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."
First post!
(an essential skill...)
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
I'm concerned about the narrowm view of the world IT people and engineers
have these days. I think the problem starts at college -
There's a culture that somehow science is more rational and usefull
then the humanitities. Lecturers encourage students to joke about arts
students, and humilaite them whenever possible. This encourages
eliteism, and I for one am sick of it.
Let's tell it like it is. 'science' is just as much about opinion as
the humanities. Research simply follows the fad of the day. Take
dieticians for example. These men and woman believe that just because
they have degree in medical science that they are all knowing. Why,
what they recommend one day may kill you the next! (see the DDT story
for more information.) Science is 95% opinion then facts, lets face
it. What about astrology, the most rediculious of the sciences! But I
degress...
Another example is music. We know what sounds good. Everyone aggreed
that Valves for instance sound great. But knowitall engineers use
trensastors with inferious sound quality just to save a few bucks.
They argue with numbers. Hey, I don't want to do maths just to listen
to music. I know what I like. You cannot apply objective reasoning to
a subject which is intristically subjective. But try telling those
recent grads with their useless piece of paper that and they go all
mightier--then-thou.
The problem with you technical guys are that you are all so eliteist.
Whilst you want to trun collage into a trade school with yore narrow
minded views that collage should be a job training centre, humanities
are focused on making you a well rounded person who is auctually
interesting to be with, not a boring focuesed geek. Really, it makes
me so mad when people say "oh, he's doing a humanities degree, that's
easy". I have to read *3* *books* *a* *week* on average. Not picture
books either I assue you. It is a lot of work, but the upshot is
improved grammer and spelling skills that are lacking in the
technical. 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. Anyways, all I have to do to be a engineer wold be to get
my MSCE and how hard couyld that be? techincal stuff is simply
whatever fad the market thinks is hot at the moment, but all great
things were done by humanities.
You technical types are far to narrow minded and cynsical. You should
learn to enjoy life.
Peace be to god, he transcends all.
Will it run Linux? Duck time, I know.
shut their pieholes!
Fist Prost bitches!
Why not? Back in my day, I sat all evening in front of the computer, and I learned all I need about functioning in society. Don't ninja-loot, don't let your pet aggro the whole room if you're a Warlock, get your shield from the vault before joining a raid if you're a Warrior or Paladin... err... ok, I see what you mean.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
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?
http://www.asti-usa.com
... if you can't hide surprises inside the teacher's desk?
A decibel - a RELATIONSHIP between two values of POWER http://arts.ucsc.edu/EMS/Music/tech_background/TE-
First post! ..to an article with no meaning :(
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.
You can't sit a child in front of a computer and expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society
Funny... that's how I feel about the school system...
This website allows you to read an entire Holt, Rhineheart, and Winston textbook online if you already have a keyword from a textbook you buy online. If you're into foreign languages, it has French, German, and Spanish, and aside from that,
These sites teach you basic Japanese if you study enough.
Parents just have to watch to make sure their children aren't looking at porn instead of studying and help them along.
In the end, like homeschooling, it boils down to the parents taking responsibility for their children doing the work. Maybe with virtual school the teacher can do a little bit to make students sit stil, but surely it's still mostly on the parents to make sure the work gets done. That is a scary thought since many parents these days completely abdicate their parental duties.
And this doesn't speak to the socialization aspect. Half of what is taught in school isn't just the three R's. The other half is how to become a responsible adult functioning in a society where you must interact with others. Sheltering kids from the outside world does not teach them that.
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.
any different then regular home schooling? The biggest deficiency in both will be a lack of interaction with other students. You know the sort of interaction that helps develop good social and behavioral skills when we are young, and yes, I can attest to many home-schooled individuals that I know who were sadly underdeveloped in these areas. Concerns from teachers on this are not really going to make me concerned; these are people who are worried they may be without jobs if this catches on too quickly or too much.
Yes, there is a lack of PE; however, if you are done with school in half the time and/or can be much more flexible with when you are actually doing school work, children can find plenty of time to take on physical activities, which is really the main reason for having PE in the first place. I am not going to worry too much about the lack of music in the system either. Most of my grade school musical education was a complete waste. I barely remember the musical scale (though that might be better then most my peers), and I certainly wouldn't have felt cheated if I got to hear less Bach, Beethoven, et. al. I actually would be surprised if 1/2 the US population even realized they heard a piece by a famous composer in their lifetime.
I think this is actually a good idea and a bad one at the same time. On one hand, I would be a bit worried about children not gaining certain social skills that develop during these early school years. On the other, I believe it would be a great thing for children who have problems focusing in class or for those who have had behavioral issues, because this is a far better alternative then the "alternative" schools I have heard stories about in most every school district.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
All I heard when the teachers union responded was "OH GOD, if people can learn online what do parents need with teachers, or more importantly what will happen when the union revenues from membership fees start dropping!!"
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.
After all, there's absolutely *no* reason for someone to be at school other than to learn is there? Who cares about forming relationships with other people, learning how to socially interact and getting exercise.
I think that we should just lock our children up until they're twenty one and by then they'll have learnt everything they need!
The care of social education is shifted on parental shoulders.
But most of them do not think about it at all.
Hide your files and folders from others!
The summary quote is misleading. Before I actually read the article, I envisioned hordes of children sitting in front of computers operating some sort of computer based training s/w. If you read the article, the children are not just sitting in front of a computer. There is an entire support structure built around virtualizing the important aspects of their learning experience. The support structure starts with a parent who cares and continues with curricula, equipment, supplies, and facilities provided by the city's education system.
I know that homeschooling works, and works well, because my daughter is homeschooled. She scores very high on achievement tests. She is so socialized (outside of public school), we have to sometimes limit her socializing in order to spend non-educational time with her. When she started high school level curricula, we associated ourselves with an umbrella school for advise, transcripting, focused tutoring, etc. This took some of the anxiety off of us when we started considering college prep issues.
This Chicago effort appears to merge the homeschooling concept with oversight by the city's education system. This closely parallels what we have found to be a very successful combination.
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
There are many different learning styles. What works for one student doesn't work for others. For instance, a visual learner gains nothing from a lecture. Computer based learning works for some people. Indeed, for a few people, computer based learning is the only thing that works (other than a private tutor). For instance, some students can't get anywhere near a classroom full of students because of anxiety attacks.
The problem I have with this is that students will be selected (or select themselves) for the virtual classroom based on criteria that have nothing to do with their appropriate learning style.
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.
The major concern, I feel, is not that the new system will be ineffective but the level of radiation and exposure the kids will be subjected to, on top of the hours spentt watching TV and playing games. Even as adults- I sometimes find myself slightly disoriented after some hours spent coding or even just plain browsing.
The most effective education and learning, I believe has always been delivered in the most 'traditional' of ways despite what many experts may think.
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
In Canada, the Teacher's Union uses its powers to hold this country hostage once in a while. Public school teachers are basically government employees, they get summers for vacations, they get benefits, above average salaries, and they often (just about every year) exercise their union powers on the people of this country. When they strike during the school-year, they are putting millions of families into really difficult situations - the kids have to stay home, someone has to be there or someone has to be hired or a parent has to stay home, if it is a single-parent family, then it is even more difficult (I have no kids, but I see this all the time.) The kids' education suffers, they have nothing to do during the strike, many of them can go to the streets and do whatever, join gangs maybe?
In Ontario, the provincial liberal government is gutless, they always cave in to ANY union, and so they just give away our money for no reason, and the unions know this and they take advantage of this even more than in the rest of the country. Teachers get more 'professional development' days (during business days) in Ontario than anywhere else it seems like and they don't really spend those days for any development, and this happens while in private organizations PD days are taken during weekends. Those who bother to show up for those days don't really learn anything new, or if there is anything, it is all about the administrative part. In reality, teachers have entire summers that could be dedicated to 'improvement' in their profession, but what they do, is get summer jobs and make even more money instead. (they earn all of their money in the winter, but those ARE the money for the entire year, but they get to work 2 jobs and make double during the summer, isn't that great for them?)
So whenever I hear that a teacher's union opens their collective mouths to say something, all I can think of is that the parents, the kids, and the rest of the society is about to get a shaft.
(Ontario, you have to wake up and fire this union, fire those teachers who are lazy and useless and get yourself into a better alternative deal.)
You can't handle the truth.
Well aside from the fact that your attitude goes counter to the "The Internet will save us. It's good for everything", slash-meme. You sound like someone who would have had a problem with correspondence courses (pre-internet). An accredited online school is just as good as any other (some are affiliated with brick and morter schools). Maybe what you should have said is either "I don't understand alternative education, so I'll dismiss it". Or "My education was a regular school which is naturally better than anything else, so I'll dismiss any faux-school alternatives".
I thought my parent post would be an obvious joke, but apparently it ain't so.
...[insert awfully bad joke here]" - Overrated
"But of course you can" is a reply to 'You can't sit a child in front of a computer and expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society,' and 'First post!' is the practical demonstration of that knowledge that someone needs in order to succeed in society.
Look! I even added "(an essential skill...)", to hilight, that I was joking, not trying to "Fristy piss".
So, I'd kindly take issue with moderating my post into oblivion for stupid reasons. I'll include the following guide for beginner moderators' convenience:
If my post were:
"But of course you can faggotz lolololz!!!!!!444 Fristy PISS" - Troll.
"But of course this is all the idiot Bush's fault..." - Flamebait
"I went down yesterday to the park and bought an icecream" - Offtopic
"But of course
IF you think my joke was absolutely not funny, moderate overrated, otherwise leave it alone. Thanks.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Disclaimer: I don't like unions.
For the Teacher's Union to oppose this is like a cow opposing a new steak restaurant. Of COURSE they don't want it. The reasons given will probably not be the real reasons, either.
Quite simply, this means fewer teachers and probably lower pay for teachers as well.
And since when do teachers have responsibility for our children? Oh, that's right, it used to be that way and recently we've taken away all their power. They can't discipline children, they can't even give them a good stern talking to without a parent claiming they are singling out their child. And now they think they have the right to dictate WHERE children are taught? Yeah, right.
If a parent wants to send their child to a virtual school, LET THEM. It's FAR better than home schooling. There WILL be interactions with other people, just not interactions as people born in the 50s require. My best friends are on the internet, not local. (I'm 29.) You CAN learn to work with others at a distance. You CAN learn to appreciate that others have feelings. In fact, with the internet being what it is, I find it vital that they DO learn that skill. Many people today hide behind the internet and use it to 'grief' people, inside games and outside.
This type of school will require a different teaching style, of course. There will have to be more emphasis on group projects and individual accountability within groups. I have seen very little of that in public schools, and not much more in college, despite the 'group project' class we had for programming.
And this isn't saying there won't be field trips and occasional group physical projects. There just won't be an official classroom to have to go to every day.
Also, let's not forget the time savings. Riding the bus to school is an hour trip. Another hour getting home. That's 2 more hours for studying, socializing, or relaxing, depending on how the teacher deals with it. I think you might find that 2 hours is a LOT of extra time to get things done.
This goes WAY beyond 'we're not forcing them to socialize'. This could be a very very useful method of teaching children.
Last, as noted in other posts, some schools have severe problems with violence. Those same students will still be disruptive, but when they can be contained with a click of a button and prevent disruption of the class, without taking away their option to learn (1-way communication, instead of group conference for that student) then most of their motivation is gone. Class clowns won't have a reason to pull that for more than a few seconds.
Something to think about.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
'You can't sit a child in front of a computer and expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society,'
Not much different than sitting at a desk as some teacher reads a book outloud while simultaneously writing it out on a blackboard. You write what's on the board into a jotter. At the end of the 'lesson' he walks out without ever making eye contact.
The only skill I ever learned in education was how to stand up or sit down at the sound of a bell.
davecb5620@gmail.com
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
What if telecommuting becomes common place and kids who have learned through virtual schools have an advantage over kids who learned in a more traditional manner? I've worked on a few jobs via telecommuting and I have found that there are some people who just can't handle that type environment. Some people miss the social interaction of the office, get too distracted at home, or need too much hand holding to effectively work outside of the office.
Homeschooled children usually have more interaction with other children, in a more productive manner. (Quality over quantity)
Homeschool programs and families usually are part of a "homeschool coop". Aka groups of families or churches that work together for homeschooling. People with special skills or education will teach certain courses to a group of "homeschooled" kids in a group setting. The ties are much tighter. These are the same children that are involved in youth groups, ministry work, camps outside of their homeschooling daytime hours.
Also, with PE, homeschool coops usually cover this as well. I'll be teaching an archery class (3-4 hours a week). Sports and activities homeschoolers partake in are more active than typical school PE since in a public school, if you are not the alpha male or female, you are a benchwarmer. Theres plenty of NON-SCHOOL ran local sports teams to join. (JOAD, CYA, baby ruth, soccerm popwarner, karate, ballet, etc). And most of the local Homeschool COOPs in the northeast I know of do weekly ski trips, and other activities.
Just remember, just because you were not homeschooled, it does not make your education any better.
(No, I was not homeschooled, I was socially inept due to moving 30 times between the ages of 3 - 18, and public schools all over the country suck)
The American public school system at certain cities, etc. is simply horrible.
Not only because it is underfunded, but also, because schools reflects all the tensions, increasing devide between rich and poor.
Education and school used to be one of the best tool to help mobility in society, the American educational system is now run almost the opposite way: access to the quality of education is now greatly dependent on the parents status in society, it is no longer the place where all kids can start with equal chances.
In America, where today even wars, natural disasters, prison system etc. are looked at as privatized business opportunities this proposed educational system does not come as a surprize. Education has ben labour intensive, this is a "great" way to eliminate this, some political-party friendly businesses will make huge profit of the teacherless, schooless "education".
Only the kids will be screwed for life. But maybe that's the bigger goal. Maybe one day the entire low class, poor population of America will be shipped out to Mexico or other developing nations and America will be the country for the rich all over the world.
This way American elections will guarantee that the US world police status remain intact, truly representing their voter base: the richest from all countries.
