What do you believe should change in Education?

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'd be interested to know the % of students in respected university programs who spent the majority of their childhoods in US public schools, without family-financed suppliementation.

 

I wonder the exact same thing.  Coming from a family who knew nothing about college preparation and who could not afford to supplement my education, I can tell you it definitely meant I had far fewer options. 

[Guest]

Eliminate, somehow, the stranglehold textbook publishers have on public education.

No strangle hold here, the district is so underfunded it doesnt buy textbooks. The money is flowing into tech, so the extensive remediation needs can be met by handing out chromebooks that access drill programs. No where are there actual primary sources used, unless the kid is in an AP history or honors English class, and then the cost is on the family.

 

Textbook publishers are making their money in prep books here, as students supplement on their own dime.

[Guest]

It makes rich areas have $$$$ more than poor areas with low property values and often a higher number of students.

I agree on the property taxes not being tied, but I'm seeing from the side of the high property tax area. It is NOT fair to us either. The property tax funding issue can actually be much more complex than that higher value areas have better schools. It's not that simple. At least in Texas. I live in a high property tax value area. It means we get much, MUCH less from the state. We get squat from the state. We also have a stable school population meaning we don't have a lot of students moving in or out. That also means we get even less from the state. In order to maintain the school district here, because we are a high value area, we are honestly penalized- we have to have disproportionately higher property and sales taxes, which then creates a catch-22. People in lower incomes can't move in because they can't afford the property taxes on the houses. That then shrinks the incoming elementary population and the pool of tax payers.

 

The state needs to have a transparent, FAIR funding procedure. I don't know about other states, but in Texas, it is neither. The only thing that allows our high tax value are to maintain the schools to the level they are is the ability of the citizenry to continually swallow tax increases and have involved parents who can afford to pay for things out of pocket to the benefit of the school. As a district we do far more with less per student than surrounding areas and are continually punished for it each year. It would almost be better sadly for finding IF parents were less charitable and test scores dipped. It's a completely insane system here in Texas.

 

ETA- The higher tax rate you have, the less the state gives you. So just because you're a high tax value area doesn't mean you end up with more per student. Here you end up with less. Our students get 6k something a year. One of the lowest rates in all of he surrounding Houston area. Every surrounding district gets hundreds to thousands more per student. It's what we manage to do with that money per student that keeps us a top rated school. For now. That and that we can do what we do with 6k per year and I see some states get 20k per kid and still end up total failures. Amazing.

Edited November 22, 2016 by texasmom33

[tm919]

This. It's a relatively small sample, but almost all of the elementary school teachers I have known dislike math. I believe having dedicated elementary math teachers with math majors would go a long way toward improving math and science education in this country.

Yeah, that so horrifies me. Teachers need to stop saying things like, "Math isn't my thing" or "I'm just not a math person." Seriously, would it be ok for a teacher to say, "Books aren't my thing"or "I'm just not a reading person" to the children they teach? 

 

I'd also like to have standards more oriented toward every child making progress, rather than every child reaching the same bar. I know that's pie in the sky but I hate it that my children are almost penalized for exceeding the bar to begin with... 

[Guest]

.

Edited September 10, 2020 by Æthelthryth the Texan

[Miss Tick]

I'm intrigued by separating sports from schools. I don't see a benefit from having an educational institute spend time and effort (assuming they are self-finding here) running and promoting something that does not bear on the educational intent of the school.

[Arcadia]

I just know it is VERY difficult to find quality math or science teachers. And the ones I have known, taught for a while but left for greener pastures. Usually teaching was to get enough $$ to go to grad school and get whatever else they needed for their careers.

The math teachers I know quit K-12 teaching to go to teach at community college or be a private tutor. Internal and external politics is crazy here at some schools, local/state/presidential elections are hot buttons.

 

Our teachers are paid quite well but increasing pay for math and science teachers won't do much as teacher quota and retrenchment is not done by subjects, but by last in first out. So with every layoff we get new teachers gone and the older ones stay. That was how schools end up with the situation of a history teacher teaching algebra which he has never taught before. My kids 1st grade teacher is math and science phobic so she would mutual swap some lessons with the 1st grade teacher who like science.

 

I think school board members should have term limits and campaign fund limits. Campaign funds are the easiest way to lobby. Many were voted off this election.

 

Here majority afterschool whether it is parent taught and/or tutors. My district does their own thing since the bulk of funding is from property taxes. The achievement gap is consistently high year after year. There are just too many things that need to be changed. Not assigning schools by address would be nice. Many people move once their kids reach K registration age to get to a better school.

[City Mouse]

Is it bad for me to say that I do not think the system can be fixed?

 

More money would help but only if it is used in the right ways. Probably the single thing that I think would make the most impact would be to significantly lower student-teacher ratios. (Actually lower, not just lower on paper because of averages). Something like 10-12 kids per class in early elementary. One year I had only 18 kids in my first grade class and I thought that was wonderful.

 

Return to local control sounds good in theory, but I have lived in places where the local schools have not been successful at actually educating kids. But the local community feels that "local control" is more important than having young people that actually have the knowledge and skills to hold a job. So that again leads to disparities. Some local school districts do a great job, while others suck.

 

Returning to ability grouping sound good in theory, especially for kids that would be in the "advanced" groups, but would that mean a return to having special needs kids isolated from the rest because they are "ability" grouped?

 

What about kids that come to school with social and behavioral issues? Do we go back to a system where those kids are simply kicked out of school so that we can focus on educating the well behaved kids? It pretty much takes an act of congress to get one of those kids removed from a classroom now, partly because there aren't any other places to put the kid (not many people want to spend their teaching careers working with kids like that) and partially because of the whole "least restrictive" issue.

 

Better training for teachers would be good, but what does that really mean? math teachers need to understand the "whys" of math to be able help students learn. But most people who are teaching math now grew up with an educational system where kids were expected to learn the standard algorithms to solve problems without really understanding why they work. Parents get frustrated because they don't understand the why's of math so they can't help their kids, so they want to go back to a system that only teaches the standard algorithms because that is what they understand.

 

I totally agree with the return to vocational training in high school, but there would be many parents who would not want their child placed in a vocational track at 14. How many kids will get put in "vocational" tracks because they come from poverty, or don't speak the native language?

