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
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.
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.
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."
Social things learned in school:
Don't be smart around stupid people - they'll come and beat you up for it.
Avoid gatherings of other people - they'll beat you up because you 'looked funny at them'.
Don't speak to classmates - they'll chase you around the school yard for using 'funny words'.
Hate - it's difficult to learn to love people who chase you all the way home.
Should I go on?
I know, this doesn't go for everybody, but I can see that this on-line teaching will do some people a lot of good.
There's more involved in a university environment than just the final degree. A lot of the value is in being surrounded by other intelligent folks and interacting with professors who know their stuff. In a middle school kids are forced to be there, so there's less benefit (if any) from peer groups, and we all know what happens when you have math or science being taught by someone whose only degree is in "education".
Actually, with all the potential for abuse an online program could have, as with home schooling, if someone comes from that sort of background and still knows their stuff (scores well on standardized tests, etc.) they're probably smarter and/or more self-motivated than someone with an equivalent score from a regular school.
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 plenty of other ways to socialize your kid beside sending them to school. You can have them go to Karate two nights a week, soccer two nights, piano/music lessons one night a week, and maybe an art class or two. Then it's up to you as a parent what your child learns, instead of some public school. Plus you'll actually meet the people teaching your child, as opposed to some 23 year old who just graduated and needed a job.
I don't think the homeschoolers of today are the same ones of 25-30 years ago. Most parents I know who intend to homeschool are not religious nuts. They just don't want their kids to go to government schools for obvious reasons.
Uhm. Since when is school the only place for kids to socialize?
Not to mention, that a harmful social environment is potentially worse than no socialization at all. It's fairly easy for a public school to become a Lord of the Flies scenario, with a combination of kids who have to be there, a self-contained social structure with no goal or purpose, and administrators who don't care.
School is supposed to be for learning, anyhow. Let the kids socialize on their own time. Maybe if they actually taught kids things in school instead of "socializing" them, things would work better in the first place.
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.
Yeah the problem you describe is now very serious. What we need to do is to show kids that being smart is rewarded. Here is how I envision the system working. If there is an incident in school, we just assume that the smart kids were behaving apropriately. I mean no system of 'justice' actually works. In school it is the big kids who rule, in the 'real' world the rich rule. Why not set up our schools so that the individuals who win are the most useful?
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.
you are kidding right?
Why should even some regular college degrees deserve respect? Countless colleges allow students to pass through the system with degrees simply because they excel at sports. Many pass on students who only get through sub-par course.
That college degree doesn't come with a grade point average, is a C student at your local state university going to do as well as someone with a higher average from an online university?
Besides, doesn't this smack of elitism? We still have cases where some degrees are worth more than others. Some colleges are looked down upon because in truth the education they provide is better. Why not discriminate based on the fact that applicant A's football team regulary hands your school's ass to it every year?
Education is what you make of it. Public education is no longer about turning out good students who are well balanced with the skills needed to enter the real world. Its a damn jobs program with a bunch of social engineering thrown in to convince kids that the government knows whats good for them.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
As for those that say "you will be working at mcdonalds" ,
I'm going on to so a PhD in socialolgy where I'll be line for tenure
where I have a much more rewarding job then beeing a science freak or
an engineer.
translation : I'll be a manager at a McDonalds.
You do realize that the number of liberal arts phd's around big campuses is huge? I know of 2 people I was good friends with that went to University of Michigan and one has a PHD in political science, the other has a phd in Philosiphy and a phd in music history.
He is in line for tenure as well, 15th in line, in about 15 years he MIGHT get it but right now with some of the cuts made he works part time tutoring students and still lives in the campus housing and looks like a 38 year old gen-X hippie. He is a great friend, but still dreams of driving a bmw and living in the big stone house near campus (IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!)
That is the other path that can and will happen, when financial cuts come the "foofy" classes are the first cut. I can go to any resturant in Ann Arbor and get served by a myriad of Masters and Doctorate degrees.
It's more of an addiction to the campus and College lifestyle than seeking an education. Many of the career students in the wierder degree fields are there to fill their addiction.. IT exists everywhere though. RMS was a career student, and the IT building of almost any campus has some hermit that has several degrees but still lives there. (same for the physics and chemistry building as well.)