Until then, if you ask any succesful person, chances are, they have been inspired to achieve their goals by an outstanding teacher in a school.
1
For most students, a virtual/cyber/online school is not going to be a good solution since it takes away the socialization aspect of education (a very, very important part of development).
However, online schools do offer many advantages; especially for kids with special needs.
There are many kids who can't attend a physical school because of allergens, skin diseases, etc. Some school from home because school is a dangerous place (like, if you're wearing a hijab). Other kids are super-smart and need a school that runs at their pace.
For most kids, home-schooling fills this need. But not all parents are teachers and it helps to have the guidance of a professional.
2
The real issue is money. In most states the school district where the child lives has to pay the online school most or all of the money for that student. That can be a LOT of cash.
3
If the teacher's union were smart, they'd unionize the new teachers.
When a union opposes something there is always only 1 reason: self-interest. This is true for any union, and always has been. Likewise when a company opposes something it is also for 1 reason: self-interest. Sure, the teachers union will *claim* it's "about the children", but that is simply not the case. Now don't get me wrong -- I don't have a problem with that. I accept it, and believe, actually, that is the true role of a union. It's all about balance. But please, can we not pretend the teacher's union is really more concerned for the children than they are for protecting their own interests?
As regards online middle school, I say "why not?". Maybe I've consumed too much of the "diversity koolaid", but my view is, let's try a bunch of things. Different types of school environments are best for different types of children. Let's give parents and children some choices. Why is that such a bad thing?
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
If the nations test scores are any indication you can't put kids in the classroom and expect them to learn what they need to succeed either.
Do you think that the teachers are afraid the computer taught kids will do much better than the school taught kids? You bet!
Conversation And are the important
Most daycares are more than $200 a week. Think way way more
First, let me point out that I have a child who is homeschooling. He is in second grade, so we've only been doing this for 3 years. I was very cautious about this, but my wife really wanted to try it. Virtual elementary schools have been around prior to this. We looked at one when my son started first grade but decided against it.
The most common question we get about it is "what about social skills". A lot of people who homeschool make very conscious efforts to make sure their kids receive social skills. We are involved in co-ops, we do field trips with other homeschool kids, there are sporting activities, and he has other kids in the neighborhood. The best argument I heard about schools & social skills was this: teachers don't want you to be social during classes. When you were growing up were you allowed to talk in class? Of course not. You talked between classes and at lunch. Most of the social skills you received were not tought by a teacher but interaction with other kids. This can be gained outside of school too.
Yes, my son does behave different than some other kids. Some things are good and some are bad. He doesn't really understand that some questions are very awkward to ask in public, he tends to interrupt, and his patience isn't the best. On the other hand, he can talk to any adult much more easily than I ever could and he naturally asks questions if he doesn't understand something. When interacting with other kids I don't really notice a difference. He interacts with his public school & homeschool friends the same way and they play the same games.
Virtual schools have advantages & disadvantages except you get some outside support. Some parents really need that extra support because they don't feel comfortable being on their own.
The biggest benefits to non-traditional learning are the ability to go at your own pace and to change the teaching method if it doesn't work. When we started math with my son we got a really cool math program. It had blocks and videos as well as worksheets. It looked really great to me. He absolutely hated it. We tried for a few weeks and gave up. We switched to another program which had very bright and colorful worksheets but no blocks or videos. He responded much better to it and was able to learn the material much easier. Learning at your own pace is good for him too. There is no being "left behind". Until he understands the subject we don't go to the next.
That all being said, homeschooling isn't for everyone. Some kids just don't respond and need more structure. Some parents don't want the responsibility or can't be home to be the teacher. Even in virtual schools the idea isn't just "sit them in front of a computer and you are done". There is other non-computer stuff in any program I've ever seen. I can't comment on the quality of the Chicago program, but I'd imagine it is the same way. The majority of time isn't computer related. I'm sure it will be less flexible and less "go at your own pace", but that isn't necessarily bad because some kids really need the structure. It depends on the child.
Also remember that things change. The parent or the child may decide to go back to traditional schooling. People and situations change. You can always switch. All 50 states have laws permitting homeschooling. Some are more "interesting" than others, but they all allow it.
There is also one other myth I'd like to dispell. Other than social skills the second most common question is about religion. Not everyone is a religous zelot who homeschools. I'm not even remotely religious. Lots of people do it because they feel it is the best opportunity for their children and not to shelter or block their kids from the outside world.
By the way, another thing which helped convince me that it isn't a bad idea was the fact that a lot of homeschoolers are ex-teachers. You would be amazed how many ex-teachers there are doing this. Every ex-teacher I talk to says that public schools waste time and they spent the vast majority of their time on a few kids in a class.
Yes, Chicago Public Schools can be dangerous and frightening. This isn't the right way, however. What many of the comments seem to be presupposing is that the parents of the students will be able to help out the kids with their video lessons, as the system seems to want. The parents of these students are not there as they're working, and often it's a single family home, which in Chicago means that if you make minimum you're not paying your rent on only one job. The kids this is targeted for are going to be doing this largely on their own. Yes, fix the schools. Don't do it by funneling charter money into the hands of people like this, who care more about lowering overhead costs (video lessons require fewer teachers per student, obviously) than actually teaching kids. Am I the only one who has a problem with video screens becoming the font of all received knowledge?
During the past 2 years I've had the opportunity to deal directly with K12 and PAVCS. Both of my school age sons were enrolled in PAVCS.
Overall, the program is excellent. My oldest son was diagnosed ADHD and needs a more hands-on approach to learning, something the local school district refuses to provide, despite the existing legislation to force them. Unfortunately, moving is easier said than done, so we decided to look into PAVCS. From day one, they were incredibly helpful, explaining the entire process and helping us along. There is a teacher assigned to every student who makes weekly phone calls to check on the progress of the student, discuss and problems, etc. The child is provided, free of charge, all of the books and necessary materials to learn, including a computer.
One of the nicest things about the whole system is that the child does not need to be enrolled in the same grade classes for each subject. So, for instance, if your 5th grade child is deficient in math, but excelling in english, they could take a 4th grade math, but 6th grade english. This is incredibly helpful in keeping the child engaged and on-task.
They also schedule regular "meets" every 2-3 weeks that are optional. The purpose of these meets is to encourage social interaction between both the parents and the children. They also make sure that all required state and federal testing is completed, which usually turns into a 1/2 day of testing, and a 1/2 day of playing.
I like PAVCS and I wish they had it back when I was in school.. I see this as such an advantage over traditional schools. The freedom to learn when you want, in the order you want, is very powerful. I'd like to see this type of learning move even further. Personally, I tend to learn faster and better on my own rather than in a classroom setting.
XenoPhage
Technological Musings
I know this may be seen as flame bait but can I ask why we didn't do this before? It seems we have lost the home school battle somewhat. I am NOT a proponent of home school but is seems to be perfectly legal and still done quite frequently. If we are going to allow home schooling why don't we supplement it with every resource we've got? The Internet can be a wonderful tool. It should not be the ONLY tool but is good one. I mean if you are home schooling a kid he or she is only subject to lessons created and taught by one (maybe two) individuals and not getting social interaction. Well if you home schooled a kid AND supplemented that with internet based learning you would be better of than not supplementing it with internet based learning. Perhaps have a chat room (or net meeting or something) where the home school student (SUPERVISED BY THE PARENT) could engage in a lesson somehow. I know I'm light on details but I think that could possibly be worked out and would be better than the current... oh NOTHING. Just some random thoughts. But we do have to be careful not to let technology be everything. Find a happy medium and we will thrive.
This is an old, old arguement, well past it's shelf date.
As a parent, talking to other parents, the public system has some flaws of it's own. Bullying, which distroys a learning environment is one. Art, as mandated by a curriculum committee, of which no members are working artists is another. Music, again by one of those committees with no working performers, is another. And what passes for Phys. Ed. makes me cringe.
Any parent that home schools, is talking to other home schooling parents. They, and their kids, get together in social environments, as I recall. As a group, they see real theater, real music, real art. And, they get involved with all sorts of sports, both individual (martial arts) and group (baseball, soccer)
The fundamental divide is teacher centred learning (pedagogy) or learner centred learning (androgogy). The EducatorSpeak basically dresses up common sense into a maze of polysyllabic gobbledegook. It took me months of research to determine that the emperor has no clothes...
It is a figure that I fell across somewhere that in Mass. 98% were literate. After they introduced a public school system, that dropped to 92%, never to return.
This effort combines the best of a teacher/classroom situation, with that of the involved parents. It will be interesting to see how it compares in success to unaided homeschooling.
This is progress?
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.
We all know that school has nothing to do with learning math or science or a language. Public elementary and high-schools are designed to break the will of students and turn them into submissive subjects so they will be ready for the rest of their lives. School is a social thing. I learned more math, science, and english from my father than I ever did in school. Academically, school was a fucking joke. Socially, it was a huge challenge.
I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
Needless to say the previous post was obviously made by a kid who lived in a fenced neighborhood where the most serious crime involves people stealing lawn ornaments and playing their car stereos too loud. I'd wager the average personal income in his area was about $55,000 and the school could easily afford to buy new computers year after year, fund expensive field trips, and maintain all portions of the school building on a daily basis.
Let me tell you about my school, dickhead.
I used to live in a pretty rural area where most people descended from farmers. As small time farming has obviously been utterly obliterated by big business conclaves in the Midwest, most of these people were forced to close up shop, sell their farms, and seek out work as low-wage labrorers doing mechanics, factory and warehouse work, or, often, just trying to find odd jobs time after time wherever they can.
The roof in the cafeteria collapsed because there wasn't enough money to fix water damage after a heavy winter snow melt, so we had to convert half the gym into a cafeteria. Until about 1994 the newest computer I ever used had a 3 Mhz processor, no disk drive, and in order to print, you had to ask if it was okay to use the dot matrix - that usually didn't work - and hope that there was enough paper left on the roll.
We were the most violent school in the state. Fights were a daily occurence, the ambulance was brought in a number of times each year to cart off kids with concussions, unchecked bleeding, or broken bones. There was no money for security, and the police, though they did what they could, were already stretched thin due to the lack of tax income to pay for them and the wide area they were responsible for watching over.
Drugs were a constant problem as well. Most of my friends did them, it was easy enough to buy them, and sometimes you could even just find them sitting places if you knew where to look.
Where there were two parent homes, it was almost unheard of to not have both parents working. It's not that these people didn't love their children, mind you, it's that they had to choose between taking their kids to the ballpark and feeding them. This contributed a great deal to the violence and drug abuse, as well as a large incidence of teen pregnancy (which was not the least bit hampered by our good, gracious right-wing retard overlords teaching abstinence-only programs - we were the only district in the area to do it, and by far we had the highest incidence of teen pregnancy).
So next time you decide to open your mouth and make a really easy comment on a really complicated problem, just remember that the people you're pissing off learned to fight in these types of schools so they didn't have to be carted to the hospital. YOU talk the talk because you CAN'T walk the walk, so just shut your damn mouth before somebody does it for you, you worthless little prick.
If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
it was utter crap that I would never put a kid through...
It's a bad idea, not because it's too much like homeschooling, but because it's too much like school. The school system is still in control of the curriculum. The same teach to the test mentality that drives public school curriculum will drive this. Somewhere in Springfield IL, a room full of middle aged white men that haven't been in a school in 30 years is deciding on exactly what is important for your kid to learn. IMHO, the only knowledge that is universally important is reading, writing, and basic math up to maybe Algebra I. Everything else is an elective.
The more charter schools that get chartered and succeed, the less power the Teacher's Union have. It's sick, the Teacher's Union in Buffalo pulled out all the stops to prevent Buffalo charter schools from succeeding. That tells you their concern is less for the kids than their power.
Disclaimer: My daughter attends a very highly regarded charter school at the Rochester Science Museum ( is that cool or what, school is right next door to the Science Museum).
I'm all for educating kids via games. Videogames are the most advanced teaching tool right now. Schools need to evolve. Most kids learn more through a 3 hours gaming session than they do via 8 hours of lecturing. Teachers role should be shifted to "videogame chooser" or even game designer. Animals learn by playing, why should human be forced into assimilating data they don't even want in the first place.
By doing that, kids will have even more time to actively participate in socializing activities.
Like, how do you avoid working by paying someone else do it for you. How do you bully someone into doing it instead of paying AND get his lunch money while you're at it. And for the other guy, how do you avoid these guys, or how do you avoid their attention altogether.
Home schooling might be dangerous to society. The smart guys wouldn't learn that they should keep their yap shut and blend into the crowd of morons so they don't get slapped constantly. People might start voicing their opinion, if they don't learn that you shouldn't do that unless your opinion is shared by the majority.
Or at least those with the biggest fists.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The problem I see here is that the students will lack in the emotional intelligence area (EQ). I believe this is the term for what other people have been trying to say. I heard someone say that someone's EQ is more important then their IQ in being a success in life. The students need to learn how to interact with other people. I'm sure they could get some of this by doing sports and other clubs. I'm not sure if they would be as prepared as children who go through a good conventional school.
:)
c e
Maybe if you want your kids to sit at home and fill out web surveys for $10 each when they grow up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligen
You can't sit a child in front of a computer and expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society
It may be not, but fatal1ty will piss in his pants against one of these boys when they have left school.
"You can't sit a child in front of a computer and expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society"
The same can be said about many teachers, but the computers are dues-paying union members.
My only real complaint is that not everybody can afford a computer. But beyond that, it's true that a computer can't compete with a good teacher, but it can easily surpass a bad (read "tenured") one.
I'm ACing because I don't want what I say to be misconstrued by future students>
I am a faculty at a relatively large but academically undistinguished Midwestern university. I teach (mainly) American literature and critical theory (philosophy to non-specialists). In the 3 years I have been here, I specifically recall teaching one home-schooled student in my advanced undergraduate introduction to the major. This student, let's call her Lauren, was insanely intelligent, able to internalize and understand high-level philosophical concepts with ease. She had an excellent and, seemingly, intuitive understanding of how to incorporate arguments into her own lines thinking and instead of summarizing ideas she knew how to critique them constructively.
