Father does his 13yo daughter's homework for a week

The author claims this is a typical week. If so, the number of tests is striking.

 

 

In particular, having a Spanish test Wednesday, and another one the following Monday seems off.  I wonder how many of these "tests" are really short quizzes?

[Dmmetler]

I've heard 3rd graders at gymnastics complain about having 6 tests a week. I'm guessing they're short quizzes, but in my district, kids are very used to having frequent tests and often parents complain about having to study for tests that the material really doesn't have much done on it in class EXCEPT the test.

 

 

[nmoira]

I'm not sure about that.  I think that Humanities is one class that subsumes both English and History (which strikes me as very WTM...), and the the Angela's Ashes reading is for Humanities.

 

Might be. It's not mentioned in the core curriculum, so I suspect it's part of an integrated CTT class/module (I'm not sure how they're worked in this Lab).

[Sahamamama]

I haven't read the other posts, but his article sounded a lot like a brag to me. "My daughter is in an elite middle school, so she has hours upon hours of homework. It's preparing her for an elite high school, of course." I'm thinking, "If that really bothers you, Mr. Take-a-Toke, then look for another school, duh." She doesn't have to go there, does she? Instead of transferring Daughter #1, Daughter #2 enrolls there, too? Whatever.

[LucyStoner]

"If that really bothers you, Mr. Take-a-Toke, then look for another school, duh." She doesn't have to go there, does she? Instead of transferring Daughter #1, Daughter #2 enrolls there, too? Whatever.

I do have to agree with this. If you have that big of an issue with it, do something other than participate in it.

[Luanne]

I don't know how much homework my nephew has at the age of 14, but I do know my niece has had tons for several years now.  She even spends 5 or 6 hours every weekend trying to catch up.  It is ridiculous in my opinion.  She is a senior this year.  They go to school in Salt Lake City, Utah. 

[NASDAQ]

I'd put up with that if my child got the chance to attend the NYC Lab School, if it's the same one that I'm thinking of. The one Sol Stern's older son went to?

[Alice]

We had a parent at our school, who is a Professor at a local University where she specilizes in Education and Psychology, speak to this issue and her experience with college students who had the same complaints, and especially the feeling that they were always pressed for time.

 

She had the college students do a little experiment where they blacked out the hours in the week where they had committments that were sacrosanct. If they had classes, or work, or hours of worship, they got blacked out. To many students suprise, most had many more "free hours" than they realized.

 

Then they looked at what was actually happening in their lives that made them feel "time stressed." The short answer is most felt an obsessive need to maintain contact with "social media." so instead of an hour studying, it was 5 minutes of studying, then flipping over to Facebook, Tweets, IMs, Texts, and emails. That was where the stress (and feeling there was always a time urgency in their lives was coming from) and not necessarily from the demands of work and school (not that some students don't work long hours and/or take a heavy class load).

 

I thought it was pretty interesting.

 

Bill

 

ETA: As part of the "experiment" she had students pick times where they could ( and could not) click over to "social media." Most or the students self-reported this was an almost impossible task for them hold to, as the pull of social media was so strong. To say they were "addicted" to social media and experiencing very real problems of "attention-defict" would not be overstating the problem.

 

Interesting. I saw a very similar study with adult women. They looked at women who felt very stressed and looked specifically at the idea that women had less leisure time than in the past. What they found was that a  lot of people were counting things like “going to gym†or “getting haircut†or “checking email (not work related)†not as leisure time but as necessary. They had a time-management person come in and black out everything on the schedule that was truly necessary (pretty much just childcare, household chores, work, sleep, meals) and found that suddenly huge blocks of time were available. The interesting part was that the women didn’t buy it. They still argued that they had to do those other things. The only thing they were counting as leisure time was something like sitting in the sun having a glass of wine. 

They also went on to talk about how it was all perspective. They took women who felt like they had more free-time and so generally reported less stress and found that they really had the same amount as the other women who felt super-busy and stressed. The difference was all in how they viewed their time. If they saw it as choices they were making it was free time, if it was somehow non-optional in their mind than it became a burden. 

 

As for the tired teens, I have no doubts that some are spending their time on social media. However, they all swear to me that they are not and their parents swear it also so I have to counsel them from a place of believing them. I do usually suggest that they keep a log of use to see how much time they are really spending or that they commit to turning off all devices after a certain time. But I’m not sure how effective that is.  

[Pen]

I thought the article was amusing over all.   I was glad the daughter could help teach the father how to do the algebra problems.   I was saddened that she did not know the meaning of the infinitive of the verb she was learning to conjugate.   I was saddened by her attitude of memorize don't rationalize.   I think those two problems, rather than (or perhaps in addition to) the amount of homework, might have been useful to bring up in the parent-teacher conferences.

 

My son had 2 B&M schools before homeschool.  We are not in an area with particularly excellent schools, and I would say that in one way or another there was both a too little and a too much problem at both schools.    

 

For example, his first, a public school, for kindergarten involved starting onto the schoolbus at aprox. 7:20 AM, regular school day 8AM to 3PM home at aprox. 3:50 PM (except for early release days or sports afterschool days).  He would arrive home exhausted, having learned essentially nothing, and with around an hour  (sometimes more) of busywork type homework to do, plus a reading log (parent reading to child) to keep--which took all the joy out of read alouds for me--though I can understand that in some families but for that no reading to children would be done at all.  

 

From what I see of older kids still in that system, the homework hours have gotten longer.  I know there are some very caring and dedicated teachers there--and some are for sure better than others.   But there is also some problem with both the high quantity workload and the low quality/content of the workload.   I know too from talking to some of the teachers that the testing and no-child-left-behind type rules are adding to the burden that they feel they face and pass on in the form of homework, but people in the area before there was all that have said it was already a problem some time back.  It was also my experience that too much of the time in school seemed to be devoted to trying to make school "fun" leaving a lot of the work left to be done at home.   

 

 

The description given in the article of the author's daughter's school--what the reading was, the level of math and science and so on, actually sounded pretty good to me compared to what I see around here, at the same grade level--it sounded like both better quality and less hours, rather than the often mindless busywork I see a lot of.   Though, I am not sure what good it does with the memorize don't rationalize attitude.

 

 

 

[Halcyon]

This is all very interesting to me, and I appreciate everyone's contribution to the discussion. What I do find missing, however, is a discussion of how a country like Finland (which ranks very high on Pisa testing internationally and has no standardized testing, nor to be honest, a culture of academic competitiveness) and whose students have an extremely rigorous end of high school test that lasts DAYS AND DAYS can get such a quality education with around 30 minutes of homework TOTAL a night. (here's a good summary, for those of you who aren't familiar with the Finnish education system).

 

Is it the quality of the teachers (I suspect)? Is it the culture? If it's the culture, how does that account for the lack of a need for homework? How do they "get it all done" during the day, and still have such success?

 

In other words, how can Finland students perform so well and yet have so little homework? 

[Serenade]

This is all very interesting to me, and I appreciate everyone's contribution to the discussion. What I do find missing, however, is a discussion of how a country like Finland (which ranks very high on Pisa testing internationally and has no standardized testing, nor to be honest, a culture of academic competitiveness) and whose students have an extremely rigorous end of high school test that lasts DAYS AND DAYS can get such a quality education with around 30 minutes of homework TOTAL a night. (here's a good summary, for those of you who aren't familiar with the Finnish education system).