I'm just saying that going to be a professor is great, but dont bank on your tenure until you have it in your hand. With your education level you should know that trusting fellow humans is folly at best.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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
I am about to make some generalizations based on my experience and the experiences of colleagues.
My experience has shown precisely the opposite. Homeschooling, when done well, produces individuals that are better equipped to meet the world and its challenges than "traditional" schooling. Instead of being surrounded by individuals of one's same age (and, often, one's same race, social status, etc) the homeschooler learns how to interact with people of all different ages, and adults in particular. Most homeschoolers I know actually spend more time at the local school, theater (stage, not cinema), library or college than they do at home.. Respect for adults, something conspicuously missing from many young people these days, is the norm among homeschoolers.
To say that a "traditional" school is the only way to get a grasp on society is preposterous. This is not to say that homeschooling is failproof; I have also known homeschoolers that completely fit the bill of the sheltered and socially-backwards. Pointing to these as the standard of homeschooling, however, is akin to leveling any other group of people to their lowest (but loudest) population.
Finally back to the topic, I can see this sort of online schooling to be an asset for the homeschooling community. Again, if used in isolation, it will almost certainly result in awkwardness. Homogeneity in ethos and context inspires only lethargic lemmings. I would submit that traditional schooling is the actual socially restricting option.
I went to brick and mortar schools--just online. The format works a lot better for me because it doesn't matter if the professor is boring as all hell. I'm not wasting time sitting through lectures and since it takes more independent learning, I know the material better. If they're properly accredited (i.e. not by Joe's Accreditation Board), what's the problem?
The quality of education is another big issue. If a parent chooses to homeschool a child, and goes through the hurdles, then as a society we must respect that choice, and given that the parent has shown some responsibility, the chances are good the education will be adequate. But what about the parent that is just told their kid no longer has to go to school? Is that parent going to work for 7 hours to keep the kid on task? Is that parent going to teach organizational skill. Is that parent going to make sure the kid goes to the library once a week, differentiate problem concepts, learns how to eat at a table? One reason homeschooling has become so popular is that schools increasingly have to teach much more than content, and parents would rather teach those other things themselves. The one benefit of this program is that the child will be subject to NCLB, as opposed to if he or she was at a private or home school.
As this program moves to higher grades, the problems increase. We are already seeing schools setup specifically to manufacture credit for athletes, thus denying them their socially guaranteed education. Todays NYT reported that this practice even has formally infected colleges, as if that is a surprise. There are other kids that the school would want to educate a home, kids that often would do much better with the structure at school. Inevitable this program will be used to move certain students out of the school system.
Virtual schooling will happen, and this experiment will be widely watched. It is not just about saving teaching jobs. It is about making sure that public education does not become more useless than it is. There are innovation within the school that can reduce costs while still allowing teachers to pay adequate attention to students. Likewise there are kids that might do better or equally well at home. However, history tells us that much of the innovation over the past 40 years has been to reverse Brown.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
If I were to hire an employee, I would disregard any degrees from online universities
This is of course rubbish. As someone who has been in the position of hiring I can say there are many factors to consider. To "disregard" a resume based on the university is a disservice to the company and candidate. In more senior positions the education section is almost irrelevant.
If we're talking junior technical positions (ie straight out of school) then you will be expected to take a test prior to any sitdown interview. Often that means dozens of candidates in a room with all sorts of diverse backrounds (English majors to CS grads).
I would disregard any degrees from online universities
I think you should disregard all degrees, but beside that, why would you disregard online universities?
I've gone to physical university and I'm currently going to an online university, and I can tell you it's a hell of a lot more work and learning in the online one.
The classes don't have 500 people in them for one, unlike the physical university I went to. The professor actually interacts with us personally.
