Let's Redesign Curriculum: Gen Eds

[Ruralguy]

Canada is Canada. 'Mercuns  ain't gunna stand for it. Then again, some already don't care, so long as tax bill is low, you can provide as little service as you please.

[Wahoo Redux]

So Marshy, your vote is to do away with any gen ed requirements altogether?

Fair enough.

Had you asked me in my late teens, early-'20s I would have agreed wholeheartedly.

Knowing what I do now, I gained much from the "broadening" of college and believe wholeheartedly in the lib art mission.

And I would disagree about the "disaster" of K-12 or the insistence that K-12 is supposed to have completely rounded the person; college continues what K-12 started.  It is not perfect, but neither is it a Titanic cruise.

I'm sorry, but this is absolutely inconsistent with what you've stated on this thread. In particular, you've claimed that there is no need to know more math than decimals, but isn't math part of general education as we know it? It readily apparent to the impartial observer that that only part of general education that you seem to care about is the part which ensures your continued employment.

I was poking you back, mleok, because you were being rude and losing it.  Math should be part of every curriculum.

I hated math.  I still resent the "you will use this every day for the rest of your life" mantra the teachers used as a justification because the students were so unhappy.  It may have been part of the reason I hated math because I knew, even back then, that that was a lie.

Now, however, I have a different perspective. 

You, like certain other posters, are absolutely obsessed with an idea based on personal experience. 

Long Live Math!!

[Wahoo Redux]

Given that we exist in the real world and (to borrow Polly's term) will reject "magical thinking," how are we going to take our geographically broad, multiculturally challenged, socioeconomically and racially diverse, politically polarized landscape that includes everything from tiny, rural isolated Wisconsin public schools to elite arts high schools in Manhattan in the era of increasing wealth disparity and retool our primary and secondary educational system which is based on property taxes?

We could start by not funding it using property taxes. I'm surprised this isn't part of the progressive agenda. More so than making college free, this would have a far more fundamental impact on educational inequity.

Yeah.

But remember, no "magical thinking."

We should have take schools off property taxes decades ago.  This idea was around when I was a little kid in the '70s.

[mleok]

Yeah.

But remember, no "magical thinking."

We should have take schools off property taxes decades ago.  This idea was around when I was a little kid in the '70s.

Honestly, I think removing public K-12 from its reliance on property taxes is a much better and much more impactful idea than making college free.

[Ruralguy]

Real estate agents will star a civil war over the property tax thing...

[Wahoo Redux]

Yeah.

But remember, no "magical thinking."

We should have take schools off property taxes decades ago.  This idea was around when I was a little kid in the '70s.

Honestly, I think removing public K-12 from its reliance on property taxes is a much better and much more impactful idea than making college free.

"free college" is "magical thinking" as well.

[marshwiggle]

Yeah.

But remember, no "magical thinking."

We should have take schools off property taxes decades ago.  This idea was around when I was a little kid in the '70s.

Honestly, I think removing public K-12 from its reliance on property taxes is a much better and much more impactful idea than making college free.

"free college" is "magical thinking" as well.

I don't think mleok was challenging that. The point with k-12 education is that it is already free and paid for by the government. So changing it to not be paid by property taxes is basically shifting how the money is distributed, rather than having to generate much more government revenue. (Since property taxes are municipal, but education is by state, then the two levels of government would need to shift around funds, but the money is already taken in and being paid out.)

[Wahoo Redux]

Yeah.

But remember, no "magical thinking."

We should have take schools off property taxes decades ago.  This idea was around when I was a little kid in the '70s.

Honestly, I think removing public K-12 from its reliance on property taxes is a much better and much more impactful idea than making college free.

"free college" is "magical thinking" as well.

I don't think mleok was challenging that. The point with k-12 education is that it is already free and paid for by the government. So changing it to not be paid by property taxes is basically shifting how the money is distributed, rather than having to generate much more government revenue. (Since property taxes are municipal, but education is by state, then the two levels of government would need to shift around funds, but the money is already taken in and being paid out.)

And?

Point?

[mleok]

Yeah.

But remember, no "magical thinking."

We should have take schools off property taxes decades ago.  This idea was around when I was a little kid in the '70s.

Honestly, I think removing public K-12 from its reliance on property taxes is a much better and much more impactful idea than making college free.

"free college" is "magical thinking" as well.

I don't think mleok was challenging that. The point with k-12 education is that it is already free and paid for by the government. So changing it to not be paid by property taxes is basically shifting how the money is distributed, rather than having to generate much more government revenue. (Since property taxes are municipal, but education is by state, then the two levels of government would need to shift around funds, but the money is already taken in and being paid out.)

