Fucking education! How does it work?

[LadyShea]

Okay, the meme still works for me, so deal haters.

Anyhoo, this topic came up in this thread about world sailing kids (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20984&highlight=sailor), then again yesterday in chat when Adam started a war with me by saying school was more important than sailing for Laura Dekker specifically (but he means for everyone always probably :glare:).

Also, this comes up a lot when homeschooling is discussed or banned (as it has been in both Sweden and Germany).
“It’s a fear that [home schooling] doesn’t work appropriate[ly],”~ Swedish Educational Ministry press secretary Anna Neuman (though she admitted there was no report or evidence to back up the fear.) Source (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/3885-sweden-bans-home-schooling-religious-instruction)

Exactly what is taught and how it's taught and what's important are constantly discussed (and focuses changed) when comparing education in different countries, comparing private to public schools, school boards and states deciding curriculum, parents choosing magnet or charter schools. etc.

Some percentage of people seem to feel there some objective and easily identified "proper" education. Why? Who's to say that the scope and sequence found in X schools is better for any individual than some other type of education, like, say the things one can learn while sailing the world, or traveling in general, or through self led study as in unschooling? Where's the evidence that one type of education is superior to another, and how is superiority determined? What subjects are the most important for every kid to know? Why?

[Waluigi]

NOTE: This is a U.S. specific response:

What subjects are the most important for every kid to know?
IMO, until we as a society can answer this question, the whole debate about public vs. private vs. charter vs. homeschool vs. unschool is secondary.

We're not able to articulate what a high school graduate should know, how can we possibly say that one institution of learning is more effective than another? What does a successfully executed secondary education look like?

[Ensign Steve]

What subjects are the most important for every kid to know? Why?

I agree with Waluigi, and also want to ask, "What subjects are the most important for adult to know?" and point out that a whole shitload of it is not taught in school. Or if so, not very well, or only as an elective. See fitness and nutrition, financial management, changing a tire, how to give and receive mind-blowing orgasms, table manners and etiquette, when and how to fight the man, etc.

Edit: My point being that people, children and adults, appear to be able to learn all kinds of important knowledge and skills outside of the :openquote:traditional:closequote: school environment, so what's to say they couldn't learn everything they need to learn that way (and avoid wasting time on stuff that they don't want or need).

[Adam]

Since I was mentioned by name...(and I tried to fight a war with you yesterday, but you logged out to do some werk or something, Meanie Shae! I put my dukes up and everything!)

IMO, until we as a society can answer this question, the whole debate about public vs. private vs. charter vs. homeschool vs. unschool is secondary.

I disagree. I think there's value in assuring that everyone gets a consistent baseline education, even if we're not 100% certain that it is the best education a person could theoretically get. I think at minimum this means having an agreed upon curriculum that all students are required to complete, and providing publicly funded schools at which it is taught.

I don't have any particularly strong views on whether or not private schooling or homeschooling should be allowed or disallowed, provided those forms of schooling cover the baseline curriculum. I'm leery of unschooling because I don't see how there's a mechanism for assuring that a student will get a baseline education consistent with what everyone else is getting.

In the specific context of the sailing girl, I was mostly reacting to the notion that thinking that a sailing trip is not an acceptable excuse for missing out on part of that curriculum is some kind of overrestrictive European nanny-state thing.

[Ensign Steve]

I disagree. I think there's value in assuring that everyone gets a consistent baseline education, even if we're not 100% certain that it is the best education a person could theoretically get. I think at minimum this means having an agreed upon curriculum that all students are required to complete, and providing publicly funded schools at which it is taught.
What happens when the "agreed-upon" curriculum falls into Texas Textbook Shenanigans (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22017) territory?

I don't have any particularly strong views on whether or not private schooling or homeschooling should be allowed or disallowed, provided those forms of schooling cover the baseline curriculum. I'm leery of unschooling because I don't see how there's a mechanism for assuring that a student will get a baseline education consistent with what everyone else is getting.
I'm not a parent, but if I was I would fight tooth and nail to ensure that my child did not get that baseline TTS education because it would just be more work to unteach it in the long run.

Sure it would be great if there was a baseline education that was worthwhile (english, math, civics, whatever I don't know or care, I think that's Waluigi's point at least in the bit you quoted ... "we" as a society haven't agreed upon anything so far), but in the US at least, the baseline is total crap. Maybe it is better in Europe. :shrug:

In the specific context of the sailing girl, I was mostly reacting to the notion that thinking that a sailing trip is not an acceptable excuse for missing out on part of that curriculum is some kind of overrestrictive European nanny-state thing.
The nanny-state issue is that the state or the judge or whoever felt it was appropriate to overrule the wishes of the parent and the child. It's one thing to have the village or society or whoever provide public education to children, it's another thing altogether to have the state's decision override the parents' decision for their own children.

[LadyShea]

I was mostly reacting to the notion that thinking that a sailing trip is not an acceptable excuse for missing out on part of that curriculum is some kind of overrestrictive European nanny-state thing.

It is absolutely nanny!

And sorry we couldn't have our battle Tweedle Dum, I did get stuck doing stupid work

a consistent baseline education

So, what, exactly is involved in the baseline?

In coming up with a long term plan (totally flexible of course) I figured out that the baseline (in the US) is as follows:

Reading/Language arts (grammar, spelling, writing, literature, etc)
Mathematics
Social Studies (incl. history, geography, politics, government)
Science

But to what extent should each of these be taught?

[wei yau]

I'm with LS on this one.

I'm not convinced that any kind of baseline is absolutely required. I can't imagine any type of homeschooling would be so deficient as to be a concern for society at large.

Besides, once all the illegal immigrant labor leaves, we're gonna need the homeschooled to sell water at on-ramps, hold up signs for furniture sales and mow my lawn.

[Ensign Steve]

Oh, also, I disagree that schools as they are now provide any specific baseline that every single student needs to have. I think everybody needs to know how to read and count, but a lot of kids already learn that before going into kindergarten.

Beyond that, I think some kids need Calculus and other kids need 17th Century French Literature, but I bet there are very few kids that will end up having a use for both in their adult life. I recommend offering all of them so the student will have a chance to challenge themselves and see what they are interested in or good at. But when the kid reaches that age where they know they just plain aren't into math, it's just cruel to force them to take year after year of algebra, geometry, etc. If they're not good at it, they're not going to go into a field that requires it, and vice versa. In the meantime it just causes fights and bad grades and feelings of failure.

[LadyShea]

I came up with my baseline list looking at what most colleges require for undergrads. In general they aren't that specific re: what level of math or science, or what specific concepts of language arts, or the scope and sequence of history.

I did very well on the ACT without calculus or physics, and with my 4th English credit being for yearbook. Also, not every kid wants to go to college, so does someone wanting to be a tradesman need to study Shakespeare?

[Adam]

I think there ought to be an implied "by appropriate experts" somewhere in my first post. Obviously, the Texas Board of Education is in the thrall of ignorant reactionaries right now, but I don't think that counts as an argument against having educational standards any more than the fact that many homeschoolers are ignorant fundamentalists counts as an argument against homeschooling.

To me, it's mostly a basic issue of equality. For every Shea out there, there's an ignorant and incurious parent who, absent a mandated standard, would not see to it that there children were properly educated, or a wildeyed nutjob who goes to great lengths to see to it that their kids learn all about the importance of the gold standard and the insidious way the War of Northern Aggression forced the peace loving South into tax-slavery to their northern cousins. I think their childrens' interests are served by mandating some minimum standard of education that must be provided. If that means that someone else's kid, who is getting a good education anyway, also has to learn about subjects that they don't care about, or their parents don't think are necessary, well, I'm not going to shed too many tears. It's not as though anyone is restricting the freedom of parents to seek out education above and beyond the baseline for their children.

I also think part of where I'm not on the same page as some others is that I don't view education as being solely for the benefit of the individual being educated. I think there's social value in the levelling of the basic ciriculum across classes. I think there's social value to having a population that's consisently familiar with the same set of basic concepts and ideas. I think that, in certain subjects, especially civics, science, and economics, it's beneficial to everyone that each individual have a background in them. It's to your benefit that the people around you understand the basics of how our economy and our government work, and how the natural world works, even if they do not have any particular interest in those topics.

For the record, I was not required to take either Calculus or French Literature in school, although I had the option to take, and did take, and hated, the former. I was required to take certain basic math and language arts classes, certain basic science classes, basic health and fitness classes, basic classes in civics, history, and economics, and probaby some other things I'm forgetting about, as well as to take X number of electives of my own choice.

Finally, I am apparently a proponenet of the nanny state, because I think there are circumstances in which it is entirely appropriate for a judge or other government official to override the wishes of a parent for their children, or the children for themselves. I'm not going to insult everyone's intelligence by bringing up extreme examples.

[Adam]

Also, don't you people know that my job is trolling and one liners and having an army of dopplegangers? WHY DO YOU KEEP STARTING SRS BSNS THRADS THAT I WANT TO RESPOND TO?

[Adam]

So, what, exactly is involved in the baseline?

In coming up with a long term plan (totally flexible of course) I figured out that the baseline (in the US) is as follows:

Reading/Language arts (grammar, spelling, writing, literature, etc)
Mathematics
Social Studies (incl. history, geography, politics, government)
Science

But to what extent should each of these be taught?

I don't know. I'm not an appropriate expert. :tmhappy:

[LadyShea]

Also, don't you people know that my job is trolling and one liners and having an army of dopplegangers? WHY DO YOU KEEP STARTING SRS BSNS THRADS THAT I WANT TO RESPOND TO?

Should we have a thumb war instead?

[Adam]

haha. Nah, I was just making a smartassed comment on the number of actual thoughtful thrads I've stumbled into as of late.

[Ensign Steve]

It's not as though anyone is restricting the freedom of parents to seek out education above and beyond the baseline for their children.
One notable exception being depriving a girl of an opportunity to sail around the fucking world! I mean, c'mon.

I also think part of where I'm not on the same page as some others is that I don't view education as being solely for the benefit of the individual being educated. I think there's social value in the levelling of the basic ciriculum across classes.
There sure is, and the current system is abused to handicap the smart and curious and turn them into the automatons that society wants and needs in order to be calm and orderly.

Also, don't you people know that my job is trolling and one liners and having an army of dopplegangers? WHY DO YOU KEEP STARTING SRS BSNS THRADS THAT I WANT TO RESPOND TO?

I know, right?

[Adam]

One notable exception being depriving a girl of an opportunity to sail around the fucking world! I mean, c'mon.

That's part of where I think it's an equality issue. If the price of making sure that kids who would otherwise be disadvantaged by their parents' disinterest in educating them sufficiently is that some relatively advantaged girl did not get to take a really cool sailing trip, I am not going to stay up crying at night.

Note that I didn't really follow the story closely, so I don't know whether she was given the option to keep up with her education in some nonstandard way while sailing around the world or whatever. If not, then that's pretty stupid.

There sure is, and the current system is abused to handicap the smart and curious and turn them into the automatons that society wants and needs in order to be calm and orderly.

Well, I meant social or economic classes, not really classes that would differentiate between the smart and curious and the not smart or curious, but point taken.

[LadyShea]

Note that I didn't really follow the story closely, so I don't know whether she was given the option to keep up with her education in some nonstandard way while sailing around the world or whatever. If not, then that's pretty stupid.

She was not, they require all kids be in state schools

Of the 4 recent "youngest sailors" -Perham, Watson, the 2 Sunderland kids- 3 were homeschooled/distance educated (watson's family lived on a boat for like 5 years), because it is legal where they live.

[Ensign Steve]

Note that I didn't really follow the story closely, so I don't know whether she was given the option to keep up with her education in some nonstandard way while sailing around the world or whatever. If not, then that's pretty stupid.
I think that the sailing trip itself would be the option to keep up with her education in some nonstandard way. Geography, astronomy, geometry, oceanography, meteorology, biology, fucking knot-tying, whatever logistics are involved in keeping herself fed and watered (I don't even know, never having done that specific thing myself). It's so much more than she could learn in the equivalent time spent in a classroom. Are you saying she should do math and english worksheets for an hour each night in her cabin in addition to all that?

I'll give you that it's unequal. The education she would receive in her months at sea is far better than what she would get in school, IMO. I do think public education is necessary for the more disadvantaged students who would have nothing else otherwise, but I am not comfortable with hobbling the better advantaged students to bring them down to the level of public education. If I'm wrong, and that is the right thing to do for society's sake if not the individual, then it is definitely nanny-state.

[Adam]

Only if their homeschooling did not meet whatever standards of education their societies use (assuming there is one, of course, and if there isn't I think there should be).

ETA @ LS

[Ensign Steve]

Quoting myself, lol.


I think that the sailing trip itself would be the option to keep up with her education in some nonstandard way. Geography, astronomy, geometry, oceanography, meteorology, biology, fucking knot-tying, whatever logistics are involved in keeping herself fed and watered (I don't even know, never having done that specific thing myself). It's so much more than she could learn in the equivalent time spent in a classroom. Are you saying she should do math and english worksheets for an hour each night in her cabin in addition to all that?

Not to mention the fact that she would have limited to no access to television, video games, facebook, cell phone, etc. Maybe she would actually pick up a book of her own accord in that situation.

[mickthinks]

I'm not going to insult everyone's intelligence by bringing up extreme examples.
Oooh, oooh - let me, please! Throughout history, and throughout the world, there have been cultures in which the education of, for example, girls has been considered unnecessary, even downright undesirable. The underlying assumption of the libertarian position on Home Schooling v Nanny State is that parents can be relied upon to act in the best interest of their children, but it just ain't so.

Once a society decides that women's* rights can be denied them in the home classroom, empowering judges to overule parents is a no-brainer, I reckon.

* or substitute gays, aspies or any one of a number of frequently undervalued groups

[LadyShea]

I do think public education is necessary for the more disadvantaged students who would have nothing else otherwise, but I am not comfortable with hobbling the better advantaged students to bring them down to the level of public education.

I agree mostly, but I am more
I do think public education is necessary, but I am not comfortable with eliminating alternatives in an effort to force equality.

[Dragar]

Do bear in mind that not every child (or parent) realises how important certain skills can be.

It's all very well saying 'Oh, my son will never need calculus!', and it's all very well little Timmy agreeing that he doesn't need to know about limits and functions, but it'll be a hell of a problem when he gets to pick his major and realises he can't study engineering or physics or chemistry because he never learned basic calculus...

There's also the problem that kids have no idea what they're good at or enjoy until they try. Learning the basics is hugely important simply for the kids to have a chance to learn where their interests and aptidues are in the first place.

[Ensign Steve]

It's all very well saying 'Oh, my son will never need calculus!', and it's all very well little Timmy agreeing that he doesn't need to know about limits and functions, but it'll be a hell of a problem when he gets to pick his major and realises he can't study engineering or physics or chemistry because he never learned basic calculus...

I would argue that the kid I am referring to is so tragically bad at math (they do exist) that he would never succeed at or even be interested in engineering in the first place.

That's why I said:

"I recommend offering all of them so the student will have a chance to challenge themselves and see what they are interested in or good at. But when the kid reaches that age where they know they just plain aren't into math, it's just cruel to force them to take year after year of algebra, geometry, etc. If they're not good at it, they're not going to go into a field that requires it, and vice versa. In the meantime it just causes fights and bad grades and feelings of failure."

There's also the problem that kids have no idea what they're good at or enjoy until they try. Learning the basics is hugely important simply for the kids to have a chance to learn where their interests and aptidues are in the first place.
I also agree with that, which is why I said what I said.

[LadyShea]

It's all very well saying 'Oh, my son will never need calculus!', and it's all very well little Timmy agreeing that he doesn't need to know about limits and functions, but it'll be a hell of a problem when he gets to pick his major and realises he can't study engineering or physics or chemistry because he never learned basic calculus...

Any kid smart enough to want to study engineering, physics or chemistry in college will have done the 20 minutes of research it takes to figure out what prerequisites are needed get admitted to those programs, and figured out how to learn it (self directed study, co-op, whatever). Or they can get them at CC before going into a degree program, or whatever.


There's also the problem that kids have no idea what they're good at or enjoy until they try. Learning the basics is hugely important simply for the kids to have a chance to learn where their interests and aptidues are in the first place.
And what does that have to do with public schooling?

[livius drusus]

Beyond that, I think some kids need Calculus and other kids need 17th Century French Literature, but I bet there are very few kids that will end up having a use for both in their adult life. I recommend offering all of them so the student will have a chance to challenge themselves and see what they are interested in or good at. But when the kid reaches that age where they know they just plain aren't into math, it's just cruel to force them to take year after year of algebra, geometry, etc. If they're not good at it, they're not going to go into a field that requires it, and vice versa. In the meantime it just causes fights and bad grades and feelings of failure.

I have a problem with using a utilitarian standard to determine the value and focus of an education. My primary subjects of interest, literature and history, don't exactly lead to piles of jerbs (YOU'RE MAJORING IN WHAT? YOU CAN ALWAYS TEACH LOL) but I loved them throughout formal schooling and I still love them now. Why should going into a field that requires the acquisition of specific knowledge be the determining factor of what you learn?

Cognitive development, exposure to new ideas and ways of seeing, challenging your brain to do things that don't come naturally, all have an intrinsic value, imo, and I think a solid general education should have more of that sort of shit, not less, even if there's no direct relevance to later employment.

[Ensign Steve]

Beyond that, I think some kids need Calculus and other kids need 17th Century French Literature, but I bet there are very few kids that will end up having a use for both in their adult life. I recommend offering all of them so the student will have a chance to challenge themselves and see what they are interested in or good at. But when the kid reaches that age where they know they just plain aren't into math, it's just cruel to force them to take year after year of algebra, geometry, etc. If they're not good at it, they're not going to go into a field that requires it, and vice versa. In the meantime it just causes fights and bad grades and feelings of failure.

I have a problem with using a utilitarian standard to determine the value and focus of an education. My primary subjects of interest, literature and history, don't exactly lead to piles of jerbs (YOU'RE MAJORING IN WHAT? YOU CAN ALWAYS TEACH LOL) but I loved them throughout formal schooling and I still love them now. Why should going into a field that requires the acquisition of specific knowledge be the determining factor of what you learn?
It shouldn't, except that the question I was answering had to do with what is the baseline education that everybody needs to have. I think anything above and beyond the minimum (in this case, whatever might get you into a jerb) can and would be sought out organically by the student without having it mandated to them by some arbiter of curriculum.

[LadyShea]

Why should going into a field that requires the acquisition of specific knowledge be the determining factor of what you learn?
I think she was arguing against requiring all kids to learn certain specific topics if they have no interest in it and/or it does not serve their interests desires otherwise.

Calculus, for an example in use here, was not a requirement when I went to school, even for the College Prep course of study (we had three diploma programs at my high school). I had no interest in pursuing anything math related, I had no interest in learning calculus, so I didn't take it. Do you think I should have been forced to learn it?

[livius drusus]

It shouldn't, except that the question I was answering had to do with what is the baseline education that everybody needs to have. I think anything above and beyond the minimum (in this case, whatever might get you into a jerb) can and would be sought out organically by the student without having it mandated to them by some arbiter of curriculum.

Okay, so why is the baseline minimum whatever might get you a jerb? Was that stipulated somewheres and I missed it?

[Ensign Steve]

Because of society? :shrug: I'm not the one arguing that we need a baseline in the first place. I actually believe that everybody's education can and should be unique to their interests and abilities.

[Adam]

I have a problem with using a utilitarian standard to determine the value and focus of an education. My primary subjects of interest, literature and history, don't exactly lead to piles of jerbs (YOU'RE MAJORING IN WHAT? YOU CAN ALWAYS TEACH LOL) but I loved them throughout formal schooling and I still love them now. Why should going into a field that requires the acquisition of specific knowledge be the determining factor of what you learn?

Cognitive development, exposure to new ideas and ways of seeing, challenging your brain to do things that don't come naturally, all have an intrinsic value, imo, and I think a solid general education should have more of that sort of shit, not less, even if there's no direct relevance to later employment.

I agree with that, but I think it's a separate issue from that of whether or not there ought to be a baseline standard that everyone gets.

It shouldn't, except that the question I was answering had to do with what is the baseline education that everybody needs to have. I think anything above and beyond the minimum (in this case, whatever might get you into a jerb) can and would be sought out organically by the student without having it mandated to them by some arbiter of curriculum.

Sometimes, but I think Dragar makes a good point in that, without at least being exposed to different broad areas of study (which is one thing an imposed curriculum usually does, although it's not the only way to do it), many students won't really know what they're interested in.

[Ensign Steve]

Being exposed to a subject is entirely different to being required to study it. I'm not about taking away options in the classroom. I'm about adding other options besides the classroom.

[Dragar]

"But when the kid reaches that age where they know they just plain aren't into math, it's just cruel to force them to take year after year of algebra, geometry, etc. If they're not good at it, they're not going to go into a field that requires it, and vice versa. In the meantime it just causes fights and bad grades and feelings of failure."

Well, you've still got to stipulate an age for that decision to be made. Sixteen sounds about right to me, but maybe you have a good argument it should be later or earlier...

Any kid smart enough to want to study engineering, physics or chemistry in college will have done the 20 minutes of research it takes to figure out what prerequisites are needed get admitted to those programs...


I think we have vastly different opinions of how much forethought even a smart fifteen year old possesses.

[livius drusus]

I think she was arguing against requiring all kids to learn certain specific topics if they have no interest in it and/or it does not serve their interests desires otherwise.
Yeah but I still don't get why employment is the standard of what it serves a kid to learn. Kids have no idea how much shit is out there that they might wind up doing, so going by their expectations seems really limiting to me.