 

Is it the quality of the teachers (I suspect)? Is it the culture? If it's the culture, how does that account for the lack of a need for homework? How do they "get it all done" during the day, and still have such success?

 

In other words, how can Finland students perform so well and yet have so little homework? 

 

 

I don't know much about Finnish culture, but I imagine that Finland is a fairly homogenous country with fairly homogenous values.  If everyone (or most people) are on the same page, it's easy to get things done in the most efficient way.  Our country is so diverse, with so many different values and expectations, that we will never be able to educate with the same efficiency.

[Alte Veste Academy]

This is all very interesting to me, and I appreciate everyone's contribution to the discussion. What I do find missing, however, is a discussion of how a country like Finland (which ranks very high on Pisa testing internationally and has no standardized testing, nor to be honest, a culture of academic competitiveness) and whose students have an extremely rigorous end of high school test that lasts DAYS AND DAYS can get such a quality education with around 30 minutes of homework TOTAL a night. (here's a good summary, for those of you who aren't familiar with the Finnish education system).

 

Is it the quality of the teachers (I suspect)? Is it the culture? If it's the culture, how does that account for the lack of a need for homework? How do they "get it all done" during the day, and still have such success?

 

In other words, how can Finland students perform so well and yet have so little homework?

This quote from the article struck me as significant: "Every school has the same national goals and draws from the same pool of university-trained educators. The result is that a Finnish child has a good shot at getting the same quality education no matter whether he or she lives in a rural village or a university town."

 

Absolutely untrue in the U.S., of course.

[Arcadia]

This quote from the article struck me as significant: "Every school has the same national goals and draws from the same pool of university-trained educators. The result is that a Finnish child has a good shot at getting the same quality education no matter whether he or she lives in a rural village or a university town."

 

Absolutely untrue in the U.S., of course.

Massachusetts did do well in the same rankings. I dont know anything about the state's education system or the demographics though.

 

http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2012/20121211-8th-graders-among-top-performers-math-science.html

[Haiku]

As far as the "memorize, not rationalize" attitude the girl took, I sympathize with her. The sheer volume of information thrown at kids these days, many of whom are taking 6-7 academic classes, is incredible and, imo, ridiculous. I think it would be very hard for the vast majority of kids to assimilate all the information they are expected to "learn" in the amount of time they are expected to learn it. Even if the expectations for each class are not unrealistic, when you multiply that by the number of classes, I think it does become unrealistic. One of the things I plan to do for high school with my kids is have fewer classes. I want them to really soak in what they learn, not just accumulate a bunch of facts that they soon forget. I plan to have my kids, in high school, work on math, science, history, and an elective each semester.

 

I'm also amazed that people are blaming kids and their lack of study skills/time management and their use of social media for the amount of time it takes them to get their work done. If you left your house around 7 and got home around 5 and then had to continue working for another 2-3 hours, would you be happy with that? Why do we expect that of kids? What kind of a life is that? It's obvious that all this time is not really getting us anywhere.

 

My dd went to a good school that certainly succeeded in its goal of getting kids who wouldn't otherwise have been able to go to college ready for college. However, it came at the cost of dd feeling like she had no life. She frequently complained of having no life. She's now a freshman in college and is already burnt out because she spent the last four years of her life spending 60+ hours a week on school. When I was in school, I hated the idea that adults around me espoused that school was the most important thing going and should take up all my time. That's not the life I want for my kids. That's not the life I wanted. I was THRILLED when I finally graduated from college because I felt, for the first time in a long time, that my life was actually my own. Childhood should not be reduced to merely the training ground for the rest of your life. It should be rewarding and have value in its own right.

[Guest Gawainsonic]

That is insane

 

I normally only get a few pages each night in Upstate New York

You shouldn't give to much Homework a few pages is enough I think]

And I take a Honors class that doesn't give much Homework

[JumpyTheFrog]

Massachusetts did do well in the same rankings. I dont know anything about the state's education system or the demographics though.

 

This surprised me. I thought all of the US would have scored poorly. On the other hand, this test was just for 4th and 8th graders. I wonder how 10th graders would do. Maybe many of the countries start off more slowly but would end up with higher scores if they tested a few years later.

 

One of the websites broke down state scores by gender, race, and income. There were huge gaps in scores based on race and income level.

 

I was the most surprised that the US ranked so well in science in 4th grade. We didn't really do any science in my elementary school and I was under the impression that schools still don't. Maybe other countries do even less science at that age?

[jennynd]

if the sampled school are around boston area, the kids' parents there teach harvard, MIT. BU. I will not be surprised at all.

 

Taiwan raked high in 8th grade in both science (2nd )  and math (3rd)  Trust me, if you think the tests and homework are too much for this girl in the article, you will be shocked to know how my days was when I was in middle/high school in Taiwan.

[Soror]

I'm also amazed that people are blaming kids and their lack of study skills/time management and their use of social media for the amount of time it takes them to get their work done. If you left your house around 7 and got home around 5 and then had to continue working for another 2-3 hours, would you be happy with that? Why do we expect that of kids? What kind of a life is that? It's obvious that all this time is not really getting us anywhere.

This amazes me as well. Most kids do waste time and yet most adults do as well(forum time is not a necessity). How many moms on here stay up late to surf the web, facebook or the forum as that is their only downtime- most every adult I know does this to some degree. We all need a bit of downtime. I wonder when it became a crime of the lazy underachiever to need a bit of a break, to need time unscheduled.

 

Not counting the time they are wasting there is still too much time devoted solely to school and many are suffering because of this time crunch. I believe it was in the book Nuture Shock that it addresses the issue of school load, increasing extracurriculars and its impact on sleep for kids, teenagers especially. This girl is not an anomaly, the load is not a rare occurrence.

 

It seems sleep and a social life outside school are being discarded in this rat race and anyone who cannot keep up is too weak, survival of the fittest, the American Way.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

I think it unlikely that a double income family in New York (especially an affluent rather than independently wealthy one) is getting home at 5pm. It's quite likely that mom and dad are working until later in the evening and activities are designed to match that.

 

 

Here in N.E. NJ, many families live on "NY time."   Dad and/or mom gets off the train from the city past 8pm, so family dinner, assuming there is one, is after that.   One of my current SAT students has a high-powered mom who works in the city until 10pm.

 

Yikes.

[Arcadia]

I was the most surprised that the US ranked so well in science in 4th grade. We didn't really do any science in my elementary school and I was under the impression that schools still don't. Maybe other countries do even less science at that age?

Massachusetts and California have state testing for science in 5th grade and "good" schools still do science from Kindergarten. At around third grade here, the test prep for science has kind of started. The schools nearby all kick off science fairs and did the silkworm project at 3rd grade.

Science class time tend to be sacrifice for language arts though if kids are behind in English.

 

Singapore starts science at 3rd grade, don't know when Finland starts.

[Sahamamama]

Interesting. I saw a very similar study with adult women. They looked at women who felt very stressed and looked specifically at the idea that women had less leisure time than in the past. What they found was that a  lot of people were counting things like “going to gym†or “getting haircut†or “checking email (not work related)†not as leisure time but as necessary. They had a time-management person come in and black out everything on the schedule that was truly necessary (pretty much just childcare, household chores, work, sleep, meals) and found that suddenly huge blocks of time were available. The interesting part was that the women didn’t buy it. They still argued that they had to do those other things. The only thing they were counting as leisure time was something like sitting in the sun having a glass of wine. 

