Slashdot Mirror
Teachers Union Opposes Virtual K-8 Charter School
theodp writes "'You can't sit a child in front of a computer and expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society,' said unimpressed Chicago Teachers Union president Marilyn Stewart of the Chicago Virtual Charter School, which will open to Chicago elementary school students this fall if approved by the state board of education."
As the article says, you can't learn social skills sitting in front of a computer. And some of the people here on slashdot prove that. However, this is Chicago, and the public schools there ain't so safe. The article didn't mention it, but for families whose choices are 1) Send their kids to public schools where they'll either become criminals or get beat up by them, or 2) Use this virtual school, well, I'd keep them home. A lot of people in Chicago home school because the private schools are very expensive and the public schools are terrible.
I object to this in the same way as I object a bit to homeschooling - sure the kid will learn stuff, but they won't learn to be around other people their own age, how to work with others, or how to be a member of society in general. Some may consider that a blessing, but I certainly wouldn't. I think it'll lead to some serious problems when they finally are turned out into the world.
Thanks for offering the prime example of why us techies laugh at humanities students. Or at least at the utterly retarded types who spew such cretinous stuff as "Research simply follows the fad of the day." or "Science is 95% opinion then facts" or "What about astrology, the most rediculious of the sciences!"
Guess what, simpleton? Noone considers astrology a science nowadays.
Basically all you've told me is that you're exactly the kind of ignoramus we loathe: the kind that isn't just content to be an ignorant, but tries to drag everyone else down to his level. The kind who isn't just content to have no fucking clue about real science, but _has_ to bandage his ego by looking down upon those who do.
Tired of elitism? Well, that starts at home. Stop acting like an elitist idiot yourself. The whole "I'm so much better than you because I don't understand science" ivory-tower is what gets us techies to reply with elitism right back. Most of us can accept that not everyone has the inclination or in some cases the IQ for science. Sure. Society needs painters and plumbers too. But seeing an idiot trying to present his ignorance and idiocy as proof of superiority _will_ get a sneer from those who do understand why your arguments only betray massive ignorance.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
A lot of my education was self-directed study in front of a computer without any teachers, and I was in at top university doing a physics degree by the time I was 17, finished by the time I was 19 years old, was working at a major software company as a software architect with a multi-million dollar budget at 20 years old. I'm now 21 and a director and major shareholder of a different technology company. The folk I know who had similar educations are doing similarly well.
Socially I'm fine as well: Got a long term girlfriend, plenty of friends, great family.
Put bluntly, the schools can fuck off. - The only reason they're up upset is that they've realised new methods of education are better for today than the old fashioned schools they work in, so they're are out to protect their jobs at the expense of our young people's education and the profitability of nations.
There's more involved in a university environment than just the final degree. A lot of the value is in being surrounded by other intelligent folks and interacting with professors who know their stuff. In a middle school kids are forced to be there, so there's less benefit (if any) from peer groups, and we all know what happens when you have math or science being taught by someone whose only degree is in "education".
Actually, with all the potential for abuse an online program could have, as with home schooling, if someone comes from that sort of background and still knows their stuff (scores well on standardized tests, etc.) they're probably smarter and/or more self-motivated than someone with an equivalent score from a regular school.
A basic element of learning-teaching is the teacher, who just can't be replaced, the kids need far more than data, need also affection, support, guidance and motivation, I find hard to believe a computer will provide much of it, not to mention that we might see physical problems later and probably conductual issues.
A common lie, every teacher knows...that it might be true for a lil' while, but later: "ain't doin' your work".
don't get me started in the lack of arts, music and p.e.
Smokin' & rubying away
And quit parroting the teacher union's crap they spew about home schooling.
Look, anyone can find examples of students both home schooled and public schooled and use that as reasons to support their side of the story. Fact is home school kids do just fine in society, many scoring far higher than their peers.
home schooling is villified by those who fear its results. Common methods include claims of lack of socialization with peers or religious dogma. Usually the "religious angle" is played out more up north than elsewhere.
You can expect similar arguments from the Teachers Unions and those who are held in its thrall to any advance in education which leads to a loss of their power and influence.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
These are the same teachers that say, "you cant educate a child at home and expect him/her to get the skills they need to succeed in the world." Yet home schooled kids are far better educated than public school educated kids. Teachers unions will always go against anything that does not use them as the delivery system.
People want alternatives, Public schools suck, Teachers do not do their jobs, administrators do as little as possible to get by, the social atmosphere inside the school is very similar to that of a state prison. Middle School is simply 3 years of cruel punishment to kids and the public schools refuse to do anything to fix it.
Parents are seeking out charter and private schools in droves because of the poor quality of public schools, this is another step that allows the child a huge amount of educational freedom. Unsupervised, yes a kid would rather play than learn something that they would consider useless to them at that time. (Social Studies, English, Math) but with supervision a kid that understands math like it was her native language can accellerate way past everyone else including her teacher and get the education she needs. I remember being berated by a science teacher in school because I disagreed. I brough in a paper that proved that I was right and I was sent to the office for being a smart-ass. Teachers in schools hate it when they encounter a child that is smarter than they are and they lash out at those kids to get them back in line. When a kid knows far more about astronomy and astrophysics than the 8th grade general science teacher knows that teacher should STFU instead of telling the kid to STFU.
