I don't have time to launch into a complete discussion regarding Mr. Card's most recent review article, but I was concerned by the following little bit:
quote:...the best writers, the best thinkers, the most broadly educated among my students are the ones who were home-schooled.
Think about that. And then think about this: Most of those home-schooled kids get their schooling in a few hours a day....
Meanwhile, the educational establishment makes ironclad, unbreakable rules about how many days and hours our children must be put under the control of the "experts,"....
(I apologize for the bits I cut out, but I wanted to save some space here. Please DO check out what Mr. Card says in the context of his article)
While I agree that a lot of administrators and teacher education programs are full of it, and do a lot of things to actively HAMPER a teacher's ability to teach (e.g. block schedule, small learning communities, cutting back on electives, waaaay too many meetings, etc.), I disagree on a separate point. Mr. Card makes the assertion that his best college students are the ones that were home-schooled. I contend that it is not the location in which the students were educated that makes the greatest difference. It is, rather, the degree to which parents are involved in the education and life of their child/student. Yes, it so happens, that home-schooled children CLEARLY have a great deal of involvement, both academic and social, with their parents. But it is possible for parents to achieve similar results with public schooling.
Yes, I know that the vast majority of those who, like me, attended public school are dunderheads. But I was fortunate enough to have parents who cared, checked my homework and schoolwork with me, pushed me do my best, made me think critically, and all of this while being loving parents who were (for the most part) fun to be around!
Home-schooling is ONE answer, but NOT the be-all, end-all answer, even if it is quite effective.
(I hesitate to add this, because I don't have the research available to cite, but here goes. I remember a professor of music education telling me about several studies that looked at a wide range of students (public school, private school, charters, home-schooled, etc.) and determined that the single-greatest predictor of student success was parental involvement. Unfortunately, the greatest single predictor of parental involvement was socio-economic status, meaning that poor parents who must work at 4 jobs between the two of them to make ends meet don't have the time do be involved in the students' lives. They also don't have the time to home-school.)
As always, Hatrack, your input is looked forward to with great anticipation. It was not my intent to antagonize ANYONE, and certainly not advocates of home-schooling. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There are ample studies of this phenomenon, and you're absolutely right: the extent to which parents are involved in the lives of their children is the strongest correlative factor in the academic and professional success of those children.
Obviously, parents who homeschool are to a certain extent defaultly involved. But it is not the quality of the instruction which is necessarily superior in a home-school environment; it is the presence and active interest of the parent.
Parents who enroll their children in a school with good teachers and still exhibit curiosity and interest in their kids' educations will, by and large, produce more successful children than parents who home-school, unless the parents themselves are extraordinary teachers.
OSC falls into his typically arrogant generalizations with this bit:
quote:There is no such thing as an "educational expert."
There are people who have snookered us into paying them a lot of money because they claim to be experts on education, but it's all a game. They collect degrees by taking classes from people who don't know how to teach and don't recognize good teaching when they see it. Then they come to the school districts and get ridiculously high salaries for thinking up ways to keep teachers from doing their jobs.
When you look at the actual "research" and "science" they claim as their authority, you quickly recognize that what you're seeing is not science at all.
Consider, when you read his criticism of educational "experts" and the scare-quoted "science" underlying that "research," that his counter-example -- that the smartest kids he's met are the home-schooled ones -- is anecdotal.
His broader point -- that schools are shedding freedoms like dander to try, in increasing desperation, more and more measures intended to comply with federal NCLB measures -- is a good one. Certainly things we took for granted about our education are being stripped away in an effort to flatten performance, to reduce the dreaded "achievement gaps" to which funding is often tied. And in some areas, the public schools may in fact be so broken that alternative options are the best ones.
But this doesn't mean that "education experts" are necessarily making it up as they go along. Novelists do that, but it's hubristic to assume that researchers are in the same line of work.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
Tom,
I agree with much of what you say, particularly in the first three paragraphs you wrote. I also thank you for pointing out that Card's broader point is accurate. However, while most of us first became acquainted with Card's work through his novels, I don't think it is quite right to call him a novelist in this context. Perhaps 'columnist' would be more apt. As far as making it up as he goes along? I doubt that is the case with this particular column. I simply imagine it's a case of misapplied generalization.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Bando, But do you agree that there are people who could accurately be termed "educational experts" who do in fact have solid scientific research to back up what they say?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, What is that in reference to?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Squick -- nevermind. I thought I had deleted that post.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I know kids who blossom into very intelligent young adults through home-schooling; and I know children who can't even do basic math because their homeschooling parents are more interested in passing down their religion and family traditions than in teaching arithmetic.