They also went on to talk about how it was all perspective. They took women who felt like they had more free-time and so generally reported less stress and found that they really had the same amount as the other women who felt super-busy and stressed. The difference was all in how they viewed their time. If they saw it as choices they were making it was free time, if it was somehow non-optional in their mind than it became a burden. 

 

As for the tired teens, I have no doubts that some are spending their time on social media. However, they all swear to me that they are not and their parents swear it also so I have to counsel them from a place of believing them. I do usually suggest that they keep a log of use to see how much time they are really spending or that they commit to turning off all devices after a certain time. But I’m not sure how effective that is.  

 

I liked your whole post, Alice, but this part made me spit out my coffee! LOL! ROFL!

 

I just have to check my email! I just have to check on the Boards, get my nails done (not), go to the gym (not), go to Ladies' Bible study (not), and then have that glass of wine in the sun!

 

So funny. I have no life. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Where's my lounge chair? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

 

 

[My3girls]

As for the tired teens, I have no doubts that some are spending their time on social media. However, they all swear to me that they are not and their parents swear it also so I have to counsel them from a place of believing them. I do usually suggest that they keep a log of use to see how much time they are really spending or that they commit to turning off all devices after a certain time. But I’m not sure how effective that is.  

 

 

My daughter was taking huge amounts of time to get anything done.  I took all her devices away and made her use the centrally located family pc for school work.  The time it took her to finish her school work dropped in half.  When she was done to my satisfaction, I returned her devices, and she was able to play her games and contact her peeps til her hearts content.

 

My concern with the amount of homework in this article is what are they doing in class?  When I was in middle school, yes, I had homework assigned, but the lecture or instruction usually took about 1/2 to 3/4 of the class period so that left the rest of the class period to work on it.  I sometimes got it all done and sometimes not, but I at least got a portion of it taken care of then.  Projects and papers were solely an at home thing, and I had to use weekends to do research at the library since this was pre-internet in every home and my mom worked.  I spent probably an hour or two each night and sometimes a couple of hours on the weekends.  I hate to come across as "back when I was in school...", but hey, the tests were harder back then so whatever we were doing couldn't have been all bad.  I really don't see the point talking a kid to death at school then having them do all the work at home.  It doesn't make sense to me.  Actually, dd11 had a hard time with this when we first started hsing.  She was used to being told everything then regurgitating it on a worksheet, paper, or project on her own.  I introduce material, she reads, we discuss, she sometimes answers some review questions or writes a paragraph or 2.  I didn't tell her everything she needed to know, and we worked together with me providing some insite and constructive critisicm when necessary.  Huge tearful meltdowns cause she had to use her brain and not everything was perfect.  What the kid said about memorization and not rationalization was right on target.  Dd11 has adjusted thank goodness and can see the benefits of this now to some degree. 

[Jenny in Florida]

Here in N.E. NJ, many families live on "NY time."   Dad and/or mom gets off the train from the city past 8pm, so family dinner, assuming there is one, is after that.   One of my current SAT students has a high-powered mom who works in the city until 10pm.

 

Yikes.

 

That sort of schedule is not limited to the northeast. The family of one of my son's friends lives on this kind of schedule. Mom and Dad both work and have some community involvement. (Mom, for example, sings with a community choral group whose performances raise money for various local charities. She also serves on the board of the group.) Dad works non-standard hours and occasionally takes on a second job to keep their heads above water, financially, so that they can afford to live in the part of town that has one of the best public high schools. Mom teaches at a local community college and, between office hours and occasional evening classes and grading papers and such, is often not home until late in the evening.

 

Meanwhile, the son is taking a rigorous academic load, which comes with the usual homework. He also participates in several school-based extracurricular activities and a few things out in the community.

 

It is not at all unusual for them to not all be home and available to eat dinner until 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. several nights a week.

[Halcyon]

I don't know much about Finnish culture, but I imagine that Finland is a fairly homogenous country with fairly homogenous values.  If everyone (or most people) are on the same page, it's easy to get things done in the most efficient way.  Our country is so diverse, with so many different values and expectations, that we will never be able to educate with the same efficiency.

Actually, after reading Amanda Ripley's new book, the myth about Finnish homogeneity is just that: a myth. She examines a school that has a very high percentage of non-Finnish speaking immigrant children and found that the school is one of the highest performing in the country.

 

The idea that diversity is the main factor in pushing school scores down has too much weight in our country.

[Chrysalis Academy]

Halcyon, I agree that diversity is not the reason US schools do so badly, although living in an area where 75% of the entering K class come from homes where English is not the first language and have no preschool experience, I can attest to the fact that this does make a huge difference in the early elementary years. . . 

 

However, I suspect that teacher quality is the main factor.  In Finland, teaching is a profession, it is highly paid and highly respected, there is continuing training, there is shared planning, and there are coherent national goals.

 

One of the more interesting analyses I read about the state of teaching as a career path in the US came from Freakonomics (don't remember which volume), where the authors proposed that the opening up of alternative, better paying and more highly respected career paths for the brightest and most intelligent women led to a change in the population of people who choose teaching as a profession.  Its a provocative and interesting theory . . . 

[Haiku]

he's clearly saying that his dd is unprepared

 

I didn't find that to be clear at all. And I feel that, as "too much homework" is such a pervasive refrain among parents, it's not a problem of the kids being unable to handle the work but a problem of too much work in general. I can see, though, that we completely disagree on that.

 

I'm sure it comes down to a question of goals. My goal is not to get my kids into some ultra-top-tier university so that can assume a high-power, high-pressure, elite career. I know that some families, and some kids, want that. But I still don't believe that a life completely centered around schoolwork and building a resume is a good balance for children, and I am not impressed when I hear about kids in that situation. I simply find it sad.

[nmoira]

I didn't find that to be clear at all. And I feel that, as "too much homework" is such a pervasive refrain among parents, it's not a problem of the kids being unable to handle the work but a problem of too much work in general. I can see, though, that we completely disagree on that.

 

I'm sure it comes down to a question of goals. My goal is not to get my kids into some ultra-top-tier university so that can assume a high-power, high-pressure, elite career. I know that some families, and some kids, want that. But I still don't believe that a life completely centered around schoolwork and building a resume is a good balance for children, and I am not impressed when I hear about kids in that situation. I simply find it sad.

 

And the question is, prepared for what? As a former "star" student I can attest that if you're in a system that prioritized and rewards grades over actual learning, getting good grades is likely where your talents and attention will be focused because these two things are not as a rule complementary. This is the primary reason I homeschool.

[Haiku]

I graduated 6th in my class of over 450 kids. I had a 3.96 GPA in a school that did not do weighted GPAs. I graduated summa cum laude from college. I was also a "star student." Much of what I was taught in high school I have forgotten. I had too many classes to learn well all the material. The learning aspect of high school was mostly wasted time. It accomplished its goal of getting me into college, but it did not accomplish its goal of imparting knowledge that stuck with me.

 

College was much better. I had only 4 classes at a time. Most of what I learned has been retained.

[8filltheheart]

And the question is, prepared for what? As a former "star" student I can attest that if you're in a system that prioritized and rewards grades over actual learning, getting good grades is likely where your talents and attention will be focused because these two things are not as a rule complementary. This is the primary reason I homeschool.