As for desires or interests, I think there's value in being forced to learn things you don't like or are not interested in. I would never have discovered how awesome collard pesto is if I hadn't been forced by my produce delivery to confront the heinous green. Besides, even in subjects that you already like you're going to encounter things you don't. I hated To The Lighthouse when I first had to read it in 11th grade. It took me 2 years to really get it and now it's a full-fledged part of my mental lexicon.

[Ensign Steve]

Doing those things are good for you. Most of us do them voluntarily. If everybody in the society did them, it would be a great society.

Same with eating right and exercising.

But if the state comes in and mandates everybody's diet and exercise routines for the good of the individual and the state, that's a nanny state.

[LadyShea]

Yeah but I still don't get why employment is the standard of what it serves a kid to learn. Kids have no idea how much shit is out there that they might wind up doing, so going by their expectations seems really limiting to me.

Don't all kids (and all people really) limit themselves in general though? Nobody can learn about everything there is to learn about.

As for desires or interests, I think there's value in being forced to learn things you don't like or are not interested in. I would never have discovered how awesome collard pesto is if I hadn't been forced by my produce delivery to confront the heinous green. Besides, even in subjects that you already like you're going to encounter things you don't. I hated To The Lighthouse when I first had to read it in 11th grade. It took me 2 years to really get it and now it's a full-fledged part of my mental lexicon.

So, knowing that it's not possible to learn about everything there is to learn about, how should the forced subjects to be taught be decided, and by whom?

[Dragar]

Let me put my cards on the table, rather than just responding. I suspect I am not saying anything particularly contraversial.

I think we should educate our children in as broad a range of stuff - sciences, languages, humanities, etc. - as possible, up to the age of about sixteen. Possibly older. I think that it's important for a huge variety of reasons, including exposing them to as much of human knowledge, history and accomplishment that can possibly be comprehended and taught in that short amount of time. Exactly what is taught isn't that important. It's all good stuff. There probably is some basic level of literacy and numeracy that really should be ensured before they can drop the subject, simply to make sure the child can grow up into someone who can understand our bureaucracy and manage his accounts (or at least do his tax forms). Not everyone should have calculus inflicted on them, but they should be able to add up. Somewhere between those extremes we need to set a line; it's not too important where, though things that have huge sweeping applications (like mathematics) can probably be pushed further than more esoteric subjects (like languages).

At best we might hope they learn to be a critically thinking member of a democracy too.

I think some kids will do better than others, and that's a shame but we shouldn't force them to attain some magical level of competency in any of those things before letting them leave school. We should just do our best. I think some flexibility (but not total) should be brought in to accomodate a child's interests.

[Dragar]

Doing those things are good for you. Most of us do them voluntarily. If everybody in the society did them, it would be a great society.

Same with eating right and exercising.

But if the state comes in and mandates everybody's diet and exercise routines for the good of the individual and the state, that's a nanny state.

Same with wearing a seat-belt and driving under the speed limit too. I'm not opposed to a little nanny state-ing here and there....

[Ensign Steve]

I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm saying it is nanny state. Specifically referring to this:

In the specific context of the sailing girl, I was mostly reacting to the notion that thinking that a sailing trip is not an acceptable excuse for missing out on part of that curriculum is some kind of overrestrictive European nanny-state thing.

To extend my tortured analogy even further, let's put everybody on the exact same diet, regardless of their tastes in food or whether they prefer ballet or soccer. In fact, everybody has to take ballet and soccer. Absolutely no going off the program to train for a triathlon, because a triathlon is neither ballet nor soccer and the state has mandated that ballet and soccer are adequate for general fitness, and therefore exactly what everybody needs.

[Dragar]

It's usually a term used by people who oppose the notion though.

[LadyShea]

Any kid smart enough to want to study engineering, physics or chemistry in college will have done the 20 minutes of research it takes to figure out what prerequisites are needed get admitted to those programs...


I think we have vastly different opinions of how much forethought even a smart fifteen year old possesses.

How do fifteen year olds manage to do it in public schools then? At some point all kids have to decide what they want to learn (what classes to take) based on interests, abilities, and goals. This is true for all students, and people, isn't it?

[Adam]

Being exposed to a subject is entirely different to being required to study it.

I'd actually argue that being exposed to a subject, the way I'm using the word, anyway, does require some minimum degree of studying it. Until you learn a little bit about some topic, you really have very little idea if it will suit your abilities or interests, and I think it's valuable to "force" children, who largely haven't discovered their own abilities and interests yet, to study enough of a broad range of topics to find out whether or not they are suited to them.


I mean, there's a difference between "History? Eh? Eh?", "No, looks boring." and "Ok, you're going to learn enough history to really tell if it suits you or not."

[Adam]

Any kid smart enough to want to study engineering, physics or chemistry in college will have done the 20 minutes of research it takes to figure out what prerequisites are needed get admitted to those programs...


I think we have vastly different opinions of how much forethought even a smart fifteen year old possesses.

How do fifteen year olds manage to do it in public schools then? At some point all kids have to decide what they want to learn (what classes to take) based on interests, abilities, and goals. This is true for all students, and people, isn't it?

Yes, but the wheels aren't entirely taken off. At 15, most of the classes you're going to be taken are either prescribed, or required to be chosen from a set of alternatives.

[LadyShea]

At 15, most of the classes you're going to be taken are either prescribed, or required to be chosen from a set of alternatives.

Yeah, and those alternatives vary from school to school, country to country etc. and certainly aren't as broad as liv or Dragar seem to be advocating. So again, who should decide?


BTW: excellent discussion guys, very interesting thanks!

[LadyShea]

I mean, there's a difference between "History? Eh? Eh?", "No, looks boring." and "Ok, you're going to learn enough history to really tell if it suits you or not."

Where do you draw the line? To use ES's example, should all kids be forced to learn 10 different sports "to really tell if it suits them"? Eat specific foods? How about foreign languages (often required for college prep students)...should they have to learn 1 language or 2 or 5 or how many to tell which, if any, suits them?

[Adam]

At 15, most of the classes you're going to be taken are either prescribed, or required to be chosen from a set of alternatives.

Yeah, and those alternatives vary from school to school, country to country etc. and certainly aren't as broad as liv or Dragar seem to be advocating.

Right. I'm just saying that, to Dragar's point, it's not as though we typically leave it entirely up to the judgment of 15 year olds.

So again, who should decide?

Appropriate experts. :tmhappy:

I know it sounds sort of flip but, seriously, I think the decision as to what classes to offer should be made by professional educators who know more than I do about the subject.

[teasasue]

Being exposed to a subject is entirely different to being required to study it.

I'd actually argue that being exposed to a subject, the way I'm using the word, anyway, does require some minimum degree of studying it. Until you learn a little bit about some topic, you really have very little idea if it will suit your abilities or interests, and I think it's valuable to "force" children, who largely haven't discovered their own abilities and interests yet, to study enough of a broad range of topics to find out whether or not they are suited to them.


I mean, there's a difference between "History? Eh? Eh?", "No, looks boring." and "Ok, you're going to learn enough history to really tell if it suits you or not."


the only problem with forcing a child to learn something they dont want to is they will not try and if they dont try how will they learn what you are trying to force them to learn?

Some kids will not need to be pressured to learn and that is great, but others will need an extra push but if you push too much and force them to I dont think you will come out with the results you are wanting to obtain.

[LadyShea]

Right. I'm just saying that, to Dragar's point, it's not as though we typically leave it up to the judgment of 15 year olds.

Except that we do exactly that, at least wrt to specifically calculus, the original example.

At my high school, we had to choose a vocational course of study, general, or college prep when we were in 9th grade. We had to choose whether to take the ACT, SAT, both or neither when we were 15. Those decisions then led to decisions about after graduation, much of which had to be started while still in school: Do you want to apply to a military academy, if so which one, how many recommendations are required and who will give them to you? 4 year university, where, what do they require? Community College? Scholarships?

Appropriate experts. :tmhappy:

I know it sounds sort of flip but, seriously, I think the decision as to what classes to offer should be made by professional educators who know more than I do about the subject.

That would be great if they all agreed, but they don't, so we are back at the beginning

[Adam]

Right. I'm just saying that, to Dragar's point, it's not as though we typically leave it up to the judgment of 15 year olds.

Except that we do exactly that, at least wrt to specifically calculus, the original example.

Point taken, with the caveat that I edited the word "entirely" into my post to better express what I was trying to say, but apparently after you had started your response.

I actually started to type, but did not post earlier, about how I was not at all interested in math in school, and would not have taken it at all if it was not required, both in general, and for the AP diploma my mom insisted that I try for. I was never a bit interested in it until I started looking into college and realized that a lot of the courses of study I was interested in (architecture, which I decided against, and programming, which I eventually took) required it, at which point I was glads that the decision to take it hadn't been mine alone.

[LadyShea]

until I started looking into college

At what age?

[Adam]

until I started looking into college

At what age?

17, I think? Whatever the end of my junior year, beginning of my senior year of high school was.

[Qingdai]

I think that's a fair point for nanny stating, if the parents don't know enough to push the children to study something the child has possibly arbitrarily decided they didn't like (calculus for example) when they do discover, later, that it's a necessary pre-requisite for something they are interested, they are out of luck.

I didn't look into college until about 3 months before I graduated from high school. My parents had no idea which classes I was taking or had taken. I got no advice about taking classes that would help me in college, with a career or anything else until I specifically asked for it. My parents at least were able to help a bit when I decided. My husband's parents gave him luggage and suggested he enter the military, despite a total lack of aptitude for such a career.
I can only imagine a child born of generational poverty having to navigate through academia with a family that says either covertly or overtly "school is useless" faces when trying to navigate through school.
Education is traditionally how the working class gets ahead. Much of the backlash against it, is much like the backlash against anything that the working class needs in order to serve it's own interests. I'd also rather see the state keep kids in school (and out of mines, for example) rather than keep a girl from sailing around the world.

Sailing is also a dying industry. Not that's on point or anything.

[wildernesse]

I think that there needs to be a standard of what we learn, and I think there is one--it's just WAY lower than what most people here seem to be talking about. The baseline standard can't be just for students who will end up being college-ready, but for the large number of students who will not be college-ready and will never be.

When the standard is as low as that, then questions about whether a child should go on a sailing trip instead of school begin to look stupid. When a student has not only been exposed to the baseline education standards, but has mastered them, why shouldn't they be allowed to pursue advanced, independent study? Does it matter if that study is in the library at the school, at the local college, or on a sailboat around the world?

I think we can throw out questions about calculus when we talk about baseline education. But, counting, basic arithmetic, fractions--that would be considered baseline education, imo.

[LadyShea]

I think that's a fair point for nanny stating, if the parents don't know enough to push the children to study something the child has possibly arbitrarily decided they didn't like (calculus for example) when they do discover, later, that it's a necessary pre-requisite for something they are interested, they are out of luck.

Not really though. There is no law that says calculus cannot be learned after age 16 or anything.

Heck, I took high school Algebra 1 at a CC when I was 26 (personal goal of mine, actually understanding Algebra) and the class was full of recent high school grads....they graduated HS, then had to go back to 9th grade math right away?

Anyway point being if anyone, regardless of age, wants to do something that requires X, they can find a way to learn X.

I didn't look into college until about 3 months before I graduated from high school. My parents had no idea which classes I was taking or had taken. I got no advice about taking classes that would help me in college, with a career or anything else until I specifically asked for it.

I decided not to go to college at the beginning of my senior year, even though I had done everything to prepare for it and had very supportive and informed parents.

I could have gone in a year, or 2, I can go now at age 40.


Education is traditionally how the working class gets ahead. Much of the backlash against it, is much like the backlash against anything that the working class needs in order to serve it's own interests. I'd also rather see the state keep kids in school (and out of mines, for example) rather than keep a girl from sailing around the world.

I would like to see kids have choices; such as apprenticing and vocational training (Trades are pretty stable and one of the best paths towards business ownership), dual enrollment with partner colleges for those on a specific academic track, as well as better educational/curricular choices for those on either side of "average".

Also, as we've seen in this economy, even advanced degrees are no guarantee of "success", and I think we as a society do a disservice by telling kids that more and more education is some kind of golden ticket. I recently read a story about a woman with like 100k in student loans for NYU that she cannot hope to pay back anytime soon as interest is adding to it all the time...her degree was in religious and women's studies. Where did she get the notion that she would have the earning potential, with that degree, to pay back that kind of money?

Sailing is also a dying industry. Not that's on point or anything.

You think it's dying as a sport?

[LadyShea]

When the standard is as low as that, then questions about whether a child should go on a sailing trip instead of school begin to look stupid. When a student has not only been exposed to the baseline education standards, but has mastered them, why shouldn't they be allowed to pursue advanced, independent study? Does it matter if that study is in the library at the school, at the local college, or on a sailboat around the world?

Agreed wholeheartedly.

I kinda figure that if a person can read well, and do basic math (emphasis on consumer math), and has a solid basis in the scientific method and critical thinking, then they can learn anything, at any time. There is no moratorium or time limit. This is what I am concentrating on for the next few years with Kiddo. Once this baseline is reached, we will prolly be much more unschooly.

[Qingdai]

Trades are also not a golden ticket, but unskilled labor is definitely a ticket to poverty.

The number of unemployed people in this recession is heavily represented by those in the construction trades, also significant competition from unskilled and frequently illegal labor. So I don't think trades are necessarily guarantee of success. All the dads picking up their kids from school were talking about how they lost their various construction and contracting jobs as no one was building much of anything.

Part of my rant has to do with little or incompetent career counseling. Yes, at any time one can go back and learn X if one has the ability to learn and the self confidence to do so. I think a fair amount of cultural baggage we have devalues education in general.
I'd like to see a high school diploma mean something, along the lines of "I can read, do some basic math and know how to learn."

Many younger students are eligible for scholarships and grants older students generally have to rely more on savings and loans, in my unscientific observation of students.

[Dragar]

Just for the record, calculus was probably a bad example - I don't think that's inflicted on any students who didn't choose to take mathematics at A-level in the UK (further education beyond high school). It just struck me as something ludicrously important to a huge array of subjects, and I had no idea it would be at the time I studied it.

[Ensign Steve]

Sorry I bailed out on this conversation right in the middle, but I suddenly got called into a meeting that lasted until quittin' time, and I don't usually log in from home unless I'm rly rly bored. :wink:



So again, who should decide?

Appropriate experts. :tmhappy:

I know it sounds sort of flip but, seriously, I think the decision as to what classes to offer should be made by professional educators who know more than I do about the subject.

At this time, though, look what those appropriate experts are doing in Texas. The school board members are either elected or appointed by elected people, so if a majority of the people decide that it is appropriate to teach that Thomas Jefferson was a crazy liberal or that creationism should be taught alongside evolution (assuming evolution is taught at all), then we are failing the hell out of our kids. Especially if we limit parents' and kids' choices to opt out of the curriculum chosen for them by the appropriate experts.

It would be ideal to say, "No, not those idiots. Real experts in education and science and history, people who are interested in education, not indoctrination, facts not fantasy, etc. etc. etc." But this is damn america and facts and history and science are decided by popular vote instead of, you know, actual facts. You don't want the village raising your child when more than half the villagers are gunning for the idiot position. Maybe we're headed toward another Age of Enlightenment (please please please!), but in the meantime, what is a parent to do?

A wise man once said:


My guess is that it has a lot to do with surgical intervention being something we are capable of doing, while mass social engineering really isn't.

I think the same could be said for educating an individual child vs. trying to adjust the entire state's curriculum to fit the family's individual values of what they want to educate their child in.

[LadyShea]

Trades are also not a golden ticket, but unskilled labor is definitely a ticket to poverty.
That's why I suggested offering vocational training/apprenticeship as one possible education path, so kids that can't or won't go to college have an opportunity to gain some skills. So that instead of a single fork with college being one and poverty being the other there (or a third being military service perhaps) are several paths for young people to choose.

The number of unemployed people in this recession is heavily represented by those in the construction trades, also significant competition from unskilled and frequently illegal labor. So I don't think trades are necessarily guarantee of success. All the dads picking up their kids from school were talking about how they lost their various construction and contracting jobs as no one was building much of anything.

New construction is riskier, yes, because it is cyclical with the booms and busts. But in a bad economy, people are more apt to repair and maintain rather than replace and upgrade, so there is work for mechanics of all kinds, electricians, plumbers, HVAC techs, pest control, electronics repair/refurbish, servicing industrial electronics/robotics (this is my dad's field and he has more work than he can possibly do, but there are few qualified people to hire). These trades require training and skills that we could be offering, but aren't for the most part.

Part of my rant has to do with little or incompetent career counseling.

Agreed 100%. In my high school we took a career survey in I think 10th grade, that said I should work in a card and gift shop. Until I scored high on the ACT, then won a national award, my counselor had never even met me...and this was a tiny school. I had simply been overlooked.

Yes, at any time one can go back and learn X if one has the ability to learn and the self confidence to do so. I think a fair amount of cultural baggage we have devalues education in general.

Hmm. I disagree in that tend to think our society overvalues it, or at least overvalues our current model of education. That current model doesn't work for too large a percentage of our kids. It's very difficult to stop the huge machine that is our education industry to reload and try something else, so I don't know what the solutions are.

I'd like to see a high school diploma mean something, along the lines of "I can read, do some basic math and know how to learn."

Again I am right with you there. Especially with the "how to learn" part...that is one of the aspects I think our current educational model fails at. Critical thinking and resourcefulness and autonomous learning ability do not seem to be traits our kids are coming out of school with.

Many younger students are eligible for scholarships and grants older students generally have to rely more on savings and loans, in my unscientific observation of students.

Yeah, this is probably true, but I never felt the need to get a degree so I don't know for sure. My niece is getting her core classes for less than 2000/year at the local CC, and there are online programs etc. so one could, conceivably, work and go to school. Also if it's a matter of filling gaps (like the surprise need for calculus we've discussed) a single class is 200.00 or so.

I have read about grants and scholarships for older students, as well as educational reimbursements in some industries, so it probably takes research and hard work to find the resources, but seems like younger students have to find their financing the same way.

[Qingdai]

I couldn't disagree more that the culture of the US over values education. We don't fund it adequately, and people with education or intellectuals are openly mocked in both political and popular culture.
The education system now is going to a two tier system with the more diverse education only being available to those who can pay for it.

[LadyShea]

Okay, I see where there was a misunderstanding, I do not disagree with you.
There are many aspects to "education", sorry I was unspecific. I was thinking in different terms of demonstration of valuing.

In my mind, the "overvaluing" was demonstrated in how we tend to tell kids that their only choices are college or poverty. I think that leads to hopelessness for those that can't manage college, which leads to giving up and dropping out.

people with education or intellectuals are openly mocked in both political and popular culture.

Yet many of those intellectuals and academics feel it is a waste of their time to focus any energy on pre-college education or helping educate the public, as we have discussed previously with textbook authoring and popular science writing, specifically.

Also publishing educational materials does not count towards tenure. So even the educated do not value education, to some degree.

And yes, the cost of an education is getting further out of reach for more and more people. I don't know a solution to that either.

[LadyShea]

Double postie

[Adam]

Hey, sorry I'm not more prompt about responding to the good points people have raised in response to me. I'm trying to wrap up the last werk stuff I have to do before I can get on a plane, while simultaneous packing for my trip,and my :ff: priority was wrapping up the LotR game.

[Ensign Steve]

Obviously. :unnod:

[naturalist.atheist]

I happen to think that the purpose of a good education is to expose the student to learning. Help then understand how they learn. Provide them with basic tools they will need to understand what can be known. Expose them to as much as possible of what can be learned and then hope they will understand the opportunities before them. It is a tall order.

[Twistedgypsychild]

Okay, the meme still works for me, so deal haters.

Anyhoo, this topic came up in this thread about world sailing kids (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20984&highlight=sailor), then again yesterday in chat when Adam started a war with me by saying school was more important than sailing for Laura Dekker specifically (but he means for everyone always probably :glare:).

Also, this comes up a lot when homeschooling is discussed or banned (as it has been in both Sweden and Germany).
“It’s a fear that [home schooling] doesn’t work appropriate[ly],”~ Swedish Educational Ministry press secretary Anna Neuman (though she admitted there was no report or evidence to back up the fear.) Source (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/3885-sweden-bans-home-schooling-religious-instruction) Exactly what is taught and how it's taught and what's important are constantly discussed (and focuses changed) when comparing education in different countries, comparing private to public schools, school boards and states deciding curriculum, parents choosing magnet or charter schools. etc.

Some percentage of people seem to feel there some objective and easily identified "proper" education. Why? Who's to say that the scope and sequence found in X schools is better for any individual than some other type of education, like, say the things one can learn while sailing the world, or traveling in general, or through self led study as in unschooling? Where's the evidence that one type of education is superior to another, and how is superiority determined? What subjects are the most important for every kid to know? Why?

The American Education system is based on the Prussian Education system. The Prussian education system was intended to create "obedience" from it's citizens and to help breed and foster industrial workers who didn't make waves, but who blindly followed the rules regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the rules. I have always been curious as to why America chose to implement such a foundation for it's own public school system.

PS: In some schools right now, it is being mandated to cut out history classes and other subjects to allow for other ones. I'd have to go back and check which ones that they actually are, but history is important to me - and it should be for all Americans. Included in some of the classes that are being cut in some places is the classes in which children learn about our own government. To me, that is just absurd.

