funding for K-12.
As Polly would say, "No magical thinking."
Quote from: dismalist on March 22, 2024, 01:12:06 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on March 22, 2024, 12:57:11 PMOne interesting angle on this is second degrees. Getting a second degree, (not a graduate degree, a second Bachelor's degree), usually doesn't require an additional 4 years, since the electives are kind of transferable.
Presumably, in the limit as (number of degrees) goes to infinity, the number of "additional" courses required will be just the required courses for the major itself.
Oh, what an evil thought! That would just be another way of fueling the higher education arms race.
I doubt that is the intention of whoever is trying to get permission to offer the degree and market it as a substitute for a Bachelors, not a complement for a Bachelor's.
As I said, quality depends on what's in there. Take England: Three year degree focusing on a single subject. Sounds pleasing to me. Even having half a melange of the usual suspects in a US three year degree would at least save money. But it also depends on the subject. I can't imagine an engineering degree lasting only three years. One's bridges would collapse.
The three year post-bac, then the two-year post-post-bac, and so forth until you have micro- and nano- and femto-degrees. While the time to degree (and tuition) keeps getting smaller, the students never leave and never stop paying tuition. It's genius! Marketers know this model well, so persuading parents and student to keep paying uses a familiar game plan.
Quote from: Hibush on March 22, 2024, 07:09:37 PMQuote from: dismalist on March 22, 2024, 01:12:06 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on March 22, 2024, 12:57:11 PMOne interesting angle on this is second degrees. Getting a second degree, (not a graduate degree, a second Bachelor's degree), usually doesn't require an additional 4 years, since the electives are kind of transferable.
Presumably, in the limit as (number of degrees) goes to infinity, the number of "additional" courses required will be just the required courses for the major itself.
Oh, what an evil thought! That would just be another way of fueling the higher education arms race.
I doubt that is the intention of whoever is trying to get permission to offer the degree and market it as a substitute for a Bachelors, not a complement for a Bachelor's.
As I said, quality depends on what's in there. Take England: Three year degree focusing on a single subject. Sounds pleasing to me. Even having half a melange of the usual suspects in a US three year degree would at least save money. But it also depends on the subject. I can't imagine an engineering degree lasting only three years. One's bridges would collapse.
The three year post-bac, then the two-year post-post-bac, and so forth until you have micro- and nano- and femto-degrees. While the time to degree (and tuition) keeps getting smaller, the students never leave and never stop paying tuition. It's genius! Marketers know this model well, so persuading parents and student to keep paying uses a familiar game plan.
That can't be true. If it were, four year colleges would not protest the allowing of three year degrees. Rather, they'd be first in the queue to start their own. Called self-interest.
No, this is a substitute for a four year degree, not a complement.
Quote from: Engineer13 on March 22, 2024, 09:46:52 AMI was shocked by this: "Last summer, another panel — this one the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, a regional accreditor — approved a plan by a pair of four-year colleges in Idaho to offer bachelor's degrees consisting of just 90 credits, 30 fewer than normal."
How low can we go?
https://www.chronicle.com/article/race-to-the-finish
America wants cheaper, easier, and faster bachelor's.
Even professional academics on The Fora question the need for whole disciplines in education.
Idaho is one big Trumpy resentment made manifest.
Nothing in this story is surprising.
And maybe it is time for this to happen. Just teach kids the basics of their business degrees and send them on their way. Send the real intellectuals to the Ivies which will have no trouble filling up 4-year degrees.
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 22, 2024, 06:41:38 PMQuote from: dismalist on March 22, 2024, 03:07:41 PMQuote from: Langue_doc on March 22, 2024, 02:20:13 PMQuote from: dismalist on March 22, 2024, 01:21:44 PMQuote from: apl68 on March 22, 2024, 12:50:57 PMIt also overlooks the fact that most American K-12 education is so very, very poor. American high school grads are often years behind students in other countries when they head to college.
Apparently, some years are a waste of time. Therefore, reduce K-12 to 1-10!
