Slashdot Mirror
Obama Makes a Push To Add Time To the School Year
N!NJA sends in a proposal that is sure to cause some discussion, especially among students and teachers. Obama and his education secretary say that American kids spend too little time in school, putting them at a disadvantage in comparison to other students around the globe. "'Now, I know longer school days and school years are not wildly popular ideas,' the president said earlier this year. 'Not with Malia and Sasha, not in my family, and probably not in yours. But the challenges of a new century demand more time in the classroom.' 'Our school calendar is based upon the agrarian economy and not too many of our kids are working the fields today,' Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. ... 'Young people in other countries are going to school 25, 30 percent longer than our students here,' Duncan told the AP. 'I want to just level the playing field.' ... Kids in the US spend more hours in school (1,146 instructional hours per year) than do kids in the Asian countries that persistently outscore the US on math and science tests — Singapore (903), Taiwan (1,050), Japan (1,005) and Hong Kong (1,013). That is despite the fact that Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong have longer school years (190 to 201 days) than does the U.S. (180 days)."
Many kids in Asian countries also spend a lot of time at private institutes, after their regular classes.
Nevertheless, yes, American kids no not work hard enough to compete on a global level. The Economist had an article about this very issue a few months ago.
Nobox: Only simple products.
LEAVE SOME CHILDREN BEHIND
sorry- is that too callous?
http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=338&catid=13&subcatid=82
" According to government statistics, 95 percent of all children start school but the drop out rate is high. Only 80 percent graduate from elementary school. In poor rural areas the enrollment is only about 60 percent, with only 70 percent completing the first four years of primary school. Fewer than 35 percent of China's youth enter high school, and of these the drop out rate is high."
individual circumstances aside, with limited resources, don't you think it far more likely that the really good students, somehow find a way to be among those who remain.
The evelopmentally disabled ones are the ones who fall by the wayside and do not continue their education to the point where these internationalized standard tests are taken?
drop the ten% worst performers results from the US kids "math and science tests" and you may find that they don't suck after all.. APPLES & APPLES COMPARISONS PLEASE!
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
From everything I've read about it, it's very hard to fire a teacher. It's all but impossible to fire them if they are tenured. The only halfway pleasant and effective way to get rid of a teacher that needs the sack is to take them off any class they can do damage in and make their job as unpleasant as possible until they leave.
Have read several accounts of superintendents trying to fire a teacher that really needed to go. Typically involves over a year of gathering as much dirt as possible, building what would appear to be an "airtight case" against them, then spend the next four months fighting the union, school board, appeals, etc etc until you can finally shove them out, kicking and screaming. And then they just sue (usually more than once) and it just drags on and on. Altogether probably the most challenging aspect of being a superintendent. All you can do is try very hard to hire winners, and pray you don't get started in the hole.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
It's on the internet, so it must be true? I see one flat statement being contradicted by another flat statement. Tell me - why should I believe Kappan magazine over the secretary of Education? Or heck, vice versa? All I know is that long summer breaks were common for a long time where I'm from - where a long time is end of 19th century. And they certainly could not have been influenced by american urban middle-class parents.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Wolvenhaven's comment about budgets is on target; our small, rural Iowa district had to let 8 teachers go this spring because of declining tax inflows due to the economy. Funding teachers across more time would be a financial benefit to our family (my wife is a teacher in the district and doesn't receive compensation for when she's out of school not teaching as would be expected), but it'd cause the district to lose more teachers. In a small district, this would be devastating.
But there's another aspect some (including Obama) are missing. The United States is a highly diverse nation with a diverse workforce. Like a fool who would prescribe public transportation to replace all motor transportation in the U.S. -- a proposal that simply fails to understand the large spaces the U.S. covers and treats Wyoming like Berlin -- the educational system has similar heterogeneous aspects. During the summer months, our system is not to "send the kiddies to the field" as Obama's inept education administration official claims, but rather to supplement education in a highly diverse, non-governmental-decreed manner.
Yes, many kids get summer jobs, and there is considerable education for those working in a shop, grocery store or other light skill or service economy function given the probability that such students will be moving into this workforce upon graduation. In case you didn't notice the recent unemployment statistics, this demographic (16-24) now suffers over 50% unemployment, mostly due to the recession and the increase in minimum wages (which causes employers to substitute an unexperienced teen with an adult with experience for the same higher wage).
