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.
How will you define poor teachers? I agree teachers should be "at will" employees with no tenure. Then schools can get rid of whomever they want whenever they want if they're not working out for any reason.
An outstanding and valuable question. The definition of "poor teachers" is like the definition of "pornography": hard to pin down precisely, but you know it when you see it. Here are some pretty easy calls, but this (of course) is not a complete list:
1. S/he does not possess sufficient training or knowledge about the area s/he teaches. Math and language arts teachers at the elementary level need to (at the very, very least) have a minor in one of those subjects; high school teachers really must have a B.A. in the subject they teach. Further professional development must require all or most coursework in the content area from an accredited college or university program.
2. Serious, frequent classroom management issues far out of proportion to the norm for the school, or one spectacular loss of control presenting a serious threat to student or school safety.
3. Clearly poor professional judgment, e.g., committing felonies, taking legal or illegal drugs which impair judgment during teaching or student supervision, failure to observe routine safety procedures and/or endangering students' safety.
4. Failure to teach the required elements of the subject s/he was hired to teach. This can also include clear evidence of grade inflation. Teachers whose grades consistently fall radically outside a standard bell curve (e.g., 80% of the class getting As) should probably be counseled about best practices and providing appropriate challenge in the classroom.
But kids don't need the summer off to do things with their families unless the family also has the summer off. What percentage of families have parents off all summer long? Most people work year round and they're not spending time with their kids when they're at work. At most, they're taking a few weeks off in the summer not a few months.
I favor year round schools because you can lessen the intensity and still cover the material. For kids who don't need to slow things down, they get to take the higher level courses that can't be offered in many schools because there aren't enough teachers to offer them. I don't see spending family time as an issue because I don't see most parents taking the entire summer off. Around here, the kids go from school to summer care programs except for the weeks mom and dad are on vacation. Even when there is a parent at home, that's no guarantee they're actually spending time with their kids.
Sorry, but I don't think the argument that summers off are needed for family time holds water. What percentage of families would spend less time together in the summer if kids went to school 8 of the 12 weeks they're off now? What percentage of families even have 4 weeks per summer off for family time? I really don't think we need 12 weeks off in the summer to have a healthy dose of down time. Two weeks on each end would be more than most adults have and those adults would be the parents of the kids we're teaching.
When my kids were young enough to need latch key, I remember the parents complaining because the summer programs didn't start right after school got out. They were scrambling to find relatives or friends to take their kids because they didn't have enough vacation time to take that time off (you have to remember that parents often don't get Christmas break, mid winter break and spring break too and many of those days don't have latch key available). My husband and I were lucky. I had 6 weeks vacation and he had 4 and I had the day after Thanksgiving, the week between Christmas and New Years off as well as Good Friday and Easter Monday off (days when latch key did not operate that parents would have to use vacation time to cover). My experience is working parents are scrambling to find latch key during the summer not packing a picnic basket and heading off for 12 weeks of family time.
While I think that kids would probably benefit from going to a utopian school year round, they still should have a lot of time off... school does not exist as daycare for working parents (or at least it shouldn't), so whether parents have to scramble to find childcare when school is out should not, IMO, be a reason to put ALL kids in school for more than 180 days per year.
But kids don't need the summer off to do things with their families unless the family also has the summer off. What percentage of families have parents off all summer long? Most people work year round and they're not spending time with their kids when they're at work. At most, they're taking a few weeks off in the summer not a few months.
I suppose; however, there are also many who aren't as likely to be running Jr around after school during the summer either. They also send their kids to summer camps where learning is anything but typical school work. There are also many people who work varied shifts in this 24 hour world, and those with whom I work (often evenings and nights) would rather spend their days with their kids in a less structured situation than the typical school setting (replete with homework - which I'm sure given the latest educational trends, will be a definite thing eventually, even if it's supposed to be geared toward a slower pace).
I favor year round schools because you can lessen the intensity and still cover the material. For kids who don't need to slow things down, they get to take the higher level courses that can't be offered in many schools because there aren't enough teachers to offer them. I don't see spending family time as an issue because I don't see most parents taking the entire summer off. Around here, the kids go from school to summer care programs except for the weeks mom and dad are on vacation. Even when there is a parent at home, that's no guarantee they're actually spending time with their kids.
I understand where you're coming from, but let's also face fiscal reality and remember that many people complain of the rising costs of education (and ironically low test scores at the same time ). Add to the costs of bussing, building maintenance, salaries...etc...and I can see working parents having to pick up another job just to pay the ensuing property tax rise to pay for it all.
Downtime doesn't necessarily mean that Mommy and Daddy need to be in their kid's face every waking moment. "Downtime" can be building Matchbox subdivisions by yourself in a sandpile, or simply curling up with a good book or art project as well. Given that recess is all but a memory now, I think that's an important part of the learning process. How about music - maybe pick up an instrument and teach yourself how to play it.
Call me old fashioned, but I strongly believe that children who have a little downtime can certainly become creative in imagination. I don't think we give them enough credit for that.
Sorry, but I don't think the argument that summers off are needed for family time holds water. What percentage of families would spend less time together in the summer if kids went to school 8 of the 12 weeks they're off now? What percentage of families even have 4 weeks per summer off for family time? I really don't think we need 12 weeks off in the summer to have a healthy dose of down time. Two weeks on each end would be more than most adults have and those adults would be the parents of the kids we're teaching.
Ah yes - percentages. I don't go by those. I go by what I actually see happening. I'm particularly fond of the saying "There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics." I dunno. Maybe it's just me.