Let's be specific about the nature of OSC's rant. The beginning of the rant states his argument well: he's against extending children's time in schools. He blames the educational experts hired by the school board for instituting this idea.
Is there research that shows that extending the school year benefits children in typical American society?
(There is; there is also research showing the opposite is true)
What do you do when your experts disagree?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
People,
what's with prefacing everything you say with a name?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:He blames the educational experts hired by the school board for instituting this idea.
He goes slightly further than that. He says that there are no "educational experts" and that the people who claim to have scientific research about this are liars or at the very least greatly mistaken.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What do you do when your experts disagree?
Write an angry rant, then review guacamole mix? Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not angry and no one makes good guacamole in Fredericksburg.
I'm doomed to frustration.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:But do you agree that there are people who could accurately be termed "educational experts" who do in fact have solid scientific research to back up what they say?
You weren't asking me, but I do! Of course, all I have is anecdotal evidence to back up my knowledge of scientific evidence. My mom's a special education specialist, making her an expert. She goes to seminars and classes regularly to gain as much current research as possible, so that she can go tell the teachers how to teach the most effectively. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Don't you talk about my momma!
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I tried homeschooling and hated it. Yeah I could get through stuff faster than if I were in a regular school but I missed the social aspect of school. I had been in band for three years and started home schooling the year I would have started marching band. No one wants to see one kid marching with a tuba in his front yard.
Homeschool is great for some people. Just not me. I don't think my kids would get a lot out of it either.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'm not angry and no one makes good guacamole in Fredericksburg.
I'm doomed to frustration.
I often make my own. Smushed up avocado and picco de gallo. Yummmm.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
I wonder if homeschooling is even possible in Finland. I've certainly never heard of anyone who'd been homeschooled. How long is the American summer holiday, usually?
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
three months
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:No one wants to see one kid marching with a tuba in his front yard.
I kinda do.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote: three months
OK. It's two and a half months in Finland starting the end of May and ending in mid-August... which apparently is what they're now suggesting in North Carolina if I understood correctly? The reason it's only two and half months is, I remember reading, that the remaining days are used to lengthen the Christmas holiday and then to form a week long autumn holiday in October and another week of skiing holiday in March.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
So overall, it's about the same amount of break time through a year?
-pH
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:No one wants to see one kid marching with a tuba in his front yard.
I kinda do.
I used to have a picture of me standing in the front yard with my tuba (after I started back at school). I looked for it, but couldn't find it. Maybe my parents have it. That would have been funny to post.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote: So overall, it's about the same amount of break time through a year?
I guess. There are around 170 schooldays in a year, I think.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I had been in band for three years and started home schooling the year I would have started marching band. No one wants to see one kid marching with a tuba in his front yard.
Most states will allow homeschoolers to still participate in activities such as band.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Now they do. This was back in 1990. The best I could do was get a GED. When I went back to school I did not get credit for any classes I had taken. They did not even let me try to test out of the classes. In one year I had finished Algebra I & II. When I went back to school they stuck me in Pre-Algebra. I took summer school and night school for two and a half years to catch back up and graduate on time. Needless to say, I got very upset with the whole situation and underachieved for the rest of my high school years.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
Connecticut requires 180 school days, unless they've changed things.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Bando, But do you agree that there are people who could accurately be termed "educational experts" who do in fact have solid scientific research to back up what they say?
Of course I do. It is an over-generalization to refer to all educational experts as idiots. The unfortunate thing is that policy decisions are too often made without adequate scientific research, and the students (and therefore, our society) pay the price.
The original question, "does extending the school year truly benefit students?" is valid, but it won't be answered by making an unwarranted assumption as to the infallible superiority of home-schooling. I'll grant, however, that taking family time away probably does tend to reduce 'parental involvement', which, as discussed, is the strongest correlating factor in student achievement. But one does not necessarilly equate to the other.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I tried homeschooling and hated it. Yeah I could get through stuff faster than if I were in a regular school but I missed the social aspect of school. I had been in band for three years and started home schooling the year I would have started marching band. No one wants to see one kid marching with a tuba in his front yard.
Homeschool is great for some people. Just not me. I don't think my kids would get a lot out of it either.