Jamie

[LadyShea]

Jamie, it appears you've read some of the rebels (Gatto maybe?).

You may be interested in some of our past discussions as this one developed over time from those, and we have hit on some pertinent educational issues, like zero tolerance, autodidactics, schools as discipline camps/industry training centers (ala Foucault and Gatto), John Holt style unschooling, The Core Standards initiative etc.

Most has taken place in these two threads, but there are others here in the "Study Hall" forum
Homeschooling - Freethought Forum (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13035)
The Great Meep Controversy of 2009 - Freethought Forum (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21714&highlight=meep)

[LadyShea]

IMO, until we as a society can answer this question, the whole debate about public vs. private vs. charter vs. homeschool vs. unschool is secondary.

We're not able to articulate what a high school graduate should know, how can we possibly say that one institution of learning is more effective than another? What does a successfully executed secondary education look like?

Waluigi gave us this excellent hit and run post. Come back! I want to know YOUR ideas of what a successful education looks like.

[JoeP]

Waluigi gave us this excellent hit and run post. Come back! I want to know YOUR ideas of what a successful education looks like.

One which teaches people to hit and run, obviously.

A clear success of the US system, I'd say ...

[Dingfod]

Waluigi gave us this excellent hit and run post. Come back! I want to know YOUR ideas of what a successful education looks like.

One which teaches people to hit and run, obviously.

A clear success of the US system, I'd say ...If you are talking about drive-by shootings, then no, the system has failed miserably because those shitheads can't hit the broad side of a barn. If they do hit someone, it's in spite of their accuracy, not because of it.

If you're talking about auto accidents or military strategy, never mind.

[seebs]

I think the issue is that kids who are home-schooled for religious reasons often end up reading from books that say stuff like "Electricity is a mystery. No one has ever seen or touched electricity." (Not making that one up, someone posted a sample page of a book from one of those companies.) This results in kids growing up to be just plain dysfunctional.

[One for Sorrow]

Stuff in books is so often wrong, and that's why they should just give up on book learnin' altogether. The best way to learn about electricity is to stick a fork in a socket.

[One for Sorrow]

Also, Miisa really needs to chime in here and explain what makes her country so awesome. (http://www.greatschools.org/students/finland-education.gs?content=2453&page=1)

[LadyShea]

Also, Miisa really needs to chime in here and explain what makes her country so awesome. (http://www.greatschools.org/students/finland-education.gs?content=2453&page=1)


It's the relaxed atmosphere, IMO (based on research on how kids learn best). Their schools sound as comfortable as home and it's probably very enjoyable.
They also value teachers and so both educate and pay them well. Free college, so the pressure to perform is off, purposefully downplayed competition.

If we had schools like this, fewer people would probably feel the need to homeschool.

[Adam]

I'm basically a facet of the Qingdai hivemind on this topic...she is very smart and I agree with everything she posted.

I would like to see kids have choices; such as apprenticing and vocational training (Trades are pretty stable and one of the best paths towards business ownership), dual enrollment with partner colleges for those on a specific academic track, as well as better educational/curricular choices for those on either side of "average".

While I don't disagree that vocation training can be valuable, to a degree, I'm very leery of students at that level being segregated into "tracks"* that lead to demonstrably different social and economic classes. As I said earlier, I think one legitimate interest the state has is in offering all students an education that cuts across class divides. Deciding early on that, well, little Johnny isn't interested in Algebra or Literature, so off to trades for him seems to defeat that purpose.

You don't want the village raising your child when more than half the villagers are gunning for the idiot position. Maybe we're headed toward another Age of Enlightenment (please please please!), but in the meantime, what is a parent to do?

Like I said earlier, that's a fair point, but I don't think that it invalidates the entire concept of having shared educational criteria. I mean, one of the problems addressed by the notion of a shared cirriculum is that of crackpots teaching their kids crazy shit and those kids having no recourse to a sane education. Scrapping the entire idea doesn't address that problem at all.

I think the same could be said for educating an individual child vs. trying to adjust the entire state's curriculum to fit the family's individual values of what they want to educate their child in.

I wasn't really talking about adjusting the cirriculum to fit a family's values of what they want to educate their child in. To be perfectly honest, whatever an individual family would like to teach their kids is tertiary at best, IMO (behind making sure those kids get an equal opportunity at a sane education at all and making sure those kids know the things that we all need them to know).

[LadyShea]

lead to demonstrably different social and economic classes

See, this is where you all lose me, acting as if the trades are "lesser" or no better than pumping gas. Journeymen can make 6 figures, and Masters often own their own companies. They are very often successful people any way you look at it.

Deciding early on that, well, little Johnny isn't interested in Algebra or Literature, so off to trades for him seems to defeat that purpose.

What if Little Johnny wants to be an electrician? Why should he not be offered some vocational training, and be forced to stick to the college track (which is basically what all high schools do)?


making sure those kids know the things that we all need them to know

Back to the OP. What do we all need them to know?

ETA: I don't think anyone should be pushed into anything, whether trades or college. I think that all kids need the opportunity to explore their own abilities and interests and be supported in that exploration. Unfortunately I don't see where any public institution is really capable of providing that level of individualization

[fragment]

lead to demonstrably different social and economic classes

See, this is where you all lose me, acting as if the trades are "lesser" or no better than pumping gas. Journeymen can make 6 figures, and Masters often own their own companies. They are very often successful people any way you look at it.
Especially in a world where people with PhDs in history stack supermarket shelves and Masters in art theory work call centres. Those are two real examples. OK, neither of those people ended up doing those things forever, but it still illustrates that it seems education as a cultural signifier of class doesn't correspond with the economic realities of class any more.

[lisarea]

Stupid LadyShea made me read the stupid thread, so now I am going to post in it so I don't get grounded.

It seems as though the distinction 'vocation' is meaning not really vocation, but blue collar vs. white collar vocation. Because even if you set aside academia, lawyer, doctor, engineer, etc. are all vocations, too. And most white collar vocations don't directly require a background in the liberal arts, either.

And that's really what it is. The liberal arts. A basic understanding of the world around you. Things like literature, logic, mathematics, science, maybe also some basic understanding of government functions, etc. And really, everyone should come out of school understanding something about these things. People should know how their government works at a basic level, they should be able to read and write, have some practical knowledge of mathematics, and a broad understanding of scientific method and an overview of the various scientific disciplines and major ideas. The goal of public education should be to prepare people to be grownups and to participate in their society as human beings, rather than simply as functionaries.

And they should be somewhat familiar with the breadth and depth of things they don't know. You don't have to be intimately familiar with different economic theories or differential equations to have a very general notion that these things exist and what they're for.

And if we don't do that, we'll end up living in a culture where people get angry that maybe the government might take over their Medicaid, and public figures speak out against silly, worthless fruit fly studies. (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/10/28/palin)

Or, you know:

YouTube- Rare Look Inside Bible Belt Classroom

(And this is just some random link that's been making the blog rounds today.)

Thing is, though, yeah. This stuff could be integrated with acknowledged vocational studies and there is no reason that, with competent teachers and administrators, kids could both complete a basic liberal arts education AND get some lifestyle and vocational training (blue or white collar) by the end of high school. If the quality of education were reasonably competent, all but the most severely intellectually challenged kids should be able to come out of it with all of those things.

But the quality of much of our education system sucks, so until that changes, kids aren't going to be getting either.

[erimir]

I like how that video ends on a vaguely racist note.

Also...

The stupidity!
:eyesbleed:

[Qingdai]

IIRC, in Germany the track system of sending some kids to vocational education and some to university tracks, was mostly found to be based on class lines, rather than the actual aptitude of the children.
Well it is good that vocational education exists (I took green house and landscaping classes as electives in High school), in my experience those are the type of classes and "extras" that fall under the budget axe first.

While you are struggling to keep your child out of a dysfunctional education system, I am struggling to keep an education system relevant to the majority of children. If I can summarize our positions succinctly. There are a fair amount of good things about public education, including the specialized teaching available for those who need it. I think we had, and can have a functional education system, but there are significant barriers to that, as in any other social problem we're facing today.

Whoo hoo! Adamus Prime is part of my hive mind!

[Zehava]

Vaguely racist?

Gives me the perfect opportunity to post one of my favorite Plognark images..

http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/gallery/files/4/7/0/thestupiditburns.jpg

[LadyShea]

IIRC, in Germany the track system of sending some kids to vocational education and some to university tracks, was mostly found to be based on class lines, rather than the actual aptitude of the children.
That would probably hold true here as well...but I am not talking about "sending" anyone anywhere, I am simply talking about offering additional opportunities for those who can't or won't go on to college.

I think all kids should get the opportunity to learn what they need to live as adults while still in the public system (like lisarea said), though I would prefer some more pragmatic things be mandated, like consumer math.

Well it is good that vocational education exists (I took green house and landscaping classes as electives in High school), in my experience those are the type of classes and "extras" that fall under the budget axe first.

Vocational education doesn't seem to exist everywhere, or maybe not anymore as they may have been axed like you said. I have been our of school for 25 years, and I haven't heard of HS vocational opportunities since, really.

While you are struggling to keep your child out of a dysfunctional education system, I am struggling to keep an education system relevant to the majority of children.

Ya know, it started out, for me, as avoiding a dysfunctional system, but the more I look at it and discuss it, the more I think the whole current US system doesn't have the capacity to be functional...at least what I consider functional. And there's the rub again? What is a relevant functional system for the majority of children? What exactly does that look like?.

Except the universal free part, the rest of it doesn't even look very good "on paper" to me.

Are they examining and trying to incorporate the newest information on learning coming from neuroscience? According to a prominent neuroscientist, no they aren't. If they are, they don't talk about it.

Are they examining and trying to incorporate some of the theories on learning styles? Not if you look at the number of kinesthetic learners who are still labeled ADD or behavior problems, not if you look at the same old "sit at the desk for hours" mode of classroom management.

Are they examining and trying to incorporate some of the practices that more successful countries like Finland use? No, instead of reducing the number of compulsory years they are increasing them. Instead of shortening the school year they are lengthening it. Instead of discouraging competitiveness, which leads to stress, they encourage it. Instead of valuing innovation, individuality, creativity and out of the box thinking, they value testing and conformity and draconian policies.

From another standpoint, instead of encouraging the best and brightest in their fields to contribute to or participate in public primary education, they financially and academically disincentivise them from doing so.

There are a fair amount of good things about public education, including the specialized teaching available for those who need it.

Yes, early intervention and special needs programs are amongst the bright points. But even that sometimes has some unfortunate consequences for the majority who do not need it.

I think we had, and can have a functional education system

I don't know that we ever had one, again though, "functional" is a subjective term. Many of the questions I am asking and problems I am considering today my mother asked and considered 30 years ago when I was in school.

but there are significant barriers to that, as in any other social problem we're facing today.

Yep

Whoo hoo! Adamus Prime is part of my hive mind!

:)

[erimir]

Vaguely racist?Maybe "unintentionally racist" would be a better description.

[erimir]

Are they examining and trying to incorporate some of the practices that more successful countries like Finland use? No, instead of reducing the number of compulsory years they are increasing them. Instead of shortening the school year they are lengthening it. Instead of discouraging competitiveness, which leads to stress, they encourage it. Instead of valuing innovation, individuality, creativity and out of the box thinking, they value testing and conformity and draconian policies.In their defense, I think that article said that US students already went to school for less days than Finnish students.

I wonder when the Finnish school day starts and ends tho...

[LadyShea]

Finnish students spend less time in class than students in any other industrialized nation.source (http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/001779.html)

For younger pupils, the formal school day finishes at about 1pm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4033593.stm)

Maybe they have more days a year than the average American, but they spend fewer hours per day, apparently, and fewer total years, and don't give much homework.



This is an introduction to what is probably the biggest difference between schools in Finland and the UK - that pupils spend nine years in the same school, combining the roles of primary and secondary schools.
source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4033593.stm)

Less strict segregation by age, which I think is better socially, but may or may not affect the academics.

Children start formal lessons when they are seven and they stay here until they are 16, when they will decide whether to go to a more academic upper secondary school or to a vocational school. source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4033593.stm)

So the best public education system in the world, according to some, tracks kids when they are 16. It sounds like up until then, they are getting the balanced education lisarea talked about.

They eschew textbooks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/25/schoolsworldwide.schools)

They don't wear shoes (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/25/schoolsworldwide.schools)

Their teachers are amongst the best and brightest (whereas here teaching is often considered a "fallback" position)
In Finland, the teaching profession is highly regarded. Education is considered a science and there is such competition that only about 13 per cent of applicants a year are admitted to the teaching faculty. You do five years and qualify with a master's degree. We do not have teacher training colleges.'

Their schools are homey and comfortable (http://www.greatschools.org/students/finland-education.gs?content=2453&page=1)

If US schools looked like this, I wouldn't be having any of these discussions. I might be having different discussions about Nanny States or some shit, but not these.

Now, Finland has only 5 million people. That's not even our largest city. I think many US social problems kinda stem from the fact that, well, we're huge. Huge is much more difficult to administer. Huge doesn't do turns and detours easily.

[Adam]

See, this is where you all lose me, acting as if the trades are "lesser" or no better than pumping gas. Journeymen can make 6 figures, and Masters often own their own companies. They are very often successful people any way you look at it.

Sure, but more often they are not. You can't just look at the handful of people with a given sort of education who become unusually successful. I mean, people with business degrees "often" become upper management or even chief executives, but they are exceptions to the rule just as much as business owning tradespeople. There is a strong correlation between education and income. Here's a paper (PDF) (http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/trends/ed_pays_2007.pdf)from 2005 with some data. Granted, the numbers are sort of incomplete since, as far as I can tell, they lump unskilled labor with no college education together with skilled labor with no college...in my brief research this morning, I was unable to find numbers that drew a distinction).


What if Little Johnny wants to be an electrician? Why should he not be offered some vocational training, and be forced to stick to the college track (which is basically what all high schools do)?

No one is saying Little Johnny can't become an electrician. I have no problem with trades classes being offered. Hell, I have no problem with basic trade skills being required learning, so as to expose kids who might not otherwise consider them to the fields.

Back to the OP. What do we all need them to know?

I'm not a qualified expert! :tmhappy:

But, seriously, I think a number of people, including myself have made decent laypersons' attempts at answering this. IMO, at minimum, literacy, math, basic history, civics, basic economics, basic science.

I think that all kids need the opportunity to explore their own abilities and interests and be supported in that exploration.

Sure. And part of that opportunity, IMO, is being required to learn the basics of fields that might otherwise be dismissed as prima facie uninteresting, and to learn foundational subjects that prepare them for other, more interesting, ones.

Also, I think we're all sort of all over the place, drifting between talking about elementary education and then high school level education. Obviously, I think older students who have mastered foundational subjects should be given more leeway in selecting what sort of more focused subjects they find interesting.

[Adam]

lead to demonstrably different social and economic classes

See, this is where you all lose me, acting as if the trades are "lesser" or no better than pumping gas. Journeymen can make 6 figures, and Masters often own their own companies. They are very often successful people any way you look at it.
Especially in a world where people with PhDs in history stack supermarket shelves and Masters in art theory work call centres. Those are two real examples. OK, neither of those people ended up doing those things forever, but it still illustrates that it seems education as a cultural signifier of class doesn't correspond with the economic realities of class any more.

It does, though. People with advanced degrees, on average, earn more than people without, even if some PhD's have to stock shelves to make ends meet and some uneducated schlubs end up owning businesses.

ETA: I count myself as an uneducated schlub, btw. I dropped out of college during the dotcom boom to work IT and have never gone back, so I'm a "some college" statistic on all the charts.

[LadyShea]

Well so is amount earned the best benchmark of success? Maybe that's part of our problem (as a society) as well.

[Adam]

While you are struggling to keep your child out of a dysfunctional education system, I am struggling to keep an education system relevant to the majority of children.

This is a very succinct way of stating what I tried to say earlier about differing priorities. Well, except that I personally am doing less "struggling" and more "spouting off on the internet".

[Adam]

Well so is amount earned the best benchmark of success? Maybe that's part of our problem (as a society) as well.

I don't know that it's necessarily the best benchmark of success, but I do know that I think public education (by which I mean both the standardized cirriculum and the public institutions that teach it) ought to have, as one goal, breaking down the correlation between birth class and earning potential by teaching everyone, regardless of class, what they need to learn to pursue higher education and, thus, higher earning potential.

[LadyShea]

Sure, but more often they are not. You can't just look at the handful of people with a given sort of education who become unusually successful. I mean, people with business degrees "often" become upper management or even chief executives, but they are exceptions to the rule just as much as business owning tradespeople.

Even an apprentice earns a living wage though. They may not become wildly successful, but they make decent wages from the start and progress steadily as they gain experience.

Granted, the numbers are sort of incomplete since, as far as I can tell, they lump unskilled labor with no college education together with skilled labor with no college...in my brief research this morning, I was unable to find numbers that drew a distinction).

Yeah that sucks that they don't make the distinction. I will conclude however, that if an individual can't or won't go to college, which is something like 2/3 of high school grads, a skilled trade offers better opportunities than any unskilled job.

No one is saying Little Johnny can't become an electrician. I have no problem with trades classes being offered. Hell, I have no problem with basic trade skills being required learning, so as to expose kids who might not otherwise consider them to the fields.

Okay cool, we agree


But, seriously, I think a number of people, including myself have made decent laypersons' attempts at answering this. IMO, at minimum, literacy, math, basic history, civics, basic economics, basic science.

Which is the base curricular guidelines for all US schools. Do you feel it's working?

Sure. And part of that opportunity, IMO, is being required to learn the basics of fields that might otherwise be dismissed as prima facie uninteresting, and to learn foundational subjects that prepare them for other, more interesting, ones.

So all students should be required to learn the basics of all fields (culinary arts, animal husbandry, architecture?) That doesn't seem possible, so can you clarify?

Also, I think we're all sort of all over the place, drifting between talking about elementary education and then high school level education. Obviously, I think older students who have mastered foundational subjects should be given more leeway in selecting what sort of more focused subjects they find interesting.

Agreed. :)


ETA: This discussion has made me realize my problem isn't at all with what is taught; I agree kids needs to know how to read, write, do math, how our government works, critical thinking and analysis, the scientific method, and history. My problem is with how, when, where, with whom and by whom they are taught.

[LadyShea]

ETA: I count myself as an uneducated schlub, btw. I dropped out of college during the dotcom boom to work IT and have never gone back, so I'm a "some college" statistic on all the charts.

I am both uneducated and unskilled, as is hubby (though he has "some college" like you), yet I've been a homeowner most of the time since I was 19, I have cars, and go on vacations and all that. For the most part I have always made enough to live reasonably comfortably...and even my poorest portion of the program, which happens to be right now, we have food on the table and a roof over our heads and stuff.

[Adam]

Even an apprentice earns a living wage though. They may not become wildly successful, but they make decent wages from the start and progress steadily as they gain experience.

That's true. While I think that making sure everyone makes a living wage is a goal that we should pursue by various means, though, I think it's a different goal from trying to break the correlation between birth class and earning potential.


Yeah that sucks that they don't make the distinction. I will conclude however, that if an individual can't or won't go to college, which is something like 2/3 of high school grads, a skilled trade offers better opportunities than any unskilled job.

Oh, sure, I agree. But the opportunities are still, on the balance, less than what someone with a degree has, as best as I can tell.

Which is the base curricular guidelines for all US schools. Do you feel it's working?

Hmmm...I'll say "partially" with a side of "I don't really know enough to judge in detail". Very precise, I know.

So all students should be required to learn the basics of all fields (culinary arts, animal husbandry, architecture?) That doesn't seem possible, so can you clarify?

I think there are probably at least three criteria I would use to judge which fields I think all students should learn:

1) Certain fields are more foundational than others. For example, no, all students should not have to study architecture. But, all students should be required to study mathematics, art, and possibly even building trades at a entry level.

2) To some degree, the fields we require all students to learn should be the ones that, in general, will deliver more economic value, as part of my stated preference for leveling the gap between students from differing birth classes.

3) I think that what lisarea called the liberal arts should be on the required list. That is, the basic stuff we need to master in order to think about the world with some degree of competence.

ETA: This discussion has made me realize my problem isn't at all with what is taught; I agree kids needs to know how to read, write, do math, how our government works, critical thinking and analysis, the scientific method, and history. My problem is with how, when, where, with whom and by whom they are taught.

Oh, yah. That's a different topic, and one I'm probably not at all qualified to address.

[Twistedgypsychild]

Jamie, it appears you've read some of the rebels (Gatto maybe?).

You may be interested in some of our past discussions as this one developed over time from those, and we have hit on some pertinent educational issues, like zero tolerance, autodidactics, schools as discipline camps/industry training centers (ala Foucault and Gatto), John Holt style unschooling, The Core Standards initiative etc.

Most has taken place in these two threads, but there are others here in the "Study Hall" forum
Homeschooling - Freethought Forum (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13035)
The Great Meep Controversy of 2009 - Freethought Forum (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21714&highlight=meep)

lol sigh....

I'll have my husband post one of his essays for university on the nature of the American Public Education system... Gatto? We've taken it 20 steps further than Gatto lol.

Jamie

[vincubus]

as my wife suggested I do.....