And?

Point?

Is this how you encourage participation in your class? Your behavior on this and other threads is unnecesssarily abrasive.

[marshwiggle]

Yeah.

But remember, no "magical thinking."

We should have take schools off property taxes decades ago.  This idea was around when I was a little kid in the '70s.

Honestly, I think removing public K-12 from its reliance on property taxes is a much better and much more impactful idea than making college free.

"free college" is "magical thinking" as well.

I don't think mleok was challenging that. The point with k-12 education is that it is already free and paid for by the government. So changing it to not be paid by property taxes is basically shifting how the money is distributed, rather than having to generate much more government revenue. (Since property taxes are municipal, but education is by state, then the two levels of government would need to shift around funds, but the money is already taken in and being paid out.)

And?

Point?

It's not "magical thinking" to imagine governments shifting funds around; different levels of government do it regularly. "Free college", on the other hand, would require a significant increase in taxes at some level.

[Wahoo Redux]

I respond how I am responded to.

So mleok, how are we supposed to redesign gen eds?

In your perfect world, what would non-siloed gen eds look like?

Or should we just get rid of them? 

If gen eds as such can be handled by K-12, how?

[mleok]

With regards to the property tax issue, I live in an expensive area with excellent public schools, but it's part of a school district with much more modestly priced parts of the city. I don't think that funding levels in the area public schools are higher than the rest of the school district, but the quality of instruction is generally better as more experienced teachers gravitate to the schools here, and there is much less need to deal with the kind of non-academic issues that schools in poor areas have to contend with.

The other aspect which makes a difference is the substantial amount of donations from parents that provides funds for additional teachers and enrichment activities that are not funded by the school district. The point I'm trying to make is that even without differential financial resources to public schools, it's still possible for desirable areas to remain desirable (and expensive), and that the best public schools are not advantaged solely because of differences in funding levels due to property taxes. Another way to say it is that decoupling funding of public schools from property taxes will likely improve the worst schools, but it will not necessarily harm the best schools as they can draw from other sources of funding.

[marshwiggle]

The other aspect which makes a difference is the substantial amount of donations from parents that provides funds for additional teachers and enrichment activities that are not funded by the school district. The point I'm trying to make is that even without differential financial resources to public schools, it's still possible for desirable areas to remain desirable (and expensive), and that the best public schools are not advantaged solely because of differences in funding levels due to property taxes. Another way to say it is that decoupling funding of public schools from property taxes will likely improve the worst schools, but it will not necessarily harm the best schools as they can draw from other sources of funding.

This is exactly the kind of thing that has happened in Ontario.

[mleok]

I respond how I am responded to.

So mleok, how are we supposed to redesign gen eds?

In your perfect world, what would non-siloed gen eds look like?

Or should we just get rid of them? 

If gen eds as such can be handled by K-12, how?

Whatever, you clearly don't have an open mind about this issue, and you respond in an abrasive manner to people who did nothing to invite that kind of uncivil response.

You just want to maintain the status quo, without feeling the need to justify the continued existence of a general education requirement which does nothing to provide the kind of well-rounded individual you claim it should. Yes, if the best we can achieve with general education is in its current form, then I strongly advocate just removing it altogether, so that students can graduate more quickly.

I understand the reasoning for having a general education requirement, I just don't think the current form does anything but waste everyone's time, and provide job security for some faculty teaching subjects that few would take unless forced to. Yes, I know that means many students wouldn't be taking mathematics at the college level, but honestly, I don't think those who are forced to take it retain anything useful in practice, so I don't think it's a great loss to their education.

[mleok]

In your perfect world, what would non-siloed gen eds look like?

As an example, the complexity of policy responses to COVID-19 seem like an excellent case study on how mathematical and epidemiological modeling (differential equations, exponential growth), statistics and the scientific method (how do we test the safety of vaccines), economics, geography (urban vs. rural), race and politics, global geopolitics, and hisotry intersect. A course that attempts to explore how to even begin to approach such a complex problem would be an excellent general education course.

Alternatively, it might be an interesting capstone class, which draws upon a more standard disciplinary focused general education requirement. If you want to avoid students treating their classes as siloed, then a capstone course that illustrates the way these disciplines interact in complex problems might be a way to break students out of the kind of siloed thinking the current system of general education encourages. The courses that can then satisfy the siloed general education requirement should be pared down so that the only ones which satisfy the requirement are those that provide the core set of skills which are actually transferrable in the manner above.