 

There is no one system that is going to be best for every child, so society tries to come up with a system that is best for the majority of kids, but I'm not sure that we even have that.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I don't think it's bad.  I think it is realistic to say it will never be perfect.  I don't recall my parents lamenting over the quality of schools so I somewhat have the impression it's worse, but I assume people have been complaining since forever.  There is a wide range of ideas, wants, goals, opinions, etc.  So it's hard to please everyone.  Sometimes I get a kick out of reading very old newspaper articles that talk about schools.  The complaints were very different, but there was this sense of urgency to fix a broken system. 

 

One thing that seems very true to me is that respect for the profession of teaching has gone way down.  Growing up teachers were seen as the authority on teaching.  My parents figured they were sending me to school to be taught by people who knew what they were doing and that I should listen to them.  The attitude seems quite different now.  I don't think that is the fault of teachers though.  I think that is in large part the fault of unrealistic expectations placed on teachers.  You can't say here we'll give you this group of people with a huge range of abilities and backgrounds in one classroom and you need to get everyone on the same page and then some. 

 

Is it bad for me to say that I do not think the system can be fixed?

 

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by SparklyUnicorn

[creekland]

They used to differentiate.  At least they did when I was a kid.  Then people started saying this was inappropriate because it makes some kids feel bad and it means kids on the lower end of the totem pole don't get the same quality of education.  I can see both sides to this. 

 

They did when I was a kid at my high school too (actually started in 3rd grade).  I don't see any cons TBH.

 

At the school where I work one of the 8th grade English teachers told me she must use a 4th grade reading level book for her classes to read as a class?  Why?  Because not all kids can handle 8th grade level.  "What about those already reading at a 12th grade level?" she asked.  "They'll be fine." she was told.  "Don't worry about them."

 

It sure isn't helping those who are at a 12th grade level, but even those who are at the 8th grade level lose out.  When I was doing extra test prep practice with a class they knew quite well what antonym and synonym were (what I was supposed to go over).  They were missing out on words like tedious because they had no idea what that meant.  Knowledge of the meaning was assumed by high school...  If kids don't read age appropriate words, they don't get to expand their vocabulary as they should even if they are "up" on what is being taught overall.

 

It benefits no one when the top kids aren't allowed to progress at their level, and it tends to frustrate or bore the students.

 

Can you imagine the uproar if we start telling the sports star to slow down or not play to his/her ability because it will make some other kids feel bad?

[bethben]

School choice.  Attach money to children instead of money to schools.  It would take awhile, but eventually I believe that there would be a variety of good schools children could attend.  If it's a poor performing school, the students wouldn't come and the school would have to close down or change.  You watch documentaries such as "Waiting for Superman" and think that if those lottery systems where available to more children, education in those areas would change.  Around where I live, charter schools are popping up all over because the ones that are available have waiting lists into the hundreds sometimes.  The charter schools are varied also - early college high schools, STEM focused schools, classical schools, high schools that focus on learning a job skill such as welding, construction, etc, and Charlotte Mason inspired schools.  If you want traditional public school, you have that option also.   School choice puts education into the parent's hands again which is where it should be.  And yes, I know not all parents will take advantage of these opportunities, but I do think a lot would.  

[SparklyUnicorn]

They did when I was a kid at my high school too (actually started in 3rd grade).  I don't see any cons TBH.

 

At the school where I work one of the 8th grade English teachers told me she must use a 4th grade reading level book for her classes to read as a class?  Why?  Because not all kids can handle 8th grade level.  "What about those already reading at a 12th grade level?" she asked.  "They'll be fine." she was told.  "Don't worry about them."

 

It sure isn't helping those who are at a 12th grade level, but even those who are at the 8th grade level lose out.  When I was doing extra test prep practice with a class they knew quite well what antonym and synonym were (what I was supposed to go over).  They were missing out on words like tedious because they had no idea what that meant.  Knowledge of the meaning was assumed by high school...  If kids don't read age appropriate words, they don't get to expand their vocabulary as they should even if they are "up" on what is being taught overall.

 

It benefits no one when the top kids aren't allowed to progress at their level, and it tends to frustrate or bore the students.

 

Can you imagine the uproar if we start telling the sports star to slow down or not play to his/her ability because it will make some other kids feel bad?

 

They didn't when I was a kid.  And I think the reasoning was also, kids on the lower end are inspired by kids on the higher end.  No clue if that is true.

 

I'm in favor of tracking, but kids in lower groups should not be treated as an afterthought either. 

 

Yeah it's acceptable to track athletics apparently, but not academics?! 

[creekland]

 I think the reasoning was also, kids on the lower end are inspired by kids on the higher end.  No clue if that is true.

 

 

Based upon what I've seen, this happening at the high school level IRL is extremely rare.  Most have given up by then knowing they can't keep up.  Many end up becoming behavior problems.  School is a chore and they can't wait to get out.  It discourages them to see others "getting it" so easily.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Based upon what I've seen, this happening at the high school level IRL is extremely rare.  Most have given up by then knowing they can't keep up.  Many end up becoming behavior problems.  School is a chore and they can't wait to get out.  It discourages them to see others "getting it" so easily.

 

When I dropped down a math level (thinking it would be similar math but slower paced) one of the worst aspects was being in a room filled with behavior problems.  Really, really terrible. I couldn't hack that.  I went back and struggled and accepted that I wasn't going to get excellent grades. 

 

But yeah so you think having a few kids who struggle in a mixed classroom is as bad as a room filled with kids who struggle?  I have no clue if that is the case, but I can understand the desire to try something different with the class configuration.

[OneStepAtATime]

Quotes didn't work.  Sorry City Mouse!!  

 

All below in black are City Mouse Quotes.  I think she has some very valid questions and I wanted to address them further.  Anything in blue is mine.

 

 

 

Is it bad for me to say that I do not think the system can be fixed?

 

I guess this depends on what is meant by fixed.  A perfect system with no flaws?  Nope.  Not gonna happen.  I agree.  Improvements to the existing system?  Yes, I think improvements can be made.  What those should be and how successful they will be at the local level is a big question mark but I do believe some improvements can be made.

More money would help but only if it is used in the right ways. Probably the single thing that I think would make the most impact would be to significantly lower student-teacher ratios. (Actually lower, not just lower on paper because of averages). Something like 10-12 kids per class in early elementary. One year I had only 18 kids in my first grade class and I thought that was wonderful.

