Originally Posted by
HollyB
Re: Public Funding for the Arts:
There are many studies that suggest a foundation in the arts (music, art, drama) enhance a students understanding in core areas. Music helps with math, knowledge of art helps with the study of history, and so on. I think suggestions that the public should not fund these subjects for a "few" students are short sighted. Are you making the same suggestion for sports, vocational training, foreign language, etc.? A well-rounded curriculum exists because students learn in different ways. Having different activities available gives you the best chance of hitting a students learning style. As has been pointed out, one-size-fits-all does not work in schools. We should be expanding the program offerings as much as we can afford, not contracting them.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of schools, at least in our area, use a "cookie cutter", "one size fits all" method of teaching. The picture I am being painted looks too much like the exceptional kids are getting left to wait for the less achieving.
Re: longer school days and longer calendar year
There are indeed studies that show students who attend school for longer than the 180 days currently used by the American school system do better than many of our students. But I'd be happy if we hit the 180 days. School districts allow teacher in service days/parent-teacher conference days, and half days to count. Studies show that most school districts get in somewhere between 150 and 170 actual instruction days. I know our school district sits at about 164. Take out testing days as well and I would bet, most kids are getting less than 160 days of instruction per year. Let's change that. 180 full days in the classroom plus a week for testing. Teachers should get their in service days, but not at the expense of a teaching day.
I agree with you here but just to add...the day needs to be much more educationally sound also...
As for a longer school year, I think spreading those 180 days out over the calendar year would work well for retaining learning. All schools have to do it for it to work, however. There was a push to move the high schools to year round here, but they can't do it because it messes with the athletic schedule. Someone made the point that it would cause havoc with tourist economies. It would shift the timing of tourism, but I don't think it would hurt it in the long run.
And for a longer school day, I'm for that as long as it has an accompanying drop in homework. There are good studies that show that homework does more to widen the learning gap than eliminate it after third grade. If the student doesn't understand the problem/assignment and has no one to help at home, that homework isn't helping. It's hindering. Use that extra hour in the classroom to reinforce teaching for all students.
I like homework. That is what keeps me informed of what my kids are doing and learning and how they are learning it. It allows me to be able to help where needed, pick up where the teacher has left off, help my children maintain the excellent status at the top of their class.
Re: Tracking
I agree with the person that said tracking should be reintroduced, but you have to be really careful. A lot of schools with tracking systems were hit with lawsuits because minority students were more likely to be placed in lower tracked classes (regardless of ability). So I think tracking should be tied to ability, but testing needs to be done, not just the assignment whim of some teacher or administrator--or even a parent.
And I suppose here comes my "politically in-correctness" because I don't care what color you are, where you live, or what your parents do for a living...why should kids that do have parents at home (and I work full time and volunteer and drive my kids to 5 or six different activities a week and still make dinner, shop for groceries, clean the house, etc...and still make time for homework help) have to be brought down by kids whose parents may not be able to do that...and yes, I will feel sorry for those kids but I don't see why that should take away from my kids's education that we are working hard to advance. I think we need, need, need to seperate kids by reading level and math level specifically. I think we need to point out exceptional kids and give the other kids something to strive for. I think we need to reward kids who do well, once again giving kids something to strive for.
For example...around here, if you join a baseball or football team you play. If you mom and dad paid their money you ge tto play. It does not matter that you missed 3 of the 4 practices this week or that you cannot seem to learn to catch a ball, or whatever. You play. We do not put any emphasis on winning or (God forbid!) losing...that would be bad! So what has this done? Has it made the poorer players better? Has it made the good kids better? Has it encouraged either? I propose that it has lowered the moralle of the good players. I propose it has given the poorer players absolutely no incentive at all to try harder...to learn more...to get better. We don't even have All-Star teams becasue that would be saying that these are the best players and that would be BAD. Someone's feelings may get hurt. A parent may have to actually parent!
The kids aren't cookie cutter, but too many teachers teach like they are. Differentiated education needs to be the norm, not the exception so that all kids progress each year. We need to test how much each kid has learned individually (What did he know on day 1? What does he know on day 180?) or it's not meaningful.
That would be a wonderful thing but then we get back to who is doing what and someone is going to have their feelings hurt because Johnnie was ranked higher that Sammy and rather that Sammy's parents encouraging and helping Sammie to catch up to Johnnie they will just go complain to the school or the government and we'll change everything to be easier for Sammy...that's the way it works these days!
Parent Involvement:
This is one of the most frustrating aspects of our education system. Parents are stretched thin, too. Many were failed by the education system themselves and don't know how to advocate for their child. No question that kids with involved parents do better. Some parents don't have that luxury, however, as they are working two or three jobs to meet basic needs: food and shelter.
I get this...however, when you made that choice to become a parent, didn't you also make that choice to help your child be the best he/she can be? Even if that means you suffer a little? I certainly did! And because I did, should my child have to suffer becasue someone else didn't? Becasue in the long run, that is what my child will do...the child who is not getting the help at home is getting taught to at the level he is at...my child, on the other hand, who is well above that level is having to sit back and do busy work until everyone is all caught up. In the long run this worse for my kid than making the other work up I think.
So how do we combat that?
It's up to us to step up when we can and get involved. Mentor someone else's kid. Stop thinking only about what is right for "my" kid. Education is everyone's concern.
We can spend 13 years educating kids--at taxpayer expense--so that they become productive members of society, either via a trade or a profession. Or we can spend 60 years supporting people--at taxpayer expense--because they can't find work because they aren't literate, aren't engaged in society, aren't employable.
Unfortunately, this is easier said than done these days. Everything is so sensitive to people that you are not allowed in as easily as you might have been 30 years ago. People get insulted easier. In a perfect world...
Frankly, I know which I'd rather do!
Off my soapbox now. . . . Thanks for reading my long list of points. . . .