I am all for anything that eliminates the bad teachers, and that means upsetting the entire teachers union, so be it.
Private schooled kids are better educated.
Charter schooled kids are better educated.
Home schooled kids are better educated.
finally I will bet that computer schooled kids are better educated.
when compared to public schools.
It is a written in stone fact. only the fools believe otherwise.
Unfortunately, most of the poor can not afford the $200-$300 a month for their kids private school tuition.
Just remember that the Union has a significant interest in opposing ALL charter schools. From what I can see, most teachers unions have never met a Charter School that they liked....
Wonder why? Is it the kids, or is it the jobs/pay of the teachers...
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
you are kidding right?
Why should even some regular college degrees deserve respect? Countless colleges allow students to pass through the system with degrees simply because they excel at sports. Many pass on students who only get through sub-par course.
That college degree doesn't come with a grade point average, is a C student at your local state university going to do as well as someone with a higher average from an online university?
Besides, doesn't this smack of elitism? We still have cases where some degrees are worth more than others. Some colleges are looked down upon because in truth the education they provide is better. Why not discriminate based on the fact that applicant A's football team regulary hands your school's ass to it every year?
Education is what you make of it. Public education is no longer about turning out good students who are well balanced with the skills needed to enter the real world. Its a damn jobs program with a bunch of social engineering thrown in to convince kids that the government knows whats good for them.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
As for those that say "you will be working at mcdonalds" ,
I'm going on to so a PhD in socialolgy where I'll be line for tenure
where I have a much more rewarding job then beeing a science freak or
an engineer.
translation : I'll be a manager at a McDonalds.
You do realize that the number of liberal arts phd's around big campuses is huge? I know of 2 people I was good friends with that went to University of Michigan and one has a PHD in political science, the other has a phd in Philosiphy and a phd in music history.
He is in line for tenure as well, 15th in line, in about 15 years he MIGHT get it but right now with some of the cuts made he works part time tutoring students and still lives in the campus housing and looks like a 38 year old gen-X hippie. He is a great friend, but still dreams of driving a bmw and living in the big stone house near campus (IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!)
That is the other path that can and will happen, when financial cuts come the "foofy" classes are the first cut. I can go to any resturant in Ann Arbor and get served by a myriad of Masters and Doctorate degrees.
It's more of an addiction to the campus and College lifestyle than seeking an education. Many of the career students in the wierder degree fields are there to fill their addiction.. IT exists everywhere though. RMS was a career student, and the IT building of almost any campus has some hermit that has several degrees but still lives there. (same for the physics and chemistry building as well.)
I'm just saying that going to be a professor is great, but dont bank on your tenure until you have it in your hand. With your education level you should know that trusting fellow humans is folly at best.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The quality of education is another big issue. If a parent chooses to homeschool a child, and goes through the hurdles, then as a society we must respect that choice, and given that the parent has shown some responsibility, the chances are good the education will be adequate. But what about the parent that is just told their kid no longer has to go to school? Is that parent going to work for 7 hours to keep the kid on task? Is that parent going to teach organizational skill. Is that parent going to make sure the kid goes to the library once a week, differentiate problem concepts, learns how to eat at a table? One reason homeschooling has become so popular is that schools increasingly have to teach much more than content, and parents would rather teach those other things themselves. The one benefit of this program is that the child will be subject to NCLB, as opposed to if he or she was at a private or home school.
As this program moves to higher grades, the problems increase. We are already seeing schools setup specifically to manufacture credit for athletes, thus denying them their socially guaranteed education. Todays NYT reported that this practice even has formally infected colleges, as if that is a surprise. There are other kids that the school would want to educate a home, kids that often would do much better with the structure at school. Inevitable this program will be used to move certain students out of the school system.
Virtual schooling will happen, and this experiment will be widely watched. It is not just about saving teaching jobs. It is about making sure that public education does not become more useless than it is. There are innovation within the school that can reduce costs while still allowing teachers to pay adequate attention to students. Likewise there are kids that might do better or equally well at home. However, history tells us that much of the innovation over the past 40 years has been to reverse Brown.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
If I were to hire an employee, I would disregard any degrees from online universities
This is of course rubbish. As someone who has been in the position of hiring I can say there are many factors to consider. To "disregard" a resume based on the university is a disservice to the company and candidate. In more senior positions the education section is almost irrelevant.
If we're talking junior technical positions (ie straight out of school) then you will be expected to take a test prior to any sitdown interview. Often that means dozens of candidates in a room with all sorts of diverse backrounds (English majors to CS grads).