 

Wholeheartedly agree.  Smaller classrooms gives teachers a much greater chance of effectively teaching, not just managing.  And you are right, just tossing more money a the problem will not fix the problem.

Return to local control sounds good in theory, but I have lived in places where the local schools have not been successful at actually educating kids. But the local community feels that "local control" is more important than having young people that actually have the knowledge and skills to hold a job. So that again leads to disparities. Some local school districts do a great job, while others suck.

 

Yep, which is one reason why some form of standards across the country is important, IMHO.  But what I think matters more is a much more rigorous and thorough training program for all teachers (and even administrators).  If the teachers are very well trained and prepared to teach then that will help in the classroom, even if the area they live in has historically had poor teaching practices.

Returning to ability grouping sound good in theory, especially for kids that would be in the "advanced" groups, but would that mean a return to having special needs kids isolated from the rest because they are "ability" grouped?

 

That should depend on the specific circumstances of the child.   Not all children that struggle in specific academic areas struggle in all academic areas.  If a child is struggling in reading but not in math it would make more sense to have them working with other kids that are at their reading level AND at their math level, even if those groups are not made up of the same children.  Not all children that struggle in academics will always struggle if they get effective, targeted instruction.  And some kids just need more time for their brains to develop or a slower pace in general but are perfectly capable of learning.  

 

I floundered in math all the way through until 9th grade.  I would have been better served if I had been put in a much slower math class to really be given the chance to understand what I was doing.  I had to move lock step with my peers even though I didn't understand what I was doing.  On the flip side, I did very well in language arts.  I would have been better served if I had been given a chance to advance in language arts, but only had that opportunity when we lived in Omaha.  Once we moved states there was no differentiated learning.  High School they finally put me in a remedial math class, Algebra done over two years, and with an excellent math teacher.  I loved him.  Things made sense that never had before.  I made straight As in math.  I found out I LIKED math.  However, to graduate High School I had to make it through Algebra II and Trigonometry at an accelerated pace in a combined class my Senior year.  It was a disaster.  I learned nothing and barely passed.  Total waste of my time and that of my teacher.  It completely undermined any confidence I had gained in math.  I still needed a slower paced math class, not one at break neck speed.

 

On the flip side, my SIL teaches children with profound academic and physical issues.  When the school mainstreamed them in elementary many of the children suffered terribly, made no progress, and were completely demoralized. In middle school a program was started where the classroom was designed specifically for these children and their specific physical and academic needs.  The classroom was small, no more than 6-8 kids at any one time.  When they were placed into that specialized program in middle school where physical needs were met while they were also met WHERE THEY WERE AT academically (no matter how far behind or ahead they were in specific subjects), they were able to make progress and most went on to have very successful High School experiences, many doing well being mainstreamed after 3 years of very targeted help.  Separating them from the mainstream crowd  during those Middle School years gave them the chance to get the targeted, one on one daily attention they needed to actually make progress.  Again, though, the teacher and the assistant had specialized training and knew what they were doing. 

What about kids that come to school with social and behavioral issues? Do we go back to a system where those kids are simply kicked out of school so that we can focus on educating the well behaved kids? It pretty much takes an act of congress to get one of those kids removed from a classroom now, partly because there aren't any other places to put the kid (not many people want to spend their teaching careers working with kids like that) and partially because of the whole "least restrictive" issue.

 

This is harder.  A lot of kids come in with bad attitudes because they were not given the support and instruction they needed early on.  Their academic struggles were blamed on laziness or a bad attitude which in turn created the bad attitude towards academics.  Early help right as they begin to struggle would, I believe, do a lot to help alleviate this cycle.  Same thing for gifted kids. They needed more advanced material, more in depth material and were not given that chance.  And for kids that are 2e it is even harder.   Bad attitude develops and by the time they are in Middle School/High School it is really tough to turn that around.  Better training for teachers in how to handle differentiated learning could help.

 

However, a lot of times the issues are organically based or because of issues outside of school or because of social skills deficits, etc..  Those are harder for a teacher to deal with in a classroom setting and the answers are not as clear, to me at least.  Again, though, smaller classrooms and rigorous training programs for teachers may help this to an extent.  But no, just kicking a kid out of school is not the best answer.

Better training for teachers would be good, but what does that really mean? math teachers need to understand the "whys" of math to be able help students learn. But most people who are teaching math now grew up with an educational system where kids were expected to learn the standard algorithms to solve problems without really understanding why they work. Parents get frustrated because they don't understand the why's of math so they can't help their kids, so they want to go back to a system that only teaches the standard algorithms because that is what they understand.

 

Better training for teachers in how to actually facilitate learning in particular subjects plus smaller class sizes will help to some extent (maybe a lot).  What does better training mean?  A great deal more targeted instruction in the subjects they are expected to cover.   A great deal more training in how to assess where individual students are at.  A great deal more targeted instruction in how children develop and how the human brain matures and functions.  More training in how to function in a classroom BEFORE having to teach by themselves.  More training in differentiated classroom instruction.  More training in childhood development.  More training in how to be supportive and encouraging without being a doormat.  More training in how to help children find answers on their own, how to seek ways to figure things out (far less emphasis on shoveling data into a kids brain in hopes they can verbatim regurgitate it). Etc.

 

And as for parents floundering in how to help students from home, no homework through 3rd grade while students are learning how to learn will help with this.  In later grades if students already know how to learn, how to take time to explore a topic and find the answer they will be less likely to need help from a parent.  And when they do need help, then perhaps utilize all the tech available.  Interaction with teacher made videos to assist with any confusion.  But yes, this is still going to be an issue to some extent.  No idea how to completely alleviate this issue.

I totally agree with the return to vocational training in high school, but there would be many parents who would not want their child placed in a vocational track at 14. How many kids will get put in "vocational" tracks because they come from poverty, or don't speak the native language?

 

Why track anyone?  Kids should be given the chance to try out different areas of interest, and to develop useful skill sets even if they don't intend to go with a vocation for their career.  When I was in High School you had the option of taking one of several vocational type classes or a home ec class, not because you were being tracked that way but because they wanted kids to explore all areas.  Some found they liked and were good at certain things and then chose that course themselves.  No one tracked them.  DH actually had a wonderful Broadcast TV and Radio program at his school.  He thrived there and it put him on the path to an incredibly successful career he has thoroughly loved.  Prior to High School he had struggled in school and his parents feared he would not even graduate.  Broadcast TV and eventually Broadcast Engineering were where his amazing talents lay but were not being tapped in a standard academic setting.  Having those classes changed his whole world.

