So I've been reading the new book by Diane Ravitch, The Death and Life of the Great American School System.
I read for at least 20 minutes every night, then I log the amount of time I read and the number of pages. My husband signs the log, so as to encourage me to take responsibility for my reading, and he nags me about it if I forget to fill the log out. Once a week, I write out an answer to a question he assigns; for instance, "what do you think will happen next?" or "tell me about a similar incident in your own life."
When I finish the book, I'll build a diorama in a shoe box, illustrating an important scene. I'll most likely forget about the diorama until the last possible moment, and then the whole family will run around like the Keystone Kops in an effort to scare up the necessary craft supplies.
I love reading! Don't you?
Well, of course I'm not doing that. But that's how a lot of our kids are being taught to approach reading. Diane Ravitch gave me a name for the madness: it's called "Balanced Literacy", and it's just one of the many educational fads that she documents.
As Ms. Ravitch writes:
Such approaches had been criticized in the early days of Balanced Literacy. In 1987, educators P. David Pearson and Janice A. Dole warned: "We have to consider the possibility that all the attention we are asking students to pay to their use of skills and strategies and to their monitoring of these strategies may turn relatively simple and intuitively obvious tasks into introspective nightmares."
Any parent who has lived through this regime, which hit us out of a clear blue sky like the output of a passing pigeon, can tell you the result. Balanced Literacy is a sure-fire, guaranteed technique to make even the most literate child resent and avoid reading.
There has got to be a better way.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Bright Kids in Public Schools
From Losing Our Minds: Gifted Children Left Behind, by Deborah L. Ruf:
In order to deal with the wide array of learners in a classroom, teachers generally teach to the top of the lowest one-third of their mixed-ability class. By doing this, they don't immediately lose those at the bottom, and yet they still manage to hold some attention from the average group in the middle ... When teachers refine their instruction to a lower, more repetitive level in order to increase the chances of a higher overall passing rate and higher composite scores for the class as a whole, the brightest students must sit through additional repeated instruction while gaining nothing from it. These children can frequently pass tests without having any instruction in the material, and they score high despite the lack of attention. Teachers think they don't have to worry about these children. The teachers' attention is entirely consumed by those whose failure would be noticed and by which they are judged. Who can blame them?
... Throughout the intellectual range, children face learning challenges; a variety of learning disabilities are recognized and accommodated in our schools. Parents who have two special-needs children -- one a learning-disabled child and one a gifted child -- are often amazed at how much easier it is to get help for their disabled child while their gifted child loses interest in school.
Children with learning disabilities are by law provided specialists to work with them on a regular basis ... By comparison, intellectually gifted children almost never receive such consideration and accommodation and are seldom given instruction at their own level and pace. In districts that do provide something for gifted children, the programs are minimal, usually part-time -- one hour a week in a class with other gifted children -- with a specialist teacher traveling between two or more schools.
... Unfortunately, while mainstreaming helps disabled children, this practice has negative consequences for gifted children. Although it can help to motivate slow learners, it discourages rapid learners by holding them back; they aren't allowed to learn as fast or as far as they might. Many times, gifted children are placed in cooperative learning groups with other children in which the gifted children do the majority of the work and help others in the group rather than learn at the level that would fit their intellect.
In order to deal with the wide array of learners in a classroom, teachers generally teach to the top of the lowest one-third of their mixed-ability class. By doing this, they don't immediately lose those at the bottom, and yet they still manage to hold some attention from the average group in the middle ... When teachers refine their instruction to a lower, more repetitive level in order to increase the chances of a higher overall passing rate and higher composite scores for the class as a whole, the brightest students must sit through additional repeated instruction while gaining nothing from it. These children can frequently pass tests without having any instruction in the material, and they score high despite the lack of attention. Teachers think they don't have to worry about these children. The teachers' attention is entirely consumed by those whose failure would be noticed and by which they are judged. Who can blame them?
... Throughout the intellectual range, children face learning challenges; a variety of learning disabilities are recognized and accommodated in our schools. Parents who have two special-needs children -- one a learning-disabled child and one a gifted child -- are often amazed at how much easier it is to get help for their disabled child while their gifted child loses interest in school.
Children with learning disabilities are by law provided specialists to work with them on a regular basis ... By comparison, intellectually gifted children almost never receive such consideration and accommodation and are seldom given instruction at their own level and pace. In districts that do provide something for gifted children, the programs are minimal, usually part-time -- one hour a week in a class with other gifted children -- with a specialist teacher traveling between two or more schools.