Not that I want to "kill a dead horse" (yes I am a techie and do like references to things like Dilbert, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc) but I have some issue with what you say. Yes, the 'nerds' as we call ourselves sometimes DO need to step off our soapboxes, but it IS a two way street. I am bothered by your comment :
I'm going on to so a PhD in socialolgy where I'll be line for tenure where I have a much more rewarding job then beeing a science freak or an engineer.[sic]
I got an undergraduate degreee in Ocean Engineering and a Masters in Security Informatics. I LOVED the classes I took in both. Designing and building something (submarines, boats, even shorelines) or analyzing computer security 'stuff' is exciting and rewarding to ME. I chose my career and I love it. I do feel bad for all of those individuals in technical AND non-technical fields that hate what they do and don't find their career rewarding. I can also say that I've taught math to countless middle and high school students and I found that to be very rewarding too. I love the look on a child's face when he or she finally understands something that was a mystery before. I probably will, in a few years, go back to teaching or tutoring, possibly on a volunteer basis.
I will not argue that great things were NOT done in the humanities but the engineering community has brought you innovations you use every day. You typed this message on a computer, where do you think that came from? I'm guessing you use a car or form of public transportation daily other than your feet. Someone had to design and innovate it. Would Willa Cather have built an airplane? No, but I know she DID write some very important works and had some great ideas. You don't HAVE to be a techie to have good ideas, but in the same token you can't dismiss everything technical because you are not.
Anyways, all I have to do to be a engineer wold be to get my MSCE and how hard couyld that be?[sic]
Have you ever looked into the Society of Professional Engineers? For those that are not in the engineering field, many do not know this but in order to be considered a professional engineer there are not one, but two tests you must pass. Now this applies mostly to civil, mechanical and the like but computer engineering and other related engineering fields have tests and they are hard. I passed the first of these two tests (the second you actually need to work for four years under a professional engineer) before you can even take the test. The first test is an 8 hour long test that covers four years of what we learned in college. It's not for everyone. I found it easier than many would because I LIKE the material. Just as some people find it easier to write a novel than I would because that is not where my interests lie. Okay I'll get off my soapbox now too and let someone else on.
When I read Lord of the Flies in high school, all of my problems with the public school system suddenly made sense. There is so little adult involvement in K-12 that it is almost like having no adult discipline and guidance. Kids actually **need** socialization around adults and they need it much more than they need "socialization" around other kids. Two kids by themselves teaching each other how to behave is like one blind man trying to lead another.
I don't know if you've forgotten this due to age or a glorified childhood, but little kids are often nasty and cruel toward one another. They need the guiding hand of good adults, not children. There is a difference between letting kids play together and actual socialization.
Your post is as ignorant as calling a farmer a lazy overpaid bum because he only works during the summer.
We can't get shop teachers because almost anything they are currently doing pays better than teaching. If you're a plumber or electrician, you get a couple of months off when construction is low during the winter. If you work overtime you get paid time and a half or double time for it. If you're a teacher and you're up to midnight marking, you get nothing extra.
So, there we have it, farmers, plumbers and electricians are all overpaid bums. If teachers have it so easy, why don't you become a teacher.
As far the other points, the teaching styes you mentioned are already in wide use at schools. Bus trips of an hour are only an issue at higher grade levels or rural or suburban schools, which merely prepares them for a commute to work. Most kids in the city have an elementary school with in mile or so of them. Time is seldom an issue, although with budget cuts transportation can be.
As far as socialization is concerned, what are the two most important work skills? One, waking up in the morning, getting ready, and being on time to work. I have worked at home, and worked far away. I have worked odd shifts. I thank the schools for preparing me for the most difficult task of getting to work on time. Skill number two is working thing out in peaceful ways, even with people who are not peaceful, thus avoiding the disgruntled employee. Remember, the kid you keep at home, and never teach how to control themselves, may be the person rampaging through the plant with a shotgun in a few years.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The problem is, it's becoming more and more evident that kids won't learn in a classroom, either. I don't see how someone can claim that a charter school won't teach skills necessary to succeed in society when the brick-and-mortar schools don't teach these skills either.
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
Look the bottom line is that the number one priority of a union is to preserve jobs and benefits for it's members. That means opposing progress if progress might mean eliminating jobs or reducing their sweetheart deals. Look at any industry, progress always means increased productivity which usually means eliminating jobs. Look at all of the industries with unionized labor in this country. Notice a pattern? They are all failing. The days of making $35 dollars an hour with full benefits and with no chance of ever getting fired no matter what are over. It's a shame that union members fail to recognize this. I live in Michigan and I see the effects first hand with the UAM. The harder these people try to hang on to the past, the faster their ships sink. Their refusal to recognize and deal with these new circumstances will be their undoing. You've got to produce and compete in a today's global economy and I just don't think they get it. They'll scream and yell and complain and strike until the cows come home but all they are doing in the end is further hurting the companies they depend on for their livelihoods. A few buddies of mine used to work for GM and I used to be amazed at the stories they'd tell. Guys showing up an hour late, sitting around all day essentially doing nothing and leaving an hour early for golf, all the while laughing about how they couldn't be fired. That's not to say all unionized workers abused the system, but enough of them did and they are paying the piper now.