 

There is no one system that is going to be best for every child, so society tries to come up with a system that is best for the majority of kids, but I'm not sure that we even have that.

 

Agreed.

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by OneStepAtATime

[SparklyUnicorn]

Eliminate, somehow, the stranglehold textbook publishers have on public education.

 

yeah and not just textbooks....even testing is heavily tied to business interests

[snowbeltmom]

Can you imagine the uproar if we start telling the sports star to slow down or not play to his/her ability because it will make some other kids feel bad?

Exactly.  Our public schools could learn a lot from the sports model.  No one benefits by being grouped by age, rather than ability.

 

My daughter's first grade teacher told me that the school was no longer permitted to provide any type of differentiated instruction because the administration was afraid of potential law suits.  This was almost a decade ago.  I don't know if the situation is different now, but I doubt it.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Although when I think of tracking, I'm talking middle school age and up.  I think it is far more difficult to accommodate the younger crowd in that way.  A younger kid may work at a higher level content wise, but they may be unable to handle the required output.  They also may not have the maturity for a classroom filled with older kids.  They might.  If they could differentiate and work around those difference that would be better than simply thinking kids will be placed by level irregardless of age.

 

 

[Tenaj]

I'm intrigued by separating sports from schools. I don't see a benefit from having an educational institute spend time and effort (assuming they are self-finding here) running and promoting something that does not bear on the educational intent of the school.

 

This is one of the pieces of educational reform I'd like to see.  Make sports community-based rather than school based.  It gets rid of schools spending money on fancy sports facilities and allows greater participation from kids not in public school.  It seems like it would be a unifying idea for the community also.

[EmilyGF]

This is one of the pieces of educational reform I'd like to see.  Make sports community-based rather than school based.  It gets rid of schools spending money on fancy sports facilities and allows greater participation from kids not in public school.  It seems like it would be a unifying idea for the community also.

Regentrude may say something, but in Germany, where sports are separate from schools, I saw a lot of adults active on sports teams. The school-based sports mentality gives the idea that once you're out of school, sports are done for you.

 

Emily

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yeah I think the sport's industry itself should fund sports.  That said, I think some kids go to school and stay in school for no reason other than sports.  It is their thing.  So it's not completely terrible.  I just don't know how many  kids are in that category though.

 

 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

After following Diane Ravitch and Peter Greene for several years now, I am opposed to school choice, or the money following the child. Detroit shows us what can happen; charters are not the answer.

 

I want homeschooling to remain legal and not excessively regulated. Bundling homeschooling in with a voucher system will only bring more government involvement into homeschooling, and drive up costs of goods and services as curriculum providers begin to notice that families are suddenly working with thousands in government funds.

 

I want taxpayer dollars going only to public schools that are for all children (in other words, don't send public money to religious schools), and I don't want our most vulnerable children subjected to abusive methods and strange theories (such as in Moskowitz's Success Academies) -- see Gary Rubinstein's blog for some videos and commentary on that. If parents want alternatives to public education, they should cover the cost. Or some of the entities promoting school choice could come at this from the other angle: Religious organizations could start private schools. Billionaires in favor of experimental charters could fund a particular school, instead of convincing the nation to convert to their plan to attach the money to the child for all of America.

 

Equality doesn't come from detaching funds from public schools and attaching them to the child. Free appropriate public education is a solid American ideal that we should retain, no matter how tempting the billions of dollars being offered to convert to school choice (by people who have no expertise in education).

Edited November 22, 2016 by Tibbie Dunbar

[Guest]

.

Edited September 10, 2020 by Æthelthryth the Texan

[Tenaj]

 I believe having dedicated elementary math teachers with math majors would go a long way toward improving math and science education in this country.

 

I just don't see the necessity of this . . sorry,  but it doesn't take a math major to teach elementary math.

 

If there are elementary teachers out there who can't teach elementary math that's a failing of the colleges and/or states who are issuing diplomas and licenses to incompetent teachers.

 

Adding that I'm assuming elementary school means fourth grade and under . . .

[Ali in OR]

I'll have to come back to read the full thread, but quickly before I get in the shower:

 

My ideal system starts with teaching being the most desirable, respected, well-paid profession. Your best and brightest want to become teachers and it becomes competitive enough that only the best and brightest make it. Then the teachers run the schools, not administrators who have never taught, not narrow-minded industry leaders, certainly not government officials who have never been teachers. They have sets of standards to be achieved that are the same in all states, but they have a lot of freedom in how to achieve goals--they do NOT test students to death! They have time to go beyond the standards, to follow bunny trails, do projects, learn about something that ISN'T on the standards list.Their number one goal is to keep the love of learning alive and not kill it off with testing, labeling, and low expectations. In some ways, it would look a little more like homeschooling!

[catz]

Ok - I haven't read all the replies yet, just skimmed a few. I am looking forward to reading them actually. A few things I have thought about over the years ....

 

1 - I would like adequate yearly progress for a particular child measured JUST for that particular child and where they were at the beginning of the school year and in light of any learning differences for that child.   I would like to see all kids given a more individualized education plan. 

 

2 - I would like to see schools start over.  I would like to see kids learning at their own levels, more break outs used, more technology used, etc to serve kids where they are actually at.

 

3 - I would like to see WAY less butt/paper work for early elementary students.  More dynamic, project based work at all levels

 

4 - our area is kind of ahead of the curve in this, but more options for high schoolers to do vo-tech or college work through PS funding if ready and want to.

[Reefgazer]

1.  What is a realistic change you would like to see in public education?

 

      The idea that all children can work to a proficient grade level standard.  By definition, half of all children will be below average, so that is an impossible standard to meet.  Instead of forcing below average children into work they cannot do, or holding back our gifted kids, I would like to see children challenged to whatever level they can achieve.

 

2.  What is your pie in the sky, probably will never happen, change you would like to see in education?

 

     "Grade levels" that are by capabilities, not age.  For example, if a child meets a particular set of standards, they move on to the next grade.  If a child needs more time in a grade, that should be OK, as well.  I also think education should be completely returned to the states, and I would like to see the Department of Education dismantled so that there is an abolishment of federal standards and federal money for schools, which would allow the states to grant complete freedom of choice for parents in the schools they do fund.

I have worked in PS through 4 presidents.  