Her abilities were of the kind that I see in advanced later undergraduates and/or early graduate students at a top university. Two years later, I find out that Lauren dropped out for a few terms because she was having "a rough time" dealing with classroom environments and applying herself to required subjects that do not interest her.
In other words, Lauren was having a difficult time to the demands of an institution.
Was it the fault of homeschooling? My guess is yes but partially so. If she had been exposed to institutions more public than her family home she would have more experience excelling at tasks not of her choosing. I don't know that her homeschooling indulged her more than a public institution would have but the possibility is certainly there.
To round off this anecdote, when Lauren came to my office to ask for advice, she was an absolute nervous wreck, visibly shaken by the challenges of socializing in college, reeking of her compulsive chain-smoking. In my class I always validated her opinions and emphasized the points where she was correct. However, she was so much more capable in terms of raw talent/cognitive preparation than her publicly-schooled peers that she expressed impatience and mild arrogance at times. And, believe me, her peers noticed this.
While homeschooling can provide excellent results in terms of academics, it is very important that such results are tempered with socialization that, yes, teaches these exceedingly intelligent/capable people how to be patient with their less capable peers and how to make intellectual contributions with grace.
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.
I was home schooled for 5 years in a foreign country, where I didn't interact with the locals my age. Very much 3rd world, to the extent where kids my age and even older people never before saw white people. When I got back to my own country @ the age of 15 I was not socially adapted to handle a school environment. Socially I was a mess till around the time I turned 21. Children should socialise with their peers otherwise they will have much larger problems when the peer group has moved into adulthood and they havent.
This is my sig.
If it's good enough for Solaria, it's good enough for us. Now where are my transducer lobes?
You want a geek version of this?
Look, I was a nerd in high school and got shoved into my share of lockers. I suppose I could have gone all goth-and-trenchcoat, or retreated into a bitter, brittle shell, but at the end of the day I was driven to *succeed*, and that meant more than merely getting A's in my classes. I learned that I could always accomplish more as an inspiration to a group than I could by myself; learning how to draw together disparate personalities into something greater than the sum of their wacky parts was wa-a-a-ay more of a challenge to me than Trig or English Lit. I would have gotten the same straight A's online those many years ago as I did offline, and been far, far worse for it.
Geeks who view non-geeks as "jocks" or "sheeple" or "joe sixpacks" or any other term that linguistically elevates themselves above "the masses" are doomed to fail, simply by virtue of the numbers. Even the Ur-Geek Lex Luthor had his corn-fed, middle-America-valued, high-school-quarterbacking Clark Kent, and we all know how well that worked out for the Geek Side.
The teachers union objecting to anything that will require fewer teachers? I can't believe it.
Of course they are going to object - why would they want this to ever get popular?
The way I see it - this is just a good way for more regulated home schooling. It allows a parent who is interested in the home schooling concept to adopt it much more readilly than designing their own course work (although I guess to some extent - that's why certain parents prefer to home school).
Anyway - this is a great idea to ease conjestion at the schools. It's not for everyone - you have to be even more disciplined to accomplish it but if it works then great. Guess some teachers will have to find another decent paying job with 3 months vacation, lots of sick time and all public holidays off.
www.wildpad.com
"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."
God knows no one wants to lose all the power and respect that come with a 20K salary and a job that could be taken away for one or two of the students in the class failing some standardized test because the parents won't do their job and won't let the teacher do theirs.
"'You can't sit a child in front of a computer and expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society" So what?? There are plenty of other more appropriate arenas for kids to be socialized. Learning and Socialization are two different things - combining them IMO is a bad mistake.
Another advantage, I think, for littler kids is there's no separation anxiety, so they're much more comfortable walking over and talking to someone new, because they know mom or dad isn't going to dissapear and leave them there.
We aren't home-schooling for religious reasons, but partly because at the begining we realized that the schools weren't that good, and working with a school would take almost as much effort as doing it ourselves. Plus we like the flexibility. Want to take a 2-week vacation in october? No problem, and in fact it becomes another learning experience.
How has it worked out? So far, pretty well.
-- ac at work
What it took to get an 8th grade education in 1895
Remember when grandparents and great-grandparents stated that they only had an 8th grade education? Well, check this out. Could any of us have passed the 8th grade in 1895?
This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina, Kansas, USA. It was taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, KS, and reprinted by the Salina Journal. 8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS -1895
Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters.
2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph
4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts of"lie,""play," and "run."
5. Define case; Illustrate each case.
6. What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.
7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.
Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4. District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find the cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20 per metre?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.
U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, 1865.
Orthography (Time, one hour)
1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication.
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals.
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.
Geography (Time, one hour)
1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of North America.
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
7. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of
'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."
It seems that you can't sit a child in the Chicago public schools and expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society, either.
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.
I think I might be in the minority here but I think this is a great idea and it will work but only if the students have the right parents because it is the parent's involvement that will make all the difference in this type of program. If the kids get to just sit around all day because this acts as nothing more then a babysitter to the parents the program will fail if the parents sit and work with the kids it will work great.
TheADDkid.com
To be fair they're right about sitting a kid in front of a computer and he or she not learning what is needed to succeed in society. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with them attending school, as the public education system really doesn't do a good job of that either. Socialization and learning social interaction skills has to do with being around people, not with learning in a school. I like the attempt at justification through logical fallacies, though - it makes me excited that teachers especially can't differentiate between education and socialization. And yes, that was sarcasm.
I toggled a toggle and buttoned a button, but when I got done, I was done doin' nothin'.
If they had only continued to use Asimov's 1951 story "The Fun They Had" in class, no one would want to be doing this.
----
The Fun They Had
Isaac Asimov
Margie even wrote about it that night in her diary. On the page headed May 17, 2157, she wrote, "Today, Tommy found a real book!"
It was a very old book. Margie's grandfather once said that when he was a little boy his grandfather told him that there was a time when all stories were printed on paper.
They turned the pages, which were yellow and crinkly, and it was awfully funny to read words that stood still instead of moving the way they were supposed to--on a screen, you know. And then, when they turned back to the page before, it had the same words on it that it had had when they read it the first time.
"Gee," said Tommy, "what a waste. When you're through with the book, you just throw it away, I guess. Our television screen must have had a million books on it and it's good for plenty more. I wouldn't throw it away."
"Same with mine," said Margie. She was eleven and hadn't seen as many telebooks as Tommy had. He was thirteen. She said, "Where did you find it?"
"In my house." He pointed without looking, because he was busy reading. "In the attic." "What's it about?" "School."
Margie was scornful. "School? What's there to write about school? I hate school."
Margie always hated school, but now she hated it more than ever. The mechanical teacher had been giving her test after test in geography and she had been doing worse and worse until her mother had shaken her head sorrowfully and sent for the County Inspector.
He was a round little man with a red face and a whole box of tools with dials and wires. He smiled at Margie and gave her an apple, then took the teacher apart. Margie had hoped he wouldn't know how to put it together again, but he knew how all right, and, after an hour or so, there it was again, large and black and ugly, with a big screen on which all the lessons were shown and the questions were asked. That wasn't so bad. The part Margie hated most was the slot where she had to put homework and test papers. She always had to write them out in a punch code they made her learn when she was six years old, and the mechanical teacher calculated the mark in no time.
The Inspector had smiled after he was finished and patted Margie's head. He said to her mother, "It's not the little girl's fault, Mrs. Jones. I think the geography sector was geared a little too quick. Those things happen sometimes. I've slowed it up to an average ten-year level. Actually, the over-all pattern of her progress is quite satisfactory." And he parted Margie's head again.
Margie was disappointed. She had been hoping they would take the teacher away altogether. They had once taken Tommy's teacher away for nearly a month because the history sector had blanked out completely.
So she said to Tommy, "Why would anyone write about school?"
Tommy looked at her with very superior eyes. "Because it's not our kind of school, stupid. This is the old kind of school that they had hundreds and hundreds of years ago." He added loftily, pronouncing the word carefully, "Centuries ago."
Margie was hurt. "Well, I don't know what kind of school they had all that time ago." She read the book over his shoulder for a while, then said, "Anyway, they had a teacher."
"Sure they had a teacher, but it wasn't a regular teacher. It was a man." "A man? How could a man be a teacher?" "Well, he just told the boys and girls things and gave them homework and asked them questions." "A man isn't smart enough." "Sure he is. My father knows as much as my teacher." "He can't. A man can't know as much as a teacher." "He knows almost as much, I betcha."
Margie wasn't prepared to dispute that. She said, "1 wouldn't want a strange man in my house to teach me."
Tommy screamed with laughter. "You don't know much, Margie. The teachers didn't live in the house. They had a special building and all the kids
"'You can't sit a child in front of a computer and expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society,'
Let have a round of applause for our public schools!
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 went to college at a state university but ended up completing my degree via online courses with another school. I value what I learned from the online courses much higher than what I recieved from the state school. When I was in college my biggest concerns were getting stoned with my roommate, playing my guitar and watching my girlfriend do keg stands. With the online courses all the time was spent actually learning and studying.
Relax, it was just a joke. I didn't intend it to be either pro- or anti- online schools. It's just a completely off-topic joke, nothing more.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The only reason the Teachers Union doesn't like this is because charter schools take students and therefore federal money from their schools. Students leave their schools because they are not succeeding. I've never seen an altruistic teachers union. If they are so concerned about the quality of education maybe they should spend some of their lobbying money on schools and teacher education.
To be fair, I didn't complete mine, but my degree was a Liberal Arts degree, bachelor of christian science in management information systems (not to be confused with christian scientists).
;)
Went to Greenville College, which is a small Christian Liberal Arts school near St. Louis. I actually went there to study music originally (Jars of Clay hail from there).
Wound up running my own IT company. I haven't seen any friends with big red feet around here lately, so I think I'm safe.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Everyone learns in different ways. Unfortunately, when it comes to providing school in an affordable way whether it's public or private, the individual needs of each student cannot be addressed. In the case of this charter school, the approach would work with a very narrow group of individuals. It would require discipline that most students lack and the oversight of a parent which most parents can't provide. The students who would thrive in a virtual charter situation would probably thrive even more in a standard environment as they would be dedicated either way. Dedication is one of the hallmarks of a good studen.
I hated school since I found it boring to work at the level of those around me. I applied my dedication to my own interests on my own time: science, electronics, musical composition, etc... This was a failing of the school system purely based on the fact that they couldn't cater to my needs. While I was busy designing circuits and building digital equipment at home, the kids in my Biology class were having trouble grasping the concept of cells. While I was composing original music even though I couldn't sight read well at all, the kids at school were busy trying to even learn to play a simple instrument.
Home schooling isn't the answer either and I'll tell you why. While my experiences in school were intellectually underwhelming, the cultural exposure was extermely valuable. I grew up in a very diverse community with plenty of jewish kids, black kids, asian kids, spanish kids and even "waspy" kids. My school experiences were definitely "big city". We had our share of incidents with knives, guns and rape by and against fellow students. We had plenty of drug and alcohol abuse as well among students with less forethought than others. (Keep in mind this was in the mid 80s)
I value all of that because it prepared me for the real world where these kinds of things happen. I wasn't shocked by any of the school shootings in the 90s because to me it was real life and an inevitable conclusion without some major changes in schools. Home schooling completely removes a student from those experiences and gives them only what their parents want them to think the world is. That's completely wrong.
A parent has no right to limit the experiences of their child no matter how much they might want to. That child is an individual and has a right to experience whatever they conclude they want to experience. I'm a hardcore Linux user. My daughter will still use Windows if that's what she wants. I despise religion. I plan to expose my daughter to every religion possible excluding obvious cults should she express an interest. It seems tha tmost home schoolers see home schooling as an opportunity to shape their child in their own image. Again, that's completely wrong. The goal, if anything, should be to let your child achieve their view of perfection.
The virtual chartered school idea will work for some, but is far too fragile because there is no enforcement of the less pleasant aspects of school, most of which are social. I think the teachers are right. A lot of students will see it as an opportunity to goof off or cheat. A lot of parents will see it as yet another way to keep their kids out of their hair (why the fucking hell did you have the kid in the first place if you didn't commit for life?). But, I guess it doesn't matter. America is falling apart and fast becoming irrelevant on the world stage when it comes to anything other than brutality.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Furthermore, boys need socialization around men! Men know how to speak to and control boys. Women, especially those ruined by pseudo-psych theories in education programs, simply don't. Which is why teachers are increasingly resorting to stupidity like calling the cops when Chris pulls Katie's hair on the playground.
-b.
"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" Oh yeah! I got so much of this in public school! I am 100% certain that someone will eventually come up with virtual teacher software that will replace all of k-12 learning and do a much better job than a human teacher dealing with 20-30 kids at once. I'd rather my kids get their fake "affection, support, guidance and motivation" from a computer than someone on salary to provide it.
A union is against something that infringes on their hegemony! Let's face it -- there's two parts to this story: 1) Whether or not this is a good idea on the face of it, and 2) A union's fight for power. The primary purpose of the union is not the betterment of students (whatever they may say to the contrary) -- it's the consolidation and expansion of power and the betterment of its members. Betterment of students is an ancillary benefit, or at best a secondary purpose of the union that is used in support of its primary purpose.
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains.
Consider that if you are living in a slum in Chicago it probably means that you lack the ability to get out of your situation. Do you want people like that teaching their own kids?
Keep in mind that Ms Stewart, of the Chicago Teachers Union, doesn't care about the education that kids in Chicago receive. Her only concern is the impact to the union. As president of the union, she will categorically object to any proposal, program, grant, etc that would divert money from union members. Virtual schools serve students who theoretically could be in classrooms featuring union-member teachers. Ergo, this is an untenable situation and must be put down lest people get other screwy non-union ideas (like school vouchers so poor kids might be able to attend non-union private schools).
A lot of the value is in being surrounded by other intelligent folks
Where did you go to school? At university I was amazed that some of the folks I was with could ite their shoes...
-b.
This type of teaching should be structured totally differently than that of
a normal school. Teachers and class sizes limit the contiguous process that a
interactive "program" could issue. This is the tip of the iceberg of information
society.
