Posts
The Center on Education Policy, a nonpartisan think tank, reports that schools are spending more time on math and reading instruction since NCLB was passed.
I don't think this is a bad thing, per se. It's probably a good thing, in fact.
The survey reports that about 30 more minutes a day (on average) are spent on math and reading than before. Less time is spent on social studies, science, music, art, and gym.
My only question is, why aren't they cutting character ed time for math and reading so they can preserve science, art, history, music, etc?
I'd gladly see elementary schools slash character ed in favor of math and reading, and keep the other subjects in tact.
Why isn't anyone cutting the bogus classes? How many parents would rather see time cut in science than in character ed?
I know my "high performing" school district wastes far more than 30 minutes per day in a variety of character ed kinds of things -- don't even get me started on the all school assemblies to sing and dance about "respect" and "friendship." This is where the time for math and reading instruction should come from. There is plenty of time available in the day to teach the academic subjects to mastery.
We don't need to cut one academic course in favor of another. We need to get rid of the silly stuff. Then our children will have plenty of time available for math, reading, science, history, gym, music, and art. It also wouldn't hurt to lengthen the school day in low performing schools if they really need to have more time for math and science.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Character ed & health should be the first things to go.
They absolutely shouldn't be cutting time on social studies. If Hirsch is right (and I think he is) social studies is probably the most effective booster of reading comprehension of all the subjects.
His core curriculum is very heavy on history.
The schools provide so much character education because the politicians like it. NCLB offers funds for character education: "The fourth approach tries to improve character through student engagement in constructive activities outside of the traditional classroom context. The No Child Left Behind Education Act addresses this kind of character education through its initiation of 21st Century Community Learning Centers. These aim to foster school, community, and family collaborations that promote out-of-school learning, academic advancement, and character development, particularly among at-risk youth. Funds may support collaborations with for-profit companies, nonprofit agencies, postsecondary institutions, and other community-based organizations to provide afterschool programming in such areas as tutoring, arts education, music lessons, recreation opportunities, and technology education. Congress has appropriated $1 billion dollars to this endeavor, and over eight thousand geographically diverse public schools and communities currently participate." (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:a7-ebZoq-GcJ:www.pubpol.duke.edu/centers/child/publications/policybriefs/files/edureform/Summit-Character.pdf+character+education+congress&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us&client=safari)
Considering the list of things One May Not Mention in public schools, in my opinion, character education comes close to a Monty Python skit.
I've realized that music and art - the so-called "specials" - are some of the most serious courses being taught in a lot of our schools.
Apparently art & music have not been colonized by the health & character ed lobbies.
The schools provide so much character education because the politicians like it.
It's a legal requirement!
They HAVE to offer it!
(In my state, at least.)
Oh yeah! Health! Don't forget the recent "wellness" initiatives!
Both character education and health are fuzzy enough to drive a truck through them. How can one objectively measure the effectiveness of such programs?
I do have a child in a private school which does a wonderful job forming their students' characters. However, parents who choose to send their kids to a private school have chosen to give up many of the rights they would have in public school.
WELLNESS
omg
Two years ago our entire life was about WELLNESS.
Unfortunately that era proved the truth of the maxim that it can always be worse.
The wellness committee produced real improvements (changes in the lunchroom offerings - good changes).
This year was bomb threat year.
However, parents who choose to send their kids to a private school have chosen to give up many of the rights they would have in public school.
I know (from afar, that is).
We haven't had a child in private school, AND we haven't been strongly motivated to try to get C. into a private school.
There's no question in my mind that the best private schools around here (and, in L.A., the Catholic schools) are providing a better education.
But the number of rules and regulations you have to deal with at private schools....
Seems like a lot.
If we were still in L.A., though, I would probably have talked Ed into putting C. in a Catholic high school by now.
Two years ago the then-principal of the middle school was constantly talking about the fact that he was ahead of schedule on implementing character education.
My feeling about that was: let's change the motto to Irvington Schools: In Full Compliance With State Law.
The Tennessee study apparently found that the best schools had character ed programs with measurable results.
They looked at number of "behavior referrals" etc.
TESTED, Linda Perlstein's book, mentions the school's character ed program in the first chapter. The numbers have stopped going up in the school's character ed program & the principal is now looking for another program.
I might be interested in a character ed program that is focused on "school character" - i.e. study skills & motivation, etc.
Also, if you have a lot of - bomb threats, say - a character ed program that reduces numbers of kids being sent to the principal's office, would be a good thing.
As usual with the schools, we're hiring fuzzies to put "character ed" in place when what we're really talking about is bad behavior.
Which calls for a good behavior analyst.
Change of subject--I know you are interested in all things math, have you seen this? When I read it I thought of you--even though I don't know you! :)
Dad Writes Math Textbooks
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070720/SCHOOLS/707200402/1026
Character ed is "taught" in the abstract. Rarely is it done in any kind of a meaningful way. For example, kids model behavior. If you want to teach a child to behave respectfully, they'll learn it better watching adults treat each other respectfully than through a discussion on how to be respectful.
