Slashdot Mirror
The Washington Post Pans Apple-Sponsored School Reform TV Special (washingtonpost.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader theodp writes: On Friday night, the Big Four Networks simultaneously aired EIF Presents: XQ Super School Live [YouTube], a commercial-free, one-hour TV special that championed Laurene Powell Jobs' mission to rethink the American high school. The closing credits listed Jobs as an Executive Producer, and noted that the chock-full-of-celebrities special was sponsored in part by her Emerson Collective and Apple.
"Surely Samuel L. Jackson, Tom Hanks, Mahershala Ali, Justin Timberlake, Cate Blanchett and a bevy of other celebrities have nothing but laudable intentions by appearing on Friday night's live televised high school reform spectacular on four -- count them, four -- major networks (NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox)," writes the Washington Post's Valerie Strauss. "But when an hour of prime time on four networks is purchased, it's fair to ask whether that is a public service or propaganda."
The Post points out gently that "not everyone believes" in the need to "transform" high schools, while theodp notes "viewers were pitched XQ Super School Board Program kits, which XQ's website explains are designed to prepare individuals for a school board candidacy."
If this seems suspiciously political -- or at least a way to ensure schools are friendly to Laurene Powell Jobs' specific proposals -- the nonprofit's web site adds reassuringly that "XQ won't be endorsing or supporting particular candidates; we'll be supporting all candidates who stand with us in a shared commitment to rethink high school, so all young people can be educated as they deserve."
"Surely Samuel L. Jackson, Tom Hanks, Mahershala Ali, Justin Timberlake, Cate Blanchett and a bevy of other celebrities have nothing but laudable intentions by appearing on Friday night's live televised high school reform spectacular on four -- count them, four -- major networks (NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox)," writes the Washington Post's Valerie Strauss. "But when an hour of prime time on four networks is purchased, it's fair to ask whether that is a public service or propaganda."
The Post points out gently that "not everyone believes" in the need to "transform" high schools, while theodp notes "viewers were pitched XQ Super School Board Program kits, which XQ's website explains are designed to prepare individuals for a school board candidacy."
If this seems suspiciously political -- or at least a way to ensure schools are friendly to Laurene Powell Jobs' specific proposals -- the nonprofit's web site adds reassuringly that "XQ won't be endorsing or supporting particular candidates; we'll be supporting all candidates who stand with us in a shared commitment to rethink high school, so all young people can be educated as they deserve."
Improvements to high school are fine - but they are not of that much importance. If America is ever going to achieve racial equality, quality early childhood education is required for all. When a child is behind their piers by a year or two it becomes almost impossible to catch up.
Children of parents that are financially secure are often enrolled in programs where they are taught to read, are exposed to more language, and perform activities designed to stimulate intellect. So while poor parents can find no time to spend with their children, wealthy parents are giving their kids a head start. It has been shown that this head start stays with them all the way to adulthood. Social mobility is reduced - the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich, one generation after the other.
Racial inequality will exist so long as racial stereotypes can be statistically validated. Without social mobility, historically poor racial groups with remain poor and the stereotypes will continue. It is a never ending circle - a horrible circle which human nature will ensure persists. Those that think we can change human nature are horribly naive. But we do have control of social mobility in the form of early childhood education.
Providing more early education will lead to breaking the circle which will invalidate the stereotypes and finally end all of this hatred. Education is the only thing we have control of so we should start there.
Of course the rich will always be able to get the best education available. They can pay for it. Why is that a problem? Them getting the best education has nothing to do with everyone else being able to get a good education.
The real question should be how do we improve education for children whose environment teaches them education is unimportant? That's the real problem. Children in homes where education is valued will almost always get a good education. Children in homes where education is not values, where they are not valued, have an uphill climb and will almost never succeed, at least not through education.
And the U.S. as a society need to decide what education is for. Is it for job training? Is it to produce well rounded citizens? Is it to benefit society? Who decides what "benefits society" means?
'sounding out' is NEVER a reading method, but a method for people who speak a language far better than they (currently) read it to learn new words. This means young children- but actual PROPER reading must be taught in a way that bypasses the verbal part of our brain.
You should read by SEEING each word, in the same way you see a car or cat. If you read by sounding out inside your head, you are effectively reading 'disabled'.
The confusion comes from the mechanism of understanding NEW words- and dim witted parents, who probably cannot read correctly themselves- think reading by sounding out inside one's head is how it is supposed to be done.
For adults, there is a test. Go find a site that jumbles up the letters in each world of a paragraph according to a special rule. If you can still read that paragraph fairly easy, you read correctly. But adults who 'sound out' have to solve each jumbled word one-by-one as 'anagrams' - and thus essentially find the paragraph unreadable.
The key to learning to read PROPERLY is to have the child read as much as possible with a rapidly expanding vocab- so as many words as possible are learnt 'on sight'. Having the young child use the internet is the very best way- cos the internet demands reading skills.
On the other hand, having the young child read very little- and that having limited vocab content- combined with hitting the child with constant 'sounding out' - means the child will never learn to read properly, and will continue to read by 'sounding out' as an adult.