When my kids were young enough to need latch key, I remember the parents complaining because the summer programs didn't start right after school got out. They were scrambling to find relatives or friends to take their kids because they didn't have enough vacation time to take that time off (you have to remember that parents often don't get Christmas break, mid winter break and spring break too and many of those days don't have latch key available). My husband and I were lucky. I had 6 weeks vacation and he had 4 and I had the day after Thanksgiving, the week between Christmas and New Years off as well as Good Friday and Easter Monday off (days when latch key did not operate that parents would have to use vacation time to cover). My experience is working parents are scrambling to find latch key during the summer not packing a picnic basket and heading off for 12 weeks of family time.
Yes, I'll concede that parents will always have issues with finding suitable child care, and that some of them stress over finding somewhere for their children to go.
While I'm sure that you're probably right about picnic baskets, adding homework/projects/after school activities/ for the entire year just perpetuates the "run, run, run - rush, rush, rush" mentality society seems to have now IMHO. Even amongst the working families I know (all shifts) there seems to be a sigh of relief when the "final cleanout of the binder and tossing of stubby pencils" time of the year arrives. Surly teenagers tend to be much more jovial and well-behaved even if it's only briefly.
I'd rather see the day lengthened a bit. My beef with our school is that it is supposed to start at 8:10 a.m. Reality dictates that the kids are filing off the bus at 8:10, and by the time they are actually settled down, they begin their day at 8:35 a.m. I've timed it. School ends at 2:10 p.m. They start preparing to go at 1:55 p.m. Right there we've lost nearly a whole class.
I've also looked over the school calendar. With one half day per month for teacher inservices (basically, they say the pledge, eat a snack, perhaps take a quiz, eat lunch and then are dismissed at 11:30 a.m.) I may as well just keep my kids home. Because they have stayed long enough to be fed lunch, it counts as a school day. There are a couple months where they are only "in school proper" for 2 weeks. The year before last, they had 180 days. Last year and again this year, they are in for 175 (which is legally the amount of days required). That's a whole week less time to learn a whole lot more.
Last edited by cebdark; 12-30-2009 at 08:28 PM..
Reason: sentence correction
While I think that kids would probably benefit from going to a utopian school year round, they still should have a lot of time off... school does not exist as daycare for working parents (or at least it shouldn't), so whether parents have to scramble to find childcare when school is out should not, IMO, be a reason to put ALL kids in school for more than 180 days per year.
You misunderstood. I was not arguing that school should be day care. I was pointing out that kids don't need the summers off because they're spending all this time with family. Parents, likely, work the entire summer. The argument I was countering was that you'd be taking away family time if kids went to school in the summer.
I do think there need to be breaks but I also think there needs to be routine. I'd much rather have one week off every 7 or 8 weeks than half days and days off here and there. Seems like we can't settle into a routine.
I think breaks should be between quarters or trimesters. A week or two is plenty. Kids, certainly, don't need 12 weeks off in summer. I know my kids are bored and they have me home most of the summer to go do things with (Like they want to hang out with mom, . Well, I do come in handy for rides to the mall and money.)
Yes, I'll concede that parents will always have issues with finding suitable child care, and that some of them stress over finding somewhere for their children to go.
While I'm sure that you're probably right about picnic baskets, adding homework/projects/after school activities/ for the entire year just perpetuates the "run, run, run - rush, rush, rush" mentality society seems to have now IMHO. Even amongst the working families I know (all shifts) there seems to be a sigh of relief when the "final cleanout of the binder and tossing of stubby pencils" time of the year arrives. Surly teenagers tend to be much more jovial and well-behaved even if it's only briefly.
I'd rather see the day lengthened a bit. My beef with our school is that it is supposed to start at 8:10 a.m. Reality dictates that the kids are filing off the bus at 8:10, and by the time they are actually settled down, they begin their day at 8:35 a.m. I've timed it. School ends at 2:10 p.m. They start preparing to go at 1:55 p.m. Right there we've lost nearly a whole class.
I've also looked over the school calendar. With one half day per month for teacher inservices (basically, they say the pledge, eat a snack, perhaps take a quiz, eat lunch and then are dismissed at 11:30 a.m.) I may as well just keep my kids home. Because they have stayed long enough to be fed lunch, it counts as a school day. There are a couple months where they are only "in school proper" for 2 weeks. The year before last, they had 180 days. Last year and again this year, they are in for 175 (which is legally the amount of days required). That's a whole week less to learn a whole lot more.
Oh, don't get me started on all the half days and days off scattered throughout the year. It seems we never get into a routine because of them. Personally, I'd rather have time off all at once. Instead of 2 half days a month, take a 4 day weekend every 7 weeks.
We're going back to two half days and a day off in January. Then three days off and a half day in February. The longest stretch we'll have of actual 5 day school weeks is two weeks from the time we return in January until Easter break. We have few half days after that but the kids come back from Easter break in spring fever mode. Sigh.
I'd love to see 8 week marking periods where we go to school the entire 8 weeks then have a week off for teachers to catch up on grading and stuff and kids to take a break. I feel like I get the most teaching done when we have a stretch where we can get a routine going. That's tough to do with half days and days off scattered around.
Our kids have a half day on Friday the week we go back, then Martin Luther's birthday off and a half day at the end of the semester late in January AFTER finals. What am I supposed to do with them for half a day AFTER finals. I can't start new material and I can't review old material and classes are only 35 minutes long so we can't even watch a movie. Just take the entire day off, thank you.
I've thought about this tons, ever since I was in elementary school myself. I'm now 23 years old, so I realize the confidence I had in my ideas when I was 14 or 16 was probably misplaced. However, for starters, I'd:
1. Create (or extend) vocational schools-within-schools to train those wishing to go into a trade. Let's face it: a 16- or 17-year-old wanting to learn construction or plumbing doesn't need, and most likely wouldn't be interested in pre-calculus or European history