Most character ed programs try to get around this by making up skits or mock demonstrations to substitute for the modeling of the behavior.
Unfortunately all is undone when a teacher, parent, TA, or principal acts disrespectfully and gets away with it.
Plus, the skits and demonstrations are usually so transparent that the kids can see right through them and tell you what the "right" answer is. That doesn't mean they'll be able to successfully generalize to a much harder, more realistic situation.
In my opinion, public schools have far more rules and regulations than private schools. They're called laws. It doesn't really matter for the schools if they're federal or state laws, as the schools must implement all of them. Add in the employment contracts, for administrators and union employees. Don't forget "past practice!" If your school's in a large school district, add another layer of bureaucracy to the mix.
A well run private school will seem to have a lot of rules and regulations. They will also enforce them, and, in my opinion, will not keep rules they don't enforce on their books.
I've had children in both public and private schools. I can't imagine how parents give up rights when they send their kids to a private school -- in fact, my experience has been just the opposite, that as a paying customer who has chosen the school, I have far more rights than any public school parent.
Every school has rules; the difference between public and private schools is that in private schools, parents actually have a voice and schools have more flexibility. In public schools, our input is deemed unnecessary and unwanted.
--lori
I think Lori makes some good points.
In public school scheduling, I find the middle school and high school are inflexible. Kids are scheduled in groups because its convenient. If your kid would benefit from some other arrangement any argument you might make will be entirely ignored.
I'm finding private schools tend to be more flexible in that regard. They are able to individualize the instruction.
Here in CT there are a lot of good to great private schools and the competition is intense between them. The school personnel go out of there way to explain policies and justify their reactions. Public school officials have never bothered to listen, respond, or explain. They have a take it or leave it approach. And why not? the loss of a couple kids has no impact on the bottom line and might even help keep class sizes down.
I suppose I've seen the other side. I find the student body, and the parents, in the private school to be better behaved, because the parents know that the administration does not need to put up with bad behavior.
From a quick Google, a summary of a student's rights in private school: "If you go to a private school, you are not covered by the same laws as public schools. Private schools are covered by something called contract law. Practically speaking, that means you'd better follow the rules, particularly the ones which have serious penalties for infraction. I'm thinking of the big ones like hazing, cheating, sexual misconduct, substance abuse and so on. Mess with these and you will find yourself on the outside looking in in a nano-second." (http://privateschool.about.com/cs/students/a/studentsrights.htm)
Plus, the skits and demonstrations are usually so transparent that the kids can see right through them . . .
When your kid comes home and tells you how stupid all this stuff is and how much they hate it...can they possibly be learning anything? That's how my kids react to character ed, "seminar," health, "advisory," assemblies, etc. I'm guessing these no-brain activities probably account for between 40 min and and hour of every school day.
Hey, in Singapore, we waste 20-30 minutes a day on assembly, raising the flag, singing the anthem, and on national day, some schools get a "VIP" speaker (read: a government minister someone from Parliament using the school auditorium as an election platform to expound on the nature of how we should be good little grateful citizens for our prosperity) "privilege", where we're so lucky to have them condescend to us by speaking "a few words" to us for a few hours.
I must admit stamping your sneakers to attention at the call of "sah sadiyat" (a Malay command) and hearing the feet of 800 peers resonate around you in militarylike fashion was a guilty pleasure I enjoyed, but hey.
What I didn't enjoy was the occasional speech by the school staff, usually by the principal or the discipline master, following the foreverly enduringly long list of announcements read aloud (while we're still standing at attention, miind you). And if you're in a religious school, you get all this on top of daily devotion, which is also conducted while you're (you guessed it) still standing steadfast at attention.
I must say, while most of my peers remained unconvinced of the nationalistic fervour they were trying to indoctrinate into us, and while I don't know what academic advantages it gave me, it definitely affected morale. Both ways.
(School length in Singapore can be erratic and differs from school to school, and often the day. The average is from 7:30 to 1:30, from my guess, though since I attended ACSI they often did not dismiss us after 2:40; in the IP stream it is 3:30. My primary school started at 7:20 and ended at 12:50. By all means, school length should not be a dogma. I mean, most adults work eight hours or more anyway right?)
"Public school officials have never bothered to listen, respond, or explain. They have a take it or leave it approach. And why not? the loss of a couple kids has no impact on the bottom line and might even help keep class sizes down."
It's not the concept of the public school, but how the parents lobby. The parents paying the taxes should be the ones who at least have a good amount of power electing school policy.
In New England at least, public schools are often quite accomodating for individuals, because the power parents hold over the schools is very strong.
Parents should be more than just the people who riot whenever they think their child's teacher has committed the oh-so-horrific injustice of giving him a bad grade; they must learn to act collectively and support one another's collective interests (and this goes beyond just being in an "association").
Character ed is "taught" in the abstract. Rarely is it done in any kind of a meaningful way.
It's bizarre.
At least, witnessing "character ed" from afar is a bizarre experience.