It also costs about 5 times more to go online, on the down side.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Not that I want to "kill a dead horse" (yes I am a techie and do like references to things like Dilbert, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc) but I have some issue with what you say. Yes, the 'nerds' as we call ourselves sometimes DO need to step off our soapboxes, but it IS a two way street. I am bothered by your comment :
I'm going on to so a PhD in socialolgy where I'll be line for tenure where I have a much more rewarding job then beeing a science freak or an engineer.[sic]
I got an undergraduate degreee in Ocean Engineering and a Masters in Security Informatics. I LOVED the classes I took in both. Designing and building something (submarines, boats, even shorelines) or analyzing computer security 'stuff' is exciting and rewarding to ME. I chose my career and I love it. I do feel bad for all of those individuals in technical AND non-technical fields that hate what they do and don't find their career rewarding. I can also say that I've taught math to countless middle and high school students and I found that to be very rewarding too. I love the look on a child's face when he or she finally understands something that was a mystery before. I probably will, in a few years, go back to teaching or tutoring, possibly on a volunteer basis.
I will not argue that great things were NOT done in the humanities but the engineering community has brought you innovations you use every day. You typed this message on a computer, where do you think that came from? I'm guessing you use a car or form of public transportation daily other than your feet. Someone had to design and innovate it. Would Willa Cather have built an airplane? No, but I know she DID write some very important works and had some great ideas. You don't HAVE to be a techie to have good ideas, but in the same token you can't dismiss everything technical because you are not.
Anyways, all I have to do to be a engineer wold be to get my MSCE and how hard couyld that be?[sic]
Have you ever looked into the Society of Professional Engineers? For those that are not in the engineering field, many do not know this but in order to be considered a professional engineer there are not one, but two tests you must pass. Now this applies mostly to civil, mechanical and the like but computer engineering and other related engineering fields have tests and they are hard. I passed the first of these two tests (the second you actually need to work for four years under a professional engineer) before you can even take the test. The first test is an 8 hour long test that covers four years of what we learned in college. It's not for everyone. I found it easier than many would because I LIKE the material. Just as some people find it easier to write a novel than I would because that is not where my interests lie. Okay I'll get off my soapbox now too and let someone else on.
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?
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.
I'm rather confident in my abilities as a teacher. My experiences as a teacher tell me that kids learn from each other, for one. I modify how I teach constantly based upon the reactions of the students I see before me. These things aren't possible in this format.
The UK has a distance learning University called the Open University, nowadays it's courses are based almost entirely online. It also extends into Europe somewhat and even other parts of the world (www.open.ac.uk btw). You're generally assigned a tutor who you submit assignments to online (or by post for some courses that haven't updated yet) and the only time you really have to leave your house is to attend exams or to go to tutorial sessions if you feel you want/need to (these happen like once every 3 weeks or so for an hour or two) but essentially you could do an entire degree remotely bar the exams. Now, I can understand your concerns and the OU maybe an exception to the rule but it is proof that distance learning can and does work. Just to demonstrate how well the OU has done, the OU is the biggest University in Europe and also, the OU is responsible for 25% of Masters degrees in the UK. I think the real issue is seperating scam-like online institutions from the distance learning based institutions like the OU that are extremely credible. Distance learning works for those who have passed the University age and are working full time yet can't afford to give up their job, I'm one of those - I work full time and can't afford to just quit my job and go to Uni for 3years for another degree so I'm doing it with the OU, studying for 30hrs a week I'll be done with my physics degree within 3 years. Also the quality of OU material is absolutely fantastic, it's better than the stuff I've come across at most conventional Unis! I'm biased because the OU has treated me well and I've found it fantastic, and most importantly, it's given me chance to gain a 2nd degree that I'd never have had chance to gain otherwise. I've actually enjoyed it so much I could be tempted to do it again and get a 3rd degree ;)
I do realise my experience isn't relevant to the discussion about the social impact, because I did go to a real school, I work a real job and so social skills are gained that way, however when someone makes a blanket statement that they wouldn't hire someone from an online university I feel the point has to be made that online Universities can and do work and that to ignore them in recruitment is ignoring 25% of the UK's Masters degree graduates ;)
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.
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.
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.
I have a 14 year old. and if you tell me that the social environment in scool is beneficial then you are completely stupid.
Let's see the lessons she is learning from her peers....
1 - drugs are cool
2 - sex is cool
3 - harassing the odd kid is cool
4 - being an asshole is cool
5 - smoking is cool
6 - stealing is cool
7 - EMO is cool
8 - Smart is un-cool
9 - if you are a jock then you are cool
10 - if you are not a jock then you are uncool
11 - manipulating others is cool
12 - being mean is cool
13 - it's great fun to make someone believe you like them and then make them cry.