CUNY used to have remedial courses for Reading, Writing, and Math, because of the large influx of students who couldn't read, write, or do math. I'm not sure if these courses are still mandatory as I recall reading about the Reading courses being eliminated, and then the Writing courses because of the impact of these courses on the students' self-esteem.
ETA: Just found this article:
QuoteCUNY Ends Traditional Remedial Courses (https://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2023/01/12/cuny-ends-traditional-remedial-courses/)
January 12, 2023
University Finishes 7-Year Phaseout of the Outdated Non-Credit Bearing Remedial Courses
Now Offers Targeted Students Corequisite Support in First-Year Math and English Classes
Riotous! The article states that the non-credit remedial courses are being replaced by for credit co-requisite courses.
Nobody is being done a favor here, except perhaps the administrators.
I did research on this a few years ago and found that students one level below first-year composition did better in writing-intensive content courses than in remedial English. "Drill and kill" isn't as effective for adult students as is learning in context, reading well-written prose, and caring about what you are writing about.
Talk to people who've taught remedial courses for several years and have also taught ENG 101 courses in the city who will tell you that for any kind of learning, students need to know the basics--sentence structure, grammar, basic vocabulary--in order to benefit from context-based courses. As for well-written prose, even students in non-CUNY intro courses don't know how to recognize, let alone appreciate it. These are native speakers of American English! I teach writing, as do most of my colleagues, and speak from experience. I used to score ACT essays for CUNY (you didn't need to be CUNY faculty to do so) before CUNY transitioned to the CUNY written essay tests, and found it rather depressing, because these were essays written by students who had graduated from high school. I understand that standards have fallen and continue to fall since then.
The schools, unfortunately, cannot do much about teaching students to read and write because of time constraints. I learned from my students one year that the English teacher has consecutive classes all day with at least 25 students in each class, so grading/commenting on any kind of writtten work is not feasible. The first time some of these students get practical feedback on their writing is in college, especially in remedial courses for students who were passed through the school system without being taught to write a simple correct sentence.
Quote from: Langue_doc on March 23, 2024, 07:15:08 AMThe schools, unfortunately, cannot do much about teaching students to read and write because of time constraints. I learned from my students one year that the English teacher has consecutive classes all day with at least 25 students in each class, so grading/commenting on any kind of writtten work is not feasible. The first time some of these students get practical feedback on their writing is in college, especially in remedial courses for students who were passed through the school system without being taught to write a simple correct sentence.
And there you go.
Quote from: Langue_doc on March 23, 2024, 07:15:08 AM...
Talk to people who've taught remedial courses for several years and have also taught ENG 101 courses in the city who will tell you that for any kind of learning, students need to know the basics--sentence structure, grammar, basic vocabulary--in order to benefit from context-based courses. As for well-written prose, even students in non-CUNY intro courses don't know how to recognize, let alone appreciate it. These are native speakers of American English! I teach writing, as do most of my colleagues, and speak from experience. I used to score ACT essays for CUNY (you didn't need to be CUNY faculty to do so) before CUNY transitioned to the CUNY written essay tests, and found it rather depressing, because these were essays written by students who had graduated from high school. I understand that standards have fallen and continue to fall since then.
The schools, unfortunately, cannot do much about teaching students to read and write because of time constraints. I learned from my students one year that the English teacher has consecutive classes all day with at least 25 students in each class, so grading/commenting on any kind of writtten work is not feasible. The first time some of these students get practical feedback on their writing is in college, especially in remedial courses for students who were passed through the school system without being taught to write a simple correct sentence.
I sympathize.
But broader questions are:
--Why can't kids write after 12 years in school?
--If they can't, why are they in college?
The relevant kids are likely bored out of their minds and might be better off doing some kind of hands on training instead of college. As for the writing part, if schools fail at something, shorten its duration! Failure would be less costly in time and money.
When I was a kid in New York city about a billion years ago, there were three types of High School, vocational, commercial, and academic. [I don't know what the criteria were for matching kids with schools.] That seems a lot more useful to the kids than what we have now. I'm guessing that in a commercial High School one could do a lot of what's in a college Business degree. :-)
Quote from: dismalist on March 23, 2024, 01:32:24 PMI sympathize.