This is basically what I was going to post. Also, the goals of a superior education and freedom for kids to be kids are not mutually exclusive, especially for homeschoolers. The "2 hr school day thread" discussed this quite a bit. But, the idea that kids need to attend pressure cooker schools and be doing nothing but high output academics from the time they wake up until the time they go to bed in order to be competitive for top schools is a fallacy, not reality.

 

Kids that know how to think and problem solve are going to be superior students in the long run. Students have to have time to do thinking. Period. If the sole goal is to have reams of data output built upon reams of data input, you have replicated nothing more than a simple computer. Far better to have a limited scope which creates difficult problems that require contemplation and time to solve vs. regurgitating exactly what they have been given.

 

For example, AoPS challenge sets. They would assign something like 10-15 problems to be completed over 3 weeks. Ds would read them and rock climb, jog, hike, hang out with friends, etc all the time pondering various solutions. He would come home and sit down and work some of his thoughts on paper, throw them out, go for a run, and come home and sit down and crank out the problem. He does the same thing with physics problems. Alternatively, he could have been taking a traditional math class that had him doing 30-50 chug and plug problems every day.

 

I strongly disagree with the idea that cramming their heads full of textbook knowledge from K up leads to "top" students. I believe strong educational foundations come from deep connections with fewer things and learning to understand those concepts by independent connections vs. being told exactly what they need to know, think, and replicate.

 

Great grades, strong skills, independent problem-solving while aiming high are all completely realistic without destroying their childhood. I honestly and fervently believe the issue boils down to methodology and educational philosophy.

[kitten18]

But the methodology is inefficient, improperly focused, and over-burdensome.

 

I'm going to blow this up and hang it on my wall. 

 

[Soror]

This is basically what I was going to post. Also, the goals of a superior education and freedom for kids to be kids are not mutually exclusive, especially for homeschoolers. The "2 hr school day thread" discussed this quite a bit. But, the idea that kids need to attend pressure cooker schools and be doing nothing but high output academics from the time they wake up until the time they go to bed in order to be competitive for top schools is a fallacy, not reality.

I agree. I have no desire to replicate the "best" schools but I hope to provide a rigorous education to my children. I don't care to compete with such kids and schools though as I don't see any winners in that contest.

[Spy Car]

And the question is, prepared for what? As a former "star" student I can attest that if you're in a system that prioritized and rewards grades over actual learning, getting good grades is likely where your talents and attention will be focused because these two things are not as a rule complementary. This is the primary reason I homeschool.

 

 

I think "actual learning" and "getting good grades" are more "complementary" than they are "antagonistic." But let me grant your point that there is a difference between "actual learning" and just cramming facts that will be forgotten quickly after a test. It should come as a surprise to no one that I'm a huge supporter of "teaching for understanding" and a critic of the shallow and superficial education.

 

The fact is you, and people like you—but mostly you (:D)—give me hope. I hope your children make the world take notice of what education should be. And that it changes the conversation.

 

If people can achieve "actual learning" at home (and I think that is a realistic aim) then the young people from those homes will, in addition to enjoying the personal pleasures and professional rewards of a good education, also serve as a "demonstration effect" to the rest of society for what "real education" ought to look like.

 

This forum (sometimes) gives me hope. It (sometimes) makes me think it will show that there are better models than just cramming in a lot of standards without achieving a depth of understanding.

 

Other times I get discouraged by the "anything we do (no matter how little) is better than PS mentality." I know that's not you. But.....

 

Anyway. I'm glad that you're doing something extraordinary for your children. I admire that very much.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

This is basically what I was going to post. Also, the goals of a superior education and freedom for kids to be kids are not mutually exclusive, especially for homeschoolers. The "2 hr school day thread" discussed this quite a bit. But, the idea that kids need to attend pressure cooker schools and be doing nothing but high output academics from the time they wake up until the time they go to bed in order to be competitive for top schools is a fallacy, not reality.

 

Kids that know how to think and problem solve are going to be superior students in the long run. Students have to have time to do thinking. Period. If the sole goal is to have reams of data output built upon reams of data input, you have replicated nothing more than a simple computer. Far better to have a limited scope which creates difficult problems that require contemplation and time to solve vs. regurgitating exactly what they have been given.

 

For example, AoPS challenge sets. They would assign something like 10-15 problems to be completed over 3 weeks. Ds would read them and rock climb, jog, hike, hang out with friends, etc all the time pondering various solutions. He would come home and sit down and work some of his thoughts on paper, throw them out, go for a run, and come home and sit down and crank out the problem. He does the same thing with physics problems. Alternatively, he could have been taking a traditional math class that had him doing 30-50 chug and plug problems every day.

 

I strongly disagree with the idea that cramming their heads full of textbook knowledge from K up leads to "top" students. I believe strong educational foundations come from deep connections with fewer things and learning to understand those concepts by independent connections vs. being told exactly what they need to know, think, and replicate.

 

Great grades, strong skills, independent problem-solving while aiming high are all completely realistic without destroying their childhood. I honestly and fervently believe the issue boils down to methodology and educational philosophy.

Your argument is based on defeating false premises.

 

Schools like Paul Revere are not "pressure cookers." The author of the article grossly exaggerates the homework load. Trust me.

 

The notion that good schools are turning out students who can't think (and can only regurgitate) is absolutely false. As is the idea that their school workis all "plug and chug" and devoid of creative problem solving. This simply is NOT SO.

 

Your understanding of the reality in schools like these is based on fallacies.

 

Bill

[Pen]

This is all very interesting to me, and I appreciate everyone's contribution to the discussion. What I do find missing, however, is a discussion of how a country like Finland (which ranks very high on Pisa testing internationally and has no standardized testing, nor to be honest, a culture of academic competitiveness) and whose students have an extremely rigorous end of high school test that lasts DAYS AND DAYS can get such a quality education with around 30 minutes of homework TOTAL a night. (here's a good summary, for those of you who aren't familiar with the Finnish education system).

 

Is it the quality of the teachers (I suspect)? Is it the culture? If it's the culture, how does that account for the lack of a need for homework? How do they "get it all done" during the day, and still have such success?

 

In other words, how can Finland students perform so well and yet have so little homework? 

 

 

I've had this book, Finnish Lessons, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1470826151/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_4?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER in my wish list for awhile, but not gotten it.  If you do, or if others are familiar with it, I'd like to know more too!

 

My impression is it is not just one thing but a whole concerted effort to rework the education system there that succeeded--and it began with excellent teachers.

[8filltheheart]

Your argument is based on defeating false premises.

 

Schools like Paul Revere are not "pressure cookers." The author of the article grossly exaggerates the homework load. Trust me.

 

The notion that good schools are turning out students who can't think (and can only regurgitate) is absolutely false. As is the idea that their school workis all "plug and chug" and devoid of creative problem solving. This simply is NOT SO.

 

Your understanding of the reality in schools like these is based on fallacies.

 

Bill

My POV is based on the teens I know/have known that attend(ed) locally "select" public schools such as governor's schools and magnet schools. No, I don't live in the midst of metropolitan areas where the student population has wealthy kids as the norm and individual schools are beacons of great light outshining every norm. But that is such a small segment of the general population, they are not representative of the larger issue. I have lived in multiple states in mid-size cities of your typical middle class "good" school systems. And, yes, w/o doubt, the top students in those schools are living in pressure cookers, overburdened with immense amts of work, and little real gain for all their efforts. It is not their fault. The are doing precisely what they are expected to do. (Eta: or are only your experiences with your schools and your ds the only valid pts of reference since I have mentioned these real live teens in multiple posts now and somehow you seem to keep acting as if I am making my comments up based on nothing??)