I should mention that homeschooling does not always mean students can't participate in band classes. I have several home-schooled students participate in band every year.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
As stated before, this was in 1990. I'm sure htere have been major changes since then.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
Well, even now, there is so much red-tape that home-schoolers are forced to work through, that it's almost not worth the effort to take any courses at the school. For instance, one family has a mother attending band with her daughter. The mother wanted to learn flute, and also wanted to be able to help teach at home. Well, the mother is supposed to sign in as a volunteer every day. I understand the reason for the rule, but it is quite inconvenient for her. And, yes, I know that's small beans to not getting a bonafide diploma, but there it is.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
I didn't read this as: "Home-schoolers I've met are better educated than public schooler: Everybody should home-school their kids!"
I read it as: "Home-schoolers I've met are better educated than most public schoolers. I think we should figure out why and change public schools so that we get similar results across the board."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My cousin, a teacher, is taking time off from school right now to homeschool her kids, so I guess that'd be the best of both worlds, as she's a teacher and a parent. Of course the reason she took them out of the school system was because public schools teach devilry and not enough Bible, but I'll save that for the dinner table at Thanksgiving My other cousin in the same family is sending his kids to a Christian private school.
Anyway, both her kids are rather on the shy side (but they are a BLAST to babysit, seriously, they rock), and I often worry/wonder how they will turn out without the daily interaction with other kids that most kids in regular schools get. I don't necessarily fault the educational benefits of homeschooling, but I do wonder about the social skills aspect.
We had two brother in high school who came in their sophmore and junior years who had previously been homeschooled. Both of them were incredibly smart, both of them could play the piano in ways I thought weren't possible for human beings. One of them was shy, but once you drew him out he was just like any other kid. His brother on the other hand was just weird. He had zero social skills and it haunted him all through high school, and I haven't heard a word about him since he graduated.
I know anecdotal evidence doesn't always play strongly here, but that's been my experience with homeschooling. For me, when I have kids, I wouldn't even consider it. The time I had in junior high and high school was the absolute best time of my life to date. I would NEVER want to rob my kids of the same benefits and memories.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
kmboots:
I make my own guacamole too, but it would be terribly tacky to review my own guacamole when no one else can try any.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
I always wanted to be home schooled when I was younger. I was much more eager then, and wanted to get through everything really quickly. I think I likely would be more driven than I am now if I had been able to learn as quickly as I wanted to when I was young, but I was never really presented with ways to do so.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Meanwhile, the educational establishment makes ironclad, unbreakable rules about how many days and hours our children must be put under the control of the "....
I think this is a perfectly legitemate gripe with the public education system. From what my friends tell me, it's like pulling teeth to get your kids excused from school to travel to weddings or even funerals. I've seen in our district ther need to fulfill the letter of the "school-hours-for-the-year" taken to ridiculous extremes. For example, last year the full and half day closures combined to have the school year end at noon on a Monday. That's plain silly. Just give them the half day. All the kids I talked to said nothing got done. That said, I think it's very true that attention, not school location, is what matters. Most homeschooling parents do so, more than any other reason,because we want to be with our kids all day and pay attention to them. (Never mind that right now they're out back hitting each other with sticks while I type this and read OotS). I know some incrdedibly involved parents of PS kids and some HS parents who are neglecting their kids eductaion. And vice versa, of course.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:There is no such thing as an "educational expert."
If someone said this to me, I would not hesitate to assume that they were mouthing off and did not have a clue about what they were talking about.
When I read this citation, I went to check out the rant in question and it is ... well, frighteningly disappointing, on account of these arrogant platitudes that seek to completely discount subjects based on useless anecdotal supposition.
ffh, whatever.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
My husband works at Sylvan and he had a student who was homeschooled and the parents were falling behind a lot on this kid's education- like years behind his peers. Sylvan was thrilled of course since he needed a lot of tutoring and structure to catch up. But I think that the problem with homeschooling is that it can be so, so variable. My husband and I talked about homeschooling little Bin but decided unless we have a safety concern (and at some of the schools my husband has taught at, we would), we will just try to supplement her education.
edit to add- Scott- you could put up the recipe for your guacamole and then review it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
OSC's rant does serve one very, very important purpose, no matter what side of the debate you're on.
It will hopefully serve to inspire parents to take an active role in the government of the schools that their children attend. There's very little harm in being skeptical of the experts-- if they are experts, then they will know how to explain their ideas.
I have absolutely no problem with parents standing up and demanding explanations for changes to their childrens' school, and sticking to their guns until the school shows the logic of their decisions.
