US Education Sec says kids should be in school 11 mos/6 days a week

[5kidsforME]

They have to have *something* invested in it.

 

Either their time or their money.

 

 

 

Whats sad about this is: Shouldn't their "invesment" be that its for their children?? :001_huh:

[elizabeth]

The real issue is the parents.

 

Parents have dropped the ball. The schools can do no thing without parental support and involvement.

 

In second grade, when Johnny can't read, he's promoted to 3rd. When he doesn't know his mult tables or how to subtract, he goes to 4th.

 

There are no consequences from home when he doesn't do his school work. There are no consequences from school when he doesn't learn.

 

In families like this, where parents don't care, more family time will mean more time on the streets or in front of the tv as the kids grow up.

 

More time at school just means the parents have even less responsibility for raising their children.

 

I taught for several years in schools where parents just didn't care. Some students succeed regardless. But many don't. No amount of money, no better curriculum, no longer/shorter days or years will solve the problems.

 

The solution is at home. Until the parents have a vested interest in their dc's education, the system will stay broken, imo.

As a hsing mamma who also can be found practicing law to help dh out a bit when schedule is overwhelmed I can honestly say I have not yet , in 15 years met a client who put education first ...It is all about the extra curricular activities often 3-5 per week and scheduling social activities . Honestly I will eat my Birkenstocks if I ever meet a parent who truly gives a darn about eduation in the context of divorce. they will wrangle over the ugly wagon wheel table and likewise shed blood over who gets what holiday but schooling never, ever comes up. We get plenty of calls from parents wanting to sue the school for taking reasonable disciplinary measures against their little darlings. They will need to look elsewhere for legal counsel as what they are trying to sell is not being bought here. Sorry to say that Aggie was correct and all too kind regarding the level of apathy I see all too often.

[mcconnellboys]

Lots of countries do have longer school calendars than ours, as well as longer school days (and some even 6 day weeks). I don't know that any add up to quite that long, but we do have a calendar that's on the short end of things....

[Audrey]

Yep. I have long said that the solution is to knock class size down to ten kids and fire a minimum of 50% of the administrative level. Education needs to get back down to the simple equation of teacher + student, in a ratio that is small enough that the teacher really knows the needs and abilities of the student.

 

 

I've got to disagree here. There are tons of smaller schools with small teacher/student ratios and they aren't churning out kids any better educated than other schools. I have only to look at all the little schools around here -- small classes, still no substance.

 

I think the problem is far deeper than that. It's systemic. There are very well calculated agendas behind teacher's unions and equally well calculated agendas behind education instruction (I'm talking about B.Ed and M.Ed programs), and further to that, well calculated curriculum "standards."

 

The system is consistently producing less than mediocre teachers by feeding them less than mediocre pedagogy. These teachers are given less than mediocre curriculum which panders to the lowest common denominator. And then? Well, there's the next batch of kids who go to college and become teachers. It's a vicious cycle. It degrades further and further until there just nothing of substance happening anymore -- smoke and mirrors.

 

IMO, we'll have to remove the entire model. At it's core, there is absolutely nothing of substance left there.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Audrey

[swellmomma]

The real issue is the parents.

 

Parents have dropped the ball. The schools can do no thing without parental support and involvement.

 

In second grade, when Johnny can't read, he's promoted to 3rd. When he doesn't know his mult tables or how to subtract, he goes to 4th.

 

There are no consequences from home when he doesn't do his school work. There are no consequences from school when he doesn't learn.

 

In families like this, where parents don't care, more family time will mean more time on the streets or in front of the tv as the kids grow up.

 

More time at school just means the parents have even less responsibility for raising their children.

 

I taught for several years in schools where parents just didn't care. Some students succeed regardless. But many don't. No amount of money, no better curriculum, no longer/shorter days or years will solve the problems.

 

The solution is at home. Until the parents have a vested interest in their dc's education, the system will stay broken, imo.

 

 

This is not entirely true. Part of the reason we homeschool is because the school refused to hold back Austin after grade 2 though he was not ready for grade 3. I was told it would damage his self esteem. It is just as much the schools pushing kids through with no thought as it is about parents who don't do their jobs making sure their child is learning.

[swellmomma]

Sorry...I thought my rant was over but it's not.

 

I deal a lot with test score data. I was looking at the most recent scores, comparing them with other districts, etc. And I started thinking about a child's educational experience as a pie chart. How much does each thing that goes into a child's education account for on this pie chart?

 

The district I work in is blue collar and/or unemployed. We have about 60-70% poverty with our students. Our population is about 50/50 caucasian/african american. Our high school test scores are DISMAL and our dropout rate is about 20-25%.

 

About 15 miles from here is another district. Upper middle class, mostly white, poverty rate is nearly 0%, parents are college educated, about 95% of the students go on to a 4 year college. Their test scores are through the roof.

 

So my co-workers and I were talking about what makes the biggest difference between these two districts?

 

-is it the nicer buildings/better technology/newer books? If we moved all of our kids to their district to use their buildings/technology/books would the test scores suddenly go way up? It might help but not a lot.

 

-is it the teacher quality? If we switched staffs would the test scores suddenly go way up? It might help but not a lot.

 

- is it the water?

 

What is it that makes the kids in district B score so much better than district A (and we are talking more than 50% better not just a small gap). What is the biggest piece of the educational pie?

 

We decided it was a combination of parenting and a small part of socioeconomics. The students in district B aren't necessarily "born" smarter. Shiny new buildings doesn't make the smarter either. What makes them "smarter" is having parents who value education, who are a big part of their children's education, who expose their children to more opportunities and life experiences (usually because they have the funds to do so, hence the socioeconomic link). These kids go to French camp and take music lessons and travel abroad, etc. Getting a good education, going to college are things that are expected of them and they grow up knowing that.

 

The kids in district A? Not so much. People don't expect too much out of them. We are lucky if we get 20% of the parents to come to conferences. These kids are at a disadvantage educationally speaking the moment they are born because their parents do not value education as much as other parents do. Their parents do not take an active role in their child's education.