But broader questions are:
--Why can't kids write after 12 years in school?
--If they can't, why are they in college?
The first college composition class was held either in 1874 or in 1885, depending on how you read their catalogue, at Harvard.
The stated aim was to work as a placeholder until local high schools could bring their teaching up to snuff.
I think I may have found the article that takes a historical purview of college composition, but I am going to a concert this evening so will review it tomorrow.
The point of the article, if it is the one I am thinking of which I read some time ago, is that academics have always thought college freshmen and sophomores are undertrained.
Always. Plato was apparently frequently disgusted with his students.
Writing well is not easy. This is something that those of us who teach English or run writing centers try to hammer back at faculty----it seems like it should be an easy skill to master, but it is not. It is like acting or playing a musical instrument; some people are naturally gifted, but they are rare. Most of us have to work very hard to play Beethoven, and only the best play Tchaikovsky; Shakespeare sounds idiotic in most people's mouths, even when they are trained thespians.
Bigger point being: 18 and 19 year olds have never written well even if we think they should.
Quote from: dismalist on March 23, 2024, 01:32:24 PMQuote from: Langue_doc on March 23, 2024, 07:15:08 AM...
Talk to people who've taught remedial courses for several years and have also taught ENG 101 courses in the city who will tell you that for any kind of learning, students need to know the basics--sentence structure, grammar, basic vocabulary--in order to benefit from context-based courses. As for well-written prose, even students in non-CUNY intro courses don't know how to recognize, let alone appreciate it. These are native speakers of American English! I teach writing, as do most of my colleagues, and speak from experience. I used to score ACT essays for CUNY (you didn't need to be CUNY faculty to do so) before CUNY transitioned to the CUNY written essay tests, and found it rather depressing, because these were essays written by students who had graduated from high school. I understand that standards have fallen and continue to fall since then.
The schools, unfortunately, cannot do much about teaching students to read and write because of time constraints. I learned from my students one year that the English teacher has consecutive classes all day with at least 25 students in each class, so grading/commenting on any kind of writtten work is not feasible. The first time some of these students get practical feedback on their writing is in college, especially in remedial courses for students who were passed through the school system without being taught to write a simple correct sentence.
I sympathize.
But broader questions are:
--Why can't kids write after 12 years in school?
--If they can't, why are they in college?
The relevant kids are likely bored out of their minds and might be better off doing some kind of hands on training instead of college. As for the writing part, if schools fail at something, shorten its duration! Failure would be less costly in time and money.
When I was a kid in New York city about a billion years ago, there were three types of High School, vocational, commercial, and academic. [I don't know what the criteria were for matching kids with schools.] That seems a lot more useful to the kids than what we have now. I'm guessing that in a commercial High School one could do a lot of what's in a college Business degree. :-)
Household income.
The research also shows that corequisite courses with a mainstream FY comp class are far more effective than strictly remedial classes. Mainly because students may need remediation for a lot of reasons, and they are more likely to identify and focus on their key issues than if they are in a broad-brush fix-everything class. Half is stuff they already know so it's a waste of time. Half is stuff they need to work on, but they don't have time because of the other half.
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 23, 2024, 02:29:12 PMQuote from: dismalist on March 23, 2024, 01:32:24 PMQuote from: Langue_doc on March 23, 2024, 07:15:08 AM...
Talk to people who've taught remedial courses for several years and have also taught ENG 101 courses in the city who will tell you that for any kind of learning, students need to know the basics--sentence structure, grammar, basic vocabulary--in order to benefit from context-based courses. As for well-written prose, even students in non-CUNY intro courses don't know how to recognize, let alone appreciate it. These are native speakers of American English! I teach writing, as do most of my colleagues, and speak from experience. I used to score ACT essays for CUNY (you didn't need to be CUNY faculty to do so) before CUNY transitioned to the CUNY written essay tests, and found it rather depressing, because these were essays written by students who had graduated from high school. I understand that standards have fallen and continue to fall since then.