 

You seem to take great offense at the suggestion that the vast majority of ps are failing students and are turning out students that are ill-equipped to function at the collegiate level and want to harp on the successes of elite prep schools. No one has suggested that elite prep schools don't exist or offer excellent educations.

 

It is not a fallacy that only 25% of students are achieving benchmark ACT scores (which are LOW scores. Goodness, my 8th grader scored significantly higher last yr on the sections she completed (she didn't do the science reasoning or writing sections bc CTY doesn't use the score). It is not a fallacy that 28-60% of high school graduates that are pursuing higher ed (so not even 28-60% of all graduates) require remedial education.

 

So the idea that somehow the schools you seem to be familiar with are representative of even a substantial number of students is questionable.

 

nm about eta. I deleted for privacy issues

[MBM]

I think it's worthwhile to look at successful schools and try to replicate what they've done right. For example, the gym teachers in the elementary public schools in Naperville, Illinois (fairly well-to-do area), devised a phys ed program to enhance cognitive skills. It's based on neuroscience and it works. The program also has the effect of creating better bonds among the students and reducing fighting in some kids by balancing neurotransmitters. A rural school in Pennsylvania (I think it was) found out about this and put a similar program in place. Students began to perform better without changing academics or study habits AND they noticed a reduction in student outbursts. My point is, trying to replicate what other schools are doing well can be helpful. Granted, what works for some might not work for others, but it's better than doing nothing.

 

[Spy Car]

My POV is based on the teens I know/have known that attend(ed) locally "select" public schools such as governor's schools and magnet schools. No, I don't live in the midst of metropolitan areas where the student population has wealthy kids as the norm and individual schools are beacons of great light outshining every norm. But that is such a small segment of the general population, they are not representative of the larger issue. I have lived in multiple states in mid-size cities of your typical middle class "good" school systems. And, yes, w/o doubt, the top students in those schools are living in pressure cookers, overburdened with immense amts of work, and little real gain for all their efforts. It is not their fault. The are doing precisely what they are expected to do. (Eta: or are only your experiences with your schools and your ds the only valid pts of reference since I have mentioned these real live teens in multiple posts now and somehow you seem to keep acting as if I am making my comments up based on nothing??)

You damage your own case when you willfully distort and confabulate.

 

I never suggested that good local schools are "beacons of great light outshining every norm." This is a dishonest characterization on your part. Schools like Paul Revere are relevant because it was one of two Middle Schools cited in the article. It is not an "elite prep school" or a "beacon of great light outshining every norm." It is a good, solid public school. Paul Revere is situated in an affluent area and it derives distinct advantages from having a largely privileged student body.

 

What it is not is a "pressure cooker." This chacterization is false. There are many good Middle Schools in the area and none are "pressure cookers," with the exception of the one very select Science Academy that is designed to meet the needs of the most brilliant and desirous of hard work type kids.

 

You seem to take great offense at the suggestion that the vast majority of ps are failing students and are turning out students that are ill-equipped to function at the collegiate level and want to harp on the successes of elite prep schools. No one has suggested that elite prep schools don't exist or offer excellent educations.

Again you are confabulating. I'm not any happier than you that too many young people come out of high school (or drop out without graduating) lacking proficientcy in basic skills. This is bad for our society. I am not an apologist for failing schools or failing methods. You know better than to suggest such.

 

What is offensive is suggesting that successful schools are only turning out robots who can't think. This is preposterous and offensive. This is your own ideology getting the best of you.

 

It is not a fallacy that only 25% of students are achieving benchmark ACT scores (which are LOW scores. Goodness, my 8th grader scored significantly higher last yr on the sections she completed (she didn't do the science reasoning or writing sections bc CTY doesn't use the score). It is not a fallacy that 28-60% of high school graduates that are pursuing higher ed (so not even 28-60% of all graduates) require remedial education.

Who contested the numbers? Not me. It is a shameful situation. It does not change the fact that the scores at highly functioning schools tell a very different story. It is the 2% who will fill roles in elite universities. If people use the standards of failing schools as their benchmarks of success, they do so at their own peril.

 

The real divide between good schools and failing schools should concern us all. It concerns me.

 

So the idea that somehow the schools you seem to be familiar with are representative of even a substantial number of students is questionable.

I'm very familiar with the local Middle School mentioned specifically in the article (and others like it). They are not anything like what you suggest. They are neither "pressure-cookers" not "automoton factories," rather they are reasonably well functioning (but imperfect) public schools that are aiming for high achievement and which suffer some of the problems of public schools everywhere.

 

If you ask me if I think it is possible for home educated students have to explore subjects in a greater and more mature depth than what often happens in good public schools? I would say yes. But that would require a seriousness of purpose and effort totally unlike the "2 hours a day is plenty" model. It is fine to play in drainage-ditches, or to build forts—children should have a childhood—but it is not sufficient onits own.

 

Doing better than failing schools is not a high mark of achievement.

 

Students at successful schools are not, despite your constant characterizations to the contrary, mindless idiots. It is not true. And yes, it is an offensive characterization based on unreality.

 

Bill

[ErinE]

This is all very interesting to me, and I appreciate everyone's contribution to the discussion. What I do find missing, however, is a discussion of how a country like Finland (which ranks very high on Pisa testing internationally and has no standardized testing, nor to be honest, a culture of academic competitiveness) and whose students have an extremely rigorous end of high school test that lasts DAYS AND DAYS can get such a quality education with around 30 minutes of homework TOTAL a night. (here's a good summary, for those of you who aren't familiar with the Finnish education system).

 

Is it the quality of the teachers (I suspect)? Is it the culture? If it's the culture, how does that account for the lack of a need for homework? How do they "get it all done" during the day, and still have such success?

 

In other words, how can Finland students perform so well and yet have so little homework?

This is something I've been thinking about quite a bit and if I ever felt the urge to do a research paper, this would be a great one. My thoughts generally:

• Teaching culture: From here, the revamp of the Finnish education system started as a complete, top-down re-organization of the teaching culture. Teachers did not have the leeway to select curriculum, or set goals. Though it might be more flexible now, I would presume that much of the education and training of teachers during the stricter years developed a teaching culture focused on the student's educational outcomes. At my university (which graduated many teachers), many prospective teachers put together bulletin boards and portfolios as part of their college-level classwork. I don't think this is the best use of a professional's time. Many students graduated with only one semester student teaching. Though I don't have the data, I believe that teachers should be trained like an apprenticeship, with the final two years spent assisting in a classroom part-time. There would be pedagogy instruction for part of the day and the rest spent in a school.
• Administrative culture: Finnish comprehensive schools, on average, are 150-300 students. Administrators share in teaching duties. My son's PS of 900+ students had one principal and two vice principals. None of the administrators taught a class. Their income had to be supported by local taxes without any benefit directly to the student. They were fantastic people, very motivated and bright. Still, at least one was taking money that could have supported a foreign-language teacher. At the district-level, there was also always a search for the "best" and new curriculum was constantly being purchased. For the third graders, parents were invited to a new math curriculum night where they would be instructed in how to teach their own children. A few weeks ago, I stumbled across an article discussing the new radical idea for education: clinical trials to see if curriculum actually works. In a perfect world, curriculum should be tested and proven to be effective in raising standards before adopted district wide. Administration would be extremely flat with few layers between the parent and the head of the district.
• Identifying effective teaching methods: I've read a few college-level pedagogy books for teaching math and science. I found these books searching syllabus from many well-respected teaching colleges. One of the science books advocated having 10th graders draw a picture of scientist and then teach a lesson based on the student's perceptions of scientists. I was appalled while reading this book. Other parts of the book focused on dealing with students' difficulties at home or in relationships. This is an important skill set for a teacher, but should not be in a science pedagogy book. There was very little discussion of what works in science teaching. In all the books I read, there was very little analysis of what works in the classroom, but many ideas for teaching lessons. I highly recommend reading pedagogy books to understand how poor teacher training can be.
• Better use of time: Here's a day in the life a Finnish school. Here's a US first grade teacher's schedule, which I find typical for public schools in the states I've lived. There's actually a comment from an NZ teacher: the kids really have such a short time for lunch? Yes, and the time shown includes a bathroom break and travel to and from the cafeteria. "Organized physical activity" for 15 minutes with an extra five for "vigorous" activity. Plus, US public schools waste so much paper! DS would come home with piles of paper. As a volunteer, I copied, sorted, and stapled reams of paper for all elementary grade levels. Far too many one had blank lines and find the match. "Fill-in-the-blank" is not a proper education. In class, so much time is spent passing out worksheets, reading through the instructions, filling out the information. Perfect education world: far fewer worksheets. Math done in a notebook. Writing done in a notebook. Reading, notebook.
• Output-oriented: In my view, many school districts spend too much on college prep. I know this is controversial for a classical-education board, but not everyone is going to college. Not everyone wants to or should go to college. In high school, I was friends with many kids who felt that school was pointless. Some dropped out, because they weren't learning anything useful going to class. They felt it was better to work, get a GED, and go to a vocational school once they turned eighteen. In my experience, they were right. College wasn't for them and hanging around school, marking time until the magical age of eighteen was pointless. A kid graduating with a high school diploma does not have a skill set to do much other than go to college. Vocational and technical training is important for many kids, and I think it's a disservice to students that many school districts have done away with this schooling.

Finally, many top public schools are located in wealthy areas or if a magnet school, have a core population of upper-middle class to rich students. I don't think about talking a school, filled with parents willing to donate time and money, helps identify and fix the broad-spectrum problems in the US public school system. When children have highly-educated, highly-motivated parents, of course the outcome is going to be excellent. A columnist the other day brought up a great point: these top public schools are effectively private schools for wealthy students. Talking about how fantastic the school right next door is easy when a parent is living in an area out of reach for most Americans.

 

ETA: Fixed wording in last paragraph

[JumpyTheFrog]

Spy Car and 8FillTheHeart,

 

Maybe part of the big disagreement you two are having is over definitions. I think when Spy Car refers to "good schools" he means the schools that really, truly are good schools, however rare they are. I think 8FillTheHeart uses the words "good schools," she means schools that the average population considers good. Like someone else pointed out on either this or another thread, people in most towns say things like, "Sure, those other towns have lousy schools, but we have good schools." (This is much like how so many people think their Congressperson is good, it's all the others that are lousy.) So when 8 talks about "good schools" that are actually doing a poor job, she is using the term like most people use it, not like Spy Car is using it.

 

The schools and population in focus are different for each of them. Spy Car is talking about the top students at the top schools going to the top colleges. 8 is talking about the top students at the rest of the schools, going to non-super-selective colleges. Can you both agree that there is a HUGE gap between the best of the best of the best and the best of the average? 8's big concern is that the vast majority of high schools nationwide are graduating future college students that need remedial classes. These aren't even the students from schools that average people would consider lousy! I think her heart is for finding ways to help the bottom 98% who aren't being taught nearly as well as they, their parents, and the taxpayers think. Bill, meanwhile, is focused on the success of the top 2%. I bet they disagree much less than they think they do. Their focus is just on different populations.

[8filltheheart]

You damage your own case when you willfully distort and confabulate.

 

I never suggested that good local schools are "beacons of great light outshining every norm." This is a dishonest characterization on your part. Schools like Paul Revere are relevant because it was one of two Middle Schools cited in the article. It is not an "elite prep school" or a "beacon of great light outshining every norm." It is a good, solid public school. Paul Revere is situated in an affluent area and it derives advantages from having a relatively privileged student body.

 

What it is not is a "pressure cooker." This chacterization is false. There are many good Middle Schools in the area and none are "pressure cookers," with the exception of the one very select Science Academy that is designed to meet the needs of the most brilliant and desirous of hard work type kids.

 

And I have specifically specified that I am referring to the schools I am familiar with. Earlier in the thread EKS stated that

 

"I am very familiar with Paul Revere and the area it serves. It is located in the heart of one of the very wealthiest parts of Los Angeles. Demographics have a *huge* amount to do with how well students in a particular school do. It is expected that Paul Revere students will go on to top ranked universities and their parents have the resources to ensure that happens. "

 

So it is obviously NOT your typical school like you are attempting to portray it as being. I am referring to suburbia USA with your avg family making significantly under a 6 digit income.

 

Again you are confabulating. I'm not any happier than you that too many young people come out of high school (or drop out without graduating) lacking proficientcy in basic skills. This is bad for our society. I am not an apologist for failing schools or failing methods. You know better than to suggest such.

 

What is offensive is suggesting that successful schools are only turning out robots who can't think. This is preposterous and offensive. This is your own ideology getting the best of you.

I have specifically referred to the schools I am familiar with and have specifically stated I know nothing about schools like PR and Lab. My comments are referring to the schools I do know. Period.

Who contested the numbers? Not me. It is a shameful situation. It does not change the fact that the scores at highly functioning schools tell a very different story. It is the 2% who will fill roles in elite universities. If people use the standards of failing schools as their benchmarks of success, they do so at their own peril.

 

I have said nothing about anyone using any schools as a benchmark. Simply that the students we know are working their tails off doing hr upon hrs of homework with little real educational gain and that **time** spent on output does not directly equate with quality of output and education in general.

 

The real divide between good schools and failing schools should concern us all. It concerns me.

. Agreed

I'm very familiar with the local Middle School mentioned specifically in the article (and others like it). They are not anything like what you suggest. They are neither "pressure-cookers" not "automoton factories," rather they are reasonably well functioning (but imperfect) public schools that are aiming for high achievement and which suffer some of the problems of public schools everywhere.

 

then those are the ones you are familiar with. I don't know many middle school students personally. High school students, yes, bc they are driving themselves to the same activities my kids are doing and hang out with my kids. Other than my nieces who attend a pre-IB school, and yes, have an insane amt of homework including work during the summers, my comments have been directed strictly toward high schoolers.

If you ask me if I think it is possible for home educated students have to explore subjects in a greater and more mature depth than what often happens in good public schools? I would say yes. But that would require a seriousness of purpose and effort totally unlike the "2 hours a day is plenty" model. It is fine to play in drainage-ditches, or to build forts—children should have a childhood—but it is not sufficient onits own.

And talk about distortions.....find a single quote I made in that thread advocating 2 hrs a day for older kids. You keep harping on playing in ditches which is a complete distortion do any educational model I have ever written about.