 

We started with State Standards in the 90s.  Then  NCLB.  Now common core.

 

I am trying not to make this political, just pointing out the differences.  I have found that there is good and bad to each program.   But none has been perfect.  I preferred teaching back when there were either no set standards or there were "guideline standards" as I had more autonomy and could be more creative.   But I also know that our society is so transient that having State Standards or loose standards were an issue.  

 

I will give you one example.  My friends were military.  They lived in SoCal (Pendleton) and their kids went to the school there.  One child was in 2nd grade.  When they moved to Boston, the MA kids had used the 2nd grade curriculum from CA in 1st grade, so their child was now technically a year behind and had a lot of trouble catching up.  When they moved again, back to SoCal, their child was 6th grade, but the CA schools used the book he had used in 5th grade for their 6th grade curriculum, so he was now a grade ahead.

 

So, there are some benefits to standards IMO.   

 

But changes need to be made.  

 

I have two questions:

 

1.  What is a realistic change you would like to see in public education?

 

2.  What is your pie in the sky, probably will never happen, change you would like to see in education?

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by reefgazer

[EmilyGF]

After following Diane Ravitch and Peter Greene for several years now, I am opposed to school choice, or the money following the child. Detroit shows us what can happen; charters are not the answer.

 

I want homeschooling to remain legal and not excessively regulated. Bundling homeschooling in with a voucher system will only bring more government involvement into homeschooling, and drive up costs of goods and services as curriculum providers begin to notice that families are suddenly working with thousands in government funds.

 

I want taxpayer dollars going only to public schools that are for all children (in other words, don't send public money to religious schools), and I don't want our most vulnerable children subjected to abusive methods and strange theories (such as in Moskowitz's Success Academies) -- see Gary Rubinstein's blog for some videos and commentary on that. If parents want alternatives to public education, they should cover the cost. Or some of the entities promoting school choice could come at this from the other angle: church organizations could start private schools. Billionaires in favor of experimental charters could fund a particular school, instead of convincing the nation to convert to their plan to attach the money to the child for all of America.

 

Equality doesn't come from detaching funds from public schools and attaching them to the child. Free appropriate public education is a solid American ideal that we should retain, no matter how tempting the billions of dollars being offered to convert to school choice (by people who have no expertise in education).

Yet, where I live, the schools were horrific before charters. The charters were brought in because the schools were so bad and yet the teacher unions portray the charters as the cause of the terrible schools. Here, many catholic schools went out of business when the charters opened because parents had a free option that wasn't their neighborhood school. 

 

That said, a lot of charters are terrible and should be closed. And a lot of neighborhood schools are terrible and should be closed but they are treated as sacred. 

 

I've seen what goes on in some of our poor neighborhood schools and find the public schools quite abusive (these employees seem to have been trained a century ago given what they do). That doesn't absolve charter schools from abuse, though.

Emily

[Storygirl]

My children are enrolled in school (private), and two have IEPs. First, I would like to see schools identify children with dyslexia and reading disabilites early. It's possible to test for dyslexia around age six now, and early intervention makes a difference. Teacher training needs to include classes in recognizing learning disabilities and in remediation techniques, such as Orton-Gillingham. Not every teacher needs to be a intervention specialist, but every teacher should be aware of how learning disabilities can appear in students and be quicker to intervene.

 

My son has learning disabilities in math and reading comprehension. He attends a small private school with an intervention program, and they have created a math class that is using the same textbook as the regular sixth graders but that moves at a slower pace. There is a math teacher plus an intervention teacher in the room, and there are only three students. I really appreciate this approach. Last year, he did not do well when grouped in with the general classroom. This approach allows him to actually learn the material.

 

For language arts, however, he is in the regular classroom. There is an intervention teacher in the room, helping the students who have IEPs. But he has to do the same assignments that the other students do, which is complicated. Expecting him to be able to read and understand the sixth grade textbook (which includes some fairly difficult material -- they just read a story by P.G. Wodehouse) and learn something from it.... it's hard. It would be better for him to be practicing the same language arts skills but using a text that is at a fourth grade level (which would be an appropriate learning level for him). Working with him on his language arts homework is frustrating, because some of it is just too hard for him.

 

So I do believe that having some differentiated instruction is beneficial for students with LD.

 

What I don't want, though, is for him to be stuck in a classroom where the teachers do not expect the students to be able to learn and therefore do not challenge them but just pass them through to the next grade. He needs to be challenged, but at a level that is appropriate for him to actually learn something.

 

When I was in school, I was an advanced student. I went to an excellent public school, but I was completely bored in elementary school. I learned the material very quickly and then had to wait for the other students to do their work. I did a lot of reading at my desk, just waiting around. Middle school and high school were better, because I was able to take advanced courses that were at an appropriate level.

 

Somehow schools need to meet the needs of children at both ends of the spectrum, and one kind of class will not suit them all. The advanced students need the chance to leap ahead, and the remedial and LD students need to be challenged appropriately at their level and not just left behind.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Storygirl

[snowbeltmom]

This is one of the pieces of educational reform I'd like to see.  Make sports community-based rather than school based.  It gets rid of schools spending money on fancy sports facilities and allows greater participation from kids not in public school.  It seems like it would be a unifying idea for the community also.

I agree.  Although, since the state of Ohio passed legislation that permits homeschoolers and private schooled students to participate in our public school activities, our teams have kids from all educational backgrounds participating and it does have a community feel.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Yet, where I live, the schools were horrific before charters. The charters were brought in because the schools were so bad and yet the teacher unions portray the charters as the cause of the terrible schools. Here, many catholic schools went out of business when the charters opened because parents had a free option that wasn't their neighborhood school. 

 

That said, a lot of charters are terrible and should be closed. And a lot of neighborhood schools are terrible and should be closed but they are treated as sacred. 

 

I've seen what goes on in some of our poor neighborhood schools and find the public schools quite abusive (these employees seem to have been trained a century ago given what they do). That doesn't absolve charter schools from abuse, though.

Emily

 

:( I know. We've had some of the same in our midwestern city. The public schools really were that bad...locally, the charter schools have been no better, though. One problem they have is even staying open; we've seen a lot of corruption with finances and management. No oversight from a school board, no accountability to the community, so the charter school fails but now the neighborhood public school is gone...

 

I guess IMO we need to keep a big picture. We can't look at one failing public school, or one charter that is less than two years old and "high performing" (because of cherry picking students), and let those who want to replace public education have their way. Overall it's a bad plan.