Look the bottom line is that the education system in this country will never be fixed until we break up the teachers unions. Liberals will scream and yell but it has to happen. One of the most important functions a government can provide is education. In this globalized economy education is more important than ever and it's impossible to have a good education system if you can't hold teachers accountable for their performance. I had teachers in high school who showed movies just about every day and taught us nothing because they knew they couldn't be fired. They were tenured and that was that. I had friends who in 12th grade were taking the equivalent of an 8th grade math class. That's simply unacceptable and we're paying the price. The USA will continue to decline until we fix our education system. Unfortunately both politicians and corporations have an interest in maintaining the status quo. If the average citizen was educated enough to know know badly they were getting fucked by both Uncle Sam and the upper 1% then most of the politicians would be out of a job.
The responses to this message are way off track.
So-called on-line universities are in general not accredited and have no standards at all. They are frauds. All you do is send them a few thousand dollars and they send you a piece of paper (or maybe a pdf that you have to print yourself) that says "Degree" on top of it.
For years, some universities have offered correspondence courses by mail. A few let you do an entire degree by correspondence. Typically those universities have some mechanism for proctored examinations and they make you do a full course of assignments. Typically the degrees offereed are generalist arts degrees.
There is no reason why correspondence courses must use snail mail for delivery of materials. On-line is a fine replacement. There is no reason why a university could not offer such degrees exclusively; however, it would be difficult in my opinion to maintain a high level of scholarship without a base established from real-live human interaction.
While I think it is unlikely that there are any decent specialist degrees offered by correspondence (on-line or snail mail), such programs should not be discounted out of hand. But neither should the mode of delivery be completely ignored. As is mentioned elsewhere, interaction with peers and mentors is an important part of education.
Bottom line: ignore non-accredited; treat on-line the same as any other "pass" degree -- evidence of the candidate's ability to complete something, not any particular expertise.
I'm a firm believer in the theory that teaching a kid "Well, that's what the real world is like," too early will end up essentially keeping the same system in place. Rather than say "Go with the flow, that's the way things are," I think we should be saying "If you don't like the way something is, then change it!" Schools place too much emphasis on obedience, without teaching kids anything about thinking for themselves.
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
If I were to hire an employee, I would disregard any degrees from online universities. Why should I (and any private high schools/colleges) consider a student who comes from an online middle school?
I may be a bit biased as I graduated from an online university. Unfortunately, I do not have a rich mommy and daddy to pay for my school and even if I did, I still would have done it myself. I didn't have time to go to frat-daddy mixer keggers or get into squirt gun fights in the dorms after binge drinking. I had to work a full and a part time jobs just to make ends meet, and was still able to make a 3.51 GPA at an accredited university. I tried going to a couple of "real" universities, but always had to drop as soon as I hit a required course that was only available at during the hours I had to work. An online university gave me the opportunity to work, travel for work, and do my coursework whenever I could squeeze in a couple of minutes to get stuff done. Most of the work I did was between the hours of midnight and 3:00am and I was still able to make it to work at 7:00am and 6:00pm every day.
So if you won't even consider this type of self motivated, hard working and goal oriented applicant, you are selling your company short.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
DO you like what happened to our school system while the teachers were fighting? Do you think it is wise to completely ignore the crumbling of our education system, while we demonize the union? Regardless of your personal politics, it is a fact that nearly every major advance in workers rights has come from unions excerising their might. If you abolish the teachers union, per your suggestion, we will be left with an impotent mouse standing against the giant behemoth of government/business. How well do you think that would stack up for the public. Once again: Almost ALL gains in worker rights have come from unions. Do you enjoy your eight hour workday? Thank the unions. Do you enjoy worker safety legislation which requires your employer to train you and keep you safe? Thank the unions. Do you enjoy sick leave, maternity leave, vacation time? Unions. So what is your suggestion to the teachers. Don't strike? Just let everything go down the crapper? What... please give a concrete answer as to what they should do when, say... Mike Harris closed hundreds of schools, upping the class size all over the province? Is that A-OK when class size goes up from an already high 28-30, to a whopping 33-36? How about when preparation time was cut in half? Or when Harris suggested that we fill the shortage of teachers with UNTRAINED teacher-helpers, whom we can pay less? Yeah, your right, the teachers union is just a big baby and all those problems are insignificant. DONT BLAME THE UNION, it is like killing the messenger of bad news. The school system is being torn apart whether you notice or not. The reason that the union is villified is because they are MAKING YOU NOTICE.
Oddly though, studies show homos make much better parents than straight couples.
Statistically thats true, simply because statistically ANYBODY straight person can become a parent which drags down the statistic for them. Homo couples generally adopt, and its rare and very hard for them to do so in much states, so that bottom of the barrel gay generally isn't allowed to have/keep a child.