But many kids destined for college go off to specialized camps. My son spent 5 weeks of the summer at one of the top national debate institutes, working harder in the summer than he did during the year. Music camps, international travel, student summer foreign exchanges and local university summer programs all round out the options available for the college bound to receive much more intense and specialized education, necessary for their advancement in higher education. Obama's plan would replace that with more of the same -- as Gilles Deleuze would say, smoothing terrain by pushing more of the same hegemonic, institutional programme and eradicating diversity education that predominates summer break.
While it's not appropriate to debate this on the terms of "more education vs. kids sitting around watching tv" (those kids are also preparing for their future career through the choices being made), it is appropriate to debate this on the terms of whether we desire the heterogeneous workforce we're encouraging through the current model, or seek a more homogeneous model (ala "sameness"). Should further globalization be desired, as Obama's administration advances and his financial backer George Soros promotes, then perhaps the United States would be better served by creating more interchangeable service sector jobs. Given that both political parties desire a global model, Americans are less likely to be programmers, system engineers, architects, creative thinkers, product designers, etc.; even finance and legal professions are increasingly being offshored with great financial benefit to the global corporation. Preparing students for a career where they're part of a replaceable, worker-commodity workforce may be more appropriate in the long term, given the unified desire of Americans through the expression of those pro-globalization representatives they continue to elect.
Part of the problem isn't even parents being unrealistic, it is that the options are straight to the work force or university. Nothing else is ever presented as an option by anyone.
That was how it was for me. It was just assumed I was going to university. My intelligence and academic performance was such that university wasn't a problem... But that doesn't mean I should have gone. I do computer support. That is not a degree career, it's applied, not theoretical. While going to university worked out ok for me, I didn't need to. I should have gone to a trade school, however it just wasn't presented as an option.
I don't think longer time in school is the answer. I do think we should make fundamental changes in the way school works though. I think K-12 should all exist on the same campus. I think older kids should be involved in teaching younger kids and also take part in supporting after school programs. I think everything from wood shop, auto shop, and associated trades to advanced math and science programs should be available for students who excel or are interested in said areas. I also think that if you do bad in one subject it shouldn't necessarily keep you from progressing with your class. Maybe you need to re-take that subject again, but no reason not to continue with your peers and apply more work where it is needed.
I guess I live in some type of dream land.....
All points of time and space are connected.
What about proposed voucher systems, which hope to bring the success of privatization to families who can't afford private schools? Granted, I would much rather, from a philosophical standpoint, have vouchers be funded by private charity rather than government coercion, but from a pragmatic standpoint I think publicly funded voucher systems would at least work better than the union/mafia-dominated status quo.
"If anything, shorten the school day/year so our people can go back to acquiring trade skills and progressing the nation;"
No, keep it the same but offer vocational classes without prejudice and don't use them as a dumping ground. An auto mechanic or weldor or plumber can have a very profitable career path and eventually own their own business, but this is largely ignored nowadays.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I'm 12 years old, and a regular Slashdot reader. I'd like to offer my opinion on this: We don't need longer school days. We need more courses and teachers. Specifically, we need more separation of classes based on ability. To Heck with this 'fairness' stuff. We really need at least two classes: advanced and less-advanced. Sure, some kids will feel bad when they don't make Advanced, but it's worth it. Allow me to elaborate. Longer days don't make an ounce of difference if half the kids are bored out of their skulls. All my fancy, expensive, private school has managed to do is bump me a year up in Math. And I'm still ahead of the class. In all the other classes, I'm stuck where I am. I spent half of 5th Grade correcting other kids' work for the teacher. And it's not just me. There are plenty others in the same boat as I. We don't learn much (especially on a time-to-learning scale), and longer/more days won't help. If we separate by ability, eveyone wins (except the schools, who have to hire more teachers): The kids who are ahead have engaging and new stuff to do and learn, while the kids who aren't ahead have things tailored to their needs. And, everyone gets smaller classes and more time with the teacher. If we're going to do anything, I suggest we, in some way or another, give kids material that is at the right level for them. Maybe once we get that done, we can think about longer school years or days. Actually, I'm not strongly against a few extra weeks, as long as the school curriculum is challenging. If anyone reading this has any say in this kind of thing, please think of me. -Nathan
Yes, we'd hate for poor people to have a chance at good jobs.
The same basic things could be proved by technical degrees, two-year degrees, and certifications, which can be obtained more cheaply. I have a four-year degree from a university, and I'm glad I took most of the classes I took for my own benefit. But I don't know why an employer should care about some of them.