The schools, unfortunately, cannot do much about teaching students to read and write because of time constraints. I learned from my students one year that the English teacher has consecutive classes all day with at least 25 students in each class, so grading/commenting on any kind of writtten work is not feasible. The first time some of these students get practical feedback on their writing is in college, especially in remedial courses for students who were passed through the school system without being taught to write a simple correct sentence.
I sympathize.
But broader questions are:
--Why can't kids write after 12 years in school?
--If they can't, why are they in college?
The relevant kids are likely bored out of their minds and might be better off doing some kind of hands on training instead of college. As for the writing part, if schools fail at something, shorten its duration! Failure would be less costly in time and money.
When I was a kid in New York city about a billion years ago, there were three types of High School, vocational, commercial, and academic. [I don't know what the criteria were for matching kids with schools.] That seems a lot more useful to the kids than what we have now. I'm guessing that in a commercial High School one could do a lot of what's in a college Business degree. :-)
Household income.
The research also shows that corequisite courses with a mainstream FY comp class are far more effective than strictly remedial classes. Mainly because students may need remediation for a lot of reasons, and they are more likely to identify and focus on their key issues than if they are in a broad-brush fix-everything class. Half is stuff they already know so it's a waste of time. Half is stuff they need to work on, but they don't have time because of the other half.
Household income is certainly wrong. The assertion confuses correlation with causation. :-)
I have nothing against better ways of doing things. My question is why do it at all. If things are failing it might be best to close it down and search for alternatives rather than improvements.
If my Safeway store is selling rotten meat and sour milk, it's best to close it down. That's even been done with a hospital in DC where it was realized it wasn't going to get its act together.
Commercial High School instead of MBA! :-)
The funding model for K-12 is a big part of the problem — basing it on the local property taxes. I went to a very bad high school in a poor neighborhood. The school had almost no resources. The pay was pitiful. Of course most of the teachers were the kind who couldn't get a job in a better school district. (Along with a few noble souls trying for the greater good.) Crumbling building, ancient books and not enough for each class, students who often came from poverty-stricken and chaotic homes, violence in the neighborhood that made students inclined to stay home so they wouldn't get beaten up on the way in, bad teachers with large classes — why would anyone think this school would produce upwardly mobile successful students? As I have mentioned before, a kid in my math class sold drugs — in class — to the teacher. I was one of the very few who got out and up, and that was because my parents were affluent middle-class professionals who just happened to build a house in a bad neighborhood. The people from struggling families hardly stood a chance in that school.
Quote from: Hegemony on March 23, 2024, 06:39:38 PMThe funding model for K-12 is a big part of the problem — basing it on the local property taxes. I went to a very bad high school in a poor neighborhood. The school had almost no resources. The pay was pitiful. Of course most of the teachers were the kind who couldn't get a job in a better school district. (Along with a few noble souls trying for the greater good.) Crumbling building, ancient books and not enough for each class, students who often came from poverty-stricken and chaotic homes, violence in the neighborhood that made students inclined to stay home so they wouldn't get beaten up on the way in, bad teachers with large classes — why would anyone think this school would produce upwardly mobile successful students? As I have mentioned before, a kid in my math class sold drugs — in class — to the teacher. I was one of the very few who got out and up, and that was because my parents were affluent middle-class professionals who just happened to build a house in a bad neighborhood. The people from struggling families hardly stood a chance in that school.
That funding source is largely over. Within States, expenditures per pupil tend to be equalized. In addition, there are federal money injections aimed at poor neighborhoods. Expenditures per pupil in Boston, New York City, Chicago, DC, LA and Atlanta are the highest.
There is a body of research that says additional expenditure doesn't matter for outcomes. Other research says the opposite.
NYC spends over $31K per pupil, or over three quarters of a million dollars per class of 25 per year. How much do you want?
