Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I almost do not mind passionate but wrong headed policy types. You beat them around the head with logic until (a) they come around or (b) they get embarrassed and shamed by their ignorance and they leave the scene.
However, what we see with Obama and friends is Utopian mumbo jumbo. Sadly, those that will suffer most are the brightest poor kids.
S.
The thing of it is, I honestly do think Obama and Ayers had good intentions. They probably really did want to increase opportunities for inner-city students, and for all students. The problem is, they go about it all wrong, and are so heavily invested in their perceived solutions that their egos will not allow them to recognize that their preferred methods are destined to be misguided failures and they need to, instead, try what has actually been proven to work.
Has anyone else mentioned this yet...if so, I missed it. My apologies.
What if the teaching day was reorganized in to fewer subjects for a longer period of time? Meaning instead of blips (of math, social studies, English, political science, PE, etc...) each day was structured to focus intensely on a more limited array of subjects, alternating through-out the week. The teachers would have more time to TEACH it, the kids would have more time to learn it. Homework would serve to reinforce the lessons instead of being work not completed in class.
Now, I'm trying to make a logical argument, but I understand staffing issues. Instructor vs. student ratio, classroom availability. And can all the required subjects and electives be worked in using such a system? I don't know. It's just something that seems to make sense, if modifications could be made.
I haven't been in HS since the mid 80's...how long is the school day now and what are the current core subjects?
Has anyone else mentioned this yet...if so, I missed it. My apologies.
What if the teaching day was reorganized in to fewer subjects for a longer period of time? Meaning instead of blips (of math, social studies, English, political science, PE, etc...) each day was structured to focus intensely on a more limited array of subjects, alternating through-out the week. The teachers would have more time to TEACH it, the kids would have more time to learn it. Homework would serve to reinforce the lessons instead of being work not completed in class.
Now, I'm trying to make a logical argument, but I understand staffing issues. Instructor vs. student ratio, classroom availability. And can all the required subjects and electives be worked in using such a system? I don't know. It's just something that seems to make sense, if modifications could be made.
I haven't been in HS since the mid 80's...how long is the school day now and what are the current core subjects?
You're talking about block scheduling and it does not work. While you can go more in depth, you end up teaching less in the course of a year. The problem arises in pacing. Comparing a class that meets tiwce for 60 minutes each to one meeting once for 120 minutes, after 60 minutes, it would normally be time to assign homework and let the kids go home and try before picking up and moving on the next day. Now I have a choice. I must either choose to move on without the class having had time to try the work themselves or take time in class to do what, otherwise would have been homework. If I do the former, I confuse my class because we haven't reinforced one concept before going on to the next. If I do the latter, I use class time I would otherwise use for teaching new material for what would have been homework and have less teaching time in the end.
Last year, I taught some classes on the block and some off. I tried to keep them on the same material. It was impossible. The classes I met with daily were capable of moving much faster simply because I could assign 20 minutes of homework a night without taking up 20 minutes of class time. To slow them down, I had to insert one class period of reinforcement a week. By Wednesday I had taught everything I was going to teach my block classes that only met twice a week.
I like longer class periods but it can't be at the expense of how many times a week you meet. The overall number of classes is what determines the pace not the number of minutes spent in class. It's hard on students when you have to teach two topics in one class period. It gives you a pace closer to a college class and most high schoolers are not ready for that.
I like these ideas from Obama, but many public school boards earn a "F" when it comes to educating today's children. It costs anywhere from $6,000 to $8,000 per year per student for a public education, and the results are usually horrid. I saw give each parent a $5,000 voucher so they can send their kids to any school they want. It would be a great kick in the ass for the public school board and would force them to improve the quality of education being delivered. The competition should result in better education.
Now before I get called nasty names, hear me out. It's the poor that would benefit most from this. The rich send their kids to the best schools anyway. The poor are basically ignored. A $5,000 voucher however would give them a loud voice. Tuition at private schools varies greatly, but the general range is approximately $3,000 to $4,000 a year. The potential to receive $5,000 per year per student will result in private sector schools competing against public sector schools. Parents will vote by choosing which school offers the superior education. Overcapacity schools in deteriorating condition in minority neighborhoods would no longer be ignored by the local school board. Parents would immediately jump ship to the better options. And better options will exist as any businessperson would make a fortune to invest in areas the school board neglects. A little competition can be a good thing!
Complete non-sense from a school board to prove my point: the school district bans walking and riding a bike to school.
The biking debate started last spring, when school district officials told Kaddo Marino that Adam was violating school rules by biking to class. Walking to the school also is not permitted.
Again, it depends on where you are (cost of living differences).
In my dreams. I'm in Michigan. COL is farily high. I WISH I was in a low COL area. My problem is the only jobs open to me are in charter schools and they do not pay their teachers.
This is really sad to me. Since when is play overrated? Play allows our children to grow their imagination, to explore, to understand the natural world. How can we not allow our children play time. I see this country as producing robots. I want freethinkers, inventors, not people who do well on tests.
All I can say, is thank God I homeschool! No, I would not want my kids in school for 50 or 60 hours per week. Why not just send them off at age 5 to live at school? Who needs parents, families, free play, etc, anyway? Scary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