 

Now of course, there are the exceptions. The parents that want more for their kids and really push that, but these situations are far too few.

 

And of all the things that public schools CAN control...parental involvement (or lack thereof) is NOT one of them. So going back to my pie chart, if parental involvement makes up, say, 60-70% of a child's education and the schools cannot control that, then the best the schools can do is improve 30-40% of a child's education and that is not enough.

 

Parents are the key.

 

OK, now my rant is over...I think. ;)

 

This EXACT conclusion was talked about in Outliers. That it is about what the parents do to support their child's education that makes such a huge difference.

[skaterbabs]

This is not entirely true. Part of the reason we homeschool is because the school refused to hold back Austin after grade 2 though he was not ready for grade 3. I was told it would damage his self esteem. It is just as much the schools pushing kids through with no thought as it is about parents who don't do their jobs making sure their child is learning.

 

 

Same here. My eldest child has a late summer birthday. Hindsight being what it is, we should have waited a year to send him to kindy. Now because the academics were a problem for him (he was BORED all year) but because his maturity level was that of your average just-turned-four year old. We *knew* that first grade was going to be a problem for him, and the school refused to hold him back. Ditto 2nd and 3rd. Between 2nd and 3rd, we moved to a new district who wouldn't hold him back because the old district passed him. This went on literally all through elementary school. When we were working on his IEP for middle school, I stated my opinion that he should NOT be passed to the 6th grade based on his performance in the 5th. They passed him anyway with the words "at least half of these kids [kids w/ IEPs] will fail sixth grade anyway, so we want to keep him with his peers." :001_huh:

 

That's when we gave up on the school system for him.

[swellmomma]

Same here. My eldest child has a late summer birthday. Hindsight being what it is, we should have waited a year to send him to kindy. Now because the academics were a problem for him (he was BORED all year) but because his maturity level was that of your average just-turned-four year old. We *knew* that first grade was going to be a problem for him, and the school refused to hold him back. Ditto 2nd and 3rd. Between 2nd and 3rd, we moved to a new district who wouldn't hold him back because the old district passed him. This went on literally all through elementary school. When we were working on his IEP for middle school, I stated my opinion that he should NOT be passed to the 6th grade based on his performance in the 5th. They passed him anyway with the words "at least half of these kids [kids w/ IEPs] will fail sixth grade anyway, so we want to keep him with his peers." :001_huh:

 

That's when we gave up on the school system for him.

 

That's just it. When he was in K was told by the principal to just make him literate and leave him be, that because of his special needs he would never succeed anyway. He was 5! I pulled him and hsed the rest of the year, then I put him in a different school for gr 1 & 2(didn't learn from my mistakes the first time obviously), we did hours and hours of homework daily, I was on the PTA, I was in the classroom etc He still didn't "get it" At the end of grade 2 he could barely do early 1st grade work. He had an IEP and the teachers pretty much gave up on him, again felt he was a lost cause I guess. They claim to be worried about his self esteem yet when they said this he was already talking about suicide because he was so stupid. How is pushing him forward helping that? I am not in the states but obviously as far as that stuff goes our Canadian system isn't much better.

 

I do 100% believe that parents need to be involved more, extending the school week won't help that, though year round schooling is a very viable option (the smae number of weeks off but scattered through the year instead of all at once), Our summer break in Alberta is only 8 weeks so not that long over all. BUT the ps system does need to recognize what they are doing wrong and fix it not extend it. Smaller classes, aides for the special needs students (this would help cut down on disruption time a LOT), more physical activity, not simply teaching to the test etc.

[coffeefreak]

First off, I agree with those that say lack of parental involvement is an important cause of academic failure. I don't think anyone can dispute how important parents are in the education of their kids.

 

However, blaming all of our educational problems on parents isn't accurate, and isn't going to solve anything.

 

Many schools are succeeding even in high poverty, low parental involvement areas. They are doing amazing things by focusing on academics, using excellent curricula, and having high expectations. These schools should be serving as models but aren't imitated nearly enough. Here's an article describing what they have in common.

The schools can't do much about it if the parents absolutely won't do their job. But there are many things they can control, and I don't see them doing it.

 

When my dd was in first grade, I volunteered often, helping with reading, math, and doing some office work. The teachers were (mostly) hard working, well-meaning and very dedicated to the kids. But the curricula they were using was awful! The class was a combined 1st-2nd grade, and by the end of the year, NONE of them knew their addition facts unless they could draw pictures or count on their fingers. My dd was the only one who could read very well, and most of them couldn't read at all. But it was no surprise to me, because of the way they were teaching reading and math. The class was out of control, but that was no surprise either, because the teacher sat on the carpet working with 3 or 4 kids at a time. The other 16 kids were goofing off while she would occasionally yell at them to get to work. Work? How could they work? They couldn't read and didn't have anything to do. That fall, when our local newspaper printed the results of the ITBS, I learned that her school was in the 3rd percentile in the state. I was horrified, and went to discuss it with the teachers and principal. They just kept saying they didn't understand it, because they were working so hard, and the kids just weren't learning. I asked them what their plan was to change it, and I received blank stares. They said they were working as hard as they could, they couldn't work any harder, and there was nothing else they could do. When I brought up curricula, they insisted what they were using was "Best Practices" and they wouldn't consider using anything else. Well, the math curricula (TERC Investigations) s*cked, and after several disastrous years, they ditched it. Instead, they bought Everyday Math, which is only marginally better. As long as they are making those kinds of stupid decisions, they aren't going to get anywhere, and the kids aren't going to learn.

 

After that disappointing year, we moved to a new school district, which is supposed to be one of the best in the state. There is virtually no poverty, parents are highly educated, and parental involvement and expectations are high. But I really don't see much difference in what the kids are learning. The math curriculum still stinks, but the kids get help at home or go to Kumon or Sylvan. The kids living in poverty don't have that option, but they wouldn't need it if the schools would just use what works. But that conflicts with their constructivist ideology, so they won't do it.