 

Of course, I'm not an expert on how to fix bad public schools. (I'm not at all blind to the problems. I've watched all the reform videos and heard all the lectures and read all the books about how bad some public schools are. Obviously, I'm homeschooling because I see some serious lack in our local public school!) But I think the concept of public school is the best hope for democracy in education. And I know that our nation does have experts in public education who have some ideas, including teachers, but nobody's listening to them.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I just don't see the necessity of this . . sorry,  but it doesn't take a math major to teach elementary math.

 

If there are elementary teachers out there who can't teach elementary math that's a failing of the colleges and/or states who are issuing diplomas and licenses to incompetent teachers.

 

Adding that I'm assuming elementary school means fourth grade and under . . .

 

Maybe it doesn't take a math major to teach elementary math, but it takes more than someone who barely passed the math section on the qualification exams (for teachers).  And it takes more than a teacher who has the attitude that math is "not their thing".  It's perfectly understandable that not everyone would be equally strong at teaching all subjects.

[Tanaqui]

Just off the top of my head?

 

1. Recess, straight up through middle school. A minimum of two 15-minute breaks a day, plus lunch. This does not count "putting on boots" time.

 

2. Additionally, daily gym.

 

3. No homework prior to middle school, and only a minimum amount of homework at that point. Never any homework that the average student can't complete unassisted. (Exception: I'd be okay with required reading in elementary school.)

 

4. Decouple school funding from property taxes. The US is one of only three nations in the world where poor kids go to schools which have less funding than rich kids. This is absurd.

 

5. Universal access to free full-day preschool starting at 3, and access to free preschool at age 2 for people at 130% of the poverty line  or below. (Also, in large enough areas, access to half-day and partial-week programs at those ages as well.) Right now, many poor families end up putting their kids in unlicensed daycares which may, for example, have the kids watch TV for a significant portion of their day. Not good for the kids or the families.

 

5a. Universal access to free or low-cost quality aftercare and school break camps, especially for lower income families. (I'd be okay with some sort of voucher system.)

 

6. Sports run by the parks department, not the schools. Likewise with extracurricular activities.

 

7. Smaller class sizes, especially in poorer areas and younger grades.

 

8. Universal access to a healthy free lunch and breakfast in schools. Kids can't learn if they're malnourished.

 

None of this is that hard to figure out. We just have to do it.

 

School choice. Attach money to children instead of money to schools. It would take awhile, but eventually I believe that there would be a variety of good schools children could attend.

 

NYC has a choice-based system for high school, and elements of same for middle and elementary schools. It definitely has its pros and cons, and a major con is that you end up scurrying around like a rat trying to get your kid into one of the few "really good" schools... which is almost inevitably something an hour away or more. You lose out on the community feeling you have when you go to a neighborhood school with all your neighbors.

 

I'd rather see us put the effort into making all the schools "good schools".

 

[FaithManor]

Subject matter expertise at all levels. It is not necessary for elementary teachers to have only one teacher for all subjects. 

 

Higher standards for teacher licensing. In Michigan our "Test of Basic Skills" is FAR too easy, and prospective teacher education students can fail it multiple times and still get into the education program. 

 

Highly paid teachers, and then lots of respect for them. Of course this is as much a cultural change as anything. Make it competitive to get the job, but then seriously respect the people that do the job.

 

More play time and down time. I think many of our kids are so over-stressed that learning is short circuited. I think this is true even at the high school level. Locally there are only 5 minutes between class periods. Most students opt to dehydrate during the day so they won't need to use the restroom because it is near impossible to stand in line to use it and still get to class on time. The girls often report wearing tampons plus double pads if their periods are heavy in order to make it to lunch period without having to take care of themselves. That is oppressive. I think many policies we have are oppressive and this of course again short circuits learning.

 

Standardization of high school classes so if a student takes say algebra 1 or World History in Michigan and then moves to Washington, the same topics were covered and, the student will not be ahead or behind going into the next sequence.

 

Throw standardized testing to the curb. I truly believe it is not necessary, at least not until 7th or 8th grade. Then when it is done, pick ONE exactly one, and do only that. This business of some states testing three times in one year and prepping for all three kinds of exams is a stupid waste of educational time. Test prep time and test taking locally is nearly eight weeks out of a school year. EIGHT WEEKS! Two months of actual education lost. As if bubble testing is some Olympic sport with a gold medal waiting at the end!

 

Smaller student to teacher ratio. Way smaller. No more than 20 per class.

 

Grouping by instructional need.

 

Stop holding every school to the same standard at the primary age. The reality is that students begin school unequally. This is why grouping by instructional need is so very necessary. The Highland Park kindergarten teacher who takes a child with a working vocabulary of less than 100 words and has never been read to because adult literacy is so low in that district, should not be expected to teach that child to read. She/he first has to open up the world of books, the world of WORDS and what they mean before being able to begin with a reading program. So the teacher that takes such a child and teaches him to color, to know the difference between a horse and a zebra, to know that the squiggles on the page form stories that can be read, that teaches him to count and recognize some letters, and to feel valued in this world despite his very poor start in life, should be hailed as an education genius, not a failure who didn't live up to the same standard as Bloomfield Hills elementary.  With 8 more years to catch up, a child who feels nurtured, loved at school, has embraced this new and exciting world, is engaged due to engaging teaching, will work harder to make up for those deficits and is more likely to remain in high school and not be truant, than one that feels stupid, and is pushed well beyond his or her ability to manage.

 

And this is all a big pipe dream because I don't believe for a minute that any policy maker anywhere would have the guts to push for any of it.

[EmilyGF]

:( I know. We've had some of the same in our midwestern city. The public schools really were that bad...locally, the charter schools have been no better, though. One problem they have is even staying open; we've seen a lot of corruption with finances and management. No oversight from a school board, no accountability to the community, so the charter school fails but now the neighborhood public school is gone...

 

I guess IMO we need to keep a big picture. We can't look at one failing public school, or one charter that is less than two years old and "high performing" (because of cherry picking students), and let those who want to replace public education have their way. Overall it's a bad plan.

 

Of course, I'm not an expert on how to fix bad public schools. (I'm not at all blind to the problems. I've watched all the reform videos and heard all the lectures and read all the books about how bad some public schools are. Obviously, I'm homeschooling because I see some serious lack in our local public school!) But I think the concept of public school is the best hope for democracy in education. And I know that our nation does have experts in public education who have some ideas, including teachers, but nobody's listening to them.