Quote from: dismalist on March 23, 2024, 06:55:19 PMQuote from: Hegemony on March 23, 2024, 06:39:38 PMThe funding model for K-12 is a big part of the problem — basing it on the local property taxes. I went to a very bad high school in a poor neighborhood. The school had almost no resources. The pay was pitiful. Of course most of the teachers were the kind who couldn't get a job in a better school district. (Along with a few noble souls trying for the greater good.) Crumbling building, ancient books and not enough for each class, students who often came from poverty-stricken and chaotic homes, violence in the neighborhood that made students inclined to stay home so they wouldn't get beaten up on the way in, bad teachers with large classes — why would anyone think this school would produce upwardly mobile successful students? As I have mentioned before, a kid in my math class sold drugs — in class — to the teacher. I was one of the very few who got out and up, and that was because my parents were affluent middle-class professionals who just happened to build a house in a bad neighborhood. The people from struggling families hardly stood a chance in that school.
That funding source is largely over. Within States, expenditures per pupil tend to be equalized. In addition, there are federal money injections aimed at poor neighborhoods. Expenditures per pupil in Boston, New York City, Chicago, DC, LA and Atlanta are the highest.
In the state where I work, state funding is "equalized." And, schools with more affluent parents sell a lot more gift wrap, cookie dough and high-end silent auction prizes, not to mention additional local taxes they pay towards their schools.
QuoteThere is a body of research that says additional expenditure doesn't matter for outcomes. Other research says the opposite.
NYC spends over $31K per pupil, or over three quarters of a million dollars per class of 25 per year. How much do you want?
The most expensive private schools in NYC cost over $50K per year. Someone thinks it's worth it to pay teachers, tutors, books, supplies, building repair and maintenance... you name it.
I can't imagine what research methods would find spending per student didn't have an impact on student outcomes.
Quote from: dismalist on March 23, 2024, 06:55:19 PMNYC spends over $31K per pupil, or over three quarters of a million dollars per class of 25 per year. How much do you want?
Americans are funny.
They want the results.
They don't want to pay for them.
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 23, 2024, 08:21:01 PMQuote from: dismalist on March 23, 2024, 06:55:19 PMQuote from: Hegemony on March 23, 2024, 06:39:38 PMThe funding model for K-12 is a big part of the problem — basing it on the local property taxes. I went to a very bad high school in a poor neighborhood. The school had almost no resources. The pay was pitiful. Of course most of the teachers were the kind who couldn't get a job in a better school district. (Along with a few noble souls trying for the greater good.) Crumbling building, ancient books and not enough for each class, students who often came from poverty-stricken and chaotic homes, violence in the neighborhood that made students inclined to stay home so they wouldn't get beaten up on the way in, bad teachers with large classes — why would anyone think this school would produce upwardly mobile successful students? As I have mentioned before, a kid in my math class sold drugs — in class — to the teacher. I was one of the very few who got out and up, and that was because my parents were affluent middle-class professionals who just happened to build a house in a bad neighborhood. The people from struggling families hardly stood a chance in that school.
That funding source is largely over. Within States, expenditures per pupil tend to be equalized. In addition, there are federal money injections aimed at poor neighborhoods. Expenditures per pupil in Boston, New York City, Chicago, DC, LA and Atlanta are the highest.
In the state where I work, state funding is "equalized." And, schools with more affluent parents sell a lot more gift wrap, cookie dough and high-end silent auction prizes, not to mention additional local taxes they pay towards their schools.
QuoteThere is a body of research that says additional expenditure doesn't matter for outcomes. Other research says the opposite.
NYC spends over $31K per pupil, or over three quarters of a million dollars per class of 25 per year. How much do you want?
The most expensive private schools in NYC cost over $50K per year. Someone thinks it's worth it to pay teachers, tutors, books, supplies, building repair and maintenance... you name it.
I can't imagine what research methods would find spending per student didn't have an impact on student outcomes.
Here in Missouri, the state is
supposed to levelize funding across the state, but never allocates adequate funds from the state budget to actually do so. The issue is particularly stark in St. Louis:
The St. Louis Region's Education Funding Landscape is Highly Uneven and It's Not an Accident (https://stillunequal.org/funding/)
It seems to me that the state provides a floor but no ceiling. As a result, wealthier districts are able to pour money into their schools that poorer districts simply don't have.