 

One last thing about wasting time-- my 8th grade dd told me today that for Language Arts, the teacher read them "The Veldt" for the last 2 class periods. Why on earth is a teacher spending 80 minutes reading a short story to these kids? Shouldn't that be homework? I am not opposed to an occasional read aloud, but this happens all the time. Since Christmas, she has read one book in LA, and it took her one evening. She has had NO OTHER reading assignments in the class. Either they watch a movie or the teacher reads to them. Rarely, the kids read a paragraph out loud. She has almost no homework, except the occasional stupid collage or drawing.

 

No wonder they aren't learning anything.

 

This is supposed to be one of the best school districts in the state. The kids do well in spite of the schools, not because of them.

 

Didn't Ruth Beechick address this in one of her books? I don't remember which one, but she talks about the evolution of Public schools and why kindergarten wasn't even around before the 2nd world war. Before that, Moms and Dads read to their kids and spent time with them at home. She points out that most Kindergarten classes have play stoves, dress up clothes, and various other things that emulate the home environment. She also points out that most students knew their alphabet and letter sounds going into first grade BEFORE kindergarten was even around because the parents took the time to teach them to their children.

 

I see what you're saying about the schools not having control of the kids, but it still goes back to parental involvement. Sure, that teacher should have had some seat work or other activity for the other kids she wasn't working with, but were the kids not behaving because of lack of work, or because they simply don't behave? I was raised in a school that had math groups and reading groups and there was NO talking or messing around. If you were done with your work, there were stations to go to to listen to books on tape, books to read (if you could read) and NO parents or teachers aides in the classroom. Of course, there were only 15 of us in the classroom and the fear was there of having your mother called. I am appalled by what parents let their kids get away with! Even homeschooled kids have acted up at our co-op because they know their mothers won't do anything about it.

 

Parents will find the energy to fight the schools on discipline issues, uniforms, school lunches, you name it, they'll do it. But they won't take responsibility for raising their own kids!

[Laura Corin]

Not necessarily, I've met many with BAs in Math from European universities. However, that meant they had only a total of four math courses at uni. Not much, if any, more than a graduate in another field.

 

Each nation defines its requirements for educational standards. Degrees are not the same across the world.

 

American degrees are (by English standards) strangely unconcentrated. I studied French and Drama at university, and for four years (including a year in France) I studied absolutely nothing but those subjects.

 

Laura

[Heather in Neverland]

American degrees are (by English standards) strangely unconcentrated. I studied French and Drama at university, and for four years (including a year in France) I studied absolutely nothing but those subjects.

 

Laura

 

That is interesting to hear because I have always felt that the college requirement that we have two years of all these "prerequisite" classes was a waste of time and just a way for them to take my money. Then I only get two years of concentrating on my chosen field before I have to practice it out in the real world?

[Jumping In Puddles]

I've got to disagree here. There are tons of smaller schools with small teacher/student ratios and they aren't churning out kids any better educated than other schools. I have only to look at all the little schools around here -- small classes, still no substance.

 

I think the problem is far deeper than that. It's systemic. There are very well calculated agendas behind teacher's unions and equally well calculated agendas behind education instruction (I'm talking about B.Ed and M.Ed programs), and further to that, well calculated curriculum "standards."

 

The system is consistently producing less than mediocre teachers by feeding them less than mediocre pedagogy. These teachers are given less than mediocre curriculum which panders to the lowest common denominator. And then? Well, there's the next batch of kids who go to college and become teachers. It's a vicious cycle. It degrades further and further until there just nothing of substance happening anymore -- smoke and mirrors.

 

IMO, we'll have to remove the entire model. At it's core, there is absolutely nothing of substance left there.

 

:iagree: I read (I believe it was in Ma Ling, Knowing and Teaching Elementary Math) that math teachers in Asia are usually done with school by age 16, then they spend 2 years at a school (University?) studying for a career as a teacher. These teachers, according to the book, know more basic math and are more effective than teachers in the US who have Master's degrees in teaching math.

 

It is NOT how long they are in school, but how much more they are learning while they are there plus, teaching as a profession is respected over there much more than here in the US. A kindergarten teacher is as respected as a college professor and education is valued by almost all families.

[Peela]

We have 40 week school years here in Australia.

But longer hours in school, when it comes up here every now and then, is usually seen as a political issue, so that both parents can work full time and kids are supervised while they work. It's basically babysitting. It's the same thing when they get kids to start school at an earlier and earlier age- saves daycare. The government subsidises daycare, so having 3 year olds in school is cheaper. Neither has got very far with the general public (and I am only being shallow here, there are many connected issues). We Australians like our lifestyle.

[Tammyla]

Does anyone have a link?

 

Just saw this in the paper. U.S. Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, thinks that kids should be in school at least 11 months, 6 days a week. He also thinks the school day is too short. He then went on to say, "You're competing for jobs with kids from India and China. I think schools should be open six, seven days a week; 11, 12 months a year."

 

Yikes!

[Perry]

Does anyone have a link?

 

AP story

[Murphy101]

It's not that I don't think parents have a responsibility in the education of their children. Of course I agree with that...as you can tell, I'm pretty committed to that with my own. What I HATE to see are blanket blamings....

 

The school says it's all the parents fault - and it gives the parents assignments (30 min. of reading/night on THESE books, 15 pages of written work for a 2nd grader) and complains when parents disregard this attempt to direct family time. Meanwhile the schools absolutely disregard parent input - yes, you're welcome to supervise craft time or read to kids, but don't mess with methods or materials.

The parents say it's the schools job, and the schools are failing...and they're right, but often the schools are trying to do things the parents ought to be doing (like teaching respect and manners or challenging their kids' minds).

The teachers say it's the administration's fault and they're not given the funding or the freedom to teach as they would like or need to, nor the authority to discipline and maintain respect.

The administrators put it back on the parents again, but they're seldom willing to listen or react positively to parent involvement above the level of cutting out construction paper shapes and watching lunches. They have no real accountability (it sometimes seems) to anyone, and certainly not to the parents in their local schools.