College or High school, YES. Grade school, Maybe!
I did packets for high school (I left HS at the end of 10th grade).
They had alot of repetition. People at the learning center impeded me slightly.
I'm pretty sure I learned more that way. Thing is, I wanted to learn.
In community college I had a class with the teacher about 60 miles away;
It worked just fine, with cameras and TV arrays.
Take a look at MIT's opencourseware, that's ok...And getting better, but it will never be a learning "program"
Now if we could get PBS to produce a high quality video to accompany the web interface!
This is good but the initial enrollment acceptance terms should be stringent.
I tip toe like rats on vouge runnways.
You have it right.
Note: The whiner is the Union head. OK: Whats a union head gotta do - defend the union. Are they to defend "right vs wrong school policy" NAAAAAA, defend the union jobs. In 1970 I worked (grad assistant slave) on a project that Harry Strausberg - then supert. of Chicago pub schools promoted. Walla!! a turn-key computer based teaching system for math, reading, language arts (thats writing for those from MonaLinda). All the kids got 15 minutes on each of the curricula during the class day and then went back to class with their individual performance on that subject. On the Iowa Basic tests the kids exploded the mith that black kids can't learn. All -- note ALL the kids were from a project next door. They ALL jumped 2 or more grade years within a year.
The Unions put up such a fuss that the project was canned.
The public schools are a mess. They cant be fixed. Abandon them. Let the kids free!
For the benefit of us non Americans, what exactly is a charter school?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
when a good number of high school grads can't find north america on a map, you can't possibly tell me that we're getting a quality education for our tax dollars. Get govt. out of the education business, fire the crappy teachers, and give a raise to the ones that are good.
You really should be posting anonymously. Someday you will have to explain your posts to a potential employer; or maybe you won't even get the interview.
'You can't sit a child in front of a computer and expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society,'
Unless you provide that child with a high-bandwith connection and a SIMS online character?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Of course, comp-sci was done in COBOL even back in those days. Now there's something truely primative. I can't tell you what a pain in the ass it is to make a database using only COBOL language and piles of rocks. God help you if the rocks got out of order...
:) My coworkers are wondering what all the fuss is about.
That line had me in stitches
I've started paying much more attention to these topics in recent years, since I have a kid of my own who is about to start preschool.
What I've observed here in St. Louis, Missouri, anyway, is that our public schools run the gamut from excellent to horrible, depending on where you happen to live. Our schools in the city itself are largely in the "poor to horrible" category. In the "inner hub" counties closest to the city, they're only 1 step better in most cases. As you move further west of the city, into the more affluent counties, the public schools generally improve.
Unfortunately, the kids at the highest risk of getting a substandard education are often the same ones with parents who simply can't afford to stay home and homeschool their kids. So what you typically see are kids of well-to-do upper middle-class parents being homeschooled because their parents just believe they "know better" how to teach their kid(s) than the school districts do, or because they're a little overprotective.
My thinking is, by homeschooling, you're *already* denying your kid(s) a lot of opportunity to build social skills. If they're using a virtual school on the computer while they're at home, vs. only interacting with the same parent(s) they always interact with anyway, how much difference does that really make? What's important is that homeschoolers get their kids involved in extracurricular activities so they're getting to interact with their peers in other settings.
Why the hell do so many people assume that kids need to "learn" socialization? Or that it must be learned in a school? Learning that most other kids can be little shits is not something that takes even an average intelligence 12-13 years to grasp.
Rediculous: A word indicating the writer is ridiculously ignorant.
Yes, I think we'd all be better off and society as a whole would be better off, if so many people didn't learn early that being stupid is cool and being smart is way uncool. I shudder to think how many millions of otherwise intelligent kids learn each year that you fit better in a peer group if you're acting as a thoroughly dumb "jock" or, if you're a girl, as a stereotypical airhead. Kids who otherwise might have made a great scientist or engineer end up learning that their childhood dreams are "uncool" and that to fit in with their peers they have to barely slip through school and never set their sights higher than getting a McDonalds job.
If only. They're two very different problems and acting as if there's any correlation between them doesn't do any good:
1. "don't be smart around stupid people"
That's what I'd rate as the biggest problem there, by an order of magnitude. For every single nerd who had the problem of treating everyone else as stupid, there'll be a dozen good kids who didn't, yet nevertheless end up acting stupid because that's what the group appreciates. Or worse yet, they learn "do look down on those who show any sign of intelligence."
2. "don't look down on people who aren't as smart as you"
Yes, a ton of nerds have a personality problem and treat other people as idiots... and get treated as idiots in return. That _is_ a personality problem, but it isn't treated in school. Being bullied and ostracized for seemingly no other fault than having a brain will _not_ alleviate the problem, it will just reinforce the impression that everyone around is an idiot.
It certainly won't teach tollerance and open-mindedness when they don't get any tollerance and open-mindedness in the first place. Chances are the other kids won't even stop to analyze the _real_ problem, much less explain to the "nerd" why he's being bullied. And doubly so those who are just SFVs (Stupid Fashion Victims) and don't even have any actual reason to bully the "nerd" than that it's the popular thing to do.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Any attempt at change is to be welcomed; perhaps the new way will accept some well-considered ideas of how to allow learning. Public education systems have a tendency to continue doing the same thing over decades, even when research has shown that better techniques are available.
This is most clearly shown by Dr. Montessori. Her research is commonly used by the private schools that bear her name, but hardly any of her work has made its way into public education, though it's had as long as a century to gain acceptance.
The teachers' unions, like any organisation, are interested in maintaining their own importance. Since Montessori's technique has primarily-uninvolved "directresses" instead of domineering "teachers", these unions are threatened by advancement. It's no coincidence that private schools usually don't require teachers to be certified.
One fascinating experiment is being tried in Edmonton, Alberta, where something resembling free markets are giving parents the ability to choose between public schools: see here.
You sound like a bit of a conspiracy theorist there. I'm not parroting anyone or anything, I genuinely do think that people probably have a better experience of life if they learn to deal with a wide spectrum of different sorts of people when they're young. And don't start me on religion... And what do you mean by "scoring" in society? Happiness is, to me, the only score that counts.
"Union opposes saving taxpayer money, more news at 11."
They have a vested interest in keeping the jobs local; nothing wrong with that at all. I wouldn't want to loose my job either. This has nothing to do with quality of education or the kids, it's all about the money.
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.
I'm going on to so a PhD in socialolgy
Good luck with that! I always say whe don't have enough socialolgues around.
Why, just the other day I saw an amateur attempt to socialolgise, and I had to tell him flat out: "You fail it!", he could never go on to so a PhD.
You can't take the sky from me...
The "socialising" I am referring to is not indoctrination. Whether that goes on or not is a totally seperate issue.
Kids need to learn to get on with one another, to get by when forced into a situation where they have to deal with people they don't like, learn the subtle social skills.
Sure you can get that from other places, but school is the best one I can think of.
And reign in that libertarian rant there, I went to a private school myself, I think it's great that the state both mandates education and provides it. Even better that if you want to do it differently you can.
State schools (as opposed to independent schools) were created to fuel the industrialization. Schools aren't there to instil knowledge, they're there to condition their pupils to accept a life of subjugation. Ever notice how groups of students are called classes like the lower, middle and upper socio-economic classes? At the time they were created, the schools supplied what industry needed - automatons who could turn up on time, do what they were told (mostly hours of mindless work everyday until they died) without complaining.
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
School is more than learning the three R's. It's learning how to deal with other individuals. Life involves cultivating relationships and learning what works and what doesn't when dealing with another human being. It's not just knowing the right information to get straight A's.
The social aspect of actually GOING to school is too-often downplayed. Your kid needs to learn how to deal with other people... both good people and bad people. Those people-skills are something you can't get in a home school setting, no matter how you try. And those skills are a better indicator of success later in life than any report card with straight A's.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
Unfortunately, with them being in a p*ssing contest with Agora, I think the excellence will degrade. For those not from the Great(ly backwards and mostly illiterate) State of Pennsylvania, PAVCS is PennsylvaniA Virtual Charter School. They use an excellent (see poster's description above) curriculum developed by a company called K12. Until recently, K12 had significant control over the operation of PAVCS, but not long ago they lost some of that. To muddy the waters, K12 now has Agora, its own virtual charter school. Competition being at the heart of capitalism, we now have choice, and the big dog in this market is Agora. I think PAVCS will suffer unless the two can come to some mutually beneficial agreement.
-two kids in PAVCS
--love the program
---make dashies, not slashies!
> "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
You can't sit a child in front of a teacher and expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society.
Heck, most things important in life I did NOT learn in school.
In other news, DMV workers insist that DMV workers are critical, postal workers instist that postal workers are critical, backet weavers insist that basket weavers are critical.
Learning that the other kids can be little shits is not the issue.
It's learning how to deal with the little shits that can't be taught in a home-school environment.
Learning how to deal with people... good people and bad people... is a lesson that can only be taught with practice. Practice that simply cannot occur properly in a home-school setting.... even with lots of brothers and sisters around. Dealing with siblings is COMPLETELY different than dealing with non-family peers. People you can't tell "mom" on.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
I have a younger brother (4th or 5th grade) in a virtual charter school currently. It seems to be working out for him even better than I would have thought. My mom has always been pro-homeschooling, and as others have said my observation is that the cyber model really does seem to build on that. They love the flexibility of having a fixed curriculum but also being able to build on it themselves, as well as being able to do the computer-work at any time of day (often at 11PM! sheesh.) Though, it also does seem true that some (not all) kids really need the support of a parent (or just another party) to work with it. There's another component to his school, however. The have a "Center for Performing and Fine Arts" which is an optional program (You can use their cyber program without enrolling in the arts center.) This, I think is the other key to what's really working well for my brother. Having someplace to go (and be creative!) two days a week breaks any monotony. As a completely aside, I would like to recommend to anyone who's interested in "Alternative Education" A. S. Neill's book Summerhill. It's written about a democratic school very much like the one I attend today.
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
Two poor options.
The questions should be, can we change one of the scenarios so that there is a truly good option?
It seems to me that we could improve the schools so that it becomes the better option. Or we could allow our school system to deteriorate further, making the on-line school a better choice by attrition.
This is far from a surprise. Members of my immediate family - namely my mother, back when I was in K-12 - dealt with PTA's, school boards and teacher's unions regularly. The teacher's unions DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE STUDENTS AT ALL. Their attitude is that they'll start giving a damn when the students start writing them checks.
I for one hope the teacher's union gets roasted on this one. Though nobody's willing to say it, there's an awful lot of underqualified teachers out there, and this, if properly implemented, could ease the impact that has on the system.
Note, however, I say 'if properly implemented'.
I'm not saying that doing the student loan thing is a wise decision or not. My point is simply that the money is there, albeit with a 6% APR string attached.
Agree sort of. I know way too many homeschooled kids that have absolutely no concept of how to act properly in any kind of social setting. One guy was forever jumping and then sitting on tables a la The Crow. Another guy refuses to speak more than 30 lines of verbal communication a day so he can focus on the medieval battles going on in his head. My ex boyfriend was also homeschooled and lets just say pony tails and moustaches never mix, even for an artist. sigh.......
In and of itself, this looks at the outset like an insufficient model. There is tremendous value in capturing the technological advances of the virtual world into the education sector, but to merely adopt this, extricating PE and music (there is art, contrary to the teacher union representative and PE is not listed in the curriculum, contrary to the CVCS FAQ page http://www.chicagovcs.org/curriculum/index.html ) is to leave a promising potential open to oppositions, not because of what the model does but what it doesn't do. The worst case scenario is that the technology is dictating the curriculum rather than educators, education specialists and researchers. This looks like a promising model but might it be pushed out too prematurely? Maybe a more conservative adaptation would have better results. If struck down, the unfortunate effect will be that more complete models in the future incorporating the technological advances of virtual classrooms in the public school arena might be similarly regarded, and written off. If successful, there might opportunities to incrementally improve the model over time. One of the challenges (and necessities) of working in a technology firm is that we are constantly driven by the physical dimensions influencing online interactions see our blog http://theworkplaceblog.com/. This story is a good reminder of that necessity.
"What does the government do for you?"
"Pays my rent, buys me food, helps with bills, buys lunch,..." and so on. It was kind of depressing.
But I guess my point is kind of that the government doesn't need the school system to teach the kids what the government does. Kids aren't dumb, and they see what's before their eyes.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
When we were considering my daughters education options, it became very clear very quickly that nobody on the planet is going to be more interested in her best interests than we are. While the school system always talked about programs, and money, they never never talked about responsibility and accountability. If a child's parent doesn't care, they are doomed anyhow - and IMHO to aid and abbet that doom by puting them into the state schools is unforgivable.
Kids don't socialize in public schools. First off, people in the real world must socialize and deal with all age groups, not just the ones in their grade level. Home schools, and homeschool support groups reflect that reality far more than any public school. Second off, 5 seconds at any public school will tell you what most of us already know anyhow. There is nothing sociable or "real world" about the way the kids interact, that is unless they want to grow up to be incarcerated, drug infested, gang-bangers. It would be more accurate to say that public schools hide kids from the real world, and manipulate impressionable minds in a way that favors social control over individualality and success.
I know this is blasphemy to say this, but even the teacher of the year in NYC 3 times said it. We would be better of if public schools were shut down alltogether. No fixes, no modifications, no new programs, just shut it down and force the responsibility back onto the parents - who would probably turn to private schools, home schools, and community voulnteer schools. Will some kids fall thru the cracks? That's the point. So many already are - when are people going to get it that a public school system isn't about a public education and can guarantee no such thing no matter how desperately people wish otherwise.
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.
...expect children to learn these skills in a classroom with 30 students headed by an overworked teacher who cannot focus on any student individually. I bet amazing things would happen if people took time to learn about things before they criticize them.
What's to be said for equal opportunity? For those families living on lowered income, single moms who can't afford decent computers and internet connections? Certainly, children should have the opportunity to use computers at a very early age, in order to help them develop their analytical skills, but social skills are equally important.