Being a teacher I think I have a unique perspective on this. I'm sure that the online classes will work. Why? The students that are involved with the project are going to be the same ones that have parents that care and are active in their education. Time and time again I've found that to be the biggest factor in education. They would do better then the standard apathetic student sitting at home with a book and a candle. I feel bad for the teachers however, this may be the thing that takes the few students wanting to learn out of a classroom. Often these kids are the ones that make teaching worth it for many of us.
And he is an obvious troll. I even suspect he cut and pasted it based on the line breaks throughout.
*Googling, please wait...*
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
But I digress.
Here's the deal. Do what you love. Don't blame us for doing what we love. To think that your chosen career is somehow "better" than someone else's is pure arrogance.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
You hit the nail on the head there: The schools, in all the nations of the world, especially in early age are exactly society fabrication facilities, that is the place (spare movies and TV shows) where all the indoctrination is happening. It is used to mould citizens and perpetuate their basic mindset (patriotism, rituals, taboos, cliches, diction, "proper language") and iron out, or isolate, marking it as "interesting", peculiar, strange, funny, locally significant (insignificant) any cultural differences one may have (local slang, accent, certain POV on historical events) thruout a nation.
Now, I don't think teacher's union has that kind of goodies for the society in mind when they profess going to actual school instead using unique capacity for learning young kids have to maximum extent. I am certain they fear that, given opportunity to choose not to go to school, many kids won't: first, all the kids from the bottom of the school foodchain will deflect, shouting "Hallelujah!", then gradually those near to them untill in the end even the bully's will get bored in school and leave, at which point only the flocks of girls gathered around iron-fist ruling "most popular girls in classes" will hang there. The schools will of course, end with excess number of teachers and many teachers are going to get fired, while many of the schools will be closed and sold.
Now THERE's a case for union action!
While I have sadly never read Lord of the Flies I think the point you make is horribly misguided, especially when talking about the lower grades like kindergarten. Much of the goal in most kindergartens is to get the kids to understand how to operate in a classroom environment. You have to teach them not to yell, hit, bite, tattle, and how to use their words to solve their problems. You have to get them used to the world not revolving around them and get them to understand that their desire to do something is often irrelevant and direct their attention to the task at hand. If you do nothing else but get those things across the rest of the stuff will follow. Your argument makes no sense given the constant adult guidance and supervision that exists in a school setting. Schools would be the opposite of the Lord of the Flies scenario. Kids are socializing in the presence of trained experience professionals who, often times, have seen every nasty, cruel, sneaky trick those kids can think of 100 times over and simply won't fall for it.
Many children grow up without consistency and a clear set of rules within which they can operate without having to fear punishment. Consistency is much harder to provide at home than it is at school where the conditions are well controlled and well suited for the purpose. School provides a physical space and a social environment where little kids brains can relax and explore and learn. By providing a change in location, a change in the authority structure and a change in the people surrounding them, you can quickly switch kids into learning mode where as at home they're still in the place where they sleep and play and where most of life's drama and serious stress happens.
Providing a school education is hard and expensive but not providing it would cost a whole lot more in the long run. The primary differentiating factors between impoverished societies and developed ones are a flexible monetary system and public education. Without both of these things, society crumbles.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
"If you don't like the way something is, then change it!"
Yeah , I can really see 10 year olds drafting policies to change the world.
Up to a certain age kids just need to learn. End of. If you let kids do what
they want you end up with the hippy commune style of teaching where the kids
learnt nothing except how to piss about and consequently were hardly qualified
to flip burgers aged 18 , never mind get a well paid white collar job.
Couldn't have put it better myself. Where the hell are my mod points when I need them?
I went through the public school system; my younger brother was home schooled. Guess which one of us is the cynic? Saying he "wasn't taught what the real world is like" is a compliment; it's better not to see injustice as "normal", just because that's the way things looked growing up.
As a side note, he's become the more gregarious of the two of us. I'd say anyone who assumes you need public school in order to become socialized is either completely ignorant of what they're talking about, or else their cross section of "home schooled" kids are the previous generation of religious kids who were taken out of school by their parents.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
The only time, including Kindergarten, that we were ever controlled was when the teacher brought his or her iron fist down on the class and made us worked on regimented little projects. Parents are by far the "lesser evil" here as they don't need to simulate a minimum security prison to keep their kids under control. The fact that many don't control their kids is another issue in and of itself.
Home-schooled kids end up better educated than public schooled kids because by definition they have extremely low teacher-to-student ratios and are taught by extremely engaged teacher(s). Is it because home schooling in general is better than public schooling? NO. It is an artifact of who is involved--only the most engaged and active parents will make the decision and dedicate the time to teach their own children (who they care deeply about), and to navigate the substantial paperwork and bureaucracy in getting official approval for home schooling. The same is true for private schools and charter schools.
Educational success is tied most directly to the level of engagement and dedication of the parents and teachers. The cost and bureaucracy selects for such levels of engagement in home schooling, private schools, and to a lesser extent charter schools. The computer teaching system may or may not--remains to be seen.