No thanks, I'd rather her not deal with the social interaction thank you. Having a child come home crying and needing therapy because the other kids are pieces of trash is not "beneficial"
Personally most of those kids need their asses kicked, then the parents need their asses kicked.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Look the bottom line is that the number one priority of a union is to preserve jobs and benefits for it's members. That means opposing progress if progress might mean eliminating jobs or reducing their sweetheart deals. Look at any industry, progress always means increased productivity which usually means eliminating jobs. Look at all of the industries with unionized labor in this country. Notice a pattern? They are all failing. The days of making $35 dollars an hour with full benefits and with no chance of ever getting fired no matter what are over. It's a shame that union members fail to recognize this. I live in Michigan and I see the effects first hand with the UAM. The harder these people try to hang on to the past, the faster their ships sink. Their refusal to recognize and deal with these new circumstances will be their undoing. You've got to produce and compete in a today's global economy and I just don't think they get it. They'll scream and yell and complain and strike until the cows come home but all they are doing in the end is further hurting the companies they depend on for their livelihoods. A few buddies of mine used to work for GM and I used to be amazed at the stories they'd tell. Guys showing up an hour late, sitting around all day essentially doing nothing and leaving an hour early for golf, all the while laughing about how they couldn't be fired. That's not to say all unionized workers abused the system, but enough of them did and they are paying the piper now.
Look the bottom line is that the education system in this country will never be fixed until we break up the teachers unions. Liberals will scream and yell but it has to happen. One of the most important functions a government can provide is education. In this globalized economy education is more important than ever and it's impossible to have a good education system if you can't hold teachers accountable for their performance. I had teachers in high school who showed movies just about every day and taught us nothing because they knew they couldn't be fired. They were tenured and that was that. I had friends who in 12th grade were taking the equivalent of an 8th grade math class. That's simply unacceptable and we're paying the price. The USA will continue to decline until we fix our education system. Unfortunately both politicians and corporations have an interest in maintaining the status quo. If the average citizen was educated enough to know know badly they were getting fucked by both Uncle Sam and the upper 1% then most of the politicians would be out of a job.
The responses to this message are way off track.
So-called on-line universities are in general not accredited and have no standards at all. They are frauds. All you do is send them a few thousand dollars and they send you a piece of paper (or maybe a pdf that you have to print yourself) that says "Degree" on top of it.
For years, some universities have offered correspondence courses by mail. A few let you do an entire degree by correspondence. Typically those universities have some mechanism for proctored examinations and they make you do a full course of assignments. Typically the degrees offereed are generalist arts degrees.
There is no reason why correspondence courses must use snail mail for delivery of materials. On-line is a fine replacement. There is no reason why a university could not offer such degrees exclusively; however, it would be difficult in my opinion to maintain a high level of scholarship without a base established from real-live human interaction.
While I think it is unlikely that there are any decent specialist degrees offered by correspondence (on-line or snail mail), such programs should not be discounted out of hand. But neither should the mode of delivery be completely ignored. As is mentioned elsewhere, interaction with peers and mentors is an important part of education.
Bottom line: ignore non-accredited; treat on-line the same as any other "pass" degree -- evidence of the candidate's ability to complete something, not any particular expertise.
How do you get the liberal arts student off of your doorstep? Pay him for the pizza.
wish I had mod points. of course around here this gets modded flamebait, but you are 110% correct. I am a high school history teacher and am thoroughly disgusted with the treatment history gets in our textbooks. It is sanitized, whitewashed, and outright rewritten. Dianne Ravitch (hardly a right-wing ideologue) wrote a great piece a while ago titled: PC textbooks full of skewed history which details the way California (where I teach) purposefully uses history for every reason other than to teach about the past.
Public schools have failed precisely because they are not doing precisely what it is they are required to do. There are many solutions, not the least of which is to eliminate teacher unions (of which I am a member) completely. I can think of no greater conflict of interest than unions lobbying the state on educational issues. There is no concern for educational quality only what is in the teachers' best interests. In fact, I believe that public employees shouldn't be allowed to strike. This is hardly an anti-labor/anti-union position, as public employees (police, fire, teachers) a) chose their profession b) have job security and c) serve vital roles which the market cannot remedy. Unlike say an auto manufacturer who has competitors, is accountable to shareholders, and has to actually market and sell a product, you have no real choice when you dial 911 or send your child to school.