Oh yeah, you are so right. My wife, a kindergarten teacher, just isn't doing her job. She typically doesn't come home till 6-9pm at night and gets in at 6:30am in the morning. She doesn't get paid for that extra time, nor all the prep time she works on the weekends, late evenings, etc. But she sure isn't doing her job. Slacking off in fact....
You sir, are talking out of your ass.
Teaching is just like any profession. You've got some very good people, some very poor people, and the majority fall somewhere in between. Your knee-jerk blame-the-teacher generalizations just show you don't know what you are talking about.
I don't know how good their model is, although I will look at their website, but most LMS and online learning is not very good right now.
However, http://www.linkonlearning.com/ has been doing it right for years. Their Pre Kindergarten to 8th grade has been a tremendous success in terms of student development. Children who were having problems in the classroom, enroll in LinkOn's program and often excell 2 or 3 grades within 6 months - I kid you not.
What I found to be particularly great is the parent portal that LinkOnLearning has. As a parent you can monitor exacly what your child has been working on, and of course this goes without saying the teachers have the same ability.
Good luck with your program!
I left public school after the sixth grade to attend an online academy. Their placement tests allowed me to completely skip seventh grade. Sadly, the school didn't have its stuff together sot he year was a pain and I switched to another school the following year. The problem with this school was that EVERYTHING was online, I had a bad internet connection and they had their stuff together so well that they created a little sect of internet totalitarianism through their locked down iMacs. Thus, the following year I switched again. While this third one was the best yet, it still relied to heavily on internet based classrooms and "interactive" learning environments. I had planned to stick with it for my last year of high school as well, but instead made one final switch. This last charter school was by far the best as I had to option of not even doing anything online, instead simply receiving the text and lessons books, being told to read certain areas and then answer certain questions. I submitted all of the lessons online and then sent away for the midterms and finals via snail mail.
I'm not a stupid kid, I hated spending all day in school watching the teachers help the helpless while I was stuck with hours of homework because they wasted the day. I hated the charter schools that looked down on me and thought that I needed some sort of flashy, graphic, interactive online classroom. All I wanted was the books so that I could do the bare minimum of what was needed and do it quickly. Aside from the VERY basics, I have learned nothing from school. Even then, I had a firm grasp on read and writing before entering kindergarten, and could certainly tell my colors apart and count to one hundred... Unlike so many others. Of course, I'm a reader, which is somewhat of a rarity in America. Maybe if I had watched television other than PBS as a child, perhaps then I'd be a better image of the mold society tried to push me into, huh? Then again, school isn't about learning, is it? It's all about gaining access to a little piece of paper that ensures employers that you went through the proper social conditioning and are now capable of fitting in and rolling over.
As a response to the numerous posts that basically all say that you can socialize your kids outside of school as well:
I agree that you can teach them some social skills, but how will they be able to form lasting friendships and relationships? I'm sure some will be able to, but it took me 8 years in school with my friends to get really close to them. Friendships don't just happen on a trip to the zoo for some. If I'd try to homeschool a child, I'd be afraid it'd turn into either a socially reclusive or an overly social person. (you know, the type that is friends to everybody and yet nobody)
Friends are one of the most important aspects of life and you should give your child every opportunity to find real friends you can!
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!!!
If my kid were going to school on the computer, the first thing I'd do on my home router/firewall is block the following addresses:
myspace.com
youtube.com
slashdot.org
Maybe not...then I don't know what *I* would. My wife would probably start thinking I had more "free" time or something...
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Yale?
If schools are privatized where does all of the money to run the school come from? If the answer is "the students and their family", how does that work for low-income families? Would there be something in place to ensure that everyone can still access education?
Detroit Public Schools
A good chunk of kids who used to go to private schools now go to charters instead, and in 3 years there will probably be more kids going to charters in Detroit than to the traditional public schools.Choice is good.
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
Ok, I could say a lot more, but think of this in computer terms . . .
The public school system is like Microsoft. Big, bloated, inneficient, tons of bugs, workable but poor products, etc.
The other options are like Apple, Linux, etc. Not widely accepted, of varying quality, mostly misunderstood, slandered, etc.
Marilyn Stewart is like Bill Gates, trying to overwhelm the competition and keep the $ flowing into the teachers union coffers. What else would you expect from the head of a large profitable company? When a new product comes out to compete with yours, are you going to praise it to the hilt and tell everyone to go try it?!?!? Course not. Would you expect Billy boy to go out and tell eveyone to go buy the latest macbook? Does anyone really think that the head of the teacher's union is going to praise a new school that might undermine her power base? That would be like asking Ballmer his opinion of a new distro of linux.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying all teachers are this narrow minded, but when is the last time you heard the head of a teacher's union in a large metropolitan area praise anything but the status quo?
(Posted as a coward cause I just burnt every one of my mod points on this thread)
I have just embarked on getting my Masters in Mechanical Engineering through distance learning. I already have a BS in Computer Science.
I am required, obviously, to take some undergraduate pre-requisite work before I can start the Masters program.
I am currently taking Thermodynamics through the University of Alabama's distance learning program. I get a DVD of the class in the mail every day. My tests are proctored here at my location, and I have to turn in assignments via email.
While it does require more discipline than an in-class arrangment, the coursework is every bit as vigorous as what the people in-class are getting - it's identical.
In fact, I'd say I have to work harder because I don't have the opportunity to ask questions real-time. I spend more time having to look at the text and figure out how to work the problems than if I could just ask the professor how to work the problems.
So given that you have to work harder, and have more discipline, but get the same educational value, why would you disregard degrees from online universities?
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
is the parent.
None of the "lessons" you've pointed out as worth teaching is something that a child gets through some magic incantation that's only learned through "socialization" with their peers. The lessons that you are contrasting (don't be smart, avoid gatherings) are the natural lessons to be drawn from these situations unless there's an adult around to point out the longer view (don't be arrogant, don't be a victim). These lessons help children interact with their peers, but the lessons aren't taught by that interaction.
As a former teacher, I can say with confidence that if you rely on teachers in the current system to teach these types of lessons to your children, you'll be visiting them in Juvenile Detention in a couple of years. The things that teachers are required to do and say and the things that they are prohibited from doing and saying almost completely rule out the ability to teach these types of lessons, especially at the secondary level. As a new (only been parenting for eight-weeks) parent, I can say that I would never rely on someone whose whole outlook is structured by tenure and not rocking the boat to teach my child these important lessons.
In any event, I don't know any homeschoolers who spend their days "sitting at home." Most belong to co-ops where they spend time with peers, interact with younger and older kids, and get "hard" subject teaching (usually math and science) from a qualified teacher. My sister's kids had a college Biology professor teaching them science one year, and an astronomer teaching it the next. Home schooling is like almost everything else: you're going to get good and bad home schooling experiences and a whole range across that spectrum. Funny thing--that's just what you get in public schools.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
I'd also like to know how all these other school systems, to which the one in the US is often compared unfavorably, manage to be so great.
99% of them are public, after all. France, Germany, England, Norway, Iceland. Japan, I think, though theirs is so different from the US/Europe that it's hard to compare.
Yet here, the only solution anyone can come up with is "PRIVATIZE IT! ONLY THE FREE MARKET CAN FIX THIS PROBLEM!" Dumbasses. If public schools are so inherently awful, then how does everyone else manage to make it work so well?
ALL that has to be done for our schools is for politicians stop fucking around with them. If we still have horrible performance, maybe just copy one of those great European systems. Still have problems? OK, then ya know what? It's the parents and the society who suck, not the schools.
I suspect that that final statement gets at the heart of the problem, but if we want to find out, just follow that set of steps. "Problem" solved.
I am not very concerned about what a teachers union says about an alternative form of education. Any such form of eductaion is in direct competition with the teachers union. This competition means that the union workers will actually have too teach or loose out students (tax dollars) to the charter school. You will notice a trend where most teaching unions oppose any kind of alternative education. Do you really think they are the only ones who can teach in our society?
My wife is a teacher, and a member of the union. (They force you to pay the dues, so you may as well join.) I read all the magazines and newsletters that the union and its parent organizations send. From what I hear, from the unions themselves, the unions care about two things:
1) More power for the union.
2) More money for the union.
They are against new testing. They are against non-testing based instruction. They are against charter schools. They are against charter schools even if it means no schools. (Charters were willing to set up in New Orleans long before the public schools would have been able to operate. The unions fought against them, in favor of no schools at all.) The unions are against any changes to the tenure system. The unions are against anything proposed by or endorsed by the conservatives. The unions are against Wal-Mart. The unions are against the high cost of living. The unions are against forcing the teachers to get technology traning. The unions are against the schools spending more of their budgets on technology (and less on teachers). They are against home schooling. They are against school funding cuts. They are against property tax increases.
And they support teachers retiring at 55 with 25 years of service. They expect to work 25 years, only about 1/3 of their lives, and have the rest of us taxpayers who work from 16 to 65+, including summers, to support them. (Earlier retirement means hiring more teachers, which means more union members and more dues paid.)
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
"no one except straight WASPs (SWASPs?) can be portrayed in a negative light"
Is everyone picking on the white man again? It's a hard-knock life isn't it? White-man's burden and all that? You seem to be implying the existence of a history book that is being used in the public shcool system today that TOTALLY demonizes "the white man". Please, direct me to this mythological book. I'd pay a pretty penny for that tome. I was under the impression that the WASP hasn't done anything bad. That's what MY history books told me in school. Slavery just happened on it's own. All that Jim Crow nonsense afterwards just happened. The same thing with the tragedy of the Native Americans and the raping of our environment.
It's a cold and dangerous world out there. Fortunately, the WASP has been fortunate enough to make it thus far unharmed. By the very grace of God I'm sure. I'm certain that someday, they'll have the place of prominence in that world that they deserve. The meek inheriting the earth and all that.
Or maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
only the well off will get decent education.
This is already somewhat the case due to disparate quality of neighborhood schools.
It would be much worse if the schools were all private.
It would be wholesale Disinvestment into our future human capital.
A very bad idea indeed.
Reminds me of John Taylor Gatto's book.
Amen, Amen, Amen!
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.
... in a red state afraid of change? Why does this not suprise me? Holy underwear! They've got to protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen. They must do something about this, immediately, immediately, immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!
>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.
I've never understood why it is perceived to be of such value to have your children exposed to the habits and social mores of other children. When most of them behave as boorish animals, just what "socialization" traits is it you want your children to pick up from the rest of the general population?
I agree with the other poster - I think kids would get far better socialization by being around adults, not kids.
I've known probably 8 homeschooled kids. One just started on Wall Street as an analyist making $160K/year. One "went rebel" and got married young to get out of her parents' control. I've lost track of the rest. All were socially a little "odd" from most kids you'd meet. But, like the previous poster said - once these kids get out of THAT damn social environment get get to places like college, or the workplace, they are as adjusted, or better, than most.
I think the reason that homeschooled kids seem "odd" is because they are. They've been sheltered from anamalistic behavior and they tend to behave in a more mature manner.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I agree that our kids should not be exposed to dangerous violence
in the school. However, there are all sorts of people in this world.
Some good, some bad, and some just weird. I'd much rather my kids
learn to deal with the varieties of people in school, than later
on when they're trying to make their way in life.
Secondly, they would be exposed to the views and life experiences of
a much greater variety of people in school than just sitting at home.
This may be be considered a detriment by some, but I consider it
an essential part of reaching maturity as long as we can maintain
communication and keep them from straying too far.
There's a big difference between you, as a responsible, intelligent adult, taking online classes at a tech school and doing kindergarten by video. While I'm not going to dispute what you're saying, in my district I find precious few teachers showing up for the paycheck. It's a rather low paycheck given the requirement of a college degree. I do it because I wouldn't be happy doing much else, and you'll find most teachers to be of a similar mind. Of course, it's the bad teachers that stay in memory sometimes. Test scores, eh? What that will do is pull highly qualified teachers out of urban areas (test scores, by and large, can be lined up side-by-side with socioeconomic indicators). It will also limit curriculum to only that which is on the test, as teachers will have strong economic incentives to reinforce that material. Is this the educational system you want?
Do you mind sending me an email at bobbymartin at hotmail dot com? My wife and I are preparing to home school our children and I would love to get a list of resources from a techie who has apparently been successful at home schooling.
Just a ping email is all I'm looking for. Then I can give you more detail, and ask for a list of resources.
Thanks a million!
Bobby
After RTFA (I know, this is Slashdot, but...), and going over the Chicago Virtual Charter School materials, I can't say I'm terribly impressed with either one. For starters:
However:
Overall, it looks like the CVCS might be a tolerable interim solution for parents who only have access to desperately bad public schools, but certainly not a replacement for even middle-of-the-road traditional public education, let alone a serious attempt to explore the potential of virtual schools.
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.
You don't live in the USA, do you? This all sounds like a nice theory about how schools should operate, but here in the USA, they most certainly don't.
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.
Yep, I think we're headed for that. In some ways, it's already happened.
I only wish I had mod points for you.
Instead of "Don't be smart around stupid people - they'll come and beat you up for it.", "If you're smarter than somebody, don't be arrogant about it. Just because you are smart doesn't mean you're always right. And in the end it's not what you can do, it's what you accomplish that matters."
Do you really think the reason smart kids get beat up in school is because they are arrogant? You are absolutely clueless and obviously have never experienced what we are talking about. Smart kids learn REALLY FAST to be INVISIBLE - NOT arrogant. Smart kids get picked on because they are A) different and B) make people feel bad about themselves because they know inside they don't measure up.
Instead of "Avoid gatherings of other people - they'll beat you up because you 'looked funny at them'.", "People are stronger as a group than as individuals. So cultivate your friends so you'll never be isolated and vulnerable."
Because the smart kids have learned it's safer to be invisible (see first point above) it is often very difficult to cultivate friends at all.
Instead of "Don't speak to classmates - they'll chase you around the school yard for using 'funny words'.", "Talking to people is an exchange, not an opportunity to rub their noses in how much smarter you are than them. Learn first to understand the person you're talking to. Then learn to listen to how what you say is going to sound to them before you say it."