The presidents kids go to a private school where any legislation affecting school hours wouldn't apply.
0) The world is progressing. Why is it that when they get close we think we need to go higher? At some point there should be a reasonable limit to what education can do alone. Language, culture, family, become more important as education gets more "equal". It'll never be a level where one can completely rule it out and only look at other factors-- this is in the realm of soft science. Could be ours is the best already but the other factors are knocking it down... (not probable; just making a point.)
1) PUBLIC schools should be funded by the number of students, federally without any strings other than they must be public schools. This will lower the taxes we have on shelter (aka property tax or renter's included property tax.) It will increase income tax; however, it is NOT equitable to punish kids by underfunding their schools simply because they are located in a poorer area. (I'm not talking inner city either, we have poor rural and rich rural depending on what properties are in that area and local tax codes.)
2) Technology in education is unproven. it needs more pilot programs and less political stumping. The public is part of the whole gaming of the numbers system we have. Test scores are a poor measure; any systematic measurement system is going to get hacked by people like win98 on an open network. Other nations measure scores differently; they also filter out kids-- our system accepts everybody. My city's schools do about as well as the rich suburban schools -- but have less money and TONS of disadvantaged kids of every kind to deal with.
3) Simply BEING A STUDENT does not make you an expert in education. Its like saying you can advise airplane design because you ride on jets. There is serious work done on learning, the brain etc. in academic institutions and by profession educators already. But forget that, a couple stats make us look bad so lets ship the kids off to more schooling and give them all laptops! Just how long have we known its better for children to have different school hours than we do now? We still have the same hours-- to keep the parents happy and their dreams of their kid getting that sports scholarship they didn't get. (college funding being a separate issue best solved instead of the lotto scholarship mess. Don't expect that CHANGE since college loans handle more money than the credit card industry!)
4) Children, like all mammals LEARN and develop by playing. Sure, TV robs them of this--- thats not the fed's business; if parents suck. (unless you are in the UK...where they want to monitor parents!) I LEARNED far more things in the summer that were useful in the "real world" than I did in school. I didn't have to work on a farm, but I worked on other things and learned, played, and developed my imagination. Many of my peers went to "camps" so they'd get an edge the next school year while the flunkies went to catch up so they'd not have to drop a grade.
5) Just HOW long should kids be in school? how about some REAL numbers? We already know health wise its better to take a long nap in the middle of the day but other than a few countries nobody does that... (BTW, the WTO is pressuring those countries to change their ways.)
6) America rose to the top (FYI we are not there anymore) and went to the moon with people who didn't have technology or even went to those "shameful" rural schools where 1-6 grades were in 1 room with the same teacher. Now we can't do math without a calculator-- even then we can't do math. My father had a shooting range in the basement of his high school; kept a gun at school too! Yes, this points to cultural degradation-- but THAT is the point! The real big issues are the elephants in the room nobody dares mention! I do credit Obama a bit having touched on a few... I am not saying we need to go back to those idealized times and "get off my lawn!" More social science is needed.
7) American kids are F***'d up. School psychologists are needed. #1 problem for any student is mental. We expect teachers to do everything and moder
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Exactly: it's cultural. The USA is never going to excel at math, because it simply isn't rewarded, whereas sports achievement is.
If we really wanted to improve education, we'd make separate schools, so the studious kids can go to one school by themselves and excel before they head to college, and everyone else can go to a different school and play sports and take basic classes where they learn how to manage a bank account, before they're released into the world of work.
It would cost only 3,000 dollars a year to educate a child in China, plus air fare both ways for summer break would be a little over 4,500.00 dollars.
In Washington D.C. taxpayers pay 10,000 per child. Clearly the best solution is outsourcing. Plus punishment can be handed out byt the Red Chinese, when you kid gets suspended they get sent to a weeklong shift in a factory. It lowers labor cost and kids learn discipline and when they get back they will respect their elders, RESPECT THEIR ELDERS!!!!!!!
Plus during the School year you won't have young punks all over town, instead they will be in another country wrecking that place up. DOUBLE WIN-WIN
Now get off my damn lawn you whippersnappers!!!
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
No, most of the rest are normal students who happen to play baseball or soccer after school.
At my high school, enrollment in AP courses correlated highly with participation in athletics. The football team was pretty much filled with top students.
It's all in how you set up your program. Academic requirements to participate in athletics go a long way.