I also have utterly NO problem with decreasing the amount of money paid to administrators for the express purpose of putting more money into the teachers' pockets.
I agree with whoever said that a student's academic success is largely impacted by their parents' involvement, and less by the programs the school institutes.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
The typical US school year is 180 days. The typical US summer break is 10 weeks.
I have no comments on US Public Education, and have not read Mr. Card's article.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I went to an American public school, got a college scholarship, and am going to a prestigious graduate school.
But I think there are some folks (I'm not naming names, now) who would vilify me as an intellectual elitist, not a "smart kid".
Who knows. I'm happy. And glad I wasn't homeschooled, though I'm sure it works for lots of people. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kasie H: I went to an American public school, got a college scholarship, and am going to a prestigious graduate school.
But I think there are some folks (I'm not naming names, now) who would vilify me as an intellectual elitist, not a "smart kid".
Who knows. I'm happy. And glad I wasn't homeschooled, though I'm sure it works for lots of people.
I could have written this post.
*high-fives Kasie*
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I have no research to back this up, but speaking anecdotally...I think that few parents can effectively homeschool their kids all through high school. But the ones that can, do a bang-up job.
Since the kids you see in college are those that had parents who did, by and large, bang-up jobs, you may be seeing a slanted view. The kids who never learned enough to pass college entrance exams you are NOT going to see in college, obviously.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Excellent point, Belle.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Let it be known, I have nothing against home school. It just didn't work for me.
Public school does have issues, but I don't know how to change them either.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
What Belle said.
I live near a college intended mainly for the homeschool community. The students I've met aren't necessarily better educated than my peers when I was an undergrad--but a lot of them are, or at least seem to be. There's no question that they've gotten a fantastic education.
I also teach in a public school, and the formerly-homeschooled kids I've encountered there, with exactly one exception, have been YEARS behind their peers in reading and writing skills.
When it works, it really, really works and we should figure out what works and emulate it as much as possible. When it doesn't work, it's a crying shame.
Kind of like public schools, actually.
FYI: Attendance records are part of No Child Left Behind. Schools can fail to make AYP if attendance rates are too low, just like if reading scores are too low. So while I will always respect a parent's right to pull his or her child out of school, I don't think it's unreasonable for a school to require some sort of paperwork. Also, in response to romanylass's comment about the half day for the last day of school--usually state law requires a certain # of days or hours. It's likely that the school had 2 choices: Have a full day of school, or a half day. Not having the day at all wasn't an option. (And trust me, nothing gets done or learned on the last day of school no matter how long it is. )
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm almost to the point where I'm going to stop reading OSC's columns and just stick with his fiction. I still love the powerful writing and incisive comments but I'm getting a little tired of seeing reviews of grape jelly turn into diatribes against Bush-haters.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Reading the article, I think it is clear that OSC has never taught in a high school. He seems to have a good family and I don't think he realizes that he is in the minority.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
Whoops. So for the record I completely misremembered the length of the Finnish school year - it's more like 188 days (give or take a few depending on which days of the week the national holidays are), not 170 days.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Interestingly, my parents specifically sent me to public school, instead of homeschooling me (which they considered) because they thought the social experience I'd gain there would far outweigh any drawbacks. So now, years of teasing later, I'm fully equipped to deal with harsh social situations as an adult Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I don't like school for the same reason I didn't like being a teller. I don't like some pompous authority figure standing over my shoulder dictating to me what I can do and when and how. My current job is in the back office. If I want to go tot he bathroom, I can. I don't have to worry about enough people standing there or getting anyone's permission. If I'm hungry, I can have a snack while I work. No one's going to write me up for having my stomach out of synch with the approved schedule.
I think the public school vs. homeschool debate ultimately comes down to how people deal with rules and structure. I like a little of both, but the standard amount is stifling to me. I did not thrive in the public school even though I graduated 8th in my class with a 3.88 and my freshman year of college done. Success is such a personal term, how can someone else decide if you did or not? The school achieved its goals, but I still consider it to have been a failure.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Scott R posted: I also have utterly NO problem with decreasing the amount of money paid to administrators for the express purpose of putting more money into the teachers' pockets.
I don't understand this position. From what I know of the local (Harris & Montgomery TX) ISDs, the administrators aren't making "bank" by any means. They make more than the teachers, but isn't that kinda the point? If you paid the administrators and the teachers the same, what would be the teacher's incentive to attain more education, and work harder, in order to be an administrator. We need administrators (specifically good administrators) and I don't really understand why this employement hierarchy should be any different than every other: supervisors get paid more.