Who is left to deal with students who have unengaged, uninterested, poor parents? Public school teachers. Is it any wonder that they burn out so quickly, and hold strong opinions?? They get no support at all for the absolute hardest jobs in teaching--their funding is pulled for roads, corporate subsidies, and charter schools, they have the most challenging students, and they are continuously shit on by people who never attended public school to begin with, or who still hold child-like resentments from what happened one day when they were a student years and years ago (let it go man). If home-schooling parents or private school teachers had to work in public middle schools, most would quit teaching and go find something easier and better paying. It's easy to be dismissive and self-congratulatory when you don't have to see what things are really like.
The answer to our problem public schools is to recognize that the problem is not with the schools but with the system that sucks all the resources out of them. Instead people just find more creative ways to suck even more good students and even more resources out of them.
Want to make public schools better? Get rid of charter schools, get rid of computer teachers, make it hard to home-school kids, tax the hell out of private schools. Force the community to care about the public schools, rather than try to find new ways for the best students and families to pull out of them.
There's so much hand-wringing about how our schools are not as good as they used to be. Well in the old days communities recognized the importance of public schools and most students went there--so there was interest in them as institutions. Teachers received respect from parents on par with doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other professionals. These days so many people scream and shout about how public schools are "broken" that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Teachers are criticized so much as cheap money-grubbing idiots, is it any wonder that students and families and communities are unengaged??
The modern approach to "fixing our school system" is the most misguided, stupid strategy ever. It would be like a city trying to revitalize its downtown by continously finding new ways to incent the best businesses and citizens to move out to the suburbs.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
No. The number one priority of a union is to keep itself in existence. Preserving jobs and benefits is just a necessary evil for them so they can continue collecting dues that keep them existing.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Schools place too much emphasis on obedience, without teaching kids anything about thinking for themselves.
Dude, kids are incapable of thinking for themselves, especially in the grade school years. They need to be taught the difference between right and wrong before they can be taught how to ascertain whether something is right or wrong.
The real problem is that parents have too many escapes nowadays from parenting. The TV and video game consoles offer more stimulation to children than anything else, so they are captivated by it. And parents need to get things done, so they don't mind dumping off their kids in front of the TV for a few hours while they do some house work. Seems to me people have the attitude that if my kid is in front of the TV, at least I know they are safe, right?
Few children will actually turn of the TV or the Video Games and open a book and do some reading. When a child reads, they become better spellers, and better writers. They learn good habits. The TV is a waste of time, even educational shows.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
This may be flame-bait, but I don't care because I'm dating a teacher and I've already had to dodge a flying vase or two over this issue:
TEACHERS UNIONS ARE NOT GOOD AUTHORITIES ON WHAT IS BEST FOR STUDENTS
I agree that this virtual classroom idea is a questionable way to teach students, but the Chicago Teacher's Union opposition to it really has nothing to do with its effect on students. Teachers unions exist for one reason alone: to advocate for for teachers as workers. Higher wages, better benefits, shorter working hours, better working conditions, more job security, etc. Sometimes these aims go hand-in-hand with what's best for students, but often they do not, and it is the job of the union to further these aims anyway. Why don't we provide the incentive of better pay for better teaching, instead of just years of work? Why can't lousy teachers be fired (look up "rubber rooms" in NY)? Why don't students have a longer day and learn through the summer when their math and science skills are way behind other developed countries? Why is the same government that runs the post office running every taxpayer funded school (because vouchers are "evil")? Why are performance testing mechanisms "stifling creativity" even when they test objective skills like math and science? Because these question touch upon the conflict between what's best for teachers and what's best for students.
Let's not confuse teacher unions with professional associations like the AMA and IEEE. When it comes to what is best for students, any teacher union input needs to be viewed in context. Virtual classrooms have the potential to reduce the number of traditional, secure teaching positions. Of course the union opposes it.
The Underground History of American Education.
ahhh... and now we see the real issue, and source of your bias. You're basing it on 'what you've seen as of late'. Which would be? A couple stereotyped examples? South Park's spelling bee? comments on slashdot? A detailed (study or survey?
in contrast, what I've seen as of late are home school parents actually being the people taking the time to help their kids in this respect. I've known about half a dozen home school families (I'm not one of them). About 15 kids altogether. A few were very shy/introverted. Many were very outgoing with a significant social life, typically including non-homeschooled kids, kids from the neighborhood, kids from other groups they're involved with, kids of parents' friends, and yes, friends from church. A couple of the families were not "church-goers", just people who felt they could do a better job themselves. And I would say that at least, they were on par with the local public school district. I would surmise that you're likely to get a similar spectrum of social outcome from homeschool as well as anywhere else.
(note, the above linked study surveyed over 7300 people. Wikipedia summary of study. That Wikipedia summary mentions more studies by ERIC. (didn't have time to look up myself, but: "According to the findings, children who were educated at home 'gained the necessary skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed to function in society...at a rate similar to that of conventionally schooled children.'"