The Purpose of Education

Vincubus


COM 220

3/5/2010








The Purpose of Education
What would you say if you were to hear that the public education system is actually doing damage to our children instead of helping them? The youth of today aren’t being educated, and can never be properly educated in our current society. Education should entail critical thinking, good citizenship, and scholastic ability. These things cannot exist in our complex, rigid society that emphasizes commercial enterprise and domination.
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is the process by which we examine events, ideas and thoughts without leaning on emotion, appeals to tradition and with the highest ideals possible - regardless of the outcome. Critical thinking threatens-or can threaten-order. There seems a constant tension between those who wish to freely think, and those who hold power in a society.
One of the first schools was founded by the Greek Philosopher, Plato. His Athenian “school” was something much unstructured. The Athenians considered the expert mind also to be the enslaved mind, being nothing more than a trained monkey that could spout facts. The ability to think critically was considered much more prized than to be knowledgeable. Plato was a pupil of Socrates, another Greek Philosopher. History shows how the ruling powers of Athenian Greece viewed free thought. Socrates was condemned to death for corrupting the youth of his day.
We only need to look into America’s recent past to see this fear on the part of the ruling powers. The mid to late 1960s and the early 1970's was a tumultuous time in America. Our military was mired in a war in Vietnam where there was no clear stake, other than to save the world from the “godless” Communist taking over of the world. While many young, mostly poor or middle class young men and women were fighting and dying in Vietnam, here at home, many other poor and middle class youth were daring to question the reasons we were in Vietnam and questioning the seeming rotting culture represented by the-as President Eisenhower phrased it-the industrial military complex. True authority is that which can be questioned. True authority can explain itself and justly. True authority need not couch its authority in terms of threats in order to compel obedience. University student protests against our involvement in the war were met with hostility and violence from authority, culminating in the Kent State University tragedy. Four Kent State students were shot and killed by National Guardsmen during a peaceful protest. After the shootings, the older town people would greet University students by holding up a hand and silently displaying four fingers-an implied threat. Those students had graduated from an oppressive, fascist system and finally imagined they had some measure of liberty. They tried to peacefully assemble, to speak freely, to partake in liberty and to show their independence from the lock step thought. The shots that rang out on the Lexington Green that began the American Revolution were dubbed “the shots heard ‘round the world.” The shots fired on the Kent State campus in 1972 were also heard around the world. Those shots killed the revolution that began on that Lexington Green.
Many of our influential mavericks hadn’t finished public schooling, or even had none at all, Like Thomas Edison, who held 1,000 patents. Another luminary that never finished public schooling was William Lear. “King Lear,” as he was often called, had an inventive, curious mind. Despite that-or because of that-he dropped out of school after the eighth grade. He hadn’t encountered the idea that a condenser coil couldn’t be made small enough to fit a radio into a car, so he built a condenser coil small enough and put a radio in his car. The experts claimed it couldn’t be done. Fortunately, Lear didn’t know what the experts thought they did. We are taught by experts. We expect sound bites from them so that the mediocre can grasp-with minimal effort-what the experts think they know.

The experts also have had sway in the public education sector. Since the 1850‘s, the learning dynamic has been changed four times. Each change has brought about nothing new. There was noted no increase in the performance of our youth. In fact, the literacy rate has dropped since WWII . (Gatto, 2008) In addition, our national public education test scores on math and science have fallen. Yet we not only continue to embrace the obviously faulty advice of education experts, we are eradicating innovation and consolidating power over public education into one geographic location and under one central agency. Centralization creates uniformity, and that can be argued to be a “good,” although uniformity defeats the individualism America was founded upon. Uniformity also denies flexibility required at local school districts to respond in a timely fashion to the particular needs of the respective school districts.
Good Citizenship
One of the first things a dictator or tyrant will do upon gaining power is to take over the media outlets and otherwise control the flow of information. Another term for that is centralization. For a citizen to partake in the governing process, they must be well versed in the documents and historical events that founded their government. One of the best ways to come to an understanding of these documents and events is via whatever education system one is part of. However, if we as citizens have no idea what our government is chartered to do and not do, there can be excesses and violations of those charters. In a speech at Georgetown University Law Center in 2009, retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter correctly stated that the republic "can be lost, it is being lost, it is lost, if it is not understood." He said this as he cited a recent survey, that showed over half of Americans could not name the three branches of government; the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary. This author could offer his own words to illustrate our lack of citizenship, but quotes from those in the trenches will tell the tale much more effectively than I could. For example;

In North Carolina, there is a move to teach nothing in American History that happened prior to 1877. (Shaw, 2010)
Sandra Stotsky, Ph.D. served from 1999-2003 as Senior Associate Commissioner in the Massachusetts Department of Education. From her experience, she writes “one large county in a relatively poor state candidly admitted that "even though all its teachers of American history are certified, few elementary and middle grade teachers are qualified to teach it." In grade 8, it explained, teachers of U.S. history may hold an elementary license for grades 1-8 that does not require one course in U.S. history, or they may have a social studies major-a major that does not focus on U.S. history. It further pointed out that those who teach United States history in grade 5 may not have taken a single U.S. history course in college.” The same was true for the wealthiest county of that state. (Stotsky, 2008)
“ In fact, an alarmingly low 31 percent of middle school history teachers and 41 percent of high school history teachers actually majored in history as undergraduates. At the elementary level, few teachers are required to take solid courses in U.S. and world history as part of their training. “(Stotsky, 2008)
In the wake of No Child Left Behind, many states scrapped their civics curricula to dedicate resources to reading and math. “ In late 2007, Mitsakos & Ackerman (2009) found that only 27 states retained civics in their public school curricula. More disturbing are findings that there is variation in the type of civics education being provided, depending upon the community. In 2005, Julie Jenkins presented at the Western Political Science Association annual conference on her research that showed that in wealthy communities, public schools taught very active forms of citizenship.” In contrast, students living in poor communities were given instruction that socialized them to be passive rather than active citizens. (Larson, 2010)
In the Senate testimony of Gilbert T. Sewall in 2003, of the American Textbook Council, and who has 25 years experience with history textbooks and publishing, Mr. Sewall outlined many of the problems with modern history textbooks. Among the litany were glaring inaccuracies, agendizing, declining literacy, chopped up formats and declining competition among textbook publishers. The newer textbooks are all but sanitized so no one’s feeling will be hurt and important issues are glossed over. For example, it is commonly taught that Lincoln fought the American Civil War to free the slaves. Instead, freedom for the slaves was part of why the American Civil War was fought, but that is only the social implication of the war. That war was also fought as a continuation of the state’s rights issue dating back to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 99. Those resolutions opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Many New England Legislatures also opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts as being un- constitutional. So, the root cause of the civil war lay with an understanding, or at least discussion, of the American Constitution. Lincoln didn’t plan to free the slaves. He was talked into that. He then wanted to send all Africans back to Africa. He was talked out of that.
The focus of the momentous civil war was altered from that of a Constitutional issue to one of freeing slaves by the North, or the industrial portion of America. The lesson then is that industry is the savior, the “good.” Industry can solve all problems and usher in Utopia. Deceased Major General Smedely Butler, who served for thirty plus years in the Marine Corps, wrote a book titled “War is a Racket," in which he showed that all of the wars he fought in were fought for big business. This mantra that industry is savior - and needs to be protected at all costs - was picked up and mirrored by Frederick Taylor, the man who introduced scientific management; Psychologist John Watson who taught the eradication of emotional bonding between parent and child so the child could be equipped to be merely an industrial cog; and the educator Horace Mann.
Horace Mann, the so-called father of American Public Education and who said “The State is the father of our children" visited Prussia, and was so enamored with the order and ease of management found in the Prussian public school system, that he brought that system back to our shores. The Prussian system taught duty, discipline, respect for authority, and the ability to follow orders. The founder of the Prussian school system, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, on The Moscow (Idaho) Education (2010) website was quoted as saying, “Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished.”
John Taylor Gatto, a retired teacher of some thirty years in the New York School System has said that one of the ways to break the will is to fragment subjects and divide the day up into hour increments so to discourage learning. Indeed, an hour -actually more like 45 minutes-is not long enough to delve deeply into any subject.
The ultimate question we face, is do we want a misinformed, ignorant, and docile citizenry, and if so, why? The question might be moot, since this seems the direction the public school system has chosen for years, under the direction of the centralized Federal Governments Department of Education and the experts in Education. So far, the public education systems seems to have been overtaken by not one dictator, but many, well intended though we assume they are, they are destroying critical thought and civic duty, unless civic duty is that the citizen does what he or she is told, buys what he or she is told to buy, and says what he or she is told to say. The Department of Homeland Security has labeled those who don’t accept that the Federal Government should have the ultimate power as being on the extremist and radical watch list. “…and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority..." Some of our founding fathers would be on that list, as would the U.S. Constitution itself. Our public school system has brought us to this point. I am sure Horace Mann and Herr Fichte would have been proud.
Scholastic Ability
When we engage in free or critical thinking, there is the possibility of us being put on a government watch list or considered subversive by those in power. The public have been subjected to censored textbooks and shut out from accurate historical facts. With those two things occurring, students are still expected to achieve high academic scores and do well within the public education system. Is high scholastic performance then possible?
In 1882, fifth graders read from the following authors in their Appleton School Reader: William Shakespeare, Henry Thoreau, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and others like them. In 1995, a student teacher of fifth graders in Minneapolis wrote to the local newspaper. That student teacher then listed perhaps twenty single syllable words such as “saw, that, can” and complained that she was informed that fifth grade students should not be expected to be able to spell such words. Her letter finished with the same question that I find myself asking, “Is this nuts?" (Gatto, 2003)
Prior to mandatory public schooling, many of our best and brightest were taught either at home or a pay for school in the finest traditions of a free market economy. That was part of the promise of America. More pay for schools existed in the North than the South, and largely for reasons of proximity. In the South, there was more agrarian industry, and so the population was less dense. Men like Benjamin Franklin, Henry Ford, George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Edison, and Mark Twain were either entirely homeschooled or had very limited public schooling. Twelve years of public school then is not needed to nurture genius or innovation. Proponents of public schooling will argue that our society is more complex and technologically sophisticated and that requires public schooling, and all twelve years of it. To answer this, we need only to peruse academic standards compared to other nations.
John Taylor Gatto, writes that the literacy rate declined from WWII to the Vietnam War. He arrives at this conclusion by using enlistment test scores. During WWI, the literacy rate was 96 percent. By the Korean War, that had dropped to 81 percent. Literacy was deemed if one could read at a fourth grade level. By the time of the Vietnam War (1964-1974), literacy had plummeted to 79 percent!
It eventually became apparent to educational experts that our literacy rate has been declining so the federal government began a massive spending spree on education beginning in 1970 as indicated by the graph below.

Did this spending work? Did this major infusion of cash at tax-payer’s expense garner us scholastic excellence across the board? According to The Wall Street Journal, Americans spend the second highest on education as a percentage of its GDP, and yet ranks 28th academically among other nations. In recent PISA exams given in 57 countries, America was outperformed among 15 year old science students from such countries as Canada, Taiwan, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Estonia! In math, we were outperformed by students from Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, New Zealand, Norway and Poland.
According to the Alliance for Excellent Education, in 2003, United States students ranked 24th out of 29 nations in problem solving capabilities, well below the average. Some educators would propose that this is a natural occurrence showing the difference in socio-economic levels, and yet the Unites States also had the widest performance gap of all 29 nations. According to All4ed.org, “The differences between the science scores of two children with different socio-economic backgrounds are higher in the United States than in almost any other country.”
This situation would be alarming if the public school system is failing to accomplish its goals. If the goal is to make docile, ignorant, malleable, dull citizens, though, the public school system is performing admirably. Considering the goals of the Prussian public school system, it would seem the American public school system is in fact living up to its expectations.
Consider the words of William Torrey Harris, author of the 1906 work, “The Philosophy of Education”. “Ninety-nine [students] out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual.”
Or then Princeton President Woodrow Wilson, speaking before a gathering of business men prior to WWI: “We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.”
Conclusion
I could continue to post such quotes from noted movers in the early years of the public school movement. They would all point to the same goal; to raise up a small ruling class of industrial giants and political leaders that are benefited by a massive docile and compliant population that fears and obeys authority blindly, has sludge for brains, and little individual will save what they are told they must have and do. That is Tyranny, and from a school system that is Socialist. Under such a system, there is no room to teach of liberty, the Constitution, the philosophy of Locke and Hume. There is no room for critical thinking. There is no room for real knowledge or the love of learning. Yes, our public school system has performed admirably. But, that is not the America our founders intended. There can be no real education of the masses in our current society.
References
(2008, February 29). Where the Brains Are. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from WSJ Error Page - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-FINN080229-) sort.html?s=1&ps=false&a=up
Gatto, J. T. (2003) Intellectual Espionage. Message posted to Intellectual Espionage - John Taylor Gatto (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/3b.htm)
How Does the United States Stack Up? (2008). Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org/files/IntlComp_FactSheet.pdf
Larson, Anita. (2010). Don’t Know Much About Government? (We might start out that way). Retrieved on March 7, 2010 from Don’t Know Much About Government? (We might start out that way) « ASPA National’s Weblog (http://aspanational.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/dont-know-much) about government-we-might-start-out-that-way/
Moscow Education (Idaho). (2010). Right-Mind. Retrieved from http://right- mind.us/blogs/moscoweducation/archive/2008/12/29/65022.aspx
Shaw, Julia. (2010). It Will Be as if the American Founding Never Happened. Retrieved March 2, 2010 from Nothing found for 2010 02 05 It-will-be-as-if-the-american-founding-never (http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/it-will-be-as-if-the-american-founding-never) happened/
Stotsky, Sandra. (2004). What Happens When History Teachers No Longer Understand the Founding? Retrieved on March 5, 2010 from EducationNews.org (http://www.ednews.org/articles/what-happens-when-) history-teachers-no-longer-understand-the-founding.html
Stotsky, Sandra. (2004). The Stealth Curriculum: Manipulating America’s History Teachers. Retrieved on March 2, 2010 from http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=331

[wildernesse]

Thing is, though, yeah. This stuff could be integrated with acknowledged vocational studies and there is no reason that, with competent teachers and administrators, kids could both complete a basic liberal arts education AND get some lifestyle and vocational training (blue or white collar) by the end of high school. If the quality of education were reasonably competent, all but the most severely intellectually challenged kids should be able to come out of it with all of those things.



Totally agree. I have a "college prep +" high school degree, which in my school meant that I completed requirements for both college prep and vocational programs. I have a vocational degree in business administration, but I took AP classes, also. My vocational degree was more relevant for most of the paying work I did until I graduated from law school.

[LadyShea]

Jamie, it appears you've read some of the rebels (Gatto maybe?).

You may be interested in some of our past discussions as this one developed over time from those, and we have hit on some pertinent educational issues, like zero tolerance, autodidactics, schools as discipline camps/industry training centers (ala Foucault and Gatto), John Holt style unschooling, The Core Standards initiative etc.

Most has taken place in these two threads, but there are others here in the "Study Hall" forum
Homeschooling - Freethought Forum (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13035)
The Great Meep Controversy of 2009 - Freethought Forum (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21714&highlight=meep)

lol sigh....

I'll have my husband post one of his essays for university on the nature of the American Public Education system... Gatto? We've taken it 20 steps further than Gatto lol.

Jamie

Why the sigh? I simply pointed you to some other discussions we have had you might find of interest.

The essay formatting didn't translate well to the forum, making it difficult to read, but I didn't see anything in there that is new to me. Perhaps you can point me to the section you feel is most important?

[ChuckF]

I'll have my husband post one of his essays for university on the nature of the American Public Education system...
mrs. coberst itt

[Watser?]

Note that I didn't really follow the story closely, so I don't know whether she was given the option to keep up with her education in some nonstandard way while sailing around the world or whatever. If not, then that's pretty stupid.

She was not, they require all kids be in state schools

That's not really true. There are private schools of all kinds of religious denominations and philosophical leanings. It is just that there is a curriculum to follow. They can add to that.

And like Adam I am not going to lose any sleep over this kid not getting to go on some kind of cool trip. The main reason she (and her father) want that (or more to the point why they think that can't wait a few years) is that she would be setting a new record. I don't see why that should trump everything else.

[LadyShea]

That's not really true. There are private schools of all kinds of religious denominations and philosophical leanings. It is just that there is a curriculum to follow. They can add to that.

Sorry if I misunderstood. Do the private schools follow a state mandated scope and sequence, or even specific curriculum, or do they have autonomy to teach differently than the public schools?

some kind of cool trip.

Solo circumnavigation is a bit more than a cool trip in my view. It's not like flying on a plane somewhere and staying in hotels. It's more akin to climbing Everest, or training for and competing in the Olympics. The skill and preparation required is staggering.

I don't see why that should trump everything else.

Why should a state mandated curriculum trump her attempting to attain a lofty goal that requires dedication, skill, and maturity?

[Watser?]

That's not really true. There are private schools of all kinds of religious denominations and philosophical leanings. It is just that there is a curriculum to follow. They can add to that.

Sorry if I misunderstood. Do the private schools follow a state mandated scope and sequence, or even specific curriculum, or do they have autonomy to teach differently than the public schools?
As far as I know they need to follow the standard curriculum but they can add specific things that they feel are important. I am not completely sure. But the state does inspect the schools and sometimes they will withhold money if they feel standards are not upheld, which happened to an Islamic school in Amsterdam recently.


some kind of cool trip.

Solo circumnavigation is a bit more than a cool trip in my view. It's not like flying on a plane somewhere and staying in hotels. It's like climbing Everest, or competing in the Olympics. The skill and preparation required is staggering.

I don't see why that should trump everything else.

Why should a state mandated curriculum trump her attaining a lofty goal that requires dedication, skill, and maturity?

It doesn't. She can do it when school is finished. The point is they insist on doing it now, so they can set a new record for youngest person to do this.

[LadyShea]

Yes, her being the youngest is the "lofty goal" I mentioned.

Let's look at it another way. The two previous record holders that were homeschooled, do you feel they were harmed or otherwise disadvantaged by trying for the record rather than attending traditional schools until age 17 or whatever?

ETA: My main question is, why is state mandated schooling more important than her trying to break a record?

[Watser?]

Oh. I guess we have very different ideas about what constitutes a lofty goal then...

I doubt that the kid would be harmed or disadvantaged. The court decided the goal wasn't lofty enough to change the rules for her I guess. I can't really blame them for that. Whether the rules should be changed in general is another matter.

[LadyShea]

I guess we have very different ideas about what constitutes a lofty goal thenBeing the youngest person to do something that's difficult or impossible for 99% of the world's population isn't a lofty goal in your opinion?
The court decided the goal wasn't lofty enough to change the rules for her I guess. I can't really blame them for that. Whether the rules should be changed in general is another matter.
That's what I am trying to figure out with this thread, people's opinions on educational priorities.

Do you think the rules should be changed? Or do you think the rules are good enough that exceptions shouldn't be made? If alternatives should be available, what would you consider valid reasons, or lofty enough goals, to be allowed an exception?

[Watser?]

I guess we have very different ideas about what constitutes a lofty goal thenBeing the youngest person to do something that's difficult or impossible for 99% of the world's population isn't a lofty goal in your opinion?
No. It's a freak show.

The court decided the goal wasn't lofty enough to change the rules for her I guess. I can't really blame them for that. Whether the rules should be changed in general is another matter.
That's what I am trying to figure out with this thread, people's opinions on educational priorities.

Do you think the rules should be changed? Or do you think the rules are good enough that exceptions shouldn't be made? If alternatives should be available, what would you consider valid reasons, or lofty enough goals, to be allowed an exception?
I think exceptions can be made. For instance if she were to do something where it was crucial that she be a certain age, not just going for a record.

[Kael]

Being the youngest person to do something that's difficult or impossible for 99% of the world's population isn't a lofty goal in your opinion?If it's truly that difficult (and I have no idea as I know nothing about sailing) then it sounds like a plenty lofty goal whether they make the record for youngest or not. I think I'm leaning with Adam and Watser? here, that she doesn't get to break the record for youngest person isn't breaking my heart. I do think it's an awesome goal, but I don't see that it matters whether she does it now or when she's 40. It would still be an awesome goal.

Do you think the rules should be changed? Or do you think the rules are good enough that exceptions shouldn't be made? If alternatives should be available, what would you consider valid reasons, or lofty enough goals, to be allowed an exception?
I do have trouble thinking of something that would be so important, and so importantly done right now, that a kid should skip or postpone their education for. The circumstances that would necessitate such immediacy elude me, though there's probably an instance or two I just can't think of where I would agree.

Why would circumnavigating the globe solo be so much less impressive, or less important to her growth and development if she did it after school?

[seebs]

It's not that the trades are necessarily less-good than other lines of work -- it's that people who don't have a broader educational background do stupid shit like listening to Jenny McCarthy going on about vaccines, because they know all about how to build a house and jack shit about science and technology.

It is very, very, expensive to us as a society to have so many people who didn't learn stuff that wasn't directly part of their jobs. Fundamentally, your job is not your whole life. If you only learn what you need to know to do your job, that leaves you pretty dangerously ignorant.

[LadyShea]

It's not that the trades are necessarily less-good than other lines of work -- it's that people who don't have a broader educational background do stupid shit like listening to Jenny McCarthy going on about vaccines, because they know all about how to build a house and jack shit about science and technology.

I do administrative and customer service work, that certainly doesn't prevent me learning about all manner of things.

People do stupid shit because a lot of people are stupid. Educated people believe a bunch of stupid shit too.

It is very, very, expensive to us as a society to have so many people who didn't learn stuff that wasn't directly part of their jobs.

Basically everyone had a public education, and mostly those courses had 0 to do with their subsequent jobs.

Fundamentally, your job is not your whole life.

Of course not

If you only learn what you need to know to do your job, that leaves you pretty dangerously ignorant.