... Unfortunately, while mainstreaming helps disabled children, this practice has negative consequences for gifted children. Although it can help to motivate slow learners, it discourages rapid learners by holding them back; they aren't allowed to learn as fast or as far as they might. Many times, gifted children are placed in cooperative learning groups with other children in which the gifted children do the majority of the work and help others in the group rather than learn at the level that would fit their intellect.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Small, Homogeneous Classes in Private Schools
From Bad Teachers, by Guy Strickland:
Typical class size in a private school is about twenty, give or take a few students -- many fewer than in most public schools. And since the students are more homogeneous in ability (children at the low end of the range were never admitted), the teacher's attention is less fractionalized. It is much harder for a child to get away with bad behavior in a smaller class; and it's harder for a child to fall through the cracks and go unnoticed when he doesn't understand something. The teacher should be able to give more time and attention to each child in a private school. If your child works better with a more personal relationship, then a private school may benefit him.
Typical class size in a private school is about twenty, give or take a few students -- many fewer than in most public schools. And since the students are more homogeneous in ability (children at the low end of the range were never admitted), the teacher's attention is less fractionalized. It is much harder for a child to get away with bad behavior in a smaller class; and it's harder for a child to fall through the cracks and go unnoticed when he doesn't understand something. The teacher should be able to give more time and attention to each child in a private school. If your child works better with a more personal relationship, then a private school may benefit him.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Don't Lock Up Children with Disabilities
Mrs. C. commented on an important issue affecting children with disabilities. I excerpt her comments below:
We began homeschooling because they locked my SIX YEAR OLD autistic son in a closet on numerous occasions. I wish I were kidding (though it would be a sick joke). It is called a "safe room," and there is NOTHING parents can do about it here in Missouri. In my opinion, it's child abuse.
It's way cheaper to toss a kid in a closet than it is to do that "offer a free and appropriate education" thing. You might go to the national website that fights this practice and give them a good shout-out:
Families Against Restraint and Seclusion
There is NATIONAL LEGISLATION that has passed the house but not the senate that would give schoolchildren the same rights to be free from seclusion (locking into closets) and restraint (tied down to chairs, etc) that you'd get at a mental hospital. Shame that that has to be the standard, but it's a start.
Anyway... my son is not alone in his experiences. Not by a good long way. Children with disabilities are most affected by the lack of good safeguards, as many are not good advocates for themselves and/or they are unable to speak at all.
FedUpMom again: Our schools need to be safe places for all of our children. Many schools have anti-bullying programs, but they almost never confront the possibility that the teacher could be a bully.
I would also like to add that a school that treats one group of children badly is likely not doing very well with any group.
We began homeschooling because they locked my SIX YEAR OLD autistic son in a closet on numerous occasions. I wish I were kidding (though it would be a sick joke). It is called a "safe room," and there is NOTHING parents can do about it here in Missouri. In my opinion, it's child abuse.
It's way cheaper to toss a kid in a closet than it is to do that "offer a free and appropriate education" thing. You might go to the national website that fights this practice and give them a good shout-out:
Families Against Restraint and Seclusion
There is NATIONAL LEGISLATION that has passed the house but not the senate that would give schoolchildren the same rights to be free from seclusion (locking into closets) and restraint (tied down to chairs, etc) that you'd get at a mental hospital. Shame that that has to be the standard, but it's a start.
Anyway... my son is not alone in his experiences. Not by a good long way. Children with disabilities are most affected by the lack of good safeguards, as many are not good advocates for themselves and/or they are unable to speak at all.
FedUpMom again: Our schools need to be safe places for all of our children. Many schools have anti-bullying programs, but they almost never confront the possibility that the teacher could be a bully.
I would also like to add that a school that treats one group of children badly is likely not doing very well with any group.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Yes, Prime Minister
I've recently become addicted to the "Yes, Prime Minister" series. Here's the episode on education. It's surprisingly relevant today.
Yes, Prime Minister: National Education: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
A few highlights:
Sir Humphrey: "... we keep the NUT [teachers' union] happy and we educate our own children privately!"
Sir Humphrey: "The education system does all that most parents requires of it -- keeps the children out of mischief while they're at work."
Sir Humphrey: "Children? Who mentioned children? The Department of Education never mentions children!"
Prime Minister: "We're supposed to be preparing children for a working life. Three quarters of the time they're bored stiff!"
Sir Humphrey: "I should have thought that being bored stiff for three quarters of the time is an excellent preparation for working life."
(How many teachers have written in to StopHomework making this exact argument?)
For all you overachieving types, here's the Latin that Sir Humphrey quotes in vain:
1.) "tempura mutantur nos et mutamur in illis"
(Sir Humphrey's translation: "times change and we change with the times")
2.) "si tacuisses philosophus mansisses"
(Sir Humphrey's loose translation: "if you'd kept your mouth shut we might have thought you were clever". More strictly, "if you'd remained silent you would have remained a philosopher".)
Yes, Prime Minister: National Education: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
A few highlights:
Sir Humphrey: "... we keep the NUT [teachers' union] happy and we educate our own children privately!"
Sir Humphrey: "The education system does all that most parents requires of it -- keeps the children out of mischief while they're at work."
Sir Humphrey: "Children? Who mentioned children? The Department of Education never mentions children!"