Again - if you think most nerds are out to rub other people's noses in how much smarter they are, you could not be more wrong. While there may be nerds with strong enough self-esteem and self-confidence to attempt such banter, most have been, or quickly will be, beaten down to where they would never CONSIDER such a confrontation.
Instead of "Hate - it's difficult to learn to love people who chase you all the way home.", "Don't be a passive victim. Use your brain: there is a way to to become the master of your situation. There is no quick fix, but intelligence, determination and effort will succeed in the end."
Most are passive victims, lacking the stamina or confidence to do anything physically to resolve the situation (and would be punished by authorities if they did anyway) and unless you can conform to the tribe and hide what makes you different, you are doomed. Sadly, some kids break under the pressure, and don't become passive victims - they either turn on themselves (suicide) or on others (Columbine).
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
If public schools are so inherently awful, then how does everyone else manage to make it work so well?
Because in the other countries the school systems are not required to take every single student all the way through 12th grade, no matter the school. Students are tested periodically to even get into the schools. Highschools have entrance tests and they only accept the top X students. Don't get a high enough scoore? You can't go to that school. Try one of the less prestigious ones. Get low enough? You're going to one that only has blue collar tracks for study.
Oh, and these ARE the public schools. Also, most countries in Europe only provide test scores to the more prestigious schools. Where as in the US the numbers are from a cross section of all the schools.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I'm talking about controlled studies that compare the effectiveness of these schooling environments - With all variables controlled for.
In fact, such a study is NOT POSSIBLE, because the student/parent populations
are SELF SELECTED. Many people agree that parental involvement is the primary
factor for the success of the children. There is NO way to control for this.
Home schooling is even worse because you can't even get complete measurement of
outcome.
With out such studies, you can belive what you will. But all you have
are anecdotes and inconclusive indications.
Social skills: pretend that it's ok that Timmy has 2 daddies.
There's nothing to "pretend"; that's the family Timmy has got. Even if you disapprove of homosexuality, that's certainly nothing you should hold against Timmy.
No, "social skills" is to pretend that you didn't say what you just said should you have the bad taste to display your lack of decency and propriety in an actual social setting.
Respect for others: If Ahmal's father chooses to blow up a building full of innocent children, we have to respect that as his own personal life choice.
You evidently missed out on some of the important lessons of K-8, so let me spell it out for you: you are not supposed to respect the choice of people who blow up buildings with innocent children, no matter whether they are part of a terrorist organization or of some military.
I recommend you try to get some remedial education; the K-8 lessons you obviously missed are important, and you will never grow up to be a decent human being if you don't learn them.
>When they come to beat you up, kick one of them in the face. You might *still* get beaten up, but next time they'll pick an easier target.
Sadly, I have to agree this is 100% correct. When i was a kid, I was taught by my parents never to fight. I would get in trouble even if I didn't start it. My parents told me that if I was getting picked on to just ignore the bully, that they would get bored and pick on someone that they got more of a reaction from.
This could not have been worse advise. Ignoring the bully just shows you are weak, which invites more attacks.
My kids will fight. Take your licks, do your detention, but earn the respect.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Hey, where can I find the best Virtual Tutor for WoW? I'm a newbie at it and have only 8.5 days left on my free trial subscription. Note Essential Skills Used: disrupting the class (posting off topic), disrespect for authority (flaunting it), CYA (trying to make this post somehow related to the topic of the original article), and amusing one's self in public (don't ask).
"You're young, you're drunk, you're in bed, you have knives; shit happens." -- Angelina Jolie
I pulled my children out of public school for the following reasons (in order of diminishing importance.) 1. Terribly treatment from professional educators (I am an engineer and professional math/science/computing educator.) My sources are the firsthand reports of other students and character assessments made of those educators by their colleagues. 2. Sex, drugs and violence. I've seen it all firsthand; these hazards are ubiquitous in the United States. 3. Incompetence. On no less than 20 occassions my children returned home with teacher-produced (or worse, district approved) materials that were substantively incorrect. My various research supporting these claims was presented to the teachers and administrators in 4 of these cases. It resulted in no changes. I have definitively established the cause to be broad incompetence. My conclusion is that many teachers have no business in a classroom and know less than my 7th grade daughter about many fundemental subjects. 4. Religious intollerance. This comes on the heals of item 1. My children were singled out by both their teachers for their religious beliefs. They never spoke about them except to identify themselves. 5. Social programming and Propagandizing. I was regularly required to present information with which I disagreed. This ranged from idiotic policies to politicized curriculum to questionable interpersonal (sexual/social) advice. There are other, lesser reasons, but I think these five will suffice. I have used the K12 curriculum for the past two years. My children's 2003 Terra Nova test results averaged at the 63rd percentile. In order to baseline their progress against their past (and their age peers') performance, I have arranged for this testing to continue annually. In the spring of their first year they averaged at the 87th percentile! Even more amazing, their last tests averaged at the 93rd percentile (with numerous asterisks indicating that they had achieved the maximum score beside various "99" annotations on their subcategories. My children also manage our home in every respect. They do volunteer work. Each earns in excess of $200 per month through his or her own industry. They now interact with people of all ages. They also willingly interact with people of the opposite sex (for other than sexual reasons.) I am confident in saying that they have learned more in the last two years than they learned in the prvious 4-7 years at school. Furthermore, they are better socialized than their traditionally schooled peers. The only exception is this: they do not know as much about deceiving authorities, organizing harrassment or institutionalizing irrationality as their peers at brick-and-mortar schools. If congress really had some guts, they'd finance everyone to do the same thing. As for teachers unions, they are especially good at that final exceptional skill peculiar to brick-and-mortar schools: institutionalizing irrationality. The sooner we learn to ignore them, the happier and more prosperous our nation will become!
Baaaaaaaaa
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
From the school district. You've heard of school vouchers right? The idea is families decide where their child can get the best education and the government pays for it (up to what it would have otherwise cost them in a public school). And before you start saying that some schools wouldn't teach anything, the laws can be written in such a way that the schools would still have to be accredited by the state to be eligible to accept vouchers.
You can't sit a child in a classroom and expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society.
My other first post is car post.
Most home schoolers are more social adapted then people think.
They don't just stay at home and read books. The get together with other home schoolers most days, different parents may teach diffferent subjects.
Sitting at a desk watching a teacher try and control 30 kids does not teach social skills. In fact, in public shools social skills aren't taught. Kids are left to figure it out for themselves.
As far as field trips go, home schoolers typically go when the place is slow, so they can spend more time talking about the subject.
Homeschoolers can get through a days curriculum work in 3-4 hours and ahve more time to socialize witht here peers. They can also participate in the extra-curricular activities at the local school.
Of course, there will be some kids locked in their house do to poor parenting, but that happens with or without home schools.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"My thinking is, by homeschooling, you're *already* denying your kid(s) a lot of opportunity to build social skills."
wrong wrong wrong.
Home schooled kids have MORE time to develop social skills.
Home schooling is a community of people that get together nearly every day.
tell me exactly what social skills are taught be sitting in a class watching a teacher spend 50 minutes try to get out 15 minutes worth of information?
Schools don't teach good social skills.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What planet did you go to school on?
If public schools are so inherently awful, then how does everyone else manage to make it work so well?
They don't, which you'd realize if you did any actual research on the topic. Traditional school systems are failing *everywhere*; it just so happens that the U.S. school system shortfalls are more widely publicized, and U.S. citizens tend to be far more critical than their counterparts in Europe and Asia.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Kids can get socialized anywhere. We homeschooled, and our kids are plenty social. There are certainly people who lock their kids away, but that's just one end of what should be a bell curve. Unfortunately, the fat part of the bell curve is growing weirder and weirder WRT socialization. The public schools have less and less discipline, and more each day become problematic.
There *are* good public schools, both in terms of education per se, and socilaization, but not nearly enough.
Furthermore, school is not the best place to learn socialization. As others have noted, putting kids in with a group of other kids their age all day is not a good idea for broad socialization skills. Having a couple of adults in the mix doesn't change it that much.
Beyond that, school shouldn't *be* about socialization. It should be about teh more classical education aspects. Quit consuming all the kids' time with insane amounts of homework and extracurricular activities (sports here in my beloved Texas being a classic, over the top example) and let them *have* time to socialize. Quit making the planet off limits to kids, too. No skating, no bikes, no this, no that, no the other. Bleah.
That said, yeah, a lot of today's parents won't do any better at this than the public schools. Parents are at least as much to blame as the schools. Parents, teachers and administrators do all have the excuse that they are products of the predecessors to today's silly programs. But excuses don't matter.
What I would like to know is what you need to learn in order to succeed in society? What exactly *is* success in society? And does the Chicago Teachers Union have a monopoly on the secret?!
Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.
I am a California credentialed teacher in Life Science. I also hold the MS degree in Biology, and have conducted field research within the UC system. My wife and I homeschool both our children from birth, now ages 10 and 5.
The reason I homeschool is not because I'm a religious wing-nut. The reason is because from my personal and profession experience public schools are much less about education and much more about crowd control. And as to socialization: the kids we meet who attend public school tend to be hyper, violent, obsessed with winning, and can't be around another child for more than 5 minutes without either hitting them or verbally abusing them. It's become such an obvious pattern that even my kids notice it. I believe (from having seen it) that the way schools are operated, and the values they install, are creating these children.
I don't care particularly why the schools are b0rk3n. Blame who you like. It doesn't really matter, does it? My job as a parent is to steer my children clear of dangers such as that, and I do. Thus I would never allow my kids to attend k-8, though I might allow them to attend 9-12 if they really want to and can prove to me that they are ready to face the battlefield that is public education.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
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?
http://familyeducation.com/article/0,1120,58-17910 ,00.html
http://learninfreedom.org/socialization.html
http://www.pregnancy.org/article.php?sid=189
I look for some studies that showed public shooling was better, but there aren't any.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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?
I'm surprised that, as far as I can see, no one has mentioned The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier. This book offers an even better picture of how bad things can get in school (and I've been told that it isn't as fictional as I'd like to believe), as far as how terrible kids can be to one another.
It's learning how to deal with the little shits that can't be taught in a home-school environment.
Horseshit. You, like many of the other ignoramuses here, seem to think that homeschooled kids are kept in dark basements, away from every other human being, until they turn 18. You couldn't be further from the truth.
Our kids tend to get involved in a hell of a lot more 'extracurricular' activities than yours do, as many others have pointed out. Music lessons, martial arts, sports, clubs, etc. Furthermore, most of us homeschoolers form associations so that our kids can socialize with each other, with other adults, and so forth. We even (gasp!) sometimes swap teaching when it turns out one of us is better at a subject than another (e.g., one parent is a computer programmer, the other a biologist). Call it a 'trade of services'.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about here. Even a cursory googling would show you just how wrong you are, and just how organized WE are. We're a school system, a voluntary one, done right.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
I grew up with MANY homeschooled kids and if there is one thing I can say about all of them is that they were ALL socially awkward. My best friend was homeschooled and it's taken him the last 16 years to get over the social impact he suffered. I agree completely that homeschooling can give you a much better education, especially at the elementary level. Social skills OTOH evolve from being in a social situation. A field trip once a month, or weekly sports activity is no substitute for spending many hours in a crowded classroom EVERY DAY. My sister went to one of the most prestigious undergrad business programs in the country. You know what they taugh? Social skills. No, not directly, but nearly every class revolved around group project work. Why? Because social skills are the number one most valuable commodity in the world we live in. I know people that are dumber than a post but excel in their professional and personal lives specifically because of their ability to communicat and interact with other people. Personally, I would not be so cavalier as to threaten my child's future by exposing them to a homeschool environment. Besides, if you live in an area where your child has so many peers that they can play with them after 3-4 hours of schoolwork (while normal kids are at school), why not get together and start your own private school?
Find coupons in Greeley
My parents homeschooled us using computer-based curriculum. I learned more than I needed to know, scoring at or above the 95th percentile in every category of the Iowa Achievement tests when I took those, and scoring nearly as high on the SAT and the ASVAB. Of course, I also got a whole lot of religious indoctrination, but then, that's why I was homeschooled.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
The first public schools were essentially a group of parents in the community who hired a teacher. They chose the teacher, supervised the teacher, supported the teacher, fired the teacher when necessary. All schools, public or private or even a one-on-one tutor are version of this model. We pay our money, we hire a teacher. There is nothing sacred about the traditional public school that should trump all other formats. No advocate of the public school will claim they are perfect, nor would the advocate of any other format. In the end, if the tax payers want a charter school, then they should have them. It's their money, their kids.
OK, if that's true, then it's an acceptable alternative explanation. It's just that it seems like every time there's a story run about how bad US schools are, the fear isn't that we're falling behind some objective mark, but rather that we're falling behind (all of the) other major nations.
Also, if traditional school systems are failing, then what has changed to cause that? Saying that they are both traditional and that they are now failing implies that an identical or strongly similar system was, at some time in the past, not failing.
I remember reading about the debate in Disney's engineered town of Celebration, Forida. (Celebration was a partial implementation of Walt's Futureland: "Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow".) Initially the schools made heavy use of electronic technology, experitmental teaching and grading. But the parents, who paid a premium to live in Celebration, screamed bloody murder, that non-traditional education would keep their kids out of Harvard, and changed the school system into a more traditional format.
So, the story is that a union is upset because an online school may need fewer of thier product (teachers) than the traditional ones. So, why is this news? Every union in history has opposed automation of 'thier' turf. This is nothing new, just a diferent territory.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
But I believe that your social skills argument neglects something very important.
You said:
The most common question we get about it is "what about social skills". A lot of people who homeschool make very conscious efforts to make sure their kids receive social skills.
Now I apologize if I'm making an erroneous assumption, but I would assume that the social skills you are talking about are acquired voluntarily, i.e. with children more likely to be friends with your children than not.