Home schooling can be done horribly. It can be done well. By itself, it is not a bad thing. If good homeschooling is a positive thing for society, programs like this one supporting it are also a good thing.
It's very simple. The NEA and local teacher's unions are the equivalent of the RIAA/MPAA. They're frantically trying to protect their mostly-obsolete delivery system, while compromising the quality of the product. The government school systems are failing their students, yet the educational bureauracy seems to be mostly concerned with maintaining the status quo. I somewhat expect a media campaign linking alternative education (homeschool, charter school, etc.) to child abuse, in the same way that media sharing is called piracy.
It's not about education - it's about maintaining power.
Most parents, from what I've seen as of late, that keep their kids home schooled, do a POOR job of helping them in this respect. Going to a public/private school teaches the kids about schedules, dealing with other people (as mentioned previously), completing assignments (directly translates to your "real" job later in life), etc.
Great. Why don't you provide empirical evidence, published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal supporting your claims? Fact is, even the U.S. Department of Education admits that homeschooled kids do far better on tests, tend to be considerably more literate (slashspeak: they know the difference between "lose" and "loose"), are usually at least one grade ahead of their public-school peers, etc. Other studies have shown that homeschoolers are more likely to go to college, and earn incomes well in excess of the average.
As for that 'chestnut' about homeschoolers being socially-inept geeks (especially funny, seeing that here on Slashdot), not a single study published in a scientific journal supports this claim. It appears that the people who most often make it are a) public school supporters, or b) parents who're still pissed off that raising a kid is more difficult than taking care of a puppy, and will be damned if they're going to put out any more effort than they already have. Or perhaps are people who're still righteously pissed that THEY had to go through the public school system, and want to inflict that cesspit of contrived age-based caste-system conformity on everyone else's kids as a form of payback.
There are nearly two million homeschoolers in the U.S. alone, and that number is growing explosively with every passing year. It seems that more and more parents are convinced that public schools are shit, and would rather their kid get a real education - one they can use to beat your second-rate whelp with when it comes to, say, getting jobs. Or thinking independently. Or reading above a sixth-grade level.
At any rate, the anti-homeschoolers need to sit down and shut the fuck up. It isn't their business whether someone else's kid is homeschooled or not. And if the homeschooling makes your neighbor's kid more competitive than yours in the workplace, too fucking bad for your little Johnnie. Perhaps he'll learn an important life lesson, along the lines of "suck it up and deal with it".
Just to put this in perspective: I'm a former teacher in the public school system, and am currently teaching at a private academy. The schools ARE shit, and their goal is to produce brain-dead idiots who won't question authority and who can easily be used as interchangeable parts in the corporate world. Note how few 'movers and shakers' went through the public school system, and ask yourself why. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or any sort of scientist) to figure this one out.
Oh, and my little girl will NEVER set foot in a school, public or private; she'll get the best that I can provide, because ultimately that's my fucking job as a parent. And she'll be one of the ones telling your publicly-educated brat when he can take his vacation days from his McJob, while she spends the summer in Tahiti.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
These two are mixing to produce the category of behavior we're interested in:
I went to public schools my whole life (except for one year in a private school in 6th grade). In college and after, I have known several dozen people (between my age -- now 29 -- and younger -- 21-ish) who were home-schooled. Some of them were Christians, some were not. There were plenty of ill-adjusted homeschool people of both the religious and non-religious variety, and plenty of ill-adjusted people of the home-schooled and public-schooled varieties.
There are two types of disconnect among these groups that are being perceived as identical but are not. On the one hand, there is a social ill-adjustment by which a person is unable to interface with others in social situations due to a lack of exposure and a lack of instruction about social graces. On the other hand, there is a social disjunct arising from a desire to be separate from certain behaviours or experiences viewed as undesireable (profanity, pornography, lude speech, self-righteousness, judgementalness, prudishness, or whatever else they may perceive to be objectionable). In this latter case, the disjunct is often complementary; that is, those who would like to distance themselves from lude speech, for example, may not interact freely around those who use such speech, whereas those who do speak in a way they consider lude may not interact freely around those they consider prudish. In such cases, each tends to perceive the difficulty as coming from the other exclusively.
This is categorically different than the former sort of difficulty, in which there is no reason for the separation -- that is, it is not by choice on any level -- but it is for reason of inability.
Having said this, the cause of the former sort of person -- people who are unable to interact socially -- is parents who do not know how to socialize their kids or instruct them in social matters. There are lots of people who homeschool who don't know how to socialize or instruct their children, and there are lots of people who farm schooling out to the state who don't know how to socialize or instruct their children. There are lots of Christians who don't know how to socialize or instruct there children, and there are lots of non-Christians who don't know how to socialize or instruct their children.