 

Doing better than failing schools is not a high mark of achievement.

 

Students at successful schools are not, despite your constant characterizations to the contrary, mindless idiots. It is not true. And yes, it is an offensive characterization based on unreality.

 

Bill

In the part of my earlier post that I deleted I mentioned the kids my children look have really looked forward to interacting with.....kids that they can talk about the things that they really love and are interested in w/o having to censor their discussions to things that have nothing to do with academics. They are peers with the same enthusiasm for learning that they have. They have not been local friends. The local students are kids they have great friendships with, but of a different kind. It has really been the kids that they have interacted with at academic camps or online classes with international populations where they have finally met kids that love academics and learning. Those kids, definitely, are not experiencing educations similar to what the kids we know from our local school systems. They are an amazing group of thoughtful, deep-thinkers that love academic challenges. The majority of the local kids just do what they need to do to be done and really dislike school and equate learning with drudgery. To them, academics is simply pressure.

 

Spend time reading College Confidential and you will see that most of the kids there are so intense that you can feel the pressure come through the computer screen. It is very intense. You are clueless to suggest that it isn't, especially when referring to kids seeking that top 2%. Do I believe all those students are receiving chug and plug educations.. No. I think that is more representative of the avg school at large. But do I think they are under immense pressure......I think a very high percentage of top students, regardless of whether their school is top or avg, feel that way.

[Spy Car]

Spy Car and 8FillTheHeart,

 

Maybe part of the big disagreement you two are having is over definitions. I think when Spy Car refers to "good schools" he means the schools that really, truly are good schools, however rare they are. I think 8FillTheHeart uses the words "good schools," she means schools that the average population considers good. Like someone else pointed out on either this or another thread, people in most towns say things like, "Sure, those other towns have lousy schools, but we have good schools." (This is much like how so many people think their Congressperson is good, it's all the others that are lousy.) So when 8 talks about "good schools" that are actually doing a poor job, she is using the term like most people use it, not like Spy Car is using it.

 

The schools and population in focus are different for each of them. Spy Car is talking about the top students at the top schools going to the top colleges. 8 is talking about the top students at the rest of the schools, going to non-super-selective colleges. Can you both agree that there is a HUGE gap between the best of the best of the best and the best of the average? 8's big concern is that the vast majority of high schools nationwide are graduating future college students that need remedial classes. These aren't even the students from schools that average people would consider lousy! I think her heart is for finding ways to help the bottom 98% who aren't being taught nearly as well as they, their parents, and the taxpayers think. Bill, meanwhile, is focused on the success of the top 2%. I bet they disagree much less than they think they do. Their focus is just on different populations.

I appreciate the effort, but would need to add some clarifications.

 

I am also very concerned about public schools that graduate students that need remedial work before starting regular college classes. Even more concerning is these students are often the "success stories." They did not drop out, and are often overcoming high odds to even get to a college. So please do not be in any doubt about where my heart or concerns are.

 

My comments about "the 2%" of public school achievement were aimed at home schoolers as the standard they should be measuring against (and exceeding, if possible) if they hope to see their children attend major or elite universities. Not everyone has these goals (I realize) but some people are kidding themselves when it comes to where students at good public school (like Paul Revere) are in terms of competing for slots in Universities, and thriving in the world beyond school. The suggestion that all public school students are nothing but automons is false.

 

At some schools most students can be expected to get into good colleges. At others it is the top students (only) that are likely to do so. At other schools simply graduating from High School (even with some areas that need remediation to achieve proficiency) is an achievement. We live in a society with many inequalities, including income inequalities and educational inequalities. Some children go to school hungry.

 

I do not believe education should be shallow, or devoid of creative problem solving. I also do not think students should be stressed out, or buried under mind-numbingly boring homework that kills their free time. If these things reflected what was going on in our public schools, I would be squawking. I believe you know me well enough to know that is true.

 

But that is not what I see. Public schools are not perfect, and I've never claimed otherwise. I "afterschool" with my child because I want him to enjoy some of the same benefits of one-on-one learning that your children enjoy, and to have learning opportunities that plumb for depth beyond typical public school expectations. I also see many highly motivated teachers who put their lives into making the classroom experience a rich one. Teachers who promote critical thinking and have no desire to churn out unthinking robots.

 

People who care about high quality education (what ever the path it takes) ought to be allies. Unfortunately there are "ideologies" and "educational philosophies" that rule out the possibilities that any method (but the chosen one) has any merits, and then minds close to reality.

 

Within any model there are successes and failures. Home schools, public schools, private schools, and hybrid schools all have their success stories as well as their failures. When we all accept that it will be easier to have mature conversations.

 

Bill

[JumpyTheFrog]

I was trying to play peacemaker because the two of you have been disagreeing in multiple threads in the past few weeks and I don't want it to turn into arguing where you end up mad at each other.

[Spy Car]

I was trying to play peacemaker because the two of you have been disagreeing in multiple threads in the past few weeks and I don't want it to turn into arguing where you end up mad at each other.

I know. I appreciate it, too. :)

 

I also believe your insight that 8 and I are not far off with many of our ideas about education, the importance of play, the value of teaching for depth, or any other such things, is correct. I'm not sure whether she can accept that not all schools are soul-crushing pressure-cooking automoton factories (or not), but I know first-hand that such is not the case.

 

Bill

[idnib]

Why do I feel like my parents are fighting and Hoppy is the eldest sibling, trying to soothe them?  :lol:

This is all very interesting to me, and I appreciate everyone's contribution to the discussion. What I do find missing, however, is a discussion of how a country like Finland (which ranks very high on Pisa testing internationally and has no standardized testing, nor to be honest, a culture of academic competitiveness) and whose students have an extremely rigorous end of high school test that lasts DAYS AND DAYS can get such a quality education with around 30 minutes of homework TOTAL a night. (here's a good summary, for those of you who aren't familiar with the Finnish education system).

 

Is it the quality of the teachers (I suspect)? Is it the culture? If it's the culture, how does that account for the lack of a need for homework? How do they "get it all done" during the day, and still have such success?

 

In other words, how can Finland students perform so well and yet have so little homework? 

 

This is a fantastic question.  I just don't get it, and I would like to know how high school can be effectively taught with only 30 minutes of homework.  Just take a  literature class.  No matter how wonderful and skilled the teachers, the students have to read the books.  You can't possibly have the students read in class, can you, and waste the time of the highly-trained teacher?  Seems like to cover any reasonable amount of ground, the students need to be doing a fair amount of reading at home.  I'm curious how many books they read Senior year of high school, and how they manage that without homework?  Do they just read excerpts? Only a few novels? How does that 30 minute break down, class-wise? 

[8filltheheart]

I was trying to play peacemaker because the two of you have been disagreeing in multiple threads in the past few weeks and I don't want it to turn into arguing where you end up mad at each other.

 

:)   I think we agree on the end goal, but disagree on the path required to get there.  ;)

[chiguirre]

My comments about "the 2%" of public school achievement were aimed at home schoolers as the standard they should be measuring against (and exceeding, if possible) if they hope to see their children attend major or elite universities. Not everyone has these goals (I realize) but some people are kidding themselves when it comes to where students at good public school (like Paul Revere) are in terms of competing for slots in Universities, and thriving in the world beyond school. The suggestion that all public school students are nothing but automons is false.