The unions have been infiltrated with very left-wing ideologues and it has permeated every sector of education. Now, before people get upset, just think about those places where "intelligent design" has been adopted into the cuuriculum. Many want that no more than others want Heather has two mommies but it is exactly the same prinicple. I've always believed that privatization of schools is the ultimate answer. In fact, government should stay out of the schools, marriage, business, the internet, etc.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
If I were to hire an employee, I would disregard any degrees from online universities. Why should I (and any private high schools/colleges) consider a student who comes from an online middle school?
I may be a bit biased as I graduated from an online university. Unfortunately, I do not have a rich mommy and daddy to pay for my school and even if I did, I still would have done it myself. I didn't have time to go to frat-daddy mixer keggers or get into squirt gun fights in the dorms after binge drinking. I had to work a full and a part time jobs just to make ends meet, and was still able to make a 3.51 GPA at an accredited university. I tried going to a couple of "real" universities, but always had to drop as soon as I hit a required course that was only available at during the hours I had to work. An online university gave me the opportunity to work, travel for work, and do my coursework whenever I could squeeze in a couple of minutes to get stuff done. Most of the work I did was between the hours of midnight and 3:00am and I was still able to make it to work at 7:00am and 6:00pm every day.
So if you won't even consider this type of self motivated, hard working and goal oriented applicant, you are selling your company short.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Bah, you kids. In MY day, we didn't have any fancy "automatic weapons", we had to use pointy rocks tied to sticks, called "spears", and we liked it! We had to walk to the school cave uphill both ways! Over glaciers!
Teen pregnancy? In my day, if you didn't have kids by the time you were 15, you were out of the tribe (either you're sterile, or you don't put out - either way, we don't want you). Science class was learning how to bash rocks together to make fire, shop class was learning how to make our pointy rocks sharper, and sex-ed was a matter of learning the difference between a mammoth and a woman (you mate with one and kill the other - the people who got it wrong were violently beaten and had to marry the mammoth).
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...
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
If you don't count teachers as professional people, that's a different argument.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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
According to the US government, which obviously only covers US households, in 2000 1.7% of the K-12 students (1.1 million kids) in America where listed as homeschooled. Of these students, just around 20% also attended public/private school for part of the day. ~65% of the students listed as home-schooled, were homeschooled in multi-student/multi-family environments. As a group they also score above average for their grade level on all three standardized tests (again USGov stats only). They have a statistically higher average of college degrees and lower rate of incarceration (these last two statistics came from a home-school site so expect them to point out the best and ignore the worst).
Personally I came up through the public education system, but I was lucky enough to have a rural school where at least some of the teachers cared. We also make enough in our current household to move to a good school district; however, given where we lived previously it would have been far better to homeschool our children rather than subject them to the crap that passed as public city schooling.
Programming: Its not just a job - its an indenture.
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.
Oddly though, studies show homos make much better parents than straight couples.
Statistically thats true, simply because statistically ANYBODY straight person can become a parent which drags down the statistic for them. Homo couples generally adopt, and its rare and very hard for them to do so in much states, so that bottom of the barrel gay generally isn't allowed to have/keep a child.
"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 couldn't agree more. My parents, both members of the NEA and NJEA (New Jersey) are basically extorted into paying fees to an agency that hardly ever help in any way, and seem to spend more time lobbying on issues that have nothing to do with education (or the views of my parents.)
Please - this is NOT a push to start a flame war, so realize this post is NOT about abortion. However, at least with the NJEA and definatley with the NEA, for some reason, they lobby HEAVILY on pro-choice decisions in local and national arenas. While it not only confuses me (less aborted babies = more kids in school = more teaching jobs) it's totally outside the realm of anything to do with the education of children or what's in the interest of the teachers who are part of the union in the capacity of doing their jobs.
Teachers unions are so misguided and misdirected that they're almost completely useless. I know that they are certainly there for certain things like arbitration, but I feel that they evey shy away from conflict whenever possible, even discouraging teachers from filing grievances.