Prime Minister: "We're supposed to be preparing children for a working life. Three quarters of the time they're bored stiff!"
Sir Humphrey: "I should have thought that being bored stiff for three quarters of the time is an excellent preparation for working life."
(How many teachers have written in to StopHomework making this exact argument?)
For all you overachieving types, here's the Latin that Sir Humphrey quotes in vain:
1.) "tempura mutantur nos et mutamur in illis"
(Sir Humphrey's translation: "times change and we change with the times")
2.) "si tacuisses philosophus mansisses"
(Sir Humphrey's loose translation: "if you'd kept your mouth shut we might have thought you were clever". More strictly, "if you'd remained silent you would have remained a philosopher".)
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Failure to Communicate
"What we have here is a failure to communicate!" If you don't recognize the quote, it's from a movie called Cool Hand Luke.
When schools talk about "communication" with parents, it's a one-way street. For example, look at Andrea Schindler's letter to parents:
Research has proven that students are more successful when there is a strong parent--teacher communication system in place. In order to communicate regularly, your child will come home every Friday with a Weekly Report ... Please read the report and return the bottom portion, signed, on the following Monday.
When schools talk about "communication" with parents, it's a one-way street. For example, look at Andrea Schindler's letter to parents:
Research has proven that students are more successful when there is a strong parent--teacher communication system in place. In order to communicate regularly, your child will come home every Friday with a Weekly Report ... Please read the report and return the bottom portion, signed, on the following Monday.
How Public are the Public Schools?
From Bad Teachers, by Guy Strickland, copyright 1998 (pre-NCLB!):
In most schools, even those that pay lip service to "parent involvement", parents have no voice whatsoever in any decision that is really important to a child's educational well-being ... [The principal] remembers that when Henry Ford was the only supplier of low-priced automobiles, he could tell the customer, "You can have any color Model T, as long as it is black." Like Ford, the principal knows she is the town's only supplier of her particular product, low-priced education, so she doesn't have to satisfy the customer either. Her attitude may be polite, but the essence of her message is, "Shut up and take what we give you, and be thankful we're giving you anything at all."
We all know the public schools are truly public in the sense that they are run on taxpayer money (and plenty of it, in my district.) But why is it that in the public schools, the public has no voice? In particular, why do parents of kids attending the school have no voice?
Recently I was talking to a mother at the private school my younger dd attends. She told me she had decided to send her kids to public school, and had just moved to my neighborhood so the kids could attend our "excellent"(!) public elementary school. She said she had called the school to ask about their math curriculum, so she could ensure her kids had the needed background, but "the school hasn't called back." She was genuinely puzzled by this.
Another private-school mother, on hearing about my older dd's troubles, and the public-school principal who tried to talk me into staying at the public schools, said, "Why would the principal want your daughter to stay in a school that makes her miserable?"
I began my journey as a public-school parent, and the expectations of private-school parents are amazing to me. You call the school with a question about math curriculum, and you expect to get a call back? You expect the principal to approve of a high-scoring kid leaving the public schools, just because she's miserable? Wow.
But really, these parents' expectations are quite reasonable. They expect to have a voice.
Why can't parents have a say in our public schools? We are the public, we pay for the schools, and we send our kids there. It's time for us to take back our schools.
In most schools, even those that pay lip service to "parent involvement", parents have no voice whatsoever in any decision that is really important to a child's educational well-being ... [The principal] remembers that when Henry Ford was the only supplier of low-priced automobiles, he could tell the customer, "You can have any color Model T, as long as it is black." Like Ford, the principal knows she is the town's only supplier of her particular product, low-priced education, so she doesn't have to satisfy the customer either. Her attitude may be polite, but the essence of her message is, "Shut up and take what we give you, and be thankful we're giving you anything at all."
We all know the public schools are truly public in the sense that they are run on taxpayer money (and plenty of it, in my district.) But why is it that in the public schools, the public has no voice? In particular, why do parents of kids attending the school have no voice?
Recently I was talking to a mother at the private school my younger dd attends. She told me she had decided to send her kids to public school, and had just moved to my neighborhood so the kids could attend our "excellent"(!) public elementary school. She said she had called the school to ask about their math curriculum, so she could ensure her kids had the needed background, but "the school hasn't called back." She was genuinely puzzled by this.
Another private-school mother, on hearing about my older dd's troubles, and the public-school principal who tried to talk me into staying at the public schools, said, "Why would the principal want your daughter to stay in a school that makes her miserable?"
I began my journey as a public-school parent, and the expectations of private-school parents are amazing to me. You call the school with a question about math curriculum, and you expect to get a call back? You expect the principal to approve of a high-scoring kid leaving the public schools, just because she's miserable? Wow.
But really, these parents' expectations are quite reasonable. They expect to have a voice.
Why can't parents have a say in our public schools? We are the public, we pay for the schools, and we send our kids there. It's time for us to take back our schools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)