 

Meanwhile the kids are suffering, but thank goodness it's not anybody's fault, because everyone in the equation has deniability. Sheesh!

 

 

:iagree: I want our reps squares back! Exactly.

 

That is interesting to hear because I have always felt that the college requirement that we have two years of all these "prerequisite" classes was a waste of time and just a way for them to take my money. Then I only get two years of concentrating on my chosen field before I have to practice it out in the real world?

 

I agree that it is a waste of time. Take the english comp and american history college req. honestly if an american student goes through 13 years (k-12) of pyblic school and can't write an essay or know basic american gov't/history - I think they shoudl be able to sue the school they graduated from. It shoudl either be insutling to the student's intelligence or insulting to the school they graduated from to need those courses in college unless it's directly related to their degree.

 

I'm hoping my kids will be able to AP or CLEP out of most of them.

[JWSJ]

I'm hoping my kids will be able to AP or CLEP out of most of them.

 

Even if they AP or CLEP out of the intro courses, most colleges require that they be replaced with a course in the same area. So, if you CLEP out of Calculus, you have to take for, example, Calculus II. Even if math isn't your major - you're required to take a math course, etc.

 

That way they get at least tuition for the ~120 credits for a degree.

 

There is no real reduction in cost, time, effort, imo.

[Tammyla]

Thank you:001_smile:.

 

AP story

[katemary63]

My niece, whom I love dearly, is in 10th grade in ps. She tells me that her math classes are always chaotic, and the teacher spends most of his time dealing with the disruptive students. It is never quiet and she can't concentrate. She comes to me every week for the help she can't get from her teacher. She is lobbying her guidance counselor to allow her to take honors math next year, although she is a poor math student, because, she says, the honors classes are quiet and you can actually learn in them.

 

This is exactly why ( one of the reasons) my DD17 came back home after attempting public high school. She said that in most of her classes, the teachers have just given up. They talk and lecture on as if someone is paying attention when all the while, most kids are actually turned around in their seats talking to a friend. No attempt is made to gain controle of the class. Those who WANT to listen can't hear or concentrate. She thought it was the most bizarre thing she had ever seen. She wanted to say to the teacher, "Ah....can't you tell....they aren't actually listening to you???"

 

Why on EARTH would we need more hours of this kind of teaching??

[Murphy101]

Even if they AP or CLEP out of the intro courses, most colleges require that they be replaced with a course in the same area. So, if you CLEP out of Calculus, you have to take for, example, Calculus II. Even if math isn't your major - you're required to take a math course, etc.

 

That way they get at least tuition for the ~120 credits for a degree.

 

There is no real reduction in cost, time, effort, imo.

 

true sometimes, but I should mention that there's also college credit and dual enrollment options.

 

has anyone else checked out collegeplus.org ? it has some really good info there.

[Georgiana Daniels]

This is exactly why ( one of the reasons) my DD17 came back home after attempting public high school. She said that in most of her classes, the teachers have just given up. They talk and lecture on as if someone is paying attention when all the while, most kids are actually turned around in their seats talking to a friend. No attempt is made to gain controle of the class. Those who WANT to listen can't hear or concentrate. She thought it was the most bizarre thing she had ever seen. She wanted to say to the teacher, "Ah....can't you tell....they aren't actually listening to you???"

 

Why on EARTH would we need more hours of this kind of teaching??

 

My daughter (11th grade, public school) says the same thing--everyone texts in class and messes around without consequence. There is so much time wasted! I'd love to bring her home, but at this point it's not possible. I won't make the same mistake with my tots.

[Rhonda in TX]

Even if they AP or CLEP out of the intro courses, most colleges require that they be replaced with a course in the same area. So, if you CLEP out of Calculus, you have to take for, example, Calculus II. Even if math isn't your major - you're required to take a math course, etc.

 

That way they get at least tuition for the ~120 credits for a degree.

 

There is no real reduction in cost, time, effort, imo.

 

I CLEP'd out of some classes, and it did reduce the number of classes I had to take. For example, I didn't have to take Art Appreciation and Music Appreciation. I only had to take one. (I think I may have still had to pay for the class - can't remember that for sure, but it did reduce my course load.) With AP, though, you still have to take the class, just at a higher level. I don't see the advantage there.

[kiana]

I CLEP'd out of some classes, and it did reduce the number of classes I had to take. For example, I didn't have to take Art Appreciation and Music Appreciation. I only had to take one. (I think I may have still had to pay for the class - can't remember that for sure, but it did reduce my course load.) With AP, though, you still have to take the class, just at a higher level. I don't see the advantage there.

 

This depends totally on the school. Some accept AP/CLEP classes in full, some require replacement with a higher course, and some decline them completely. It isn't a difference between AP/CLEP so much as it is a difference between schools.

[coffeefreak]

Even if they AP or CLEP out of the intro courses, most colleges require that they be replaced with a course in the same area. So, if you CLEP out of Calculus, you have to take for, example, Calculus II. Even if math isn't your major - you're required to take a math course, etc.

 

That way they get at least tuition for the ~120 credits for a degree.

 

There is no real reduction in cost, time, effort, imo.

 

Actually, my 2nd college (a state school) took those AP credits and actually counted them. They didn't make me take the next class up. Unfortunately, my first college (a private school that cost WAAYYYYY too much) had already made me take all the classes. Some food for thought for parents.

[Murphy101]

This depends totally on the school. Some accept AP/CLEP classes in full, some require replacement with a higher course, and some decline them completely. It isn't a difference between AP/CLEP so much as it is a difference between schools.

 

yep. what she said.:)

[Rhonda in TX]

This depends totally on the school. Some accept AP/CLEP classes in full, some require replacement with a higher course, and some decline them completely. It isn't a difference between AP/CLEP so much as it is a difference between schools.

 

I'll definitely check with the colleges when we get to this point. Thanks!

[ccmom]

Unfortunately, the assumption is that our schools are academically sound. If the school system continues to undermine parents and the academic interests of students, our students will not be competitive. I think that the homeschool movement creates a light at the end of the tunnel.