I agree that if you want your dc to have the chance to be admitted at a highly selective school, you should aim for the 2%. However, I disagree that that is a common aspiration on TWTM boards. There's a reason it's called the 2%. The other 98% has other goals.

 

For example, there are lots of us (I'd venture to say a much higher percentage than the general ps population) that are educating kids that are not neurotypical. Our goal isn't Harvard, it may not even be the local community college. Many of us are refugees from ps special ed.

 

There are also lots of families educating average kids who are aiming for solid, middle of the road colleges. They aren't competing with the Paul Revere or Lab School kids. They probably wouldn't benefit from that level of demanding academics. It is important that they build a solid foundation, but it's okay if they don't get to AP Calc BC before they graduate. If they can only do pre-calc but they actually understand it well, they're better off than trying to race through the basics to get to the "rigorous" curriculum without really understanding what they're doing.

 

The WTM community is much more diverse than the student population at Paul Revere or the Lab School. Comparing the two and expecting the WTMers to conform to the expectations of the 2%ers isn't realistic or helpful. We're not all educating gifted kids from affluent families.

[8filltheheart]

I know. I appreciate it, too. :)

 

I also believe your insight that 8 and I are not far off with many of our ideas about education, the importance of play, the value of teaching for depth, or any other such things, is correct. I'm not sure whether she can accept that not all schools are soul-crushing pressure-cooking automoton factories (or not), but I know first-hand that such is not the case.

 

Bill

 

Bill, I really suggest you try searching "chance me for________" whatever top school you want to pick on college confidential.   The intensity of those posts is soul crushing.   If you don't read them as intense, then we completely define the word differently. 

 

And, no, I do not believe aiming for the top 2% of schools should be the goal of most students.   Students with that level of natural academic ability should make those schools their target schools.   Students that don't, really shouldn't.   Students should seek schools that match their abilities and career objectives.  (and fwiw, I have students in both categories)

[Lilaclady]

I appreciate the effort, but would need to add some clarifications.

 

 

My comments about "the 2%" of public school achievement were aimed at home schoolers as the standard they should be measuring against (and exceeding, if possible) if they hope to see their children attend major or elite universities. Not everyone has these goals (I realize) but some people are kidding themselves when it comes to where students at good public school (like Paul Revere) are in terms of competing for slots in Universities, and thriving in the world beyond school.

 

I do not believe education should be shallow, or devoid of creative problem solving. I also do not think students should be stressed out, or buried under mind-numbingly boring homework that kills their free time. If these things reflected what was going on in our public schools, I would be squawking. I believe you know me well enough to know that is true.

 

But that is not what I see. Public schools are not perfect, and I've never claimed otherwise. I "afterschool" with my child because I want him to enjoy some of the same benefits of one-on-one learning that your children enjoy, and to have learning opportunities that plumb for depth beyond typical public school expectations. I also see many highly motivated teachers who put their lives into making the classroom experience a rich one. Teachers who promote critical thinking and have no desire to churn out unthinking robots.

 

 

Within any model there are successes and failures. Home schools, public schools, private schools, and hybrid schools all have their success stories as well as their failures. When we all accept that it will be easier to have mature conversations.

 

Bill

Bill, I really want to believe what you are saying but looking at what you have said especially in the thread regarding "2 hrs" of homeschool do not give you credibility with me. You said your ds did some wonderful fantastic things in kindergarten that can never be replicated at home but then,when asked, you fail to tell us exactly what those wonderful experiences were.

You are now telling us the author of this article is not to be believed, that he is making gross exaggerations in the article, but he is the one with the child in the school going through this. Your son is not at this school so I can't uphold your word higher than this guy's.

 

Also while the competition out there is intense, I will have you know that I have seen many many kids that wore themselves out in high school and totally burn out by the time they get to college due to the intense nature of the college prep they have gone through. So many of them have ended up not graduating.

I am preparing my kids to do the best hey can do but they are also having a wholesome life. My kids can stand with any kid from any continent, from any private or prep school and be able to hold their own. They will likely not be the best but they will not be intimidated either. They are being challenged to be the best they can be with the resources God has endowed on them.

 

I come to this forum and I am challenged almost weekly to do better by my kids. I have learnt so much from so many of the moms here and apply so many of the Ideas shared here. Most of the moms here are not advocating 2 hrs of work for middle/ high school kids. a lot of them are doing highly challenging programs with some creative ideas.

 

My kids - if they continue on the path they have been, will likely go to top schools- maybe not elite but then, they still have a long way to go and I will rather they enjoy the path to college, than burn out on the way to college.

[Spy Car]

Bill, I really want to believe what you are saying but looking at what you have said especially in the thread regarding "2 hrs" of homeschool do not give you credibility with me. You said your ds did some wonderful fantastic things in kindergarten that can never be replicated at home but then,when asked, you fail to tell us exactly what those wonderful experiences were.

Because, as I explained, the scope was too vast. Every day was jam packed with learning stations, stories, crafts, lessons, games, play, nauure study, and a myriad of other things. I could not do justice to the vastness of the resources and activities without either wring a book, or short changing the nature of the experience with brevity.

 

I provide a simplified run-down on what we are experiencing this year (Grade 4). Way too much went on in K for it to fit in a post.

 

You are now telling us the author of this article is not to be believed, that he is making gross exaggerations in the article, but he is the one with the child in the school going through this. Your son is not at this school so I can't uphold your word higher than this guy's.

You think author's don't exaggerate to sell stories? Really? Don't be naive.

 

Our elementary feeds into Paul Revere (among other schools). We know many (many) families with students at Paul Revere. Believe me, PARENTS TALK. Schools are a (the) major topic of conversation among PS parents. I don't know of a single parent of a Paul Revere child who feels their child is in a "pressure-cooker." If anything, so parent wish the schools were more rigorous.

 

Also while the competition out there is intense, I will have you know that I have seen many many kids that wore themselves out in high school and totally burn out by the time they get to college due to the intense nature of the college prep they have gone through. So many of them have ended up not graduating.

Lot's of kids don't graduate. But they are mostly those who've never been reached, not "burn-out cases." The schools are not THAT intense. They take more work that one could do in 2 hours a day at home—that is for sure—but this guy is grossly exaggerating.

 

I am preparing my kids to do the best hey can do but they are also having a wholesome life. My kids can stand with any kid from any continent, from any private or prep school and be able to hold their own. They will likely not be the best but they will not be intimidated either. They are being challenged to be the best they can be with the resources God has endowed on them.

We all hope our children will have good lives.

 

I come to this forum and I am challenged almost weekly to do better by my kids. I have learnt so much from so many of the moms here and apply so many of the Ideas shared here. Most of the moms here are not advocating 2 hrs of work for middle/ high school kids. a lot of them are doing highly challenging programs with some creative ideas.

And some are advocating 2 hours a day for elementary school. That, I think, is unwise.

 

My kids - if they continue on the path they have been, will likely go to top schools- maybe not elite but then, they still have a long way to go and I will rather they enjoy the path to college, than burn out on the way to college.

Who wants "burn out"? There is a yawning gap between doing a reasonable days work and putting in 2 hours, that does not induce "burn-out." my feeling is it is far preferable to learn important concepts early, so they are understood and mastered, rather back-loadeding everything to the end. That latter strategy could cause far worse burn-out that the "slow and steady wins the race" approach.

 

The worst place to end up is discovering too late that you're 2 or 3 years behind grade level expectations. That would be stress-full.

 

Bill