The other difficulty is one of choice. It stems from Christians not wanting to be certain behaviors (whether from weakness or strength or whatever), as well as from non-Christians not wanting to be around certain behaviours (whether from weakness or strength or whatever). It stems from Christians not wanting to accomodate people (Christian or otherwise) who engage in certain behaviors, and non-Christians not wanting to accomodate people (non-Christian or otherwise) who engage in certain behaviors. Some parents -- Chrisitan and non-Christian -- pass on these preferences to their children, often passively, but sometimes actively.
The "loony" behavior to which you have alluded is the latter sort -- choosing things you consider ridiculous to choose (I know you do because you ridicule them by calling them "loony"). Going far down any branch of choice makes the decisions of those on other branches seem ever more peculiar (and I'm not one who is for "moderation at all costs" -- it seems to me we should do something all the way if it's worth it to us). I have a relative who always talks about "those damn Republicans" in such a manner as that he sounds as though he believes they are these impish wretches rubbing their hands together and plotting how best to destroy other people. I have a friend who seem
While it not only confuses me (less aborted babies = more kids in school = more teaching jobs)
Try thinking of it this way, though
(less aborted babies = more kids in school = larger class sizes = less attention paid to individual students = decreased teaching efficiency)
or
(less aborted babies = more unwanted kids = more neglected kids = more kids with learning problems = more disruptive kids = worse conditions in the classroom)
Maybe, but the real question isn't "Does it work?", but rather, "Does it work better?".
There's a straight forward way to test it.
Allow some number of children to be educated this way, and compare them with standard school kids.
(Of course, there's probably many less destructive ways to test it too.)
I'd say it's strange that they haven't proposed this, but then,
I don't hear much talk about comparing results for any other schooling method either.
The U.S. seems to stress conformity above all else.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
You have to teach them not to yell, hit, bite, tattle, and how to use their words to solve their problems. You have to get them used to the world not revolving around them and get them to understand that their desire to do something is often irrelevant and direct their attention to the task at hand.
That's called "parenting", an apparently lost art in many parts of the First World. So lost, in fact, that some people actually think it's impossible to teach a child these things outside the context of the school system.
Consistency is much harder to provide at home than it is at school where the conditions are well controlled and well suited for the purpose.
The fantasy land you live in is amusing, to say the least. As a teacher I commend you on the development of your imagination!
By providing a change in location, a change in the authority structure and a change in the people surrounding them, you can quickly switch kids into learning mode where as at home they're still in the place where they sleep and play and where most of life's drama and serious stress happens.
Oh, and what did the poor human race do before the advent of that shining light known as compulsory public education? Barbarians, they were; rabid animals, even. Thank the gods that self-proclaimed intellectuals have saved us from those dark days!
Without both of these things, society crumbles.
I guess that's why the Roman Empire only lasted a thousand years. No compulsory public education!
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
The problem isn't merely that there are left-wingers in the unions and administration, it's that as long as there is a near-monopoly on schooling (not education, mind you), someone is going to demand that the schooling aparatus push their agenda.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The real problem is that parents have too many escapes nowadays from parenting. The TV and video game consoles offer more stimulation to children than anything else, so they are captivated by it. And parents need to get things done, so they don't mind dumping off their kids in front of the TV for a few hours while they do some house work. Seems to me people have the attitude that if my kid is in front of the TV, at least I know they are safe, right?
Few children will actually turn of the TV or the Video Games and open a book and do some reading. When a child reads, they become better spellers, and better writers. They learn good habits. The TV is a waste of time, even educational shows.
Or maybe the real problem is our modern work-a-holic society? Think about it, you take a child from about 4-5 years after they are born, and start drilling them into school 6-8 hours a day. Then do that for 13 or so years straight, then add another 4 years of university, then more if you want to go further. Then every so often keep changing and updating the curriculum every so often, and also piling up more and more useless work they wont remember for kids to do so they can "compete" in the "market".
School is a little more then a place to churn out slaves to powerful industries of the economy, many people end up being little more then depressed, maturity stunted worker bee's. It's no wonder parents and their kids dive off into entertainment and fantasy land, the whole culture and it's associated economic idealogy is simply fucked up, and is putting unrealistic academic and work pressure on people.
This is total crap!
Of course kids think for themselves, they have to in order to make decisions. If you ever fought with your parents when you were in grade school, it's precisely because you wanted to think for yourself and your parents were not ready to let you yet.
Remember that jerk in school who used to punch a select few nerds in the head as hard as he was able? Remember how the teacher always ignored it?
Go try that in "real life." Punch someone in the office like that. Or even your neighbor. Let me know how it turns out.
The absurdly antisocial behaviors which go on in schools every single day are things that no adult would put up with in the workplace for an instant.
The Internet is full. Go away.
You mean kids are incapable of thinking how we want them to think (as in socially accepted ways) until we teach them how. Then they need to be taught what we think of right and wrong before they can ascertain whether something is right or wrong according to our system.
Kids can think plenty, but since they don't know all the consequences for every action (subtle and the obvious, not that some adults do either, though) they are apt to get into trouble (or cause it).
also, this is done in the name of keeping kids "sociable", which is utter nonsense. by their use, "sociable" = "idiotic"