[laughing lioness]

I've been thinking about this all morning and I think it really boils down to how we define education.

[coffeefreak]

I've been thinking about this all morning and I think it really boils down to how we define education.

 

 

OK, I'm intrigued. What do you mean :001_smile:?

:lurk5:

[ElizabethB]

Marva Collins taught all of her children to read with phonics, that was a big reason for her success.

 

Here's a link to some of her phonics observations, then some excerpts. The other things on her website are also interesting.

 

http://www.marvacollins.com/comments.html

 

Why Can’t Johnny Read?

 

I travel across the country and everywhere where I go I meet children who, in the 3rd and 4th grades, cannot read at grade level. School systems are confounded by the phenomenon and the solution of choice is to test the child, which eventually leads to labeling. The assumption seems to be that if the child isn’t reading, the problem must be in the child. Perhaps. I certainly don’t want to challenge the experts, but I must confess that I am confused.

 

Here’s the source of my confusion. At the beginning of each school year in September I have admitted, to my school in Chicago, children as young as 3 ½ years of age. I guarantee that they will all be reading by Christmas. Lest I am accused here of screening my students and accepting only those clearly bound for Rhode Scholar status, I issue this disclaimer: Since the inception of my school in 1975, I have never tested a child for admission purposes. Testing, when done, is for placement purposes only. Moreover, many, if not most, of my students came to me after the Chicago public school experts had labeled the children as “uneducable†for any of a variety of reasons.

 

Indeed, a strapping young man came to me years ago. He had played basketball for Creighton University for 5 years, at which time he had used up his eligibility to play big-time college sports. Kevin, after 5 years in college could only read at the second grade level. Personally, I taught him and at the end of one year, he was reading at freshman college level. Don’t take my word for it; his plight and its solution has been aired on ESPN and featured in other media on many occasions.

 

So, why can’t Johnny read by the 3rd or 4th grade? I’m told that an example does not establish a general rule, but, just the other day, my representative, acting as an advocate for an 8-year old boy and his parents, sat in on an “evaluation†session. The psychological evaluation cited that the boy had limited knowledge of phonetic rules. His classroom teacher was asked three questions:

1. How many ways are there to spell the sound “a†[the long vowel sound]? “Four,†responded the teacher.

2. What are the classifications of the different “ch†sounds? “I have no idea,†answered the teacher.

3. What is the significance of the letters “e,†“i,†and “y?†Again, the teacher had no knowledge of the answer.

 

There are 11 ways to spell the sound long “aâ€; the three different pronunciations of the combination “ch†are the French (as in champagne), the English (as in church) and the Italian (as in ache) and; the letters “eâ€, “i†and “y†are vowel signals. Simply stated, these experts wanted to label the child “learning disabled†and they proposed placing him in a special education class. But, how could the boy learn what his teacher did not know? To rephrase, how could the teacher teach what she did not know? Phonics is taught in my school to all children, the very little ones included. Phonics provides the keys that unlock the mystery of reading. How can anyone insist, with a straight face, that this 8 year old has a learning problem for not knowing what he clearly wasn’t, and couldn’t have been, taught? Again, it is impossible to teach what one doesn’t know.

 

I teach children phonics, and I offer phonics seminars to teachers.

 

William Ryan wrote a book, Blaming The Victim. If you understand the title, you may not have to read the book, but it is worth reading. The question in my mind remains, and I am even more puzzled because I have taught so many children over many years who had been labeled and considered to be un-teachable.

 

 

[mazakaal]

The real issue is the parents.

 

Parents have dropped the ball. The schools can do no thing without parental support and involvement.

 

In second grade, when Johnny can't read, he's promoted to 3rd. When he doesn't know his mult tables or how to subtract, he goes to 4th.

 

There are no consequences from home when he doesn't do his school work. There are no consequences from school when he doesn't learn.

 

In families like this, where parents don't care, more family time will mean more time on the streets or in front of the tv as the kids grow up.

 

More time at school just means the parents have even less responsibility for raising their children.

 

I taught for several years in schools where parents just didn't care. Some students succeed regardless. But many don't. No amount of money, no better curriculum, no longer/shorter days or years will solve the problems.

 

The solution is at home. Until the parents have a vested interest in their dc's education, the system will stay broken, imo.

 

:iagree:

I completely agree. You hit the nail on the head.

 

I agree with Laura that the school year could be a few weeks longer, but the main issue is that many parents don't care enough to get their kids to do their work. Without that, more hours in school won't be any help at all.

[Rosie_0801]

I've been thinking about this all morning and I think it really boils down to how we define education.

 

Yes. A good school seems to be the one with high test scores, the newest paint job, the smartest looking uniforms, and the quietest classrooms. Parents can only judge on what they can see, after all. Most people don't read educational theories so are obliged to trust the system. It may be a lousy system, but that's what everyone else is dealing with, so their kid isn't going to be disadvantaged, comparatively speaking.

 

Rosie

[laughing lioness]

It seems that this discussion has assumed that government schools are n place to "educate," our kids in the same way that we discuss the “education" of our kids on these boards. There has been discussion about “reform” of the government system and who is responsible for the problems in the system. I would contend that the government school system is not “broken.” By asserting that it can somehow be “fixed” we are assuming the purpose for which the system was created. The system was not created to “educate” people. The government school system was formed to assimilate immigrants, giving them a common language, get kids off the street (parents were working 12-18 hr days in factories and drugs and gangs were a problem during the industrial revolution) and to create a working class for the elite. The elite and wealthy had their own system of education which had nothing to do with government schools (and still doesn't), but was all about small, elitist, private schools or in-home tutoring.

 

So, when I think of government schools I am assuming that they are in place to educate the 90% that will provide the labor and bodies necessary to support the 10% of the population that has the wealth and power (less the small but hopefully growing number of educational anarchists such as WTMers).

 

The government school system isn't broken. It's doing exactly what it was designed and developed to do, based on the Prussian model, which is to create a class of worker bees. The government school system is transmitting a culture. A culture of anti-intellectualism, anti-christian (I use small "C" because historically our country was founded on Christian morals with a Christian culture, even though not every subscribed to Christianity as a personal faith), socialistic entitlement.