Do you feel I have supported such a position as "people should only learn what they need to know to do their job"?

[Deadlokd]

Does it matter then whether she finishes school now, or when she's twenty?

ETA: At the people saying she should wait to sail around the world.

[erimir]

Well, I'm in the "She should be in school camp" but the truth is I don't really care all that much.

But if I were a Greek God, say, Poseidon, I would say to drown her for her hubris.

[LadyShea]

If it's truly that difficult

It requires mastery of a number of skills, and knowledge of factors like wind and water and navigation...it's not like a car where you can operate it without ever seeing the engine.

Why would circumnavigating the globe solo be so much less impressive
Depends on who is or isn't impressed I guess. The youngest, first, best, fastest, least likely due to obstacles, or oldest to succeed at any kind of difficult undertaking do seem to impress, motivate, or otherwise move people, and therefore get the most notice so as to be inspiring to more people.

How many people were impressed at the 94 year old lady who finally got her degree (then died a week later)? Did that maybe inspire some adults to go to college rather than think themselves too old? How many kids maybe took up competitive swimming after watching Micheal Phelps beat the record? How many women were inspired to greater dreams by Amelia Earhart? What about the youngest person to reach some academic feat, like I dunno graduate MIT or something? Is that more or less impressive than the other MIT grads, or neither? Youngest chess champion? Youngest gold medalist? Youngest Heisman Trophy winner (Tim Tebow, Homeschooled. Anti-choice shithead but still a good player)?

What impresses or inspires you?

Watser thinks these kids are a freakshow, but I am comparing them to the masses of useless little shits who are going for the world texting record and can't be bothered to get a summer job, or the bullies who have no goals or dreams let alone any dedication to mastering something as difficult as sailing, or the disaffected kids who can't seem to find anything to aspire to or hope for.

less important to her growth and development if she did it after school?

Importance to growth is a very subjective thing. I can't measure it because it's not my growth.

[Kael]

Actually, it was Watser? that called it a freak show, though if I understood him correctly he was referring primarily to the importance being placed on her being Teh Youngest EVAR to accomplish the feat. In that I agree.

There are lots of different kinds of people in the world, and hence lots of different kinds of kids. Some have great opportunities but never excel. Some would excel if they had those same opportunities, but don't get them. Most are somewhere in between.

I would hesitate to expand my opinions on this specific case into any kind of general ruling about what does and doesn't qualify as a good reason to postpone a formal education. In this instance I am of the opinion that, though sailing solo around the world is an amazing opportunity and I wish her the best, trying to be the youngest to do so is not a good enough reason to make an exception to her country's educational policies. I am, of course, open to those policies being re-examined or changed, perhaps with cases like this in mind when new policies are discussed and formed.

As far as education in general:I do administrative and customer service work, that certainly doesn't prevent me learning about all manner of things.Very few people are prevented from learning things outside their paying jobs. Most people don't, though I was and still am personally astonished by this simple fact.

A lot of the basic curriculum taught to students in secondary education, and even in college, is not retained by many people, simply because they don't care. They're not curious, don't find it interesting, or what have you. Observing that some number of high school graduates couldn't pass a GED test even a handful of years later does not seem to indicate to me that we should stop trying to teach these things in high school. Yes, even educated people can fall prey to poor judgment and poor thinking, and wind up believing things they really shouldn't. I personally know someone with a college education who believes in the healing power of various semi-precious stones when worn as pendants or bracelets. The thing is, among the general population those sorts of beliefs aren't so uncommon. Among the educated population it is the exception. Education is not 100% proof aganst poor thinking. Lack of education, however, leaves even intelligent and curious people with little defense against manipulation and misinformation.

As we push the boundaries of what we know further and further, the importance of at least trying to educate the general populace only increases. Though most of us will never be at the cutting edge of any field, from physics and math to anthropology and sociology, the more we all know about those fields, and everything in between, the better off we will all be. Even if that means having kids sit through biology classes when they're not interested in biology.

[LadyShea]

Observing that some number of high school graduates couldn't pass a GED test even a handful of years later does not seem to indicate to me that we should stop trying to teach these things in high school.

Do you think someone here has supported the position to stop trying to teach these things to kids?

With the vocational education stuff, I was advocating allowing it to be a focus in high school, along with the basics of science, math, etc. That's how it worked in my high school and apparently in Wildernesse's too.

Hell for that matter allow a focus on math or science or music for those who plan to further their studies in those areas after high school. Kind of like college...everyone gets the core, then have a focus or "major" if they want. IIRC, and I can look it up if needed, several of the top 10 high schools in the country are focus type magnets (a math and science magnet was number 1 I am pretty sure).

With Laura Dekker, I am more troubled by the lack of alternatives in their school system than anything. No homeschooling, no distance learning, no CLEP type thing to allow her to test out. If she was some kind of athletic prodigy training for the Olympics, would they allow a leave of absence or distance learning of some type if she needed a few years of intensity, for one example of a reason some kids choose against traditional classroom educations? Does her country have touring singers or working actors who are minors? Do they get educated some alternative way? These young sailors are getting media attention, but are far from the only kids going for dreams that put them at odds with the brick and mortar, grade level public school system. The others had alternatives and she does not.

In general I have questioned the scope and sequence, the segregation by age rather than self paced learning nature, which I think fails to challenge those with greater ability leading to boredom and cessation of giving a shit as well as fails those that need more time leading to "fuck it, I won't even bother trying", the failure of US schools to adapt to or even consider learning style differences and the ideas coming from science on how the brain learns best.

I have not advocated for allowing kids to remain uneducated, and if I have appeared to be saying that, then my apologies for lack of clarity.

[Kael]

I posted that while I was very tired, so it's certainly possible I was addressing points you never made.

FWIW I do agree that a system in which a student can opt into a vocation-focused curriculum at some later point in their education would be a good idea, so long as the student had final say and so long as basics of other subjects were not neglected.

[seebs]

LS: I guess I'm confused, then. I got the impression you were opposed to the idea that everyone ought to get education which covers the sorts of things that are in a liberal arts degree. IMHO, we would be a much more successful society if everyone got that education, not just the "learn to sit still" that dominates the public schools.

[LadyShea]

LS: I guess I'm confused, then. I got the impression you were opposed to the idea that everyone ought to get education which covers the sorts of things that are in a liberal arts degree.
Again if anything I said led to that impressions, I apologize. If you can re-read whatever made you think that, and quote me, I'd appreciate it so I can clarify.

That being said, what I think people ought to learn, does not really translate to my thinking the government should mandate it. Learning is done by the student, you can't force someone to learn X, no matter how hard you teach them, no matter how draconian the attendance laws, not matter how often you test them or threaten them etc.

I am advocating for a more flexible system that considers the individual a priority and allows for multiple paths. You could say I am an educational libertarian.


IMHO, we would be a much more successful society if everyone got that education, not just the "learn to sit still" that dominates the public schools.

Most high school curriculum are based on exactly that, as that is what colleges require. Pretty much all require English, a foreign language, Algebra and Geometry, Biology and Earth sciences and some level of chemistry, Civics, US History. Higher maths and sciences are elective.

[Ensign Steve]

I'm loving the current attitude in this thread of, "I'm not going to lose any sleep if this kid I don't even know doesn't get to take her sailing trip." Yeah, neither am I, and the judge probably isn't either. But the kid and her parents definitely did. This thread was spawned by a conversation in chat about whether people are overly complacent about the amount of control the state has over individuals' personal choices regarding their children's educations, and I think this thread continues to be further evidence that yes, yes they are.

[LadyShea]

Because they aren't stuck at the pace of "the rest of the class", limited to X number of days "counting", limited to specific textbooks, tests, and other benchmarks many homeschooled, tutored, or otherwise out of system educated kids finish up the basics well before their same age peers. I know of one 9 year old who is busy CLEPing her way toward a college degree.

It's possible that had they allowed Laura to be tested out, or taught at home, she already knows everything she needs to graduate or could get there in 6 months or whatever. I've no idea and neither does anyone else. It's hard to tell because the judge didn't consider alternatives.

I consider our school year to be 365 days long, so chances are my son may stay ahead of of the kids his age, which is the main reason I have chosen to homeschool. He has a 2 year head start because he was ready before the state would allow him into the system...where might he be when he is 14? No idea.

[Shelli]

Fucking education! How does it work?

:bunnythrust::teacher:


:wisesheep:

[Adam]

I'm loving the current attitude in this thread of, "I'm not going to lose any sleep if this kid I don't even know doesn't get to take her sailing trip." Yeah, neither am I, and the judge probably isn't either. But the kid and her parents definitely did. This thread was spawned by a conversation in chat about whether people are overly complacent about the amount of control the state has over individuals' personal choices regarding their children's educations, and I think this thread continues to be further evidence that yes, yes they are.

Since I was the one who first said I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, I guess I ought to say something. Caveat: The "...I don't even know..." part wasn't part of my original assertion, and my knowing her or not isn't really relevant to my opinion in this case.

The main question I have been addressing is whether the state's interest in ensuring that all children receive a particular sort of baseline education outweighs an individual's interest in doing something relatively frivolous, like setting a world record. My intent in saying that I wasn't going to be losing any sleep over her not getting to take her trip was to say that, by way of contrast, I would lose sleep over the state failing to ensure that baseline education or, in other words, I think that former interest outweighs the latter.

[Ensign Steve]

Okay, that's just where I disagree. I think that an individual's choice should trump the state curriculum. And if I'm wrong then that means that it is okay for the state to infringe on an individual choice in order to ensure what is best for the state as a whole. I don't think that's okay, I value individual choice in this matter over the state's right to take away that choice. That's all I am arguing.

[erimir]

A lot of individuals would choose not to go to school at all, and not because they're substituting something more valuable.

If a kid doesn't want to go to school, but would prefer to watch cartoons all day, and their parents are ok with this, should that trump the state curriculum?

[Watser?]

I think the context for this is that in this country a lot of parents feel their vacation is more important than their kids education and they won't hesitate to make them miss a day or even a week or more if they feel like it. This may have been in part an overreaction to that problem.

[Ensign Steve]

A lot of individuals would choose not to go to school at all, and not because they're substituting something more valuable.

If a kid doesn't want to go to school, but would prefer to watch cartoons all day, and their parents are ok with this, should that trump the state curriculum?

If you're asking me? Yes. That's all I'm saying. Really. And before anyone asks, yes I would also put fundamental religious homeschooling in there as well.

The one exception I would make would have to do with keeping kids out of child labor (which I believe was the reason behind compulsory education in the first place, not an actual desire to educate the populous), but we already have a separate set of laws that deal with child labor. And when you've got your child actors and athletes and farmers who manage to get themselves excused within the current system by using tutors or homeschooling, I think that shows that even the current system doesn't prevent child labor as well as it could or was probably meant to.

[erimir]

I'm more concerned with the fact that children don't really know what's in their best interests, and a parent who would let their kid watch cartoons all day rather than get an education is setting their kid up to be an ignorant failure. It's in the child's interest to get an education, not just the state's.

And no, I don't have any qualms about forcing parents to send their kid to school in that situation. Of course, it is also the case that many of the parents who would let their kid do that probably shouldn't have their kids in the first place (a heroin addict would probably be the type that wouldn't care about their kid watching TV rather than learning anything, for example).

[LadyShea]

I think the context for this is that in this country a lot of parents feel their vacation is more important than their kids education and they won't hesitate to make them miss a day or even a week or more if they feel like it. This may have been in part an overreaction to that problem.

I think a family should certainly be able to prioritize their own life, and to take their kids out of school for a day or a week or whatever if they so choose. It's their family time, and not all parents can, or wish to, schedule their vacations or leisure time around the school schedule. Why should the people who are working and paying taxes to fund education not be able to do make decisions for their own family?

I see a huge difference between "A free public education must be available to everyone" and "Everyone must utilize the free public education system we have devised"

I also see a huge difference between "All children must receive education" and "All children must be taught this specific set of topics using this specific scope and sequence"

[LadyShea]

I'm more concerned with the fact that children don't really know what's in their best interests, and a parent who would let their kid watch cartoons all day rather than get an education is setting their kid up to be an ignorant failure. It's in the child's interest to get an education, not just the state's.

True, and you could probably make a case for complete lack of any education being child neglect and therefore illegal.

And no, I don't have any qualms about forcing parents to send their kid to school in that situation. Of course, it is also the case that many of the parents who would let their kid do that probably shouldn't have their kids in the first place (a heroin addict would probably be the type that wouldn't care about their kid watching TV rather than learning anything, for example).

Right. The fact is, parents who don't give a shit what or if the child learns, are the probably the least likely to take the steps necessary to legally remove themselves from the compulsory education system. They probably enroll their kids in school just to get them out of the way if nothing else.

Parents who do nothing, neither enroll their kids in school nor declare as homeschoolers or whatever, can be, and are, charged under a number of laws such as truancy, or as I said before neglect. CPS has been known to investigate even those who are legally homeschooling and educating.

Are some going to fall through the cracks? Sure. To steal an idea from lisarea, there are a number of parents out there actively fucking their kids up via abuse or neglect, and I, for one, am not including them when I make various statements about parent's rights.

[Adam]

Okay, that's just where I disagree. I think that an individual's choice should trump the state curriculum. And if I'm wrong then that means that it is okay for the state to infringe on an individual choice in order to ensure what is best for the state as a whole. I don't think that's okay, I value individual choice in this matter over the state's right to take away that choice. That's all I am arguing.

Gotcha. I'm just arguing the opposite. I think there are many circumstances where it is preferable for the state to preempt individual choice to promote the general welfare. I don't think that's particularly controversial, even if we all have different opinions re: what specific circumstances qualify.

Here's one we agree on, for example:

The one exception I would make would have to do with keeping kids out of child labor...

I am sort of curious as to why child labor get to be an exception, though. Why should the nanny state interfere with a family's individual choice to make some extra money and teach their children valuable job skills by seeking employment rather than schooling for their children?

[Adam]

I see a huge difference between "A free public education must be available to everyone" and "Everyone must utilize the free public education system we have devised"

i know this was in response to Watser?, not me, but in case there's any doubt, that's not quite what I'm saying either. I think that "public education" has two components:

1) A standard curriculum that all students are required to complete.

2) Free public schools at which that curriculum is taught.

All students must complete 1 and may take advantage of 2 in order to do so, if they and/or their parents so choose.

True, and you could probably make a case for complete lack of any education being child neglect and therefore illegal.

Would you only make that claim of a complete lack of any education, though? It's pretty difficult to imagine a scenario in which parents, no matter how negligent, literally teach their children nothing. What about a substandard education? What about a comprehensive education in laughable falsehoods and frivolous pseudoskills?

My point here is that, if you want to make the case that failing to provide an acceptable education is a form of neglect, you need to have a legal definition of the sort of education that is acceptable. I'm saying that the standard curriculum is that definition.

[Ensign Steve]

Okay, that's just where I disagree. I think that an individual's choice should trump the state curriculum. And if I'm wrong then that means that it is okay for the state to infringe on an individual choice in order to ensure what is best for the state as a whole. I don't think that's okay, I value individual choice in this matter over the state's right to take away that choice. That's all I am arguing.

Gotcha. I'm just arguing the opposite. I think there are many circumstances where it is preferable for the state to preempt individual choice to promote the general welfare. I don't think that's particularly controversial, even if we all have different opinions re: what specific circumstances qualify.

Here's one we agree on, for example:

The one exception I would make would have to do with keeping kids out of child labor...

I am sort of curious as to why child labor get to be an exception, though. Why should the nanny state interfere with a family's individual choice to make some extra money and teach their children valuable job skills by seeking employment rather than schooling for their children?

Except that I'm not arguing that one point of view (state's choice should trump the individual's choice vs. ... the opposite) is categorically correct or better than the other. I think it's a value judgment, and we're going to come to different conclusions based upon our different values, as we have. And it's all good.

What I am arguing is that in giving those choices over to the state, you have to take away freedoms from individuals. And that anybody who thinks that that is a good idea, or ideal or necessary for the good of society or whatever, places a lower value on that individual choice than I do.

That's all I was arguing, ever. I'm being descriptive, not prescriptive.

The child labor example is to show that I do draw the line somewhere, just not in the same place as most others.

Long story short. If the argument is, "It's not nanny state!" my response is, "Yes it is." If the argument is, "It is nanny state, but that's okay because it's necessary for the good of society," my response is, "Okay, that's cool. We both have the same number of dogs in this fight (namely, zero) so I'm going to keep agreeing to disagree on that point." Either way, I have absolutely nothing new to add.

[LadyShea]

1) A standard curriculum that all students are required to complete.

All students must complete 1

Curriculum varies by state and district as is, and some of the methods and materials used to teach the required subjects are inferior to other methods and materials in my opinion.

For example, I think spiral math is inferior to mastery math. Most US schools use some form of spiral math curriculum.
My choosing mastery math will put Kiddo on a different timeline for certain specific topics than his schooled counterparts, though the idea is that both will be basically mathematically literate by adulthood. However if you tested him according to PS standards at one of those places where the scope and sequence diverge, he would appear to be failing.

Would you only make that claim of a complete lack of any education, though? It's pretty difficult to imagine a scenario in which parents, no matter how negligent, literally teach their children nothing.

I agree, but I was responding to a specific statement about children watching TV all day with their parents blessing.

What about a substandard education?

*smile* well dear, until there is some sort of consensus amongst experts as to what a "standard" education is and should be I can't really answer that.

Srsly, I can't answer that right now, because I only know what I want my kid to know. Do I think my expectations are superior? You betcha, but I am sure many others think I am full of shit.

I actually have some hope for the Core Standards Inititiave (http://www.corestandards.org/). So far they seem pretty common sense goals that can be reached using a number of different methods, so has the flexibility I support such as:

(K-5 Reading)
* 1. Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text.
* 2. Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development; summarize the key supporting details and ideas.
* 3. Analyze how and why individuals, events, and ideas develop and interact over the course of a text.

(6-12 Speaking and Listening)
Comprehension and Collaboration

* 1. Prepare for and participate effectively in a range of conversations and collaborations with diverse partners, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively.
* 2. Integrate and evaluate information presented in diverse media and formats, including visually, quantitatively, and orally.
* 3. Evaluate a speaker’s point of view, reasoning, and use of evidence and rhetoric.

Key Points for High School Mathematics
“Modeling links classroom mathematics and statistics to everyday life, work, and decision-making. It is the process of choosing and using appropriate mathematics and statistics to analyze empirical situations, to understand them better, and to improve decisions. Quantities and their relationships in physical, economic, public policy, social and everyday situations can be modeled using mathematical and statistical methods. When making mathematical models, technology is valuable for varying assumptions, exploring consequences, and comparing predictions with data.”


Will this initiative eventually bog itself down with specifics and tests and bureaucracy, and leave outliers behind? Yeah prolly.

What about a comprehensive education in laughable falsehoods and frivolous pseudoskills?
We can't even seem to keep that out of our public schools, (see Texas). They will be taught crazy shit at home no matter what though, and they may retain that and ignore school.

As I said, you can only present the information, you cannot learn it for them.

My point here is that, if you want to make the case that failing to provide an acceptable education is a form of neglect, you need to have a legal definition of the sort of education that is acceptable. I'm saying that the standard curriculum is that definition.

I cannot define "acceptable education" for anyone but myself. I was only making a case for using existing laws against those who might fail to provide any education.

[Adam]

Gotcha. Other than nitpicking the definition of "nanny state", the only thing I'd really take issue with is the idea that neither of us has a dog in this fight. As I said earlier, I think we all have a legitimate interest in ensuring that the people we have to share our society with are educated enough to make halfway intelligent economic/political/etc decisions, so I'd argue that we do, indeed, have dogs in this fight, although probably to a lesser degree than somebody who has a school aged child.

ETA @ ES

[erimir]

Apropos of nothing:

quality public school education

[lisarea]

What are the minimum standards for a high school diploma anyway? As I recall, they're strictly credit based. That is, you don't have to demonstrate any real understanding of the core liberal arts curriculum. You just have to complete a certain number of credit hours in different subject areas, according to state standards or something, no?

What if, instead of mandating credit hours, a high school diploma required some level of knowledge of core subject areas. A passing score on the GED is set as in the top 60% of high school graduates, so maybe if something like that were set rather than being relative, a high school diploma could be awarded to students who a) meet those standards and b) participate in some kind of educational activity until age 16. Kids who have already met or are on track to meeting those minimum educational standards could have the option of pursuing more advanced liberal arts subjects, vocational training and education, or some kind of individual projects or learning--which could include something like sailing. Just something more than sitting around watching TV or doing menial jobs.

I don't really see the problem with kids getting some vocational training as teenagers, and in fact, I looked at a number of local high schools and they all offer vocational training of some sort, although it leans heavily toward white collar vocations--programming, office skills, bookkeeping, even--disturbingly, I think--classes in using specific software. I get that it's easier to offer that kind of vocational study, simply because it doesn't require the facilities that something like auto mechanics or plumbing courses would; but it's certainly not any more innately 'academic' to be a data entry clerk than it is to be a plumber, but I don't see why either one should count as academic credit.

[Watser?]

I think the context for this is that in this country a lot of parents feel their vacation is more important than their kids education and they won't hesitate to make them miss a day or even a week or more if they feel like it. This may have been in part an overreaction to that problem.

I think a family should certainly be able to prioritize their own life, and to take their kids out of school for a day or a week or whatever if they so choose. It's their family time, and not all parents can, or wish to, schedule their vacations or leisure time around the school schedule. Why should the people who are working and paying taxes to fund education not be able to do make decisions for their own family?
Yeah, that would be a great lesson to teach your kids: whenever you feel like taking the day off, just do so. I'm sure that will be very useful in later life.