Yup. I just get annoyed with teacher friends who blame the bad public schools on charters and I want to scream, "But they were bad before charters! If they had been as good as people like to imagine they were, charters wouldn't have gotten a foothold." But I am more polite than that. 

 

And I see my friends grappling with this issue in real life; being very pro-public schools but needing to send their kids to other options because of the homelife students bring to the public school.

 

Emily

[FaithManor]

Maybe it doesn't take a math major to teach elementary math, but it takes more than someone who barely passed the math section on the qualification exams (for teachers).  And it takes more than a teacher who has the attitude that math is "not their thing".  It's perfectly understandable that not everyone would be equally strong at teaching all subjects.

Amen.

 

Here is the link to the study guide for the Michigan test.

 

http://www.mttc.nesinc.com/pdfs/mi_field096_sg.pdf

 

It isn't that hard. 73% to pass.

 

The State Board of Education finally decided that the test was too easy. So they piloted a new one in 2014. They asked the state universities to select prospective teacher education majors to be guinea pigs. These would be an average of second semester sophomores to first semester juniors as this is about the time frame in which students apply to the college of education after completing their prerequisites.

 

Here is a link to the results:

 

http://bridgemi.com/2014/01/how-michigans-colleges-and-universities-rank-on-tough-new-teacher-certification-tests/

 

The pass rate ranged from 63% of the 19 students tested at the University of Michigan to ZERO of the 15 students at Ferris State University managing a passing score. Hope College - a stellar, top flight selective LAC here in Michigan - only managed a pass rate of 24%. What this tells me is that teacher education, due to lack of respect for the profession combined with low pay and constant derision of teachers culturally is still not attracting our higher performing college students to the profession.

 

As a result of the low pass rates at most of our state universities, there has been a delay in implementation. The universities, so that their education departments did not suddenly become empty, have been given time to get more rigorous, provide tutoring, change the advertising of requirements to enter teacher education, etc.

[OneStepAtATime]

O.k. just wanted to say I am finding this thread very interesting and there are tons of posts I would like to like but I have the dreaded like limit disease and cannot.  Just wanted you all to know that you are "Liked" and your posts continue to be really interesting!  Now if only people here could take over the running of education...

[FaithManor]

O.k. just wanted to say I am finding this thread very interesting and there are tons of posts I would like to like but I have the dreaded like limit disease and cannot.  Just wanted you all to know that you are "Liked" and your posts continue to be really interesting!  Now if only people here could take over the running of education...

On the old board I promoted Mrs. Mungo for president with Tibbie as her VP, and SWB as the cabinet pick for Federal Education.

 

Sigh....it didn't happen.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

On the old board I promoted Mrs. Mungo for president with Tibbie as her VP, and SWB as the cabinet pick for Federal Education.

 

Sigh....it didn't happen.

If you can get started raising the dosh, I know where to find Mungo.

[fairfarmhand]

Yeah, that so horrifies me. Teachers need to stop saying things like, "Math isn't my thing" or "I'm just not a math person." Seriously, would it be ok for a teacher to say, "Books aren't my thing"or "I'm just not a reading person" to the children they teach? 

 

 

 

This ted talk by Sal Khan addresses this mindset.

 

https://embed.ted.com/talks/sal_khan_let_s_teach_for_mastery_not_test_scores

 

 

 

It's excellent.

 

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by fairfarmhand

[Liz CA]

 

I would like to see:

• a country wide standard because we are a highly mobile society, but that is never going to happen - since not even within one state a uniform standard can be established.
• differentiation and grouping by ability as opposed to by age. 
• teachers with actual subject expertise (wouldn't it nice if math teachers actually knew, and liked, math, and French teachers fluent in French?)

 

 

:confused1:  People are teaching subjects in which they are not proficient??

 

I have zero experience with public school beyond 4th grade...as evidenced by my surprise.

[happypamama]

They did when I was a kid at my high school too (actually started in 3rd grade). I don't see any cons TBH.

 

At the school where I work one of the 8th grade English teachers told me she must use a 4th grade reading level book for her classes to read as a class? Why? Because not all kids can handle 8th grade level. "What about those already reading at a 12th grade level?" she asked. "They'll be fine." she was told. "Don't worry about them."

 

It sure isn't helping those who are at a 12th grade level, but even those who are at the 8th grade level lose out. When I was doing extra test prep practice with a class they knew quite well what antonym and synonym were (what I was supposed to go over). They were missing out on words like tedious because they had no idea what that meant. Knowledge of the meaning was assumed by high school... If kids don't read age appropriate words, they don't get to expand their vocabulary as they should even if they are "up" on what is being taught overall.

 

It benefits no one when the top kids aren't allowed to progress at their level, and it tends to frustrate or bore the students.

 

Can you imagine the uproar if we start telling the sports star to slow down or not play to his/her ability because it will make some other kids feel bad?

Agreed!! I never understood that. At the same time, I hated that the school didn't crack down on the athletic kids picking on the academic kids who weren't so athletic. I was in a smallish (150 kids per grade or so) district in a small town, semi-rural area, and I routinely brought my school awards in multiple academic areas when competing with top notch public and private school students from urban areas around the state. But sports were king, and nobody cared if kids were allowed to tease me for being tiny and slow and not especially coordinated. Can you imagine how I'd have been reprimanded if I ever even thought about picking on a sports kid for getting a C on a test I aced?? (And that ignores the idea that I wasn't encouraged to do my best and find a way to enjoy being active for life, even though I was never going to win a sports trophy, whereas of course, the school would have encouraged athletic kids to do their academic best even if they'd never be Rhodes Scholars.)

 

I also think we need to stop telling girls that math is hard. My dad was a math teacher in our district so thankfully, I never got told that, but I think too many girls are, and if they're told they're good at math, they're encouraged to go into science or engineering fields. Now, I'm cool with that if that's what girls want, but I didn't. I wanted liberal arts and possibly education, and I got looked down on a bit for "wasting" my skills. (I always knew I wanted to be a homeschooling mom, so *I* knew I'd get to use those math skills just fine, but it wasn't socially acceptable to say that. It was barely acceptable to say I wanted to be a teacher and probably only because my dad was a well-respected teacher.). But the reality is that most elementary teachers ARE young women, and I totally agree with the previous posters who say that we need elementary teachers who are competent and not afraid of math. At least that's how it was in my day. I hope it has gotten better, and I do hope I'm wrong about how girls are treated wrt STEM topics these days.