 

I am educating my children. However, I am using a different system, philosophy and methodology than the government system. So, when we use the word “educate/education” I assume that we are meaning “the transmission of culture” but from where I sit, they are stridently different cultures.

Edited April 10, 2009 by laughing lioness

[Perry]

It seems that this discussion has assumed that government schools are n place to "educate," our kids in the same way that we discuss the “education" of our kids on these boards. There has been discussion about “reform†of the government system and who is responsible for the problems in the system. I would contend that the government school system is not “broken.†By asserting that it can somehow be “fixed†we are assuming the purpose for which the system was created. The system was not created to “educate†people. The government school system was formed to assimilate immigrants, giving them a common language, get kids off the street (parents were working 12-18 hr days in factories and drugs and gangs were a problem during the industrial revolution) and to create a working class for the elite. The elite and wealthy had their own system of education which had nothing to do with government schools (and still doesn't), but was all about small, elitist, private schools or in-home tutoring.

 

So, when I think of government schools I am assuming that they are in place to educate the 90% that will provide the labor and bodies necessary to support the 10% of the population that has the wealth and power (less the small but hopefully growing number of educational anarchists such as WTMers).

 

The government school system isn't broken. It's doing exactly what it was designed and developed to do, based on the Prussian model, which is to create a class of worker bees. The government school system is transmitting a culture. A culture of anti-intellectualism, anti-christian (I use small "C" because historically our country was founded on Christian morals with a Christian culture, even though not every subscribed to Christianity as a personal faith), socialistic entitlement.

 

I am educating my children. However, I am using a different system, philosophy and methodology than the government system. So, when we use the word “educate/education†I assume that we are meaning “the transmission of culture†but from where I sit, they are stridently different cultures.

 

I understand that this is John Taylor Gatto's view, but is this accepted by most people? I've never heard anyone else claim this position.

 

Here is an example of what I found when I Googled "mission of public education":

 

 

The guiding mission of the North Carolina State Board of Education is that every public school student will graduate from high school, globally competitive for work and postsecondary education and prepared for life in the 21st Century.

 

GOALS

 

 

 

Goal: North Carolina public schools will produce globally competitive students.

 

• Every student excels in rigorous and relevant core curriculum that reflects what students need to know and demonstrate a global 21st Century environment, including a mastery of languages, an appreciation of the arts, and competencies in the use of technology.

• Every student’s achievement is measured with an assessment system that informs instruction and evaluates knowledge, skills, performance, and dispositions needed in the 21st Century.

• Every student will be enrolled in a course of study designed to prepare them to stay ahead of international competition.

• Every student uses technology to access and demonstrate new knowledge and skills that will be needed as a life-long learner to be competitive in a constantly changing international environment.

• Every student has the opportunity to graduate from high school with an Associates Degree or college transfer credit.

 

 

Goal: North Carolina public schools will be led by 21st Century professionals.

 

• Every teacher will have the skills to deliver 21st Century content in a 21st Century context with 21st Century tools and technology that guarantees student learning.

• Every teacher and administrator will use a 21st Century assessment system to inform instruction and measure 21st Century knowledge, skills, performance, and dispositions.

• Every education professional will receive preparation in the interconnectedness of the world with knowledge and skills, including language study.

• Every education professional will have 21st Century preparation and access to ongoing high quality professional development aligned with State Board of Education priorities.

• Every educational professional uses data to inform decision.

 

 

Goal: North Carolina public school students will be healthy and responsible.

 

• Every learning environment will be inviting, respectful, supportive, inclusive, and flexible for student success.

• Every school provides an environment in which each child has positive, nurturing relationships with caring adults.

• Every school promotes a healthy, active lifestyle where students are encouraged to make responsible choices.

• Every school focuses on developing strong student character, personal responsibility, and community/world involvement.

• Every school reflects a culture of learning that empowers and prepares students to be life-long learners.

 

 

Goal: Leadership will guide innovation in North Carolina public schools.

 

• School professionals will collaborate with national and international partners to discover innovative transformational strategies that will facilitate change, remove barriers for 21st Century learning, and understand global connections.

• School leaders will create a culture that embraces change and promotes dynamic continuous improvement.

• Educational professionals will make decisions in collaboration with parents, students, businesses, education institutions, and faith-based and other community and civic organizations to impact student success.

• The public school professionals will collaborate with community colleges and public and private universities and colleges to provide enhanced educational opportunities for students

 

 

Goal: North Carolina public schools will be governed and supported by 21st Century systems.

 

• Processes are in place for financial planning and budgeting that focuses on resource attainment and alignment with priorities to maximize student achievement.

• Twenty-first century technology and learning tools are available and are supported by school facilities that have the capacity for 21st Century learning.

• Information and fiscal accountability systems are capable of collecting relevant data and reporting strategic and operational results.

• Procedures are in place to support and sanction schools that are not meeting state standards for student achievement.

 

 

That doesn't sound like they're trying to turn out a bunch of factory workers.

[Karen in CO]

 

The government school system isn't broken. It's doing exactly what it was designed and developed to do, based on the Prussian model, which is to create a class of worker bees. The government school system is transmitting a culture. A culture of anti-intellectualism, anti-christian (I use small "C" because historically our country was founded on Christian morals with a Christian culture, even though not every subscribed to Christianity as a personal faith), socialistic entitlement.

 

I am educating my children. However, I am using a different system, philosophy and methodology than the government system. So, when we use the word “educate/education” I assume that we are meaning “the transmission of culture” but from where I sit, they are stridently different cultures.

 

I agree and disagree with you. I agree with what you said about the school system aiming at the 90% of the kids and the historic purpose of this, but I disagree about it being broken.

 

A large number of the kids being turned out of the system aren't fit for any workplace. That needs to change. We can't have people graduating from the school system that not only can't read and have no desire to learn, but that also feel entitled to a lifestyle that they have not earned and no desire to work to attain.