Of course, if it were a very significant wage gap, I would probably change my tune. Off to see if I can't look up teacher/administrator salaries!
edit: also, I guess I'm assuming which administrators your talking about. Super Intendents are obviously on a much different level than a teaching specialist or coordinator.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
We don't (okay, *I* don't) want talented teachers becoming administrators.
I'd prefer to pay them better salaries and keep their teaching genius in the classroom.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
OK, I get that. I guess, from my perspective, I'd rather get the genius teacher in a position where they can show other, worse, teachers how to teach well.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Administrators make 2-3 times as much as teachers (lot of factors involved).
Thing is, though, you don't need a full complement of administrators for a school district of 2000 kids.
Its not that administrators (good ones) make too much money. Its that we have too many administrators, and many of them are mediocre.
You could get more out of your school administration by combining smaller school districts into a district of 10,000 students or so, using about 1.5 times more administors then you do for a district of 2000, use only the good administrators, pay them slightly more then they are being paid now, and you'd see a lot more improvement then if we simply slashed administrator salaries. (N.B in this post I am talking central office administrators. Not principals and vice principals and support staff on site at the schools. Thats a different kettle of administrators).
My school district of 2000 kids, about 10% of dollars go to central office expenditures. For 10,000 students, we'd be talking about 8 million dollars in administrative costs, and an 80 million budget. But if all those students were in one district, we could cut the administrative costs to about 3 million. Saving of 5 million dollars, or 500 dollars per pupil. Thats over 6% of a school districts budget.
And my guess is, since you got rid of the junky administrators when combining districts, you'd get better results out of the schools.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: We don't (okay, *I* don't) want talented teachers becoming administrators.
I'd prefer to pay them better salaries and keep their teaching genius in the classroom.
As a former teacher, I both agree and disagree. IME, some of the best administrators had been good teachers. (Then again, some of the worst had been BAD teachers, and the very worst had never taught at all but still figured they knew more about teaching than teachers did.)
Oh, and I'm admin these days. But college admin, which is rather a different kettle of fish.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You could get more out of your school administration by combining smaller school districts into a district of 10,000 students or so
Hm...I don't know how this would work... How do you determine school district boundaries? Here, it's by county. Are you saying ignore county lines when drawing school districts?
I think there are going to be a lot of people who are going to have problems with that-- not just mediocre administrators. It's a fight NOW to get school funding for schools in your own county; can you imagine trying to raise property taxes to fund schools in someone else's county?
I'm intrigued by the idea though.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
That makes sense (Paul), to cut back the number of administrators. But to cut their salary could only result in worse administrators, resulting in unhappy, and therefor less productive teachers.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: And my guess is, since you got rid of the junky administrators when combining districts, you'd get better results out of the schools.
Of course, in real life you'd be at least as likely to get rid of the better administrators (because they were paid more or for political reasons, etc.) as the bad ones. And research shows that most students do better (educationally and socially) not only in small classes but in small schools.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Homeschooler that can do it well have the obvious advantage of very small class size. But not everyone can do it well. Not everyone has the time, talent, resources etc.
My sister homeschools her girls up to high school. The oldest is a junior and has been excelling - first in her class her freshman and sophomore years - the middle one starts as a freshman next year. It has been great for them. Family trips, individualized curricula etc. But not everyone has the ability or the resources to do what my sister has done.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Rivka- I wasn't talking about enlargening schools, just districts.
If you have seperate districts right now, you have seperate buildings. But you also have different central offices. And its those central offices that can be expanded.
E.G. payroll. You really don't make a payroll coordinators job that much harder by going from a district of 2000 kids to a district of 10,000 kids. You might need an extra secretary, and you should probably pay a bit more.
My school district spends about 200,000 right now on payroll and insurance administration. If we figure we combine with 4 other districts our size, the total expenditure is 1,000,000 for that administration right now. But combine, lets say we spend 100k more for extra personel, and 20k more to attract better people, so instead of 200,000 we are spending 320,000... but covering instead of 2000 kids, 10,000 kids. or a net savings of 680,000 dollars for payroll and health insurance administration.
The ONLY combinations that would need to occur are combinations of central office personnel, and central office buildings.
Posted by TimeTim (Member # 2768) on :
"I completely misremembered the length of the Finnish school year "
That's awesome Snail. I really want to say that now.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I wasn't talking about enlargening schools, just districts.