 

We need to respect our teachers more too, which I think partly goes along with my above comments. The best students in my day weren't encouraged to go into K-12 education. They were encouraged into engineering, medicine, top finance, even possibly liberal arts fields with an eye toward graduate level work, but not K-12 education. So our first tier students weren't the ones teaching the next generation. I took a couple of math for elementary ed majors at a large, well-respected university when I was in high school, a content class, not a methods one, and I was appalled at how many of the students simply could not grasp basic fourth grade level math. They hadn't even gotten to whether or not they could convey the knowledge to children; they couldn't even do the math themselves. One woman was taking the class for the third time because she hadn't been able to pass it. I think I came home from the first day, called my 19yo boyfriend at his college, and said, "Whatever qualms you might have about homeschooling our kids, I have to be able to do a better job than people like are in this class with me." Why aren't teachers respected more like doctors, and why don't we encourage our best students to have the honor of teaching the next generation?? (And again, I hope things have changed in twenty years.)

 

I'd add more recess and down time too. And I'd encourage our top students (well, any student, actually) to follow their passions, rather than loading more academics just for the sake of college admissions. My boyfriend loved science so he took a fifth heavy science class in high school. I am not a science lover, but I was able to use my extra free class periods to tutor ESL students, which I really loved (and which showed me that I'd really love the one-on-one teaching of homeschooling). Zero purpose would have been served by me taking more academic classes. I'd like all kids to be free to take those opportunities.

[SKL]

Speaking of math and elementary teachers ....

 

This goes back a ways, but when I started college in 1983, I wanted to be a teacher (elementary / special ed).  I signed up for the required math course and bought the book.  I looked at the book and realized I could never take that course.  I mean it was like 3rd / 4th grade level.  I was sure I would flunk because of inability to participate in something so ridiculous.  I begged my advisor to allow me to take a different series (algebra / trig / calc / analytic geometry).  And I was not a math nut in high school (I early graduated with algebra I & II and geometry).

 

I don't know what they require now.

 

Elementary school teachers don't need to understand calculus, but it concerns me if they need to go to college for a year in order to know middle school math.  The concern is the ability to reason, break things down, explain things, to decide on an approach to problem solving.  When my kids were in 1st, the school had just adopted Singapore Math, and the teacher was at least as confused as my kids were.  She didn't have ideas for how to interpret and communicate this strange stuff to the kids.  Imagine if it were higher than 1st grade ....

[SKL]

Also, my kids say their Spanish teacher pronounces words wrong.  It bugs them.  Of course most of the kids have no idea.

[FaithManor]

If you can get started raising the dosh, I know where to find Mungo.

:hurray:  :hurray:  :hurray:

[Arcadia]

:confused1: People are teaching subjects in which they are not proficient??

There were a few news articles on it. Below link is the first one I found

http://hechingerreport.org/in-california-thousands-of-teachers-missing-needed-credentials/

[Sneezyone]

As far as common standards:

 

Even in the same classroom using the same book, there is going to be a wide range of abilities. That is why we have various college entry tests.

 

No amount of standardizing curriculum will standardize kids' brains.

 

That said, it seems to me that kids, families, and schools have the opportunity to work toward the skills needed to do well on the college entrance exams (SAT / ACT). There is enough information out there, easily available, that we don't need a great big federal government program to make that happen. The rest is details. It doesn't matter to national prosperity or security that a given 3rd grader is up to speed on what every other 3rd grader is doing in school.

 

The feds have a role in making sure kids who need special education are getting it.

This is not my experience at all. In the absence of standards, mil kids (and increasingly mobile civilian families) might cover the same material two or three years in a row because of different state/district scopes and sequences. Edited November 22, 2016 by Sneezyone

[Guest]

This is one of the pieces of educational reform I'd like to see. Make sports community-based rather than school based. It gets rid of schools spending money on fancy sports facilities and allows greater participation from kids not in public school. It seems like it would be a unifying idea for the community also.

It was tried here, rural, and it did not work. Most students had no transportation, many could not afford the fee. It ended up just preventing the dual income professionals' children from having a high school team to play on in addition to two town rec leagues and their travel team for soccer, lacrosse, vball, bball, baseball, and of course their was no option for running, wrestling or football as other schools didnt drop their teams, so there was no league for those privaye clubs to join.

The math...boys and girls club wanted 150 per student for a 6 week middle school season, one practice, one game, no transportation, using town fields. They didnt intend to pay the rent to the town that LL or Pop Warner does to maintain the fields. Taxpayers pointed out that it was far cheaper to keep the sports at the schools, and that engaged more poor students. After a year of fundraising, and no sports, the school returned to offering sports. The entire price for the entire year is equivalent to one out of district bus route, and people pointed that out and demanded that the day of one student, one aide, one driver per bus be ended.

[MistyMountain]

We should have high standards for who gets into the teaching program, a challenging quality program and then a good training program afterwards where they spend a lot of time with experienced teachers. The average SAT scores of college students in the teaching program right now are some of the lowest of all majors.

Testing should not be high stakes or tied to funding or school performance and instead used to see where kids are to target help or instruction.

Screen for phonemic awareness, numeracy and other learning issues early.

If a kid needs help let them get help until they no longer need it wth no stigmas attached. Do not make it hard to get help by saying some essential areas like handwriting are not important or you need to be 2 years behind to get help.

Let kids work at their level and move levels when need be throughout their time at school. Kids change so much and have spurts at different times.

Use quality curriculum that has been tested and researched not stuff quickly cobbled together to meet the newest set of standards.

Summer enrichment opportunities or year round school.

Community activities that occur after school hours at the school and is open to the community.

Recess and outdoor play time is important.

Active breaks to help kids focus.

Edited November 22, 2016 by MistyMountain

[Scarlett]

This. It's a relatively small sample, but almost all of the elementary school teachers I have known dislike math. I believe having dedicated elementary math teachers with math majors would go a long way toward improving math and science education in this country.

My mom was a 5 th grade teacher but (post college) she did a bunch of specialized extra training in teaching early math from pre k on......she taught me the methods and I used it with my ds from age two on. I believe it is why he is so math strong.