 

Anyway. Its late, and I have to go to bed so I can go to work tomorrow right after I finish educating my kids because even if the system weren't broken, it is no place for us.

[JWSJ]

I understand that this is John Taylor Gatto's view, but is this accepted by most people? I've never heard anyone else claim this position.

 

Maria Montessori also had similar views. Her approach was to develop a different educational philosophy and hence alternative schools.

 

That doesn't sound like they're trying to turn out a bunch of factory workers.

 

But that's what it was designed to do. The history behind American schools is well documented.

[Heather in Neverland]

I understand that this is John Taylor Gatto's view, but is this accepted by most people? I've never heard anyone else claim this position.

 

Here is an example of what I found when I Googled "mission of public education":

 

That doesn't sound like they're trying to turn out a bunch of factory workers.

 

Most school disricts have these fancy mission statements. They mean nothing and most everyone, including the people who wrote the mission statement, could not tell you what the mission statements says.

 

I was at a "school improvement" meeting yesterday and part of what they had to do was include their school's mission statement in the document the state asked them to fill out. No one including the principal knew what it was. So they made one up in about 30 seconds.

 

The interesting thing is that most educators have no clue what the history of education is and most of them would prefer to teach only the "smart" well-behaved kids. Now it is mostly looked at as a LAW not a mission. We HAVE to educate all the kids because the government says we have to and we are supposed to leave no child behind. They see this as an impossibility.

 

Couple that with over crowded classrooms filled with children whose parents are apathetic about their own future much less their children's, administrators overwhelmed with discipline issues and bureacratic redtape, and a culture that supports the idea that you are entitled to whatever you want, instant gratification, no work required.....

 

It is a recipe for disaster and it shows.

[Tabrett]

I understand that this is John Taylor Gatto's view, but is this accepted by most people? I've never heard anyone else claim this position.

 

Here is an example of what I found when I Googled "mission of public education":

 

That doesn't sound like they're trying to turn out a bunch of factory workers.

The NC mission statement sound more like they are trying to get children to be ok with a one world government more than anything else. How many times did they use the word global?????????

[Jumping In Puddles]

By asserting that it can somehow be “fixed†we are assuming the purpose for which the system was created. The system was not created to “educate†people.

 

I do believe that this is why our school system was created but I have a hard time believing that teachers and school administrators all still have this goal in mind. It benefits our government and our country to have students that are literate and perform well, not just as drones, but as scientists and doctors, college professors and politicians.

 

 

 

Couple that with over crowded classrooms filled with children whose parents are apathetic about their own future much less their children's, administrators overwhelmed with discipline issues and bureacratic redtape, and a culture that supports the idea that you are entitled to whatever you want, instant gratification, no work required.....

 

It is a recipe for disaster and it shows.

 

:iagree: The school system is broken and is a failure but in context of the goals of our education system, do you really think our schools have the same goals as they did at their inception?

[Frontier Mom]

Well, I find it sad how the ps uses its time and taxpayer's money here. Last Saturday, they had a half day make up for a snow we didn't get. Everything had to be rearranged, from church activities to sports activities. Our baseball tournament started later and, upon arriving, my ds's friend told him all they did was eat breakfast, watch Phineas and Ferb on TV, eat lunch and go home. What???

 

For that valuable educational opportunity, they ran bus routes, opened the schools including electrical costs, fed two meals, etc. Then, to top that off, they took Monday off for a teacher work day. I mean, I might not be the brightest bulb in the pack but this is plain laughable.

 

My dc's think the whole system is whacko. In our neighborhood, it seems one of the schools is out a couple of days each week. How do I know? They call here wanting to know if my dc's can play. No, we are educating here.

 

All this to say, more days in school does not mean a higher level of education. After testing here in ps, my dc's friends tell them they just watch movies every day. Some are rather questionable and certainly have no educational value. If the system is broken, having more "hours" will only make things the same, not better. More teachers, more staff but I'm afraid, no better results.

 

I wonder if there was a quiz on Phineas and Ferb?

[Heather in Neverland]

I wonder if there was a quiz on Phineas and Ferb?

 

I would totally pass that quiz. We love that show! :D

 

They HAD to do that because the government requires that they be in class for a certain amount of minutes per year. Of course the government does not care all that much what you DO with those minutes. ;)

[Perry]

I do believe that this is why our school system was created but I have a hard time believing that teachers and school administrators all still have this goal in mind. It benefits our government and our country to have students that are literate and perform well, not just as drones, but as scientists and doctors, college professors and politicians.

 

 

 

 

:iagree: The school system is broken and is a failure but in context of the goals of our education system, do you really think our schools have the same goals as they did at their inception?

 

Thank you. This was what I was trying to say.

[Perry]

Most school disricts have these fancy mission statements. They mean nothing and most everyone, including the people who wrote the mission statement, could not tell you what the mission statements says.

 

I was at a "school improvement" meeting yesterday and part of what they had to do was include their school's mission statement in the document the state asked them to fill out. No one including the principal knew what it was. So they made one up in about 30 seconds.

 

The interesting thing is that most educators have no clue what the history of education is and most of them would prefer to teach only the "smart" well-behaved kids. Now it is mostly looked at as a LAW not a mission. We HAVE to educate all the kids because the government says we have to and we are supposed to leave no child behind. They see this as an impossibility.

 

Couple that with over crowded classrooms filled with children whose parents are apathetic about their own future much less their children's, administrators overwhelmed with discipline issues and bureacratic redtape, and a culture that supports the idea that you are entitled to whatever you want, instant gratification, no work required.....

 

It is a recipe for disaster and it shows.

 

Oh, I agree the mission statements are a joke. I just meant that they don't look anything like the mission Gatto describes. And I don't think there is any reason to believe the mission now, written or not, is the same as it was almost a hundred years ago.

[laughing lioness]

I was talking about the history of education based on what the social reformers John Dewey and Horace Mann proposed back in the late 19th century, based on the Prussian model of education. Yes, Gatto has written about it, but he simply researched and wrote about the history of ed in America. Before government schools were widely in place there was an over 90% literacy rate in America. Wealthy families frequently paid for private tutoring "schools" for those who couldn't afford it. Kids went to school already knowing how to read. They went to school to learn Latin and higher math and philosophy, not how to define a family or to participate in group projects.