I'm rambilng. Point is, I agree with ya.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
Troll 1: Fist post!@!!!@!!
Troll 2: First!
Winner: None
Troll 1: FP!!
Troll 2: OMG FIRst Post!
Winner: None
The ony winning move is not to first post.
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
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
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.
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!!!
Erm, how do teachers have more job security than anyone else? And the legal inability to strike in several states has resulted in teacher's wages going to crap, and incidentally, schools having to hire incompetant people because the wages are so low. (No, schools can't just decide to pay their teachers more, that comes down from the top.) Teachers should at least be allowed to strike instead of signing contracts for the next year, i.e, start the strike between the school years. Right now the 'teacher's union', like any union that can't legally strike, is a complete joke.
And your problem isn't with schools, or teachers unions, or anyone like that. It's with California. Don't go acting like California's gibberish is some sort of 'educational' problem. Did you not even read the article? 'The state's social-content guidelines should be abolished. They put the state Board of Education into the absurd position...' It's not even the Board of Education's fault, much less any teacher's.
There is no fucking way that 'teachers unions' have a damn thing to do with any of that. You're anti-union, so have decided to conflate teacher lobbying and teacher unions with the government of California deciding to do stupid things.
And, incidentally:
So it's not surprising that in recent months gays and lesbians have stepped forward to demand a place at the state's capacious table. They too want their roles to be portrayed positively in textbooks purchased by the state. And frankly, they've got a point. In view of the state's broad inclusion of every other group in its list of those deserving such treatment, the state has no principled reason to exclude any new claimant.
shows exactly where that author is coming from and where, I suspect, you are too. Damn, it sucks we don't seem to have a good excuse under the law to portray gay people as evil.
Yes, there is such thing as 'Too much tolerance' or whatever, where no one can can ever be portrayed in a negative light, or just no one except straight WASPs (SWASPs?) can be portrayed in a negative light, and the California school system has managed to reach that point, about 20 years after Hollywood and everyone else did and then passed it. That's a bad point to be at, history needs to tell facts, and even fiction needs realistic villians.(1) OTOH, there are people like your writer, who was involved in writing the textbooks at one time, and who are annoyed that there's no 'principled reason' to exclude the mere existence of gay people from all the textbooks in school system, so maybe there's a fucking point to those rules.
1) I remember on Angel where there was an inner-city gang in LA, and someone said 'Damn, that's the most multi-racial inner-city gang in LA I've ever seen.', which was interesting because it was a mostly positive portrayal (They were fighting vampires who were preying on them, which mistakenly put them at odds with the protaganist who of course was one, but it was more a classic 'superheroes not trusting each other when they met' instead of 'these are the bad guys'.) and thus it would be hard to see how anyone would be offended with accuracy. In latter episodes when the gang returned, they were more realisticly almost entirely black and hispanic, and at the end got even more interesting when they started killing off completely harmless demons, although they did raise an interesting point about these 'harmless demons' working with horrible ones, and that beings who laugh and joke with murderers are probably 'evil' even if they aren't actually committing evil acts. (Which is an analogy about race and racism in more ways than one.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
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.
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.
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.
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
It's very simple. The NEA and local teacher's unions are the equivalent of the RIAA/MPAA. They're frantically trying to protect their mostly-obsolete delivery system, while compromising the quality of the product. The government school systems are failing their students, yet the educational bureauracy seems to be mostly concerned with maintaining the status quo. I somewhat expect a media campaign linking alternative education (homeschool, charter school, etc.) to child abuse, in the same way that media sharing is called piracy.
It's not about education - it's about maintaining power.
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.
While it not only confuses me (less aborted babies = more kids in school = more teaching jobs)
Try thinking of it this way, though
(less aborted babies = more kids in school = larger class sizes = less attention paid to individual students = decreased teaching efficiency)
or
(less aborted babies = more unwanted kids = more neglected kids = more kids with learning problems = more disruptive kids = worse conditions in the classroom)
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?
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?
The problem isn't merely that there are left-wingers in the unions and administration, it's that as long as there is a near-monopoly on schooling (not education, mind you), someone is going to demand that the schooling aparatus push their agenda.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."