Oh! Given that I live in one of the nation's largest school districts, my confusion is perhaps understandable. Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
I think that this is the first topic I have started that reached two pages.
I know it's arrogant, but I just gave myself the wave. Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I know that I would hate to have administrators cut at my school, even if it meant a raise for me. I don't want to have to deal with the crap they deal with. I want to be able to teach, and to rely on them to handle their part of school management.
I even think my district needs more central-level administrators, honestly. I don't think central office growth has kept pace with the growth of the district overall, & that makes it hard to coordinate new initiatives at the district level.
There should be a disparity in teacher/ administrator salaries--it's a harder job (imo), it requires more responsibility, often longer hours, usually specialized education, a better wardrobe , and it's year-round.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
As a future teacher, I, like Liz don't have a problem with administrators making more than I will. I don't want their job, they can have it. But I do have a problem with more money going into the office buildings and facilities of administration vs. the schools.
If my 3rd grader must learn in a trailer cramped with desks with an air conditioning unit so loud the teacher must turn it off every time she wants to actually, you know teach, then I don't think the school district superintendent should be sitting pretty behind her mahogany desk in her nicely appointed climate-controlled office. So long as there are students in portable classrooms, I want the superintendent and other administrators working out of one too.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
My issue with administrators is the accountability issue. The local high school failed to meet ayp so action had to be taken. All the teachers whose classes had done badly on the test got fired (technically- contracts were not renewed). So, goodbye math and science department. Also, clearly the principal was not up to the task, so they promoted her. The next person they offered the principal job refused it because she figured that there was no way she could fix the school (esp since they had very few math and science teachers now) and she didn't have the connections to get a raise when she failed.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I really hate NCLB. Not necessarily the ideas behind it, but the implementation. It really feeds the idea that taking immediate action (no matter how ill-considered and unrelated to student instruction or performance) is the solution to gaps in student achievement.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I skimmed the article once it started into rhetoric, and wondered why it wasn't in War/World Watch where these articles belong. OSC has done a lot of ignorant bashing of academia, mostly name calling and it drives me nuts.
I believe that the complaint was about moving the school year to begin in mid-August as opposed to the end of August or the beginning of September.
OSC's arguement against was that kids lost time with families. The article did not say whether there would be an increase of days per year or how more days children could be in school. If there are no increased days, vacation would start sooner, or mid year breaks would be longer.
Was there a weather/cultural reason cited by the article (or the Greensboro School board)?
My impression is that southern schools generally run from August to May.
The one advantage I can think of is AP Exams. The AP exams are administered everywhere in the first two weeks of May. Some schools are over as soon as those exams are done, having finished their tenth month. My school was a September to June school, so we had a month of nothing (or more relaxed learning) after AP exams, but had to squish in a year's worth of a huge college level curriculum into a month's less time. It may have just been my school, but we had conspiculously large summer assignments for AP classes, which at least were relevant to the coursework. Other classes had contained summer busywork that made my summer busywork after eighth grade.
I would prefer an eight week summer to a ten week summer, provided that the extra time was given during the school year. I spend the last four weeks of summer wanting to go back to school, if only for boredom reasons. After a certain point, a long break becomes superfluous.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Yeah. I don't know the situation in Greensboro, so I didn't comment on it earlier. I know our district keeps trying to move the start of school earlier (into August), so that we can get out earlier in June. The Kings Dominion lobby won't let it happen--school has to start after Labor Day.
And yes, our desire to start earlier/ end earlier has a lot to do with the timing of state testing.
Edit to make post make sense.
[ April 22, 2007, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Liz B ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I personally don't have a problem with stretching out the school year and having a shorter summer break, either. I'd rather have more time at Christmas/New Year's and actual spring and fall breaks and a shorter summer.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:OSC's arguement against was that kids lost time with families.
And the justification was hopelessly anecdotal.
He says 'the smartest kids I see in my college class are homeschooled' and he uses this as an overarching proof of his conclusions.
Problem is, even if we were to value his own anecdotal experience over methodological study, it's still bunk: he's not recognizing that his own 'sample' is already pruned so efficiently as to be unrepresentative of the effectiveness of homeschooling. His sample is not just the category of "homeschooled kids," it's also "students in his class." A college class. He is only looking at succesfully homeschooled children in a narrow demographic of homeschooled kids.