 

Schools are now turning out non-workers with a high sense of entitlement because that is the logical consequence of the system. If we create an environment that is set up to create passivity and anti-thought but the participants have a firm belief in themselves (this, too is well documented; American kids score at the bottom of the barrel in terms of true academics but feel better about themselves than most) than of course you're going to have a group of people that believe that should get lots for little. This is one of the consequences of a socialistic belief system as well. Why should I work hard if I'm entitled anyway?

[Perry]

 

If we create an environment that is set up to create passivity and anti-thought but the participants have a firm belief in themselves (this, too is well documented; American kids score at the bottom of the barrel in terms of true academics but feel better about themselves than most) than of course you're going to have a group of people that believe that should get lots for little. This is one of the consequences of a socialistic belief system as well. Why should I work hard if I'm entitled anyway?

 

See, I think we have the opposite problem. The schools are so focused on the idea of teaching "critical thinking" that they aren't teaching much content. I don't believe that they are trying to create non-thinkers. I think they are attempting to create thinkers but failing miserably in the execution.

[Heather in Neverland]

I was talking about the history of education based on what the social reformers John Dewey and Horace Mann proposed back in the late 19th century, based on the Prussian model of education. Yes, Gatto has written about it, but he simply researched and wrote about the history of ed in America. Before government schools were widely in place there was an over 90% literacy rate in America. Wealthy families frequently paid for private tutoring "schools" for those who couldn't afford it. Kids went to school already knowing how to read. They went to school to learn Latin and higher math and philosophy, not how to define a family or to participate in group projects.

 

Schools are now turning out non-workers with a high sense of entitlement because that is the logical consequence of the system. If we create an environment that is set up to create passivity and anti-thought but the participants have a firm belief in themselves (this, too is well documented; American kids score at the bottom of the barrel in terms of true academics but feel better about themselves than most) than of course you're going to have a group of people that believe that should get lots for little. This is one of the consequences of a socialistic belief system as well. Why should I work hard if I'm entitled anyway?

 

:iagree:

 

You are my new best friend! :D

[Frontier Mom]

I know but the original statement by the Sect. of Ed. tends toward more time in the building equals better education. This just shows, "It just ain't so!"

 

I think the quality of education mirrors the society. Just watching the last few "top artist" perform on American Idol shows me that intelligence is not honored in the media. Now, before you get mad at me, I am a huge American Idol fan and my dc's have those very songs on their Ipods. But please, Lady Ga Ga one week, Kanye (sp?) one week and Flo Rida this week. I felt like my IQ went down 20 points.

 

For years, the education follows the society. When society values education, maybe there will be a shift. Otherwise, the system is broken. It concerns me and I am constantly in prayer for our society.

Edited April 10, 2009 by Frontier Mom

[ELaurie]

It seems that this discussion has assumed that government schools are n place to "educate," our kids in the same way that we discuss the “education" of our kids on these boards. There has been discussion about “reform†of the government system and who is responsible for the problems in the system. I would contend that the government school system is not “broken.†By asserting that it can somehow be “fixed†we are assuming the purpose for which the system was created. The system was not created to “educate†people. The government school system was formed to assimilate immigrants, giving them a common language, get kids off the street (parents were working 12-18 hr days in factories and drugs and gangs were a problem during the industrial revolution) and to create a working class for the elite. The elite and wealthy had their own system of education which had nothing to do with government schools (and still doesn't), but was all about small, elitist, private schools or in-home tutoring.

 

So, when I think of government schools I am assuming that they are in place to educate the 90% that will provide the labor and bodies necessary to support the 10% of the population that has the wealth and power (less the small but hopefully growing number of educational anarchists such as WTMers).

 

The government school system isn't broken. It's doing exactly what it was designed and developed to do, based on the Prussian model, which is to create a class of worker bees. The government school system is transmitting a culture. A culture of anti-intellectualism, anti-christian (I use small "C" because historically our country was founded on Christian morals with a Christian culture, even though not every subscribed to Christianity as a personal faith), socialistic entitlement.

 

I am educating my children. However, I am using a different system, philosophy and methodology than the government system. So, when we use the word “educate/education†I assume that we are meaning “the transmission of culture†but from where I sit, they are stridently different cultures.

 

:iagree:

[Murphy101]

I understand that this is John Taylor Gatto's view, but is this accepted by most people? I've never heard anyone else claim this position.

 

acceptance of a concept does not change whether it is true or false.:)

 

wasn't it decartes who said that if gov't wants to control the lower classes it should create and mandate gov't schools for them? I'd have to go look it up....

 

that aside... the founding of american schools was NEVER for education, or even equal education. It was to create a workforce with a minimum of skills to meet business needs.

 

there's a great documentary about this ... let me see if I can find it...

 

here it is... The Story of American Public Education

it's not the best or has deep and hard-hitting as I'd prefer, but it's a very interesting piece none the less.

[Perry]

I agree but while they changed the expressed mission, they didn't change the system. (incomplete analogy warning) If I am trying to make a chocolate cake and get the batter all mixed up and then I decide to make tacos I would need to throw out all of the chocolate cake batter and start the food making process over. I can add and subtract things from the cake. It might become better or worse cake, but it won't become tacos.

 

Interesting point. How do you think the system would need to be changed? IMO, the best way to improve the schools is to ditch the constructivist ideology, change the content that is taught, improve the curriculum, and raise expectations. I haven't given systemic change much thought. I'm curious about what that might be.

 

 

One big problem is that you can't think critically unless you have something to think critically about. The second issue with all of this is that they are trying to get kids to "think critically" with no thought to development or maturity. Rare is the little one who can really make logic stage connections. I am dealing with an 11 yo right now who isn't there yet and there isn't much I can do to push it along. He just isn't ready in many ways.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

But I do believe the schools *think* they are teaching critical thinking.