[LadyShea]

What are the minimum standards for a high school diploma anyway?

It varies. Alabama has a graduation exam.

As I recall, they're strictly credit based. That is, you don't have to demonstrate any real understanding of the core liberal arts curriculum. Well, you have to pass the classes to get the credits or whatever


What if, instead of mandating credit hours, a high school diploma required some level of knowledge of core subject areas. A passing score on the GED is set as in the top 60% of high school graduates, so maybe if something like that were set rather than being relative, a high school diploma could be awarded to students who a) meet those standards and b) participate in some kind of educational activity until age 16.Kids who have already met or are on track to meeting those minimum educational standards could have the option of pursuing more advanced liberal arts subjects, vocational training and education, or some kind of individual projects or learning--which could include something like sailing. Just something more than sitting around watching TV or doing menial jobs.

If the standards were sane, I'd go along with that. I want more options on getting there and where to go after, not fewer. So hey good idea!

[LadyShea]

Yeah, that would be a great lesson to teach your kids: whenever you feel like taking the day off, just do so. I'm sure that will be very useful in later life.

That's not what I was saying, at all.

Scheduling vacation time that is compatible with your place of employment and/or business schedule as well as other factors like cost, but happens to conflict with the school schedule, is NOT the same as just taking random days off.

[Ensign Steve]

YOU VILL VACATION VEN ZE STATE SAYS YOU VILL VACATION!
:Cartler:

[Qingdai]

I think Oregon had a certain number of credits, plus you had to pass a test (at one school district they did away with the test, according to the teacher that's standing in the room with me).
I don't know how it worked.
Here's an article though:
Oregon sets new high school diploma requirements - OregonLive.com (http://www.oregonlive.com/education/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1213930526258060.xml&coll=7)

Aha, that and many other requirements. A whole portfolio it seems.
http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=1684

[lisarea]

Public speaking requirements? What the shit? :unicorncentipederainbowvomit:

Basing graduations on earned credits would be perfectly OK if teachers were consistently competent, but they aren't. Kids graduate all the time without even the most fundamental academics. A system that provides sufficient language credits to functionally illiterate students is just plain broken.

Seriously, look at and figure the scoring on some GED sample tests online. That's the level of competence I'm talking about, and 40% of HS graduates don't have it. That's just really really really bad, and it's also really really really bad that kids who enter high school already competent are stuck having to go through the academic courses offered in such a low performing environment.

[Watser?]

Yeah, that would be a great lesson to teach your kids: whenever you feel like taking the day off, just do so. I'm sure that will be very useful in later life.

That's not what I was saying, at all.

Scheduling vacation time that is compatible with your place of employment and/or business schedule as well as other factors like cost, but happens to conflict with the school schedule, is NOT the same as just taking random days off.

Ok. But that was the problem I was talking about. People just take their kids off school if it conflicts with their schedule. It's not like they don't know the school schedule either (and school vacations are pretty long anyway, so there is plenty of time to choose from for your own vacation). They just don't care.

[LadyShea]

Ok. But that was the problem I was talking about. People just take their kids off school if it conflicts with their schedule. It's not like they don't know the school schedule either (and school vacations are pretty long anyway, so there is plenty of time to choose from for your own vacation). They just don't care.

They just prioritize family time when it means a day or two or five out of the entire what, 180 day school year if they are unable to schedule during school holidays. Some kids won't even feel those 5 days...I never would have. In fact we took one vacation during school (opportunity due to a mandatory business trip), and my teachers gave me the weeks worth of work ahead of time. I had it completed within 2 days.

Not every business allows vacation time during school holidays, specifically if they are based on school holiday tourism or holidays (like retail jobs you can't take off any time during Christmas season). When I was growing up my dad's company closed the whole facility for two weeks every year, they mixed it up every year, forcing the same vacation for everyone, no choices.

What should families do, simply not go on a vacation (that may have educational opportunities) because their work and school schedules conflict?

[Watser?]

Every business here allows vacation time during school holidays (some businesses take their vacation time at a fixed time, like construction but that is always during school holidays). It is just a matter of planning ahead.

[LadyShea]

Ah, well that isn't even close to how things work here.

Anyway I am not going to lose sleep because some kid misses a couple days of sitting in a classroom to spend quality time with their family and/or visit some place interesting.

[Watser?]

Nah, it's just to sit in a car with a trailer that is being hauled through Belgium and France with a trunk full of Dutch food after which they will lay on a Spanish beach with the other Dutchies and meet each other in a Dutch bar in Torremolinos and speak Dutch and drink.

[erimir]

Why would you bring Dutch food to Spain?

Doesn't that partially defeat the purpose of leaving the Netherlands?

[Qingdai]

I think the stereotype is, they're cheap.
:psst:

[fragment]

More like the stereotype of American tourists going to Paris and wanting to eat at McDonalds, I think.

eta - Northern Europeans often go on holidays in places like Spain the same way Americans go to Florida. They're there for sun, beaches and overindulgence, not for cultural experiences.

[LadyShea]

Valedictorian Speaks Out Against Schooling in Graduation Speech -- Signs of the Times News (http://www.sott.net/articles/show/212383-Valedictorian-Speaks-Out-Against-Schooling-in-Graduation-Speech)

I am now accomplishing that goal. I am graduating. I should look at this as a positive experience, especially being at the top of my class. However, in retrospect, I cannot say that I am any more intelligent than my peers. I can attest that I am only the best at doing what I am told and working the system. Yet, here I stand, and I am supposed to be proud that I have completed this period of indoctrination. I will leave in the fall to go on to the next phase expected of me, in order to receive a paper document that certifies that I am capable of work. But I contest that I am a human being, a thinker, an adventurer - not a worker. A worker is someone who is trapped within repetition - a slave of the system set up before him. But now, I have successfully shown that I was the best slave. I did what I was told to the extreme. While others sat in class and doodled to later become great artists, I sat in class to take notes and become a great test-taker.



LOL@Coxsackie-Athens High School on accounta they are named after a virus

[livius drusus]

Holy shit balls for miles. She's like a supersmart commie version of the suicidal blond in Pump Up the Volume.

[LadyShea]

Yeah, I keep wondering if the faculty responded enthusiastically or with that confused start and stop clapping or if there was some kind of collective awkward in the whole crowd or what exactly.

[Kael]

Man, I would have paid to see peoples' faces during that speech.

[lisarea]

LOL@Coxsackie-Athens High School on accounta they are named after a virus

And also on accounta just saying Cox-sackie.

[naturalist.atheist]

Valedictorian Speaks Out Against Schooling in Graduation Speech -- Signs of the Times News (http://www.sott.net/articles/show/212383-Valedictorian-Speaks-Out-Against-Schooling-in-Graduation-Speech)

I am now accomplishing that goal. I am graduating. I should look at this as a positive experience, especially being at the top of my class. However, in retrospect, I cannot say that I am any more intelligent than my peers. I can attest that I am only the best at doing what I am told and working the system. Yet, here I stand, and I am supposed to be proud that I have completed this period of indoctrination. I will leave in the fall to go on to the next phase expected of me, in order to receive a paper document that certifies that I am capable of work. But I contest that I am a human being, a thinker, an adventurer - not a worker. A worker is someone who is trapped within repetition - a slave of the system set up before him. But now, I have successfully shown that I was the best slave. I did what I was told to the extreme. While others sat in class and doodled to later become great artists, I sat in class to take notes and become a great test-taker.



LOL@Coxsackie-Athens High School on accounta they are named after a virus

It's funny but I'd say she has learned a very big lesson.

[Dragar]

Really great speech. Must have taken some guts.

Struck a real chord with me; I've been in education almost full time for the last twenty years. I had a goal with it all, but its now evaporated. And I'm left trying to find what remains behind I have a passion for.

[LadyShea]

Wow Dragar, that's pretty heavy shit. May I ask what you are finding with regard to passion? Are there maybe some less traditional avenues* that would allow you to maybe meet some of your original goals?

*Tutoring, writing, starting an afterschool or summer class of some kind

[LadyShea]

LOL, her local rag's write up whitewashed the shit out her speech

http://www.thedailymail.net/articles/2010/06/26/news/doc4c258f0fa4054321534823.txt
Erica Goldson, the Class of 2010 valedictorian, encouraged her classmates, and those who will come after them, to question authority and push the boundaries.

“Focus more on learning, rather than on getting good grades,” she said. “Step up and ask questions.”

[naturalist.atheist]

I would make a terrible teacher. The very first thing I would tell my class would be, 'anybody that doesn't want to be here, leave now.'

I would either be left with an empty classroom and I could pursue my own research or those remaining would be the hard core and we would cover some serious ground.

This idea that we have to educate everybody is nonsense. We should make education available to anyone that wants it but forcing people to learn is just silly.

In my mind the major question we should be asking about the educational system in the US is how do we take young children who are crazy about learning and turn them into people that think of learning as awful drudgery.

[miscegenator]

At this point I think how kids are taught is more important than what is taught.

There are no stupid children, only children with impediments, disabilities, nonabilities, etc. The focus - at this point - should be on nurturing and cultivating every child's innate desire to learn and grow.

Also, there has been much discussion on students and parents, with little mention of educators. In terms of compulsory schooling, teachers need better support, and not just monetary. The curriculum really doesn't matter if a teacher is burned out, or is embittered by a failed system, or is just a dick who likes to hear himself talk more than help his students, por ejemplo.

[LadyShea]

This is pertinent to the OP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Dekker

Her education would be conducted through the Wereldschool (Worldschool), an educational institution that would provide her with material for self-learning. During hurricane seasons, Dekker plans to fly home to study there.[11]

[LadyShea]

At this point I think how kids are taught is more important than what is taught.

I think both the how and what are important. Unfortunately the how is an even more complex question, as we have new info on the learning brain all the time.

There are no stupid children, only children with impediments, disabilities, nonabilities, etc. The focus - at this point - should be on nurturing and cultivating every child's innate desire to learn and grow.
Agreed

Also, there has been much discussion on students and parents, with little mention of educators. In terms of compulsory schooling, teachers need better support, and not just monetary. The curriculum really doesn't matter if a teacher is burned out, or is embittered by a failed system, or is just a dick who likes to hear himself talk more than help his students, por ejemplo.
Any suggestions on how best to accomplish this and prevent burn out or embitterment?

[naturalist.atheist]

My take is that children are little imitators. They seek role models to imitate. If that is so then we should be more concerned with exposing them to teachers that are actually well learned in the areas they are teaching and are actively engaged themselves in expanding their own knowledge. IMO the fatal flaw in so-called modern education is the idea that a teacher is a kind of production line worker. They don't need to know how the thing they are building works in much detail, nor how to design it or even care much about how to make something work better than the last item they built. They only need to posses very small and relatively simple and easy chunks of knowledge and apply them repetitively.

Standardized curriculum is the bane of a good education because it is built on the idea that you can train a low skilled person with an at best mediocre knowledge of the subject as a teacher. In other words the system is structured so that if the math teacher is out sick the coach can take over.

It is no wonder that teachers burn out. No different than the workers on a production line. The more standardized and repetitive you make the work the more likely they will burn out.

Also the worker that we place in front of the class of young imitators is not someone that we would want our kids to imitate, someone that is a good learner themselves. People that are intensely curious and constantly trying to expand their own knowledge usually self select themselves out of the system because they would go batty if they stayed.

[Ensign Steve]

I'm reminded of the montage at the beginning of Election when Matthew Broderick keeps drawing the "Legislative - Executive - Judicial" triangle on the blackboard year after year and it keeps getting sloppier and less legible.

[naturalist.atheist]

It would be interesting if we sort of ran the whole system backwards. Take university professors, people well educated themselves and each year or so have them teach a year earlier. I would imagine that they would over the course of a few generations figure out the best way to teach children. It is a kind of cheating, working the problem backwards.

[miscegenator]

At this point I think how kids are taught is more important than what is taught.

I think both the how and what are important. Unfortunately the how is an even more complex question, as we have new info on the learning brain all the time.

I agree how and what are both important.

My comment focuses on compulsory schooling. The debate about "what should be taught" may never go away, and I think that would be a good thing.

By "how should children be taught" I mean - at least initially - very simple things, such as having teachers who want to be there, or encouraging greater parental involvement, or getting rid of busy work.

Here is a talk by Dan Meyers about changing how math is taught. Dan Meyer: Math class needs a makeover (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_meyer_math_curriculum_makeover.html). Rather than providing students with all the information, he advocates allowing students to figure it out for themselves.

Oh yeah, my comment that at this point how kids are taught is more important is within the context of my thoughts on reforming compulsory schooling. We need to think of it as a long process that is not going to effect every child and not right away. I am a strong believer that parental involvement is imperative to any real reform. In that vein, because reform will not effect every child and not immediately, I think it would behoove parents/caregivers to do whatever they can to cultivate the innate desire to learn and grow that children - as human beings - have.


Also, there has been much discussion on students and parents, with little mention of educators. In terms of compulsory schooling, teachers need better support, and not just monetary. The curriculum really doesn't matter if a teacher is burned out, or is embittered by a failed system, or is just a dick who likes to hear himself talk more than help his students, por ejemplo.
Any suggestions on how best to accomplish this and prevent burn out or embitterment?
A few...
I think, first and foremost, parents and caregivers must be more involved. Right now parents are more outside observers who occasionally are given updates on the progress/regress of their children. When kids go to K, they are given the impression that home is separate from school, that learning is achieved in school and that teachers/educators are the experts on learning. This is not the case. Parents/caregivers are the very first teachers, and this relationship - rather than be cut off, should be nurtured and utilized within the institution of school.

I think every parent and educator would benefit from understanding what kind of learner their child/student is. Understanding how someone learns is a great tool because activities can be tailored to meet that person's abilities and needs. The one-size-fits all schooling is detrimental to us as a species because we are masters of individuality and specialization at least compared to other earth species.

Schooling should not be all about text books and busy work. There should be more variety, and opportunity for the teachers themselves to learn. I think a lot of educators burn out from the repetition, from having kids that don't give a fuck because the material is boring or unrewarding.

I think the most important aspect of a teacher - i.e. what every teacher really should have, is the genuine desire to teach and to care about youth. An adult who genuinely cares is a powerful thing, and can make all the difference in a child.

I know a lot of this is general. Again, I think of reforming schooling as a process and something everyone should be in on.

[miscegenator]

It would be interesting if we sort of ran the whole system backwards. Take university professors, people well educated themselves and each year or so have them teach a year earlier. I would imagine that they would over the course of a few generations figure out the best way to teach children. It is a kind of cheating, working the problem backwards.
I think that's a fantastic idea and have thought that myself. This would also strengthen ties between the university community and the greater community within which it resides.

I commuted to college 30 minutes away, and I was amazed at how disconnected the campus could be from the surrounding areas.

[livius drusus]

Shea linked me to this story (http://www.corriere.it/cronache/10_marzo_03/bardesono_brione_16a2b8c8-26a0-11df-b168-00144f02aabe.shtml) from an Italian newspaper and suggested I post a translation here. It's crazy.


Naked in Class to See Who Is Dirty
Novara, a mother denounces: my son humiliated in front of his classmates

NOVARA - The girls were sent out of the classroom. Then a female janitor and the three teachers of the 3rd grade class of Gianni Rodari school in Briona, a town of a few thousand outside of Novara near the border with Lombardy, forced the 10 boys remaining to drop their pants and underwear. The teachers and janitor wanted to find out who had dirtied the toilet and, after having discovered and humilated the "culprit" in front of his classmates, they punished him. It happened Monday morning just after 11, but the news came out just yesterday, when the mother of one of the schoolboys found out from her son that he was put in the corner for a good half hour. Yesterday the mother went to the school without her son and protested vigorously, even going to the school administrators, then she went to a lawyer:

"My son was scared," she said, "and didn't tell me anything. Only when he realized that I already knew did he begin to cry and talk about it. Now I'm going to see what to do about this and I don't exclude pressing charges against the people who did this to him."

School administrator Renato Schettini shocked: "I'm shocked," he said. "The teachers involved told me that they only realized the next day the gravity of what transpired. They explained to me that confronted with the anger of the janitor they weren't able to stay calm and figure out another way to solve the problem." A problem that according to the mother of the boy could have been dealt with in a whole other way. "My son, perhaps because of a light case of diarrhea, asked multiple times for permission to go to the bathroom. The teachers told him no until recess. So the boy, who was feeling ill, when he was finally able to get the toilet did what he could but, of course, he soiled himself." The janitor became enraged. 'I'm tired of cleaning up. This children aren't getting taught by the parents or the teachers. Now I want to know who did this." The woman, who lives in Carpignano Sesia, allegedly convinced the teachers to follow her orders and strip the boys.

The mayor of the small town of Briona, Angelo Rossi, reached by phone late yesterday evening, says: "It cannot happen anymore than I hear about these things from journalists. Nobody told me about this. Tomorrow I'll take measures; I have some questions but this situation has to be clarified immediately. And to think that we're talking about teachers with a great deal of experience; the janitor is an esteemed woman both in school and in town. I can't grasp how all of this could have happened, at least how it was told to me.

If on one side the teachers, even shouldering their part of the blame, tend to blame the janitor, she denies having asked that the children disrobe. School administrator Schettini opens his arms disconsolately: "I can't but apologize publicly for what happened, and I'll ensure that the teachers and janitor do the same. My job," he concludes, "is not to defend the school at all costs, because the first priority are the children. Anyway in this case the teachers and janitor are indefensible. I'm very disappointed and pained. I have already opened an instructional procedure to assess what type of sanction to adopt and will listen immediately both to the parents and the teachers." Yesterday even the Novarese county took interest in this case and the police collected information on the incident in case of a possible lawsuit from the mother of the boy.

by Marco Bardesono

[Leesifer]

Jesus, that's awful. :(

[LadyShea]

OMG it's even worse with the whole thing translated (I had read only a summary), that's fricking insane!

Thank you so much, liv, that was a lot of work and I appreciate it.

[livius drusus]

You're very welcome. I enjoyed the opportunity to flex my Italian, despite the fucked up specifics.

[LadyShea]

More on the homeschooling ban in Sweden (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/18/home-school-ban-in-sweden-forces-families-to-mull-/)

Unlike in the U.S., Sweden's home-schoolers do not fit a particular religious profile and are about as secular as the rest of the country but favor an educational style different from what Sweden's state schools deliver.
Yet:
"Since all teaching in Swedish schools is both comprehensive and objective, there is no need for home schooling with reference to religious or philosophical reasons, and this is why this is not an option in the new Education Act," she said.
I don't get it. Germany was worried about homeschoolers becoming separatists or something, what's Sweden's beef with it? Why the reference to religion if it's not a religious movement? Also the Netherlands all but bans it as well. What gives?

Also, are these EU countries? How do they justify these bans in light of the European Convention?

The European Convention of Human Rights explains in Article 2 of the First Protocol that “No person shall be denied the right to education,” thus establishing education as a fundamental right of children. But it also allows for diversity of methods, “the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” (p.160)

[LadyShea]

Chancellor and School Panel Walk Out as Parents Jeer - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/nyregion/17test.html)

despite the drop in this year’s scores after the state recalibrated its standardized exams, students citywide were still making substantial progress, based on graduation rates and other data.

The testing changes, which were designed to make them more rigorous, caused fewer students to pass and made gaps in achievement among racial and ethnic groups more pronounced. More than half of all students failed English, and only 54 percent passed math.

It's not the education necessarily, it's the fucking tests!

[LadyShea]

Rather than start a new thread I am just picking one.

So, with the job and caretaker situation, I understand that my ideal of not sending DS to public school ever may not work out at all, or not work out long term. Shit happens because this is life and it's messy.

Anyway, I have been looking at it from the POV of mitigating those things I feel are the most harmful...standardized tests and crappy curriculum. I have been scouring the state statutes and board of education regulations, and cannot find the cited "state regulation" mandating standardized test participation for each individual student. I will need to call the BoE on that I guess to see what happens if one refuses to allow their child to take the test.

Then I was looking at the young child assessments, called DIBEL, used for K and 1st grade. They assess and apparently use something called nonsense word fluency...and I am literally shaking with rage over that.

Nonsense word fluency means they test phoneme knowledge using nonsense words. The problem I have with that is that the whole point of using phonics to teach reading is so that they can approximate the pronunciation of an unknown word and then connect the approximated word with an actual word in their vocabulary. Teaching phonemes in isolation is one thing (I work on them with Kiddo all the time), teaching them to be read in a non word context is completely counter to the whole point of decoding words.

Has anyone else ever heard of this shit? WTF? Is there any data or evidence to suggest that nonsense word fluency demonstrates improvement in reading comprehension or learning to read?

[Ensign Steve]

Has anyone else ever heard of this shit? WTF?

Not exactly, but similar. The DLAB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Language_Aptitude_Battery) is designed to test your likely ability to learn a foreign language. In the test you learn a really small and simple nonsense language and then answer questions about it.

I guess I can sorta kinda understand how that same technique could be used to test a kindergartner's ability to learn English? :shrug:

[LadyShea]

Has anyone else ever heard of this shit? WTF?

Not exactly, but similar. I took the DLAB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Language_Aptitude_Battery) when I went in the Air Force. It's designed to test your likely ability to learn a foreign language. In the test you learn a really small and simple nonsense language and then answer questions about it.

I guess I can sorta kinda understand how that same technique could be used to test a kindergartner's ability to learn English? :shrug:

I don't understand not using real English words when we are discussing a brand new reader.