We aren't particularly privy to all the character ed going on in the school, but what I see just looks ludicrously point-free.
The middle school is plastered all over with printed-out "FOCUS" words, like Ownership, Fairness, etc.
They print these words out, one to a sheet, on colored printer paper and scotch tape them to the front windows.
That's all they've got up at the middle school. FOCUS words and S.A.D.D. posters & the occasional drinkin', druggin' celebrity parents display.
I look at this stuff and I think: is there a person alive on the planet who believes that scotch-taped FOCUS words improve 12-year old character?
I've had children in both public and private schools. I can't imagine how parents give up rights when they send their kids to a private school -- in fact, my experience has been just the opposite, that as a paying customer who has chosen the school, I have far more rights than any public school parent.
Every school has rules; the difference between public and private schools is that in private schools, parents actually have a voice and schools have more flexibility. In public schools, our input is deemed unnecessary and unwanted.
That's good to hear.
I've been privy (privvy?) to a couple of horror stories on the part of private schools around here... (not "horror" - that's not right - just extremely high-handed behavior).
It makes sense to me that parents have more say in private schools.
otoh, there is fairly intense competition for slots in private schools here, which may be tipping the balance more towards the school...
I don't know
When your kid comes home and tells you how stupid all this stuff is and how much they hate it...can they possibly be learning anything? That's how my kids react to character ed, "seminar," health, "advisory," assemblies, etc. I'm guessing these no-brain activities probably account for between 40 min and and hour of every school day.
Ed has strong feelings on this. He thinks it's a very, very bad idea to implement (implement!) programs that cause young students to view the adults as foolish and not to be listened to.
He thinks these programs undermine authority.
I'm sure he's right about that.
Here in CT there are a lot of good to great private schools and the competition is intense between them.
right
I'm sure there's a difference between CT & Westchester in this (or at least so I here from parents who are hoping to get their kids into private schools).
The families are doing the competing here, it seems.
Parents should be more than just the people who riot whenever they think their child's teacher has committed the oh-so-horrific injustice of giving him a bad grade; they must learn to act collectively and support one another's collective interests (and this goes beyond just being in an "association").
I love it!
That should be our motto!
Parents should be more than just the people who riot when their kid gets a bad grade!
I'm serious.
I really do love that comment.
I don't know why, exactly, it's so difficult for parents to work collectively....here in the U.S., at least.
I actually think there are psychoanalytic reasons!
(Not psychoanalytic as in "parents are crazy," but psychoanalytic as in "parents were children once"...and some other things.)
The situation for parents working to improve schools may be similar to the situation with parents working to raise money for autism research.
I've mentioned several times that I was on the board of the National Alliance for Autism Research.
NAAR was a good group, but we had our share of politics, intensity, emotion, personal flareups & breakups, etc.
It was obvious to me from the get-to (it was obvious to all of us, I think) that we were dealing with the most profound trauma of our lives every single day. That was our job: go out there and try to wrest money from people to fund research to maybe find SOMETHING that would help our kids SOME DAY.
Basically, we were all "working out of" our trauma.
This sounds horribly psychoanalytic now, but you probably see what I mean.
EVERYTHING we did was shot through with profound loss and fear for the future, when we would be gone and our children would remain.
I think we all did a decent job keeping it together, given the circumstances.
But it was tough, and I don't think you're going to find B-school types writing Good to Great books about the world of autism volunteer work any time soon.
All of which is a roundabout way of saying that parents are DEEPLY vulnerable when it comes to their kids. When we have children we give hostages to fortune.
Plus parents are competitive with each other; parents are competitive with each other's kids. I don't say that as a criticism; I think competition is a good thing; certainly it's an inevitable thing.
All I'm saying is that when you put all this together you end up with a group of people who broadly speaking share the same goals and yet have many barriers to working together.
"I don't know why, exactly, it's so difficult for parents to work collectively....here in the U.S., at least."
It's not hard; they just don't want to, mostly because they don't want to improve the schools for everyone, just for their own kid(s).
Some years ago, I read about a study that showed parents of high-achieving students didn't want other students to have access to the same "extras" (can't remember the specifics) their kids had, even if it had no impact on their kids. They liked the status of the extras, so they preferred to keep the status for their kids, even to the detriment of other people's kids.
Parents are competitive, not collaborative. They want what's best for their kid(s) (or what they perceive to be best), other children be damned.
Can't remember where I read about it, so if you ask me for a source, you've got me.
What began as concern for my children, spilled over to concern for a generation of children. It seems that people mistrust these intentions however, and any threat to the status quo is seen to have ulterior motives that are not geniune. The result was circling back to my original inspiration. I ended up lobbying for my own children (and any parents who felt the same way I do) because most parents don't feel comfortable rocking the boat (or even having me rock the boat for them). I have to respect that. It's their children, their choice. Anyway, that's what gets in the way of collaboration for me personally... there is no lack of desire to do so at all. It just gets to a point where it's easier to save my point of view and actions for those few opportunities where it just might make a difference.
Post a Comment