Social skills in a traditional school environment is a double-edged sword. Sure your kids will make friends, but it is more than that. The development of social skills is not just about how to interact with people who are incipiently friendly to you, but also how to deal with the unfriendlies, such as bullies or manipulators. In fact, there are some who would argue that the latter lessons are by and large the most useful to the development of a child socially, myself included. In the same way a debater learns nothing more than what he/she already knows about debate from someone who always agrees with them, a child attempting to develop social skills learn more about social skill from dealing with people who are antagonists rather than friends.
My concern would be that in the interest of protecting the child as parents are wont to do by nature that perhaps these extracurriculars are too much by choice. The traditional school system forces diversely behaved children into a common space where these skills must be developed, whereas the home school social environment is more 'hand-picked' as to the interactions that take place.
Like I said, I don't disagree with your points, and even if I were so inclined to do so, I wouldn't be able to do so except in a conceptual sense, having no direct experience with home schooling. But the lack of choice in who sits next to you in homeroom or who is on your team in gym forces you to deal with that person, whether as friend, foe, or otherwise, which I believe is an argument for, rather than against, the traditional school system.
Here in Utah some of the lawmakers felt similarly about the teachers' union. They passed the "Voluntary Contributions Act" -- a law banning government employees' payroll deductions for PACs (it's tied up in the courts). It took the balance of the UEA lobby from more than $600,000 to just under $300,000 in three years.
A few years ago as I was entering the state's political/education scene, I would ask teachers at the schools I was visiting what they though of the UEA, whether they were members, etc. More often than not, those who were members joined for a single reason: malpractice insurance and a team of lawyers on their side if they were ever sued. For many of these teachers, the actions of the NEA (which sap a significant portion of dues), was an unfortunate but unavoidale side effect.
Actually, historically it is more normal for kids being educated to be fostered and/or apprenticed out to another family or business. "Home schooling" was actively avoided because it was well understood that it kept the kids too insular, and more importantly that when cast as formal educators, parents put too much pressure on their own kids.
The concept of a "public school" grew directly from the apprenticeship tradition.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
But seriously... parents have a much more varied conditions to deal with when providing boundaries to kids. They have early mornings and late nights when they are tired and unprepared to deal with things diplomatically. Parents have to accomplish tasks, (cooking, driving, shopping, cleaning, working.. etc.) while parenting. They have unpredictable situations that its hard to prepare themselves and/or the kids for. They have situations where discipline is awkward, difficult or simply impossible. Students are often so convinced that all rules are negotiable and that they can get their way as long as they fight long and hard enough for it that they are completely unformillar with the concept of things being otherwise.
Teachers, on the other hand, are focused primarily on the kids and spend most of the time in a confined consistent environment with support always available if needed. The children in a classroom constantly have examples set for them as to what the boundaries are as they observe their piers testing them. The rules become associated with the location and the teacher so strongly that after little time they automatically start following them when they show up. This creates an environment where kids can focus on learning and play instead of contantly testing boundries.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
Not only does online schooling require TONS of self-discipline, part of the bond forged early on between an instructor and a student is vital. There is an underlying, yet HEALTHY level of stress involved with keeping up with the others, observing and being a part of other's educations regarding social norms, and modeling your 'early life' behavoirs in general.
K-8 graders require the basics, but also, require personal attention. How many attention disorders, or learning disabilities are diagnosed by observation early in life? The social aspects of learning and fitting in are so important because they model our behavoir in the more important secondary schooling we receive.
Having taken many college courses online and also having been "bored" at HS, normally this is AGAINST my stance on online learning. However, after 8th grade, I'm cool with it. By then the children have an idea of how to fit in, start realizing what their ambitions are, etc. While HS is very important in my opinion, some excel here and can use the more direct attention (to learning, not the person learning) to succeed faster online - I know I would have and would have loved to have moved on to college even a year sooner.
My children are in the first stages of K-8 and after fathering carefully for several years now, I can honestly say that in school, they learn MUCH more in the group environment than they would on their own. While I have taught them how to read, write, and do simple maths, there are so many other things that only other peers their age can teach. Things that will grow parts of their personality NO online software could.
At this stage in life, it's almost not too profound to expect them to learn LITTLE about advanced topics. Hell, they're still learning how to LEARN!
I believe in home schooling and online classes, but not for K-8. Even homeschooling does more than plop them in front of a monitor and expect them to learn. The successful people in a company, and in LIFE, are the networkers who know how to take intelligence, form it with social skills, and fuse the two into a mastery of social psychology and the topic they immerse their life in. Be it real estate, technology, health, etc.
Less Talk. More Stab.
Reading the other comments I don't think posters have a good understanding of the failings of public education in the US.
I went to the public school in a smaller college town and I have taught in an inner-city public school.
As a policy matter the US politically treats the failings of public education in isolation without addressing root causes. This is very foolish and has not worked well for at least two decades of reform of public education efforts.
The biggest problem in US public education is poverty of the parents and students because poverty causes other problems such as lack of health care and instability in children's lives.
Children really, really need stability in their lives to develop well. Children also need a lot of steady stable individual attention from caring adults. If parents are moving frequently (lack of affordable housing), getting divorced, losing their jobs, working three jobs, or going to jail the impact on their children is horrible.
Poor people in the US lose their jobs frequently, and have to move due to lack of affordable housing frequently. Poor people also are more likely to get convicted and go to jail for their crimes (steal a pizza go to jail, embezzle $20,000 from the company get probation if ever prosecuted at all). Poor people also often have all of the adult family members working sometimes multiple jobs leaving little time for child care/attention.
Children also need health care. Lack of health care is still a huge problem for many lower income families. It is not atypical for a poor kid to stay home from school for a week because s/he has pink eye and the parents cannot afford prescription eye drops. Also, the general level of health care and healthiness of a family is important. Nagging health problems anywhere in the family are very disruptive to children's lives.
The problem of children moving frequently is particularly pronounced in poor urban areas. In rural and some suburban areas there is more lower class homeownership and housing is much less expensive. One of the worst possible things for a child's education is to move the kid during the school year. Children need stable environments and it is hard to describe the dire psychological toll that leaving in the middle of the school year has on kids. Even moving a child from school to school every few years is very bad.
The American criminal justice system does not help education at all. The goal of the system is to lock people up and hence the US has about the highest incarceration rate in the industrialized world. Locking people up, especially for minor offenses such as drug possession, breaks up families. (It also creates a pool in which more serious criminals teach minor criminals how to be worse.) Taking a parent away and sending them to jail is generally horrible for children. Over a million children presently have an incarcerated parent in the US, I believe.
The violence in public schools is often a reflection of the violence in children's lives. It does not happen in isolation. There are a lot of sources of violence in children's lives from the society. Domestic violence is a big one. Drug crime is another factor. The mass media's (RIAA, MPAA) use of violence instead of substance in their content is probably a factor, although not as big as say domestic violence.
The present US solution to failing schools is testing. Lots of testing will measure things and then we'll really know the children are doing poorly and maybe we can hold some more of them back and fiddle with the curriculum. Obviously testing does not address any root causes of the difficulties that children have.
THE SOLUTION IS TO ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSES OF CHILDREN'S PROBLEMS. Universal health care would substantially improve public education in the US. It wouldn't have much impact on private education though as almost all of those who can afford private education can afford health care. Increasing wages for low income workers an
Then please explain why homeschooled kids do much better on their SAT scores than their peers in public school. It would seem that, on average, parents are better teachers than the professional teachers employed by the public schools here in the USA.
Science: pretend that the world was created by magic (either scientific magic or religious magic).
History: pretend that the versions written by the winners are always correct.
Civics: pretend that embarrassing episodes in US history never happened.
Sociology: pretend that racial problems no longer exist.
Philosophy: pretend that either religion does not exit or there in only one.
Political Science: pretend that students have rights.
We need more flamebait like the parent comment. I'm agreeing with you.
I hate the way that our schools have become laboratory experiments. Whatever happened to teaching kids to think for themselves?
The only thing I learned from bullies was that I should avoid them, since I don't know how to deal with them and they only make my life worse.
I'm glad that you were able to take something away from your experiences, but my education suffered because of the very people you credit with helping yours. Homeschooling couldn't possibly have left me any more anti-social than I am now.
Last post!
Poppycock! So we "improve" failing public schools by forcing the best and brightest to attend failing schools? That reeks of the evils of socialism and communism, where you have no choice. You must have taken that from the Marxist phrasebook. Imagine if the government dictated which grocery store you go to, which department store you go to, which malls you go to, just because you want to "force the community to care about their businesses, rather than try to find new ways for customers to go outside of their neighborhood." If you don't like this analogy, then let me tell you a story about my life.
Throughout my childhood, I always lived in the ghetto. My parents worked hard to give us a good education. They used the addresses of family friends and relatives who lived in better neighborhoods so that way we can attend those schools. Throught elementary school, I attended very high quality, suburban public schools. I did very well throught school, got straight As, and was in gifted programs. However, the rules changed once I reached middle school. We weren't allowed to use an address for day care purposes; you were pretty much restricted to the public school in your neighborhood. Intra- and inter-district transfers are very hard to get where I am from, and the good schools were always overcrowded. My parents continuously fought the public school system, but continued to lose. My parents were also unable to afford private school tuition.
Luckily, we found out about a local charter school. It was an independent-study charter school and was of very high quality. I attended that school and stayed there until I graduated from high school. I also simultaneously attended community college courses. After finishing high school, I was admitted to 5 universities and I am currently a student at a highly ranked public university in California (I won't disclose the exact one so I won't unclose my identity).
Charter schools saved my parents from sending their children to failing public schools. But you want to get rid of the only viable option that low-income families like my parents have. Well, my parents attended failing public schools a generation ago, and they also keep up with the latest documentaries and news on the public school system. They know, with experience, that the teachers at those schools frankly have low expectations for their students. They come to work unenthusiastic about their jobs, and just want to get through the day. The other students come in with boatloads of problems, and some of them want to take it out on other students. The quality of education is very low. Gifted programs and accelerated programs (such as AP courses and the International Baccalaureate program) are limited to non-existant in poorer schools. It isn't a conducive environment to learning.
What is the solution? I am still struggling between public school choice, school vouchers, and full privatization (but with some mechanism of funding for the poor and middle class, so that way nobody is "left behind"). I would like to see a market place solution to schools (using the grocery store analogy again). But closing down all charter and magnet schools, and forcing all people in private schools to return to their neighborhood public school is NOT the answer. It is the antithesis to freedom, and it also reinforces the public school monopoly, which has been failing more kids than it has helped. I would rather see the public school system die than to continue doing a poor job at educating our kids. Do you honestly think that more money is going to solve the problem? Since the federal government got involved in education and transfe
I think this is one of the reasons the home schooled children I know are better socialized than the ones who go to school. The home schooled kids spend a lot more time with their parents, their parent's friends, etc. Most of the kids I know I meet through the community theatre group. The home schooled kids are consistantly more mature, better behaved, and appear outwardly to be more intelligent and intependent. I blame it on them being exposed to the real world, and working with and as adults at real tasks. You can hardly compare some makework group exercise in school to volunteer work with good quality adult role models.
"Teachers, on the other hand, are focused primarily on the kids..."
Dude it is their job. It is work. It is a way to pay the bills. someof them even enjoy the work. teachinging is a different kind of factory job with the purpose of outputing children which can function within establish parameters. Unfortunately there really is very poor quality control on the output (and given so many parents today, the raw materials are rather lacking preparation as well).
one of the school union mantra's is that they don't want johnny to realize he is an idiot because he has to do 11th grade over again. And we certainly don't want Johnny to feel bad about himself, because children shoudl feel good inside and we need to help him undersatnd the glass is half full, not half empty and that his glass can be anythign it wants to be. A load of crap that does disservice to the child by imposing a false reality to him that the teacher never connects with their act of misguided teaching even after Johnny goes to prison for some stupid crime.
As far as the rest of that paragraph goes, get that idea out of your head that only teachers can teach children to act consistently and understand boundaries. Many parents spend near 24x7 acting directly with or very closely to their children from birth to age 5. Why is it that some people think that once the child reaches age 5, that a paid prefessional is the only person qualified to continue teaching the child? That is part of why some people homeschool;it makes logical sense to continue teaching them the life skills they need not just from a book, but in real life.
Many parents can do just as good, if not a better job of educating children on the sciences, communication skills, history, etc... than a teacher who must ensure that "no child is left behind" whether that be by having to ensure the material is present at a level comfortable with the average capability of the 30 some odd students in a classroom.
#!#!#
My teacher would make us write sentences with our spelling words. She really hated it when I would write something like, "My teacher made me write a sentence with the word ."
Stupid solution to a stupid requirement.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
So I won't try expounding. You won't get it because you see the government as something "other" than you. When in fact in the U.S. the government IS you--ESPECIALLY at the local levels at which school district decisions are made. If you think the government is a bunch of big bad people who want to crush your spirit, I guess I can see why you would not want this.
But if you see the government as the tool of your friends and neighbors you would probably think differently. What if I said that we should abolish all public schools, so that local communities could set up their own schools as they see fit? You would probably be FOR that, right? Freedom to do what they want.
My point is that already happened. They are called public schools. They are controlled, guided, and funded at the state and lcoal levels. (You live in a state and a local community, right?) But when we're constantly sold an anti-government, anti-community, anti-civic responsibility message by the political industry, it's no wonder the people see them as these terrible things foisted upon them.
The problem you and everyone else responding to me have is that you cannot see beyond the status quo. Yes, if all kids were forced into shitty schools that would suck. My point is that they suck because all the people most likely to care are being encouraged to disengage. If they were encouraged to engage, the schools would improve--they would have to. To the last sentence of my GP post, this way of thinking is no different from offering targetted tax credits, programs, and regulatory exemptions to attract citizens and businesses to revitalize a neighborhood. That's not particularly Marxist in my opinion.
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.
But your approach is the opposite: force everyone to go to public school and live with the problems (drugs, metal detectors, violence), and drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Doesn't sound like a good solution to me.
No, you totally missed it. My approach is to encourage parents to keep their kids in public school, so they'll care about the schools and work and then the schools will get better. I did not say force. Please quote me if you think I did.