Interesting.
But St. Louis may well be an outlier.
This Think Again (https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/think-again-education-funding-america-still-unequal) is a summary of distribution of money for education within States. It has been equalized, but there are exceptions by race. It has a quite thorough bibliography.
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 23, 2024, 02:29:12 PMQuote from: dismalist on March 23, 2024, 01:32:24 PMQuote from: Langue_doc on March 23, 2024, 07:15:08 AM...
Talk to people who've taught remedial courses for several years and have also taught ENG 101 courses in the city who will tell you that for any kind of learning, students need to know the basics--sentence structure, grammar, basic vocabulary--in order to benefit from context-based courses. As for well-written prose, even students in non-CUNY intro courses don't know how to recognize, let alone appreciate it. These are native speakers of American English! I teach writing, as do most of my colleagues, and speak from experience. I used to score ACT essays for CUNY (you didn't need to be CUNY faculty to do so) before CUNY transitioned to the CUNY written essay tests, and found it rather depressing, because these were essays written by students who had graduated from high school. I understand that standards have fallen and continue to fall since then.
The schools, unfortunately, cannot do much about teaching students to read and write because of time constraints. I learned from my students one year that the English teacher has consecutive classes all day with at least 25 students in each class, so grading/commenting on any kind of writtten work is not feasible. The first time some of these students get practical feedback on their writing is in college, especially in remedial courses for students who were passed through the school system without being taught to write a simple correct sentence.
I sympathize.
But broader questions are:
--Why can't kids write after 12 years in school?
--If they can't, why are they in college?
The relevant kids are likely bored out of their minds and might be better off doing some kind of hands on training instead of college. As for the writing part, if schools fail at something, shorten its duration! Failure would be less costly in time and money.
When I was a kid in New York city about a billion years ago, there were three types of High School, vocational, commercial, and academic. [I don't know what the criteria were for matching kids with schools.] That seems a lot more useful to the kids than what we have now. I'm guessing that in a commercial High School one could do a lot of what's in a college Business degree. :-)
Household income.
The research also shows that corequisite courses with a mainstream FY comp class are far more effective than strictly remedial classes. Mainly because students may need remediation for a lot of reasons, and they are more likely to identify and focus on their key issues than if they are in a broad-brush fix-everything class. Half is stuff they already know so it's a waste of time. Half is stuff they need to work on, but they don't have time because of the other half.
Not in NYC. Most of the students in the specialized high schools (https://www.princetonreview.com/k12/specialized-high-schools-shsat) come from low-income families; admission to these schools is based on a test where personal information such as name, age, gender, ethnicity, language spoken at home, etc is not available to the graders of these tests:
QuoteHalf the students at the specialized high schools qualify for free or subsidized school lunches, including 47 percent at Stuyvesant and 48 percent at Bronx Science—figures that have increased correspondingly with Asians' rising numbers at these schools. Based upon these figures, Stuyvesant and Bronx Science (as well as four of the other six specialized schools) are eligible for federal Title I funding, given to schools with large numbers of low-income students. Think about that: two public high schools that, along with half their students, are officially classified as poor by the federal government rival the most exclusive prep schools in the world.
Recently these students have been in the news because our former mayor and his school administration complained that there were too many Asians in the specialized schools despite the fact that most of these students came from very poor families. I recall a NYT article about three or four years ago on the student body which included a Bangladeshi cab driver's child, Chinese students whose parents worked in menial jobs, and children of non-affluent but hard-working parents. There was a case of the NAACP suing either the school district or the school because they decided that the student in this article (https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-plot-against-merit) was privileged.
For the ethnic composition (https://wherewelive.cityofnewyork.us/explore-data/access-to-opportunity/education/#:~:text=As%20the%20Composition%20of%20NYC,2017%2D2018%20school%20year2.) of our schools, just google "NYC school ethnic composition" for the results, which are roughly
QuoteAs the Composition of NYC Public School Students chart below shows, 40% of students identified as Hispanic, 26% as Black, 16% as Asian/Pacific Islander (PI), and 15% as White during the 2017-2018 school year2.