[Ensign Steve]

I'm not defending the DIBEL, just answering the question I quoted.

[LadyShea]

I'm not defending the DIBEL, just answering the question I quoted.

Oh I know, and I appreciate it. I can see an application for it to asses language acquisition aptitude.

I am just trying to understand why they would teach non-words to new readers on purpose.

I found a paper on the subject

The measure expressly avoids tapping student skills in reading real words because it may not be clear what strategies the student is using to accurately read real words (e.g., actually reading a word by deciphering the constituent letter-sound correspondences instead of recalling the whole word from memorization without knowledge of the constituent letter sounds).

If the kid is reading the word and understanding what is being read, why does it matter what "strategy" he/she is using?

Sorry, I have no idea why this hit me so hard. I really, really, really don't get it at all, to the point that it seems insane to me.

ETA: I found this wrt reading real English passages to assess reading
This performance (reading passages aloud) entails, for example, a reader's skill at automatically translating letters into coherent sound representations, unitizing those sound components into recognizable wholes and automatically accessing lexical representations, processing meaningful connections within and between sentences, relating text meaning to prior information, and making inferences to supply missing information. As competent readers translate text into spoken language, they coordinate these skills in an obligatory, seemingly effortless manner (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001).

All those connections and inferences and processes are what reading is, to me. Reading nonsense words makes no connections...does it?

[Ensign Steve]

I'm not defending the DIBEL, just answering the question I quoted.

Oh I know, and I appreciate it. I can see an application for it to asses language acquisition aptitude.

I am just trying to understand why they would teach non-words to new readers on purpose.


I guess I'm confused about whether you're talking about teaching or testing? It seems like for the DIBEL (and definitely for the DLAB) it's not about teaching anything, but testing ability or aptitude.

Just spit-balling here but, if a kid taking the test cannot read full English yet, but he knows how to read some phonics, then it seems this test would reflect that. I imagine that a kid who can read full English would have an okay time sounding out the nonsense words as well.

Then of course you get into the issue of the teachers teaching the test, but that's an issue on every standardized test, not just this one, no?

[LadyShea]

I guess I'm confused about whether you're talking about teaching or testing? It seems like for the DIBEL (and definitely for the DLAB) it's not about teaching anything, but testing ability or aptitude.

They do both. It's not a one time test, it's an ongoing assessment (3 times a year through 3rd grade IIRC), so the curriculum includes practicing reading lists of nonsense words....IOW yeah, they are teaching to the tests

if a kid taking the test cannot read full English yet, but he knows how to read some phonics, then it seems this test would reflect that.

Here's a list used in NWF
wab
lon
deg
pev
yil
baf
huz

Wouldn't a test of words like cat, man, top, peg, hit, fun etc. assess the same thing?


A second problem is that competent phonological pho·nol·o·gy
n. pl. pho·nol·o·gies
1. The study of speech sounds in language or a language with reference to their distribution and patterning and to tacit rules governing pronunciation.

2. decoding is, especially as the year progresses, better represented by the capacity to decode a variety of phonetic patterns. So, students who perform well on nonsense word fluency's consonant-vowel-consonant pseudowords may or may not be skilled at reading consonant-vowel-consonant -e words, r-controlled words, dual vowel vowel

Speech sound in which air from the lungs passes through the mouth with minimal obstruction and without audible friction, like the i in fit. The word also refers to a letter representing such a sound (a, e, i, o, u, and sometimes y). words, multisyllabic words, etc. The restriction of the nonsense word fluency task to a single, easy phonetic pattern may reduce the correlation between nonsense word fluency and important criterion measures.

Present findings are reminiscent of earlier work demonstrating the superiority of word identification fluency over nonsense word fluency with a different sample of first graders with more severe reading difficulties (Fuchs, 2003). For that sample of 36 at-risk students who received one-to-one tutoring across the second semester of first grade, nonsense word fluency slopes failed to reliably discriminate dis·crim·i·nate
v. dis·crim·i·nat·ed, dis·crim·i·nat·ing, dis·crim·i·nates

v.intr.
1.
a. student performance on key indicators of reading competence at the end of first grade. In that study, a median split was performed on the slopes of these 36 children, creating a group of children with the top 18 slopes and another group with the bottom 18 slopes. The average effect size comparing these two groups of children on end-of-year indicators of reading competence and on fall-to-spring reading growth was .4 standard deviations, and the difference in the performance of these two groups was statistically significantly different on only one of the eight criterion measures. By contrast, when top versus bottom groups were formed on the basis of word identification fluency slopes, the average effect size comparing the groups exceeded 1 standard deviation, and the performance of students with the top-half slopes versus those with bottom-half slopes were statistically significantly different on all eight year-end indicators of reading competence and fall-to-spring reading growth. Current findings corroborate those earlier findings, showing how improvement across time on word identification fluency functions better than nonsense word fluency for forecasting end-of-first-grade reading status (as well as reading improvement).
Monitoring early reading development in first grade: word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency.

This research seems to support my gut feelings on the subject.

I really need to figure out a way to keep Kiddo home. I can't even read the Kindergarten curriculum and test schedule without seeing red and spending hours looking shit up. Kiddo and I have been working on r controlled vowels for 2 weeks. He is beyond sounding out dog

[Sock Puppet]

Just guessing, but couldn't it be an attempt to measure phonics skills separately from sight-word recognition?

[BrotherMan]

Or the ability to infer meaning via context?

[LadyShea]

Just guessing, but couldn't it be an attempt to measure phonics skills separately from sight-word recognition?

Yes, but to what purpose? Eventually all familiar words become recognized sight words. If the kid can sound out an unfamiliar word to learn it, then recognize it automatically later, that's reading.

[LadyShea]

Or the ability to infer meaning via context?

I'll need you to expand on that

[Sock Puppet]

I'd guess the purpose is to determine whether a kid is having trouble using phonics in general. Maybe a solution in search of a problem, sure.

[LadyShea]

Maybe a solution in search of a problem

Since we are talking about one of the largest bureaucracies in the world, that's probably the explanation right there...sorta what mega-systems tend to do.

[Adam]

Maybe a solution in search of a problem

Since we are talking about one of the largest bureaucracies in the world, that's probably the explanation right there...sorta what mega-systems tend to do.

I was thinking the opposite, sort of. It sounds like the sort of thing someone with a very narrowly specialized focus in phonetics might come up with. Where are our freaking linguists? Maybe they know this shit.

[LadyShea]

I doubt our linguists read my rantings. Maybe a town crier bat signal is needed.

[Adam]

I am your humble servant.

[wildernesse]

Has anyone else ever heard of this shit? WTF? Is there any data or evidence to suggest that nonsense word fluency demonstrates improvement in reading comprehension or learning to read?

I wouldn't think it was measuring improvement, just whether the child understands the rules they have learned from their phonics lessons. If you used real English words, then there is a chance that the children already know those words.

Not every kindergarten or 1st grade student is going to be a new reader--I wasn't, and your child probably isn't going to be either. If you want to measure phonics skill, then you need to do that apart from whether the children know every three letter English word.

Why would you want to measure phonics skill apart from vocabulary or reading skill in general? I don't know, maybe phonics means that the children will be more likely to improve their reading levels at age appropriate levels. Maybe it measures teacher's ability to teach that skill. Maybe if a student has a particular problem with phonics it is a flag that their brains aren't processing information the usual way, and they need some additional tools.

[Chris Porter]

An anecdote from long ago: I was "taught" to read using phonics. It didn't "take" until third grade, I was in the lowest reading group up until the summer between second and third grade. Previous, I was able to read short sentences and words by brute force memorization, but that method eventually chokes when you get to reading the interesting books.

I don't think phonics with fake words worked for me, because I wasn't able to carry the information back to the current habit I was in of memorizing words. I don't know what broke inside me during the summer, but phonics suddenly (and I mean very suddenly) began to make sense, and I started using it everywhere, even on words I had previously memorized.

I'm thinking this is testing whether or not phonic rules, which are quite separate from reading, have been incorporated into a child's reading habits.

[LadyShea]

I'm thinking this is testing whether or not phonic rules, which are quite separate from reading, have been incorporated into a child's reading habits.

But if they are reading, why is it necessary for phonics rule integration to be tested? Why is it important that non words be used?

BTW: I appreciate the use of nonsense words in a literary or poetic sense for older students (Jabberwocky's ability to call forth imagery for a well known example), but it just seems to send the wrong message to beginning readers.

[lisarea]

I don't know anything about this system except the shit I just done skimmed right now, but my impression is that it is designed to measure reading potential rather than current ability. If it used real, common morphemes for testing, kids who had greater exposure to reading and to the language in general would score higher, even if they weren't really getting the underlying principles; and on the other hand, kids who had good reading potential and who better understood the principles, but had less exposure to reading or language in the home would score lower.

Same deal with using special English spelling rules. Eliminating special rules like silent Es lets you better separate potential from training.

So as a tool designed to eliminate confounding cultural factors, it seems like a good idea. But, of course, all that would go out the window entirely if they start 'teaching to the test.' The benefits I can see from it are all from eliminating the 'teaching' factor.

[LadyShea]

designed to measure reading potential rather than current ability
Okay, but what would be the purpose of assessing reading potential?

Oh and thanks everyone. I have been trying to kill the high achiever in my head (she pops up a lot more than I had expected, though you probably can't tell), and closely examining the purposes and structure and scope of these things is doing the job.

[Chris Porter]

I'm thinking this is testing whether or not phonic rules, which are quite separate from reading, have been incorporated into a child's reading habits.

But if they are reading, why is it necessary for phonics rule integration to be tested? Why is it important that non words be used?

To avoid the possibility that the child has brute strength memory and is using that instead? The test isn't able to tell the difference between someone who has incorporated phonics into reading, and someone who has memorized short words. To get around this, the test eschews the use of words deemed likely to be memorized. It's possible there is a better way to test if phonics teaching has worked with using words possibly memorized, but the current tests lack that.

BTW: I appreciate the use of nonsense words in a literary or poetic sense for older students (Jabberwocky's ability to call forth imagery for a well known example), but it just seems to send the wrong message to beginning readers.

[lisarea]

designed to measure reading potential rather than current ability
Okay, but what would be the purpose of assessing reading potential?

I assume it's to distinguish kids who are scoring high based on simple memorization and sight reading without understanding the basic underlying principles, from the kids who understand the principles better but who don't have the experience and training yet.

Rote memorization can only get you so far, and if you find out in junior high or high school that a kid has been simply memorizing written words rather than having the skills to figure them out, it's going to be really hard to teach them the skills they need to get their reading abilities to an adult level.

Sight reading, ideally, would just happen naturally, as you encounter a word often enough that you can just recognize it without effort. Memorization doesn't really teach you the necessary skills to expand your knowledge. You need to understand the mechanics of reading and writing to really be literate.

[LadyShea]

I guess I am not understanding why the strategy used by the individual, whether phonics or memorization or a combination that works for that individual, is important to measure at all. Aren't the results, reading and comprehending, the important factor? And remember, these are specifically used in K, 1st and 2nd, so we are talking about beginning readers.

Rote memorization can only get you so far
Yeah but we aren't talking about rote memorization, which requires drills and repetitions and such if I understand the term correctly. We are talking about kids being actively taught phonics in a classroom. Some of them may have a brain that makes sense of it all more quickly, and less systematically, without the "processes" being measurable.

Maybe if I put it another way. Lets say Kid A learned to read systematically using phonics, and Kid B started reading spontaneously -which is almost always a whole language/memory type deal and from innate abilities.

Both can read passages and answer questions about the passages equally well at age 7. Why does it matter how they read or how they learned to read? Why would it have been important to test their phonetic abilities for the 2 years prior?

Gah, I am not expressing my point well at all, sorry about that.

[wildernesse]

Here is the website for DIBELS (https://dibels.uoregon.edu/). It looks like the measurements, including the nonsense word eval, is to predict reading potential, like lisarea said. If a child has low reading potential, then they need additional help learning the basics and the teacher can work on that.

You can sign up and download the materials for free, if you want to look at them. It contains the warning:
Message to Parents: You should not use these materials to coach your child. If your child is being tested by his or her school, coaching them on the materials will invalidate the results. DIBELS is never used to grade your child; instead, it is used to identify students who need additional instructional support. If you coach your child, you may be removing instructional support that he or she needs.

[LadyShea]

Predicting potential isn't making much sense to me in this case. Predicting what exactly? For when? Would the teacher not be able to easily determine through regular English word evaluations who needs additional support?

From Wildy's link:

Examples of Phonemic Awareness Skills

* Sound and Word discrimination: What word doesn't belong with the others: "cat", "mat", "bat", "ran"? "ran"
* Rhyming: What word rhymes with "cat"? bat
* Syllable splitting: The onset of "cat" is /k/, the rime is /at/
* Blending: What word is made up of the sounds /k/ /a/ /t/? "cat"
* Phonemic segmentation: What are the sounds in "cat"? /k/ /a/ /t/
* Phoneme deletion: What is "cat" without the /k/? "at"
* Phoneme manipulation: What word would you have if you changed the /t/ in cat to an //n/? "can"

These can all be done without nonsense words. This is exactly the kind of stuff I do to assess Kiddo...randomly changing the first letter, last letter, or vowel quickly eliminates guessing and memorization as the source of the word.

[lisarea]

I guess I am not understanding why the strategy used by the individual, whether phonics or memorization or a combination that works for that individual, is important to measure at all. Aren't the results, reading and comprehending, the important factor?
Rote memorization can only get you so far
Yeah but we aren't talking about rote memorization, which requires drills and repetitions and such if I understand the term correctly. We are talking about kids being actively taught phonics in a classroom. Some of them may have a brain that makes sense of it all more quickly, and less systematically, without the "processes" being measurable.

Maybe if I put it another way. Lets say Kid A learned to read systematically using phonics, and Kid B started reading spontaneously -which is almost always a whole language/memory type deal and from innate abilities.

Both can read passages and answer questions about the passages equally well at age 7. Why does it matter how they read or how they learned to read? Why would it have been important to test their phonetic abilities for the 2 years prior?

The problem is that you can only get so far by memorizing words or by simple sight reading. So a kid might be doing fine when they're seven, and the problem wouldn't really become apparent until they're fourteen or so, when it's going to be much harder to go back and teach them the underlying principles.

To make an analogy, you can simply memorize things like 'times tables' and solutions to simple arithmetic problems and some simple algebra formulas, and that will get you good grades in math until probably some time in middle or high school, depending on your memorization skills and on your specific education. But then, you start to encounter problems that you have to solve all on your own, without having the formula handed to you. If you don't know how to break the problem down and think about it logically because you never had to do that before, you're kind of fucked. You're now in junior high or so and you don't even have an elementary school understanding of how numbers work, which leaves you pretty much stunted unless and until you go back and re-learn the principles you should have been learning in Kindergarten.

It's the same thing with reading. Kids at those young ages are dealing with a very limited word hoard--one that is possible to master simply through memorization. But if they skate by just memorizing, they're going to be very ill equipped to master anything much beyond that using those techniques; and ensuring that they're understanding the basic mechanics of reading ensures that even if they don't need those abilities right now, they'll have them later when they will really need them.

Everyone eventually develops sight reading skills simply by repeated encounters with the same words, but to get to an adult reading level, you need to understand the underlying mechanics of how words are put together that you can fall back on when you encounter a new word.

Without some kind of objective tool to measure not just what a kid knows, but how they're figuring it out, you're not going to find out who does and doesn't understand the mechanics until it's too late.

[wildernesse]

I guess I am not understanding why the strategy used by the individual, whether phonics or memorization or a combination that works for that individual, is important to measure at all. Aren't the results, reading and comprehending, the important factor? And remember, these are specifically used in K, 1st and 2nd, so we are talking about beginning readers.

Yes, but how do you measure whether a child is on the path to reading? It isn't as if there are just two groups: readers and non-readers. What about the children who aren't getting to the reading part? This measures what a child might be missing in order to get to reading.

Rote memorization can only get you so far
Yeah but we aren't talking about rote memorization, which requires drills and repetitions and such if I understand the term correctly. We are talking about kids being actively taught phonics in a classroom. Some of them may have a brain that makes sense of it all more quickly, and less systematically, without the "processes" being measurable.

They aren't measuring the processes, though. They are measuring the result--whether the child knows what S sounds like. A child who doesn't know that S sounds like S won't be able to say that "sab" is the word that starts with the S sound.

Maybe if I put it another way. Lets say Kid A learned to read systematically using phonics, and Kid B started reading spontaneously -which is almost always a whole language/memory type deal and from innate abilities.

Both can read passages and answer questions about the passages equally well at age 7. Why does it matter how they read or how they learned to read? Why would it have been important to test their phonetic abilities for the 2 years prior?

Perhaps it is unlikely that children who don't know phonics can read at the same level over time. Perhaps Kid B's writing and spelling ability is less than Kid A's, despite similar reading comprehension.

What about Kid A and Kid C, though? Kid C reads below grade level. Wouldn't it be better to know earlier what sounds she wasn't understanding?

[wildernesse]

Predicting potential isn't making much sense to me in this case. Predicting what exactly? For when? Would the teacher not be able to easily determine through regular English word evaluations who needs additional support?

From Wildy's link:

Examples of Phonemic Awareness Skills

* Sound and Word discrimination: What word doesn't belong with the others: "cat", "mat", "bat", "ran"? "ran"
* Rhyming: What word rhymes with "cat"? bat
* Syllable splitting: The onset of "cat" is /k/, the rime is /at/
* Blending: What word is made up of the sounds /k/ /a/ /t/? "cat"
* Phonemic segmentation: What are the sounds in "cat"? /k/ /a/ /t/
* Phoneme deletion: What is "cat" without the /k/? "at"
* Phoneme manipulation: What word would you have if you changed the /t/ in cat to an //n/? "can"

These can all be done without nonsense words. This is exactly the kind of stuff I do to assess Kiddo...randomly changing the first letter, last letter, or vowel quickly eliminates guessing and memorization as the source of the word.

I don't think they are using nonsense words for everything, but there is a nonsense words part of the evaluation.

Nonsense word fluency is a measure of alphabetic principle and phonics. (https://dibels.uoregon.edu/dibelsinfo.php)

[LadyShea]

I see what you are saying Wildy, but still don't understand why nonsense words are better at assessing letter sound knowledge than just the letter by itself or the letter used in real words?

What sound does S make? What sound does B make? What letter makes the b sound in bat?

I have been explaining to Kiddo that sounding out the letters is to help him connect the written word to the spoken word...that all written words correspond to a spoken word. Nonsense words completely counteract the whole point of reading, in my mind. That's why I am having such a hard time with it.

[wildernesse]

I see what you are saying Wildy, but still don't understand why nonsense words are better at assessing letter sound knowledge than just the letter by itself or the letter used in real words?

What sound does S make? What sound does B make? What letter makes the b sound in bat?

And those questions seem to be part of this, too. I don't think that anyone is saying that nonsense words are better than real words, but they do give another dimension for the teacher to understand how much the child knows about letters going with sounds.

It's just an additional way to measure, and takes away some of the noise that other testing might not.

I have been explaining to Kiddo that sounding out the letters is to help him connect the written word to the spoken word...that all written words correspond to a spoken word. Nonsense words completely counteract the whole point of reading, in my mind. That's why I am having such a hard time with it.

You have an advanced child and are an involved parent. There will be children in those schools who have never seen their parent read ANYTHING or tell them that S makes the s sound. Ever. They may have parents who communicate by grunts and slapping (no, I am totally serious) and the words "[name], NO"

They have no background in literacy, and they are going to need the most help in understanding that sounds correspond with letters. I really don't think that 2 minutes of attempting to read nonsense words a month (considering that they will need more frequent eval) will counteract their reading instruction.

[ceptimus]

All mimsy were the borrogroves, and the mome raths outgrabe.

[seebs]

"Nonsense word fluency" actually sounds sensical to me.

How else can you verify that the kid is handling phonetics, not just happening to know the test words?

[erimir]

I rather doubt the use of nonsense words will negatively impact their learning, and it eliminates a confounding factor (namely, sight reading) in evaluating an aspect of reading skills.

Linguists like using nonsense words to test a lot of things.

We use nonsense words to test a child's understanding of morphology as well.

For example, this classic:

http://improbable.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/Wug.jpg

This tells us whether they have acquired the rule that "-s" marks plurals. You can also check whether they have acquired the allomorphs. Orthographically, the plural marker is "-s", but a linguist would probably say it's basic form is /-z/, but the allomorph that you would probably be interested in is the /-iz/ form (as in "dresses"), since children acquire that later than the basic /-z/ and /-s/ allomorphs.

Yada yada, you can do it with past tense and progressive suffixes and so forth as well. You have to use nonsense words because initially children just memorize the forms - including all the regular nouns and verbs. In fact, what you'll see is that kids don't have any particular problem with irregular nouns and verbs initially (since they treat regular nouns and verbs the same), but once they master the rule, they'll begin to apply it to even nouns and verbs they already knew. So, a child that said "went" might later say "goed". But there's no guarantee that they would do that to a particular word. So the best way to test whether they have the rule is to present an unfamiliar word, and the best way to ensure that it's unfamiliar is to give them a nonsense word.

I don't think they typically test those in school, however, since only someone with a language disorder would have any particular problem with them - and a deficiency in morphology would be obvious, since it would manifest in speech as well as writing.

[LadyShea]

Thanks for the discussion guys. I still don't feel a solid case has been made for the generalized use of nonsense word fluency (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=nonsense+word+fluency&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701) assessment or practice, but it is what it is.