The large large large large portion of kids who recieve crappy and/or unsuited homeschooling are conveniently evaporated from his anecdotal sample, since they won't be in any college. Ever.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [QUOTE] The large large large large portion of kids who recieve crappy and/or unsuited homeschooling are conveniently evaporated from his anecdotal sample, since they won't be in any college. Ever.
It's too bad we don't hold school to the same standards most people with like to hold homeschoolers to. Lots of kids recieve crappy public educations, too, but most people are more willing to forgive that.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Hm. I think there's actually a LOT of public concern about the quality of public education. There's certainly a lot of legislation about it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
My experience with home schooled students over 15 years at teaching at the University level is quite different from Mr. Cards. In my experience, home schooled students are likely to show deficits in several important areas. Most notably they are less able to deal with complexity and diversity, their critical thinking skills are less well developed, they are less capable of working in teams and they frequently have a harder time learning from lectures and following a class schedule.
Perhaps a part of the difference is that I teach science and engineering while Mr. Card is teaching creative writing and home schoolers frequently have bigger knowledge deficits in math and science than they do in English. That however does not fully explain the difference. For several years I served on a Predential Scholars selection committee where I interviewed candidates for these scholarships. Each year we had several home schooled students in the pool. These were always students who had excellent exam scores and recommendations or they would never have made it to the interview stage. With out exception the home school students performed very poorly in the interviews by comparison to their public school peers which forms the basis the deficits I summarized above.
What's more, these students were the top home schooled students, the situation was even worse with many of the home schooled freshmen I've dealt with. While some parents do an excellent job of homeschooling, others do not. In Montana a large number of the home schooled population were from ultra-conservative religious families who home schooled in order to shelter their children. Some of these kids had never read a book that wasn't certified Christian literature. They had almost no science background. The worst case scenario I dealt with were some home schooled children I worked with at church. The kid who were age 9 and 11 were barely reading on a kindergarten level.
The public schools have plenty of problems but the biggest problems public schools face aren't under their control. A friend of mine taught elementary school in a local inner city school. Most of the children in that area moved every few months due to unstable family situations. She said that it was unusual for her to have even one child at the end of the school year who had been in her class at the beginning of the year.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
So if kids do badly in public schools, it's not the public school's fault so it's ok? I really hope I'm reading something you didn't intend there, Rabbit.
Again, I'd like to see options available to people without all the stigma attached of not doing things the "right" way. Public school isn't for everyone. Homeschooling isn't for everyone. And with private, charter, and magnet schools, there's plenty of compromise space in between.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So if kids do badly in public schools, it's not the public school's fault so it's ok?
What Rabbit's saying is that if a mugger beats up your daughter and steals her purse, it's not entirely your fault.
By the same token, even the best school in the world can't entirely compensate for poor parenting.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Or for the issue commonly referred to as "migration," which may not be an issue of poor parenting -- but is still a problem schools have no control over.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
What I'm saying is that there are many factors which contribute to a kid's performance in school and that many of them are outside the control of the schools. If a kid is doing badly in a public school (or a private school) it could be for any number of reasons. It could be because the kid never does his homework, it could be because the kid has a learning disability, it could be because his parents don't help and encourage him, it could be because he just isn't very smart, it could be because the teacher is bad, it could be because he has a different learning style, it could be because he's going through some sort of life trama, or it could be for any number of other reasons.
When people try to solve the problems in the public schools without first understanding the source of the problems, they end up with nonsensical programs like no child left behind.
Comparisons between public schools, private schools, charter schools and home schools are often highly flawed because they don't control for important sociological factors that differ between different school types such as parental envolvement, english language in the home, disabilities, economic status and so forth. When studies control for these factors, they find that public schools and private schools perform about the same.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
One study I'd really like to see is a comparison between children who are home schooled, children whose parents volunteer regularly in the public schools, and children in charter/magnet schools that require parents to volunteer. If such a study has been done, I haven't been able to find it.
I think it would be extremely valuable since it would aid parents in determining whether home schooling or volunteering in traditional schools was a better investment of their time and energy.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Comparisons between public schools, private schools, charter schools and home schools are often highly flawed because they don't control for important sociological factors that differ between different school types such as parental envolvement, english language in the home, disabilities, economic status and so forth. When studies control for these factors, they find that public schools and private schools perform about the same.
Thank you Rabbit. This, indeed, was the point I was trying to make, but you put it in broader terms.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Thanks for clarifying, Rabbit. I was pretty sure that couldn't have been what you were saying, but I like to be sure.