I've had affluent students who are probably in college because of their parents' insistence, and hard-working students in my evening classes who work in construction, as child-care providers, and a host of other low-paying jobs, but come to class, do their assignments, and are a just a pleasure to have in my class.
The research appears to be out of touch with reality; perhaps the researchers concentrated on only the affluent schools, or talked to students who were willing to sit down with the researchers. There's also academic fraud, so it isn't clear how the research was conducted, how the researchers could access student data, and also interview students.
Quote from: dismalist on March 24, 2024, 11:27:34 AMInteresting.
But St. Louis may well be an outlier.
This Think Again (https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/think-again-education-funding-america-still-unequal) is a summary of distribution of money for education within States.
This is a publication from the ideologically conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Bibliography notwithstanding, how objective is it? Can we trust it? Or is it a publication for a niche readership?
Isn't a big part of the answer to why kids leave high school unable to read and write the abandonment of phonics education for the so-called "balanced literacy" approach ? They're taught to guess from context and pictures, not to... well, read.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 24, 2024, 08:53:08 PMIsn't a big part of the answer to why kids leave high school unable to read and write the abandonment of phonics education for the so-called "balanced literacy" approach ? They're taught to guess from context and pictures, not to... well, read.
The NYC schools had, for decades, relied on the so-called reading guru at Columbia (https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/10/reading-phonics-literacy-calkins-curriculum-public-school.html), only to find out that kids weren't learning to read. The first three paragraphs from the article:
QuoteCall it the end of an era for fantasy-fueled reading instruction. In a move that has parents like me cheering, Columbia University's Teachers College announced last month that it is shuttering its once famous—in some circles, now-infamous—reading organization founded by education guru and entrepreneur Lucy Calkins.
For decades, the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project was a behemoth in American education. As many as 1 in 4 U.S. elementary schools used Calkins' signature curriculum. But that number is dwindling as a growing chorus of cognitive scientists, learning experts, and parents—many amplified by education journalist Emily Hanford via her 2022 podcast Sold a Story—argue that the Calkins approach to reading is ineffective at best, actively harmful at worst, and a large part of why more than half of our country's fourth graders aren't demonstrating proficiency on reading exams.
It's common knowledge that never learning to read well damages children's self-esteem, their life prospects, and our country's future workforce. What's less talked about is how, when schools fail to teach reading, it harms the public's trust in schools. An unspoken contract between public schools and parents is that schools will teach their children to read. In many places, that contract was broken when schools adopted Calkins' methods, kids didn't learn to read, and responsibility for teaching reading transferred onto parents and guardians.
The NYT article (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/22/us/reading-teaching-curriculum-phonics.html?ugrp=u&unlocked_article_code=1.f00.4Wbz.VX7ExhoHUOFK&smid=url-share):
QuoteIn the Fight Over How to Teach Reading, This Guru Makes a Major Retreat
Lucy Calkins, a leading literacy expert, has rewritten her curriculum to include a fuller embrace of phonics and the science of reading. Critics may not be appeased.
There were several reports, mostly negative, on the Calkins/Columbia approach. Just google Columbia, phonics.
Quote from: Langue_doc on March 27, 2024, 05:18:53 AMThe NYT article (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/22/us/reading-teaching-curriculum-phonics.html?ugrp=u&unlocked_article_code=1.f00.4Wbz.VX7ExhoHUOFK&smid=url-share):
QuoteIn the Fight Over How to Teach Reading, This Guru Makes a Major Retreat
Lucy Calkins, a leading literacy expert, has rewritten her curriculum to include a fuller embrace of phonics and the science of reading. Critics may not be appeased.
There were several reports, mostly negative, on the Calkins/Columbia approach. Just google Columbia, phonics.
Interesting that even having had her methods debunked, she still gets the title.