Now I am off to make some state board of education people squirm regarding the statute, code, or regulation mandating individual participation in standardized tests. The assessment and accountability receptionist knows exactly zero about her department.

[erimir]

I still don't get what exactly about the test is enraging.

It angers you that your child would be asked to read, for a few minutes, words that don't mean anything?

[LadyShea]

I still don't get what exactly about the test is enraging.

It angers you that your child would be asked to read, for a few minutes, words that don't mean anything?

Yes. Words have meaning, our language is symbolic of our thoughts. They are important. Using nonsense words in teaching feels like a lie to me. I don't know how else to explain it. From a practical standpoint, I feel it could be confusing for one thing...how would a new reader determine if an unfamiliar word is simply a new addition to their personal lexicon (prompting its adoption and use), or a nonsense word, if reading nonsense words is a regular part of their learning?

Let's switch it over to math. Would you feel that teaching a young child, just learning numeracy and basic math skills, that 1+1=5 is an okay thing to do, for any reason? How about having them try to determine the veracity of 1+1=5 when their skills are still in the counting stage?

Maybe other 4-6 year olds are more flexible, but my son is precise and incredibly sensitive to having things explained to him correctly/incorrectly.

[LadyShea]

How else can you verify that the kid is handling phonetics, not just happening to know the test words?

By having them break the word down to it's phonemes rather than read it whole.

I did that this morning. Kiddo read a word flat out (turn), one I didn't know he was familiar with and didn't understand how he knew it. I asked him to sound it out slowly for me while pointing to the letter(s) that made the corresponding sound, and he did.

Additionally I change letters to make new words

Okay, what if we take away the t in turn and replace it with a b? What if we then replace the n in burn with a p? What if we remove the u in burn and make it an a?

[Ensign Steve]

lol burp. :belch:

[LadyShea]

If I use words like burp, fart, pee, etc. he enjoys his reading time more. He is still a 4yo boy for all his smart kid quirks.

[Adam]

Let's switch it over to math. Would you feel that teaching a young child, just learning numeracy and basic math skills, that 1+1=5 is an okay thing to do, for any reason?

That's not what's happening, though. It's not as though they are being taught invalid rules or anything. They're being asked to apply real rules in a sandbox composed of pretend words. A better math example might be, if I tell you that :doh: is greater than :sadcheer: and :sadcheer: is greater than :popcorn:, is :doh: greater than or less than :popcorn: ? Real rules, made up "numbers", to rule out you having memorized that, say, 3 is greater than 1.

[erimir]

From a practical standpoint, I feel it could be confusing for one thing...how would a new reader determine if an unfamiliar word is simply a new addition to their personal lexicon (prompting its adoption and use), or a nonsense word, if reading nonsense words is a regular part of their learning?I wasn't under the impression that it would be a regular part of their learning. Merely an occasional part (if it's for evaluation purposes, wouldn't it only be once or twice a year, most likely?).

And by the same ways we decline to adopt any other word - we don't know the meaning, other people don't seem to understand it, there don't appear to be occasions appropriate for its use, etc. It can happen with "real" words as well, that you hear a strange word, and it ends up being one that you don't incorporate into your lexicon.
Let's switch it over to math. Would you feel that teaching a young child, just learning numeracy and basic math skills, that 1+1=5 is an okay thing to do, for any reason?1+1=5 is a statement. It is an assertion of something false. "Wug" is not.

Would it make things easier if they pretended that these were names? It's not like "Noo-Noo" (a character from the Teletubbies) is anymore a "real" word than "wug" is.
How about having them try to determine the veracity of 1+1=5 when their skills are still in the counting stage?But they're not measuring logic, they're measuring ability to identify the symbols with the sounds they represent.

It'd be more equivalent to wanting them to just be able to read out loud "two plus three equals five" than for them to solve a math equation.

It could be like asking kids to reproduce drawings of abstract, non-geometric shapes. Those shapes don't mean anything, don't represent anything, learning to recognize and reproduce those shapes in particular provides no benefit... but it would tell us something about the kids' ability to process things visually and other things involved in drawing.

It seems pretty harmless to me.
Maybe other 4-6 year olds are more flexible, but my son is precise and incredibly sensitive to having things explained to him correctly/incorrectly.So, what's going to happen in the worst case scenario?

Is your child going to start calling certain arbitrary things "wugs" and "lons" and "puzzes"? And you won't be able to convince him that these aren't words? Or he'll think that all written words are lies because sometimes the letters represent sounds that don't mean anything?

[LadyShea]

I wasn't under the impression that it would be a regular part of their learning. Merely an occasional part (if it's for evaluation purposes, wouldn't it only be once or twice a year, most likely?).

3 times a year here. And, they teach to the test, so there is practice during classes of this specifically. You can find online practice programs as well.

Is your child going to start calling certain arbitrary things "wugs" and "lons" and "puzzes"? And you won't be able to convince him that these aren't words? Or he'll think that all written words are lies because sometimes the letters represent sounds that don't mean anything?

He won't know what are real words and what are made up words unless somebody tells him, specifically, because made up words are a part of his educational environment.

Am I really the only person that sees that as problematic when I am trying to teach a kid to read by connecting the written word with the spoken word? If so, I am really surprised.

[Crumb]

And, they teach to the test, so there is practice during classes of this specifically.
That's the problem. Teaching to the test reduces its effectiveness as well as potentially confusing your son.

[wildernesse]

I still don't get what exactly about the test is enraging.

It angers you that your child would be asked to read, for a few minutes, words that don't mean anything?

Yes. Words have meaning, our language is symbolic of our thoughts. They are important. Using nonsense words in teaching feels like a lie to me. I don't know how else to explain it. From a practical standpoint, I feel it could be confusing for one thing...how would a new reader determine if an unfamiliar word is simply a new addition to their personal lexicon (prompting its adoption and use), or a nonsense word, if reading nonsense words is a regular part of their learning?

Nothing on the DIBELS page indicates that the children will be learning nonsense words like vocabulary, though. In fact, learning nonsense words as vocabulary would invalidate the test. Where do you see that the school would be teaching nonsense words on a regular basis to students instead of using nonsense words for testing purposes?

What it seems to be is that reading nonsense words tests whether they have learned some particular rules, without confounding the results with sight words. The nonsense word evaluation is two minutes long on an individual basis, and it doesn't appear that this evaluation is always used. Basically, it looks like the student would be evaluated 3x a year, using some (but not all) of the variety of measures within the DIBELS program to measure overall reading potential. If a child is not at the appropriate benchmark, they might be evaluated more frequently using one of the tests, including the nonsense word test.

I think it might help if you contacted the school your child would attend and asked the principal for help in understanding exactly how the DIBELS system works.

[erimir]

3 times a year here. And, they teach to the test, so there is practice during classes of this specifically. You can find online practice programs as well.That would depend on what they consist of, I suppose.

But yeah, it would seem to defeat the purpose to have them practice with nonsense words. The only purpose of the nonsense words is to ensure that they are novel words - that they haven't memorized the words in whole. But that's for evaluation, not for teaching the concepts.

Practicing with nonsense words wouldn't seem to have any purpose.
Is your child going to start calling certain arbitrary things "wugs" and "lons" and "puzzes"? And you won't be able to convince him that these aren't words? Or he'll think that all written words are lies because sometimes the letters represent sounds that don't mean anything?He won't know what are real words and what are made up words unless somebody tells him, specifically, because made up words are a part of his educational environment. If so, I am really surprised.The difference would be that real words have referents. When children learn words, a very large number of them don't involve being explicitly told what the word refers to, but them figuring it out themselves. But the thing is that they can use context, such as the sentence or the adult's gaze to figure it out. Those things wouldn't accompany the nonsense words. Unless they are teaching them that these made up words have meanings that refer to real things (as opposed to something like that drawing of a "wug"), which I doubt that they would be doing.
Am I really the only person that sees that as problematic when I am trying to teach a kid to read by connecting the written word with the spoken word?I have greater confidence in your son's ability to learn words which are meaningful to him and forget the words which either have no meaning, or no meaning that is apparent to him (which would include many real words).

And if he happens to pick up some idiosyncratic words, he'll stop using them eventually with no lasting damage when he realizes that nobody else uses those words and they don't understand them. My older brother used to use "deeda" to mean "up(stairs)" and "cuncunca" to mean "thank you". His language skills are just fine.

[seebs]

I'm thinking this is testing whether or not phonic rules, which are quite separate from reading, have been incorporated into a child's reading habits.

But if they are reading, why is it necessary for phonics rule integration to be tested?

Possibly because ability to work with phonics is a big predictor for future ability to read new words?

Why is it important that non words be used?

Probably to eliminate the gap between students who've already seen a given word and students who haven't.

[seebs]

He won't know what are real words and what are made up words unless somebody tells him, specifically, because made up words are a part of his educational environment.

I never had a problem with that. The real words, people will tell you what they mean. Fake words, they tell you it's just a way of writing a sound.

Am I really the only person that sees that as problematic when I am trying to teach a kid to read by connecting the written word with the spoken word? If so, I am really surprised.

I guess, I'm not understanding what the problem is. I had no trouble distinguishing between made-up test cases to test understanding and real information when I was a kid. I mean, teachers do a LOT of things, intentionally or otherwise, that tell you which are which. Or at least which they think are which.

[LadyShea]

Now I am off to make some state board of education people squirm regarding the statute, code, or regulation mandating individual participation in standardized tests. The assessment and accountability receptionist knows exactly zero about her department.

Sent on the 6th to the head of the Assessment and Accountability at the Alabama Dept. of Education after a brief phone conversation where she told me how to find a buried .pdf on the website

Dear Ms. Poage,

Thank you for helping me find the interpretive guide on your website. Unfortunately I did not find the answer to my question. The guide indicates a goal of 95% participation for the schools, it mentioned that schools are required to administer the various tests, however does not mention how participation by any individual student is enforced.

What if, as a matter of conscience, a parent does not allow their child to participate in a standardized test? I am thinking specifically younger students such as the DIBEL for K-2 and the assessments in the elementary grades 3-6. Is there a mechanism for opting out? Are there individual consequences for not participating, such as a truancy hearing, or disallowing the student to promote to the next grade?

Thank you for your time,

Sent today Ms. Poage,

I sent this a week ago, and have not heard back. Please respond at your earliest convenience.

I am an Alabama resident, business and property owner, and parent; my article is being written due to the importance of the topic to me and others.

ETA: Reply received

Ms. Shea,

Your recent email concerning Alabama’s student assessment program was forwarded to me for response. Alabama’s student assessment program is a system of assessments that measures the knowledge and abilities of students in Alabama’s public schools for the following purposes:

To provide information to educators and parents regarding the educational strengths and weaknesses of individual students.

To provide information to assist local and state educational personnel in reviewing and planning for instructional and curricular improvements.

To provide information to local and state educational personnel, policy makers, and the general public regarding the educational performance of Alabama’s students.

In order for the assessment program to meet each of these intended purposes, it is imperative that all students participate in the assessments. The assessment program is designed to be an integral part of the instructional program and provides the data that is needed to inform instruction and to help in making curricular decisions for individual students and for groups of students. Please note that the assessments measure the content that is specified in our state courses of study which is the content that students are required, by state law, to be taught.

Alabama does not have a mechanism for opting out. As I stated earlier, testing is considered a part of the instructional program. Students that are in attendance on the day of testing are tested just as they are provided instruction if they are in attendance. I hope this information is helpful to you.

So, what she seems to be saying is, students that aren't in attendance on testing day are not tested. Weasely, but yeah my question is answered.

[erimir]

Still don't get what supposed harm would be caused by such a test.

Linguists have done more "wrong" things than that ("wrong" in this case meaning playing language games that involve learning things that aren't "real" words or language rules), and I haven't heard of any harm coming of it.

[LadyShea]

Oh I have a problem with all high stakes standardized testing, which is my original purpose in looking into this. It causes huge amounts of stress for everyone, including the teachers, administrators, parents and especially students. Despite all their justifications to the contrary, they are only used to get funded...they have no meaningful application beyond that.

The nonsense word fluency thing just struck me as especially stupid and possibly harmful. The opinion of possible harm is based on my currently teaching my son to read, and witnessing how he is learning and processing the information presented. Had I not taken this on, I wouldn't have any opinion at all on that aspect, however I would still be opposed to high stakes testing.

[erimir]

Oh yeah, I agree that there's too much standardized testing in the US.

It never bothered me as a child tho, because besides the fact that I'm pretty smart, I'm an excellent test-taker. I know other people who are about the same intelligence but who don't do nearly as well on standardized tests, so the stress of the tests and such has more effect on some people than others.

[LadyShea]

It never bothered me as a child tho, because besides the fact that I'm pretty smart, I'm an excellent test-taker. Me too

I know other people who are about the same intelligence but who don't do nearly as well on standardized tests, so the stress of the tests and such has more effect on some people than others. True, but these days the stress put on the tests, due to NCLB and other supposed "accountability" measures, as well as some states use of the tests for grade promotion (including with LD kids, like my dyslexic nephew who has to pass a test to go to 5th grade despite his diagnosis,IEP and almost paralyzing test anxiety), it's just out of control. I don't remember them being called "high stakes" when I was a kid...you're younger though so maybe you had it.

[erimir]

They might've been high stakes. I wouldn't have known though, because I never had any negative consequences from them.

But I think that the nonsense words thing is far less harmful than the general standardized subject tests.

[LadyShea]

Oh probably, it just pissed me off because I am knee deep in the phonics shit...site words that don't follow any rules are bad enough.

[erimir]

Tu bad wi känt jøst spel þingz in a founetik mäner, ei? 'twüd meik tiching children hau tu rid møch izier.

[LadyShea]

Touche. Reading clicks differently with everyone, and teaching a brand new reader is different the cool tricks a fluent reader can do.

[LadyShea]

Not to worry everyone, Bill Gates is handling it

Behind Grass-Roots School Advocacy, Bill Gates - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/education/22gates.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1)

This ties in to this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22662)as well

In other news, check out the 180 of Diane Ravitch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Ravitch)which is very interesting (I am reading her book)

[Qingdai]

Oh whee. Maybe we can privatize education at least for the poors.

I'm sure Microsoft (which used prison labor and Chinese factories) has our best interests at heart.

By the way, my son just took https://dibels.uoregon.edu/, which is a test on the reading of nonsense words. I'm sort of leery of doing so much testing so early.

[LadyShea]

They do the DIBELS here in K, 1 and 2. There is no opt out in our state, does Oregon allow it?

Anyway you may be interested in some research I did. I saw that this book (http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-DIBELS-What-Does/dp/0325010501) had a chapter specific to Alabama. The book isn't available at my library and I don't really want to buy it, so I wrote to the author of that chapter. This is part of her response.

Some of the particular issues I was interested in are the questionable use of this instrument for English language learners and the use of DIBELS for students with speech impediments, especially stutterers. There has also been a good deal of research that suggests it is not a valid measure for students in poverty. I feel that there are other more valid assessments that give teachers a better picture of a student’s progress in reading, but my main complaint with DIBELS is that is focuses on a set of narrow skills that haven’t been proven to lead to comprehension which is, after all, the point of reading.

When children do poorly on a DIBELS assessment they are given more practice in those DIBELS skills they have not mastered. My opinion is that they need practice with meaningful text, not isolated skills, and certainly not more of the same, only louder and longer.

I did discuss the issue with some folks at the SDE, and one result is that the use of DIBELS as a high stakes assessment has been lessened, and DIBELS scores are not published in the newspaper or the SDE website, as they once were.

DIBELS was not developed as a high stakes measure and even the authors of the DIBELS assessment have stated that it should not be used as such. DIBELS is a snapshot of a child’s skills on one day, and there are many problems with using it as THE assessment for reading.

Ken Goodman (especially knowledgeable) and Stephen Krashen are researchers who know more about the test and its flaws than I do, so you may want to ask them some questions. Some systems may not allow you to opt out because it is part of their core reading program and you cannot opt out of the core. I certainly agree that there are many instances where it is not appropriate, especially for kindergartners. Another person who can give you information is Susan Ohanian

[Qingdai]

I can't tell whether or not Oregon has an opt out option for the tests.

I noticed there is a certain teaching of the test, so I suspect that since Qingdai jr. goes to a title 1 school, there is some push to do well and have a lot of standardized tests, for funding. I find teaching to the test disconcerting, but am not particularly worried about that, since we do so much other stuff at home. Also taking a bunch of tests was normal for me as a kid, as I was in an early variation of Talented and Gifted, we had to do tests every year or so. At one point I opted out of tests, but man, am I good at taking tests now. They're like games for me.

[LadyShea]

Yeah, we have 93 schools in the state that get Reading First funding. Those schools have to use and report assessments in the early grades, and they use DIBELS. For the other schools, like ours, it is not high stakes.

However, the teacher and Kiddo will both know that we, his parents, don't give a shit how he scores on it, because it doesn't seem to be an accurate measurement of anything we care about.

[irukandji]

YouTube - ‪The Whitest Kids U' Know - Pledge of Allegiance‬‏

[Megatron]

Fucking education! How does it work?
Very poorly, from what I've seen over the last 10 years or so.

[lisarea]

Kids who spot bullshit, and the adults who get upset about it – Bad Science (http://www.badscience.net/2011/06/kids-who-spot-bullshit-and-the-adults-who-get-upset-about-it/)

[LadyShea]

That is a really cool article

[erimir]

Wow... I can't believe that Brain Gym crap is in British schools.

[thedoc]

Thanks liserea, I was one of those kids who could occasionally spot BS but I'm sure there were many who, like me, didn't speak up. I only did once in Geometry class and the teacher actually cross the textbook proof out, based on mine. Unfortunately I have continued to see these errors in other peoples thinking but usually don't speak up, I got into some trouble at one place I worked because of that, I lost the job later anyhow so it really didn't matter.

[LadyShea]

YouTube - ‪Kurt Fischer: En konstnär med halv hjärna‬‏

[LadyShea]

That was a pretty good talk. Also, top neuroscientists think current pedagogy sucks. Assorted experts think it sucks (I am reading Diane Ravitch right now). Srsly, why is everybody listening to the standardistas (and those who make money from testing and politicized textbooks and crappy curricula) and NOT child development experts?

[Crumb]

They have more money.

[Kael]

Plus, standardistas propose simple, catch-all solutions while child development experts get all :tldr: with their "it's complicated" and "everyone's different" talk.

That it is complicated, and that simple solutions have demonstrably failed to work, doesn't seem to phase anyone.

[Ensign Steve]

I don't want to start a new thread for this (although if I did it would be called Kids These Days!) and it would be a catch-all thread for the crazy shit kids get up to.

Actually, you know what? I do want to do that.

:unrun:

[The Lone Ranger]

YouTube - ‪The Whitest Kids U' Know - Pledge of Allegiance‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2BfqDUPL1I&feature=player_embedded)

I wish I could thank that twice!

Once, when I was in the Fifth Grade, our teacher told us about the evil, horrible Russkies Soviets, and how they forced children to recite loyalty oaths to the state. She went on to explain how this was brainwashing and a terrible, terrible thing to do to kids who were not yet old-enough to appreciate what was being asked of them.

If she was aware of the irony that she'd led us in the "Pledge of Allegiance" just an hour or so earlier, she didn't let on.

It's possible, of course, that she was quietly and subtly trying to make a point. If so, she was successful, because that lecture on the evils of forced conformity has stuck in my head ever since.

[The Lone Ranger]

Kids who spot bullshit, and the adults who get upset about it – Bad Science (http://www.badscience.net/2011/06/kids-who-spot-bullshit-and-the-adults-who-get-upset-about-it/)

People wring their hands over how to make science relevant and accessible, but newspapers hand us one answer on a plate every week, with the barrage of claims on what’s good for you or bad for you: it’s evidence based medicine. If every school taught the basics – randomised trials, blinding, cohort studies, and why systematic reviews are better than cherrypicking your evidence – it would help everyone navigate the world, and learn some of the most important ideas in the whole of science.

Amen!

[LadyShea]

Libertarians at reason.tv take on the Save Our Schools Rally

reason.tv - Videos > What We Saw at the Save Our Schools Rally in Washington D.C. (http://www.reason.tv/video/show/what-we-saw-at-the-save-our-sc)

[thedoc]

That it is complicated, and that simple solutions have demonstrably failed to work, doesn't seem to phase anyone.


Unfortunately 'simple' is what the schools have the resources to do, I didn't see anyone stepping up to supply the resources to do 'complicated'. That would take a lot more physical materials and a lot more staff. People complain about large classes for each teacher, and with student numbers rising they want to cut funding thereby cutting staff. No-one wants to pay higher school tax, or if you do speak up, at your own risk.

[wildernesse]

My mom is a public school superintendent, and she has these weird ideas like that she should actually visit the schools in her district and check on how the teachers are teaching students stuff. Plus, I think she needs the recharge of talking to kids about what they are learning and interacting with them every once in a while, instead of trying to find a few million more dollars to cut out of the budget.

But. The teachers would be a lot better off if they didn't say "Oh, we just finished this unit!" but if they said "We're just starting to learn about X". Then, when their students don't know anything, it's because they haven't learned about it yet. This tactic also works better than giving the super a blank stare when she asks you what project/work the students did to demonstrate that they understood the concepts they supposedly learned. FYI!

This week on a school visit, she learned that the Native Americans who lived in their area probably got any feathers that they used in clothing/decoration from chickens. I think she should be happy that those kids knew chickens are birds and have feathers.