The whole idea is that some parents fight harder for their kids than others. Right now they are being encouraged to "fight hard" by pulling their kids out of public schools as fast as they can. I'd rather they keep the kids there and "fight hard" to make the schools better.
When people care about something, the lowest denominator is brought up to an acceptable level. Look at some environmental laws for one example. We can't all move out of the country, so in response to citizen demand, the since the 1950s the government has taken action to improve and protect the quality of our air and water. What we're doing with schools now is akin to just spending a ton of money to buy Canada so everyone can go move there. What we should be doing is improving the ones we've already got.
The reason school were better in the "old days" wasn't because anyone recognized the importance of schools, but because problem kids weren't required to attend school at all.
Let me be more specific: since the beginning of the 20th century the U.S. has grown from a quiet protectionist country to the most powerful and prosperous nation on earth. A big part of that was our well-educated and productive population--mostly educated by public schools, which originated in the mid-19th century in the U.S. Since 1918 every state has had a compulsory education law. The WWII generation, the so-called "greatest generation," was primarily the product of compulsory public education. So I'm not sure what you're referring to.
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.
First, I am not advocating forcing kids to attend public school, but rather setting policies that encourage them to. One way to do that is to stop publicly funding ways to pull bright kids out of public schools.
Second, your problem was not with public schools in general but with YOUR local public school, which like many problem schools is in a poor area and short on resources and energy. I'd say that your story proves that when a community does care, and the proper resources are allocated, public schools work well. You really did want to go to a public school--just not yours.
Furthermore you're saying that the problem with the problem schools is that the students, families, teachers, and administrators don't care. They are unengaged. But what about the few who DO care? They are being led away. Your local public school was worse off without you and your family being involved there. I totally understand how leaving worked out much better for you. But if the debate is about how to fix the public schools, I don't see how siphoning off the best citizens HELPS them. These are the people most likely to hold teachers and administrators accountable. But instead we are helping them just walk away.
Too many responses to the question of how to help our public schools revolve on personal stories such as yours. Yes, you got out and got a great education. I would argue that by doing so your local public school was made that much worse.
Finally I just have to say something about the current fetishization of "the marketplace" as the way to fix public schooling. It's bullshit, an artifact of electing business leaders to government. Our system of government is not an economic marketplace. It is a structured social agreement. It has accountability pre-baked-in, through elections and lobbying. Creating more types of schools does not actually improve accountability one tiny bit, all it does is splinter the existing accountability, allowing greater stratification between the social and economic classes. It simply makes it easier and more convenient to identify the "least desirable" elements and marginalize them.
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.
I admit there is a problem, but your solution just makes the problem worse.
What you are proposing stunts national education. First of all, you are taking the people that need the education the most out of the classroom. The people that act out don't just do it because "they are bad people": they do it because the have bad home lives, or bad social interaction, or just suffer from bad parenting. These are the people that need to be taught the wisdom that education can bring the most, not to mention the power it brings to fix the situation, either now or when they reach 18. And why do you think we would be able to teach these kids better in your system? It would be a lot like prison; stick the abusers with each other so they can best learn how to abuse.
Oh, and the last thing we need to do is take kids out of school. We have one of the worst education systems of any modern nation. And education isn't just about teaching our workforce; it is also about teaching our voters. We have some people who believe in creationism just because they haven't been taught the evidence for evolution. There are people deciding the leaders of our nation when they don't understand the mistakes when we have in the past. I do not want idiots to ALWAYS be leading the country.
The problem with education is that it doesn't have the funding to get enough quality teachers to fix the problem. All of your problems would be solved with more teachers. More teachers means that you can give each child more attention, and make smaller classes with more targeted curriculum. Education is a problem that you can just throw money at, because, trust me, teachers WANT to teach you all that you can handle. They just don't have the resources.
I give bread to the poor, they call me a saint.
I ask why the poor have no bread, they call me a communist.
And to tell the truth, we didn't invent this approach. Plutarch, for example, suborns the teaching of history to the teaching of character, and this approach will always get out of hand eventually. People, like it or not, mainly study history with an eye to learning more about the present, so there is usually an agenda present somewhere. But I agree that school textbooks are exceptionally bad. That is true in both history and in much of science--biology has been gutted to appease Creationists, and I'd wager even geology is watered down a bit for the same purpose. Math is the only subject that, as far as I know, can be left alone and taught without controversy.
All you really have to do is look at the Australian "School of the Air". For 54 years they've been teaching kids remotely, originally using HF radio and more recently using sat-phone internet technology. Most of those kids don't have a non-family member living within 100km because they are all living on vast cattle ranches, etc.
Distance education doesn't have to be the same as "computer based education". In Australia's case, the kids are enrolled in "classrooms" and have real teachers and real classmates. They simply don't sit in the same room.
BTW, to help with socialization, the kids get together for one week each year to play sports and have fun while their parents meet with the teachers.
You need to have an appropriate threshold for
fighting back or ignoring. The one thing you
can't do is whine about your treatment, letting
the bully get you upset.
Person you can permenantly escape from: ignore
Minor offense, unlikely to be repeated: ignore
Something that truly could be unintentional: ignore
A few rude words: cheerfully tell them to go to Hell
Other: fight
Then there is the matter of how to fight. Not every
situation calls for the same response.
You can fight to make an escape, or you can fight
to teach someone a lesson, or you can fight to
teach EVERYBODY a lesson. Sometimes you need to
pound a face against the corner of a brick building.
Sometimes a simple kick to the shin will do enough.
I didn't do my detention. After earning respect, the
bully offered a deal to skip it together. He never
bothered me again.
Do not equate "Teachers Unions" with "educators".
A decent number of teachers even hate the unions, yet the unions claim to represent all. The unions do what is best for the union, much of which is vaguely aligned with the career interests of existing teachers.
That sounds just like John Edwards solution to the problem with the garbage software Microsoft produces. He suggested forcing by law every government agency and every individual to buy only Microsoft software. He claimed that by giving Microsoft more money and outlawing their competition Microsoft could then afford to make better software. In other words, he would reward them for being so incompetent. Microsoft would also be able to take advantage of all of the out of work programmers and engineers by being able to have their pick of employees at a lower rate.
It's the same damn argument. Outlawing Linux and Apple won't make Microsoft's software better despite the claims of someone as powerful and influential as Edwards, and putting nuns in prison for teaching in Catholic schools won't mean a better education for students. Please tell me you're trolling. I've never seen anything this stupid since I spent time with John Edwards when my wife worked for him.
You must be a teacher.
I don't believe that from the decidedly pro-public-school stance you take, or the insulting tone you take about the relationship between a child and its parents.
No, I can tell you're a teacher because your punctuation and capitalization are atrocious, because your argument consists of a string of sentence fragments and run-on sentences, and because your entire post has the distinct air of an idiot who was given a shiny button and told he can use it to bend small children to his will.
And, because at the end of the post I describe above, you dare to lament the "lack of arts, music and p.e.". And you make this lament as though the reason we need to focus on basics in the modern school wasn't made disgustingly obvious by your preceding butchering of the English language.
And to forestall the comments, I learned how to write English by learning from my parents, by studying German, and by reading the works of professional writers. Public school teachers had precious little to do with it.
Chicago's education system has a fairly lousy reputation, stemming from a very strong teacher's union (Google "Marva Collins", for example).
I think it's more accurate to say "you can't sit a child in front of a Chicago public school teacher expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society".
The teacher's union in my state opposes standards based testing. Specifically they oppose mandated testing of all students for the knowlege and skills expected of a student who has spent twelve years in public school, and required for graduation from high school. The reason for their objection is clear. In the first round of testing, with several years to prepare, half of the students failed each of the three components of the test, so the vast majority of the students failed at least one of the three mandatory components.
Teacher pay needs reforms. If a person goes $250,000 into debt to get an advanced degree and teaching certificate in the hope of securing a job that pays $40,000 a year in an economy where the tiniest shack costs $500,000, it is unreasonable to expect them to be proficient in math. If you hire such people as math instructors, you should not be surprised their students fail to learn. That said, teachers' unions need to stop fighting real reforms like testing, teacher certification, background checks and required curricula.
Parents also need to be more realistic. The most I hope for my kids in public school is that they learn how not to get caught. I've already taught them to question the motivations of the teachers and the school board on some subjects. At home they can learn useful things like history and chemistry and civics in an environment that's less likely to get them killed or arrested. It is a pleasant surprise when their public school delivers above expectations, but not a frequent one.
Even math can be perverted to promote social issues in the phrasing of sample problems and I've seen this done in the math books the kids bring home. It's sick, really, that even math can't be left without banging a social drum.
I do agree that all their textbooks have only poor content. That's why I select carefully the extra books to give them a broader view.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Lucky I read at 0 ... and weight trolls high. That was really funny.
The online school is because, at least so far, the millions of dollars spent on improving the schools doesn't seem to be working. Are they pushing the online school for everyone? No, of course not. It's just another option available for those struggling with the traditional (failing) model and for those who home schooling is not an option.
What is interesting in Chicago, is that the Catholic school system seems to be doing quite well. While it is true that they can be selective about who they take, etc. That usually applies to the independent private schools. The local parish schools take parishoner's kids. The Catholic school system in Chicago has higher test scores, higher graduation rates and does all of this on a lower per pupil cost than the public school. So, assuming that Catholics aren't somehow intellectually superior to the rest of us, it must be attributed to something they are doing that public schools in Chicago aren't. Most likely it's because they have fewer administrative staff per student and concentrate more on core academic courses.
Public schools in Chicago (and many large cities) are in trouble. Things like this distance learning are band-aid attempts to attack the symptoms of the real underlying problems. However, unless there is real educational reform, things will only get worse until the reform is forced by the public. Chicago already has a working model to base reform on. They only have to choose to impliment it or wait for their system to continue to go downhill and have a referendum impliment something for them instead.
My IQ comes out between 145 and 160 depending on the test, usually mid 150s.
School teaches you to deal with people. And to cope and get on with your life whatever the retards across the hall think. I don't think life is like middle school, but I think middle school probably teaches you something important - people are cruel, stupid and small minded.
Much like you actually, who took a dislike to my post and so accuse me of being "stupidest".
FYI, "Stupidest" is not even a word.
money in the stock market?
Doubtful.
Those who had a bad experience may not be motivated to
post.
If we must analogize, it's a public pool with lifeguards and swim instructors... and if you're still drowning then... you're TRYING to. Life isn't a game of patty-cake. Never was. And to survive in the water you'd better be able to deal with the sharks.
>What part of PUBLICLY FUNDED in PUBLIC school do you not understand?
/conducive/ to learning, but it is not the deciding factor - motivation is. An unmotivated child will not learn regardless of the quality of the teacher or the environment. And a motivated child will learn in spite of the quality of the teacher or the environment.
/personal/ responsibility for their child's education despite the many hardships and compromises this requires. Unfortunately, many many parents now wash their hands of their child's education and view the public school as a place to send their children TO BE EDUCATED as if the entire responsibility lay with the school.
/can/ put a boot in the child's ass is the parents. When parents unplug themselves from the process, believing it is the school's responsibility to "teach my child", unmotivated children just fail.
>Schools don't have the resources to fix the problems because the public does not give
>them the funding or the authority to do so. It is our own damn fault.
I had an interesting discussion with a high school teacher once. It totally changed my mind about what is wrong with public education. I always assumed that private schools were so much better than public schools because the teachers and the learning environment were better. But as my teacher friend pointed out, you can have the most excellent teacher in the world and the best school environment in the world, but if you have an unmotivated student, they will not learn!
Motivation is they key to learning. Not money. True, a good environment is more
Some children are naturally motivated to learn. Others are not and require external motivation. I know I was the latter - without my parents' demands and punishments I would not have been motivated to do well at school. I suspect it is the same for most children - most children lack the discipline for self-motivation and require external motivation to stick with academic work.
Seen in this light, it is easy to understand why home-schooled or privately-schooled children do better in school that publically-schooled children. It's all about motivation. Parents who pay large sums of money to put their children in private schools are obviously interested enough in their child's education to take an active role in it. And of course by having invested money in it they have a financial stake in it as well. Parents who home school are arguably even more interested as they take
The problem here is that public schools have very, very little they can do to motivate unmotivated children. Only parents have that power. A teacher can try to be supportive and encouraging, but the only people who have real punitive means of motivation are parents. The days of the teacher slapping hands with rulers are gone with these days of litigation. It is far, far easier, and thus far, far more likely that teachers will simply ignore or only go through the motions of teaching with unmotivated children and consequently, they will fail.
In short, most children require a boot in the ass to learn. Because public schools are no longer allowed to wield such boots, the only people left who
Motivation, not funding, is what determines the success of a student in school.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
>Valuable socialization is not just meeting people. It is meeting
>diverse kinds of people and specific kinds of people. Knowing teenage
>drug dealers and a few drug suppliers and some local gang members and
>some organized crime people really changes the way you think about society.
The argument seems to be that homeschooled kids will only socialize with elements of society that the parents approve of, and that kids are somehow better off if they are allowed to socialize with the less savory elements of society.
I don't think I agree.
I would rather my child grow up ignorant of the scum of the earth. Odds are good that if I do a good job educating my child that when they go out into the world they will not have to deal with them anyway. They can always listedn to NPR if they want to hear the sob stories of all of societies failures.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
The thing is, as has been pointed out, the kinds of "sharks" you deal with in secondary education just aren't normally present in "real life".
I don't think you miss anything by missing out on being picked on in school. That kind of behavior just isn't present in college or work force.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
If you can't see them, they're below the water line. I'm actually kind of surprised you don't see it, even though outright bullying and scamming has been replaced with subtlety. Duplicitous manipulators at your job? Plenty. 'Friends' who only seem to want things from you and conveniently disappear from view when you're in need? Most assuredly. Belligerent people at social gatherings? Of course. Knowing how to deal with antagonistic people is absolutely a necessary skill. True that most people outgrow such behavior, but still a goodly many do not. Maybe you're just lucky and are fortunate to know few, if any, of those people, or you're not looking in the right places, I don't know. But they are there.