At the same time, it's almost more depressing that way. If the problem was just learning environment, you could match the kid up with what's right for them and it would be all better. This way, how do you compensate for the fact that some kids are just poor? Or got crappy parents? We can't fix that.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I think the biggest problem with Public Education right now is that we have so many things we expect teachers to squeeze into a 180 day school year, and Legislators/Districts are constantly adding more. In Utah, the Public School Curriculum has doubled in the last 50 years (most of it in the last 20) but they haven't added a single day to the school year for (I'm stabbing for the numbers on this one) something around 80 years.
I think home schoolers can be better students because their parents can pick and choose the pace at which to teach a certain subject. A public school teacher has maybe one week, or one day even, to teach something that may take a couple of weeks for some students to understand. In these situations, parental involvement really helps. For example, in third grade, my teacher's schedule was so tight, she went over how to make change for a dollar in one day...well I didn't get it in one day, so I failed the quiz. If my parents hadn't been there to teach me, with the aid of multicolored marshmallows instead of pennies nickels and dimes, I probably wouldn't have passed the test or made it very far in my first job either.
I honestly think that adding some time to the school year, and/or seriously hacking some of the required courses a little bit would seriously help. And of course, as a guy who's likely to end up teaching History: a pay raise for teachers would be really awesome, would help attract talented education graduates therefore culling the number of bad teachers in the schools etc. etc. kind of goes without saying. Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: I think that this is the first topic I have started that reached two pages.
I know it's arrogant, but I just gave myself the wave.
I was excited when mine did for the first time too. Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
Rabbit: Your comments finally convinced me to stop being a lurker on this board. I'm a 17 year old sophomore math major, and I homeschooled starting in seventh grade. I also live in NC, so I get to see a lot of homeschoolers.
I think the distinction needs to be made as to why a given student is homeschooling. In my case, it is because the public schools refused to teach me. By leaving the school system, I gained the freedom to move forward at a pace that the local teachers can't comprehend.
I also have many friends who are being homeschooled for religious reasons. In those families, they use mostly pre-packaged curriculums that aren't much better than the public school materials. (There are exceptions, of course. Saxon math books are much better for the average student than anything I've seen in the public schools.)
But the ones who are homeschooled for religious reasons do tend to be far more sheltered. Some are hopelessly naive well into their teenage years, but all of those kids have a different outlook on life. They spend most of their childhood being kids, and they take a long time to develop any cynicism.
A few weeks ago, I was facilitating a leadership training for my scout troop. We had about a dozen boys in the room. Only one of my students had ever attended a public school. The rest were either in private christian schools or homeschooled. I was trying to find an example to illustrate the concept of group norms. The first thing I came up with was this: In our scout troop, it is completely normal and accepted behavior to go for several days living off freeze dried food while romping around 20 miles from the nearest telephone or cell tower. I asked if their friends at school would consider that weird. Only one boy had classmates that aren't in scouts, so that totally backfired.
On the other hand, I know several kids that are in situations similar to mine. Our Scoutmaster went to college pretty early, and his kids are pretty smart. They started homeschooling shortly after they met me (though they haven't said if I was the cause). They've been using curriculum materials handed down from other families in the church, and they aren't working very well.
One of their boys is at the age where he barely knows algebra. He recently discovered that I'm capable of answering any of his questions about math, and I'm pretty sure he will have a working knowledge of calculus (and maybe some analysis and abstract algebra) by the end of this summer.
It is quite fair to say that many, if not most, homeschoolers do not get a well rounded education. But I think the academic stuff they do pick up is invariably the stuff that will matter most to them throughout their life. In that respect, I think homeschooling does a better job of preparing kids for their adult life.
The social aspects can be a problem, but they are rarely as bad as many people think they are. Any parent who doesn't get their homeschooled kid involved in an organization like BSA is doing their kid a disservice. Homeschoolers have the flexibility to make the most of those opportunities. For example, I know that any boy in my troop over the age of 13 is a more capable leader than anybody in our county government. (My mom happens to work for those politicians.)
Also, even though I was homeschooler, and even though I started college very young, none of my instructors has ever guessed. They don't notice any immaturity. Also, the faculty members that are in a position to deal with homeschoolers all have a positive view of homeschooling. I think it is because I'm at a good university, as opposed to the community colleges that the less academic homeschoolers end up at.
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
My other cousin in the same family is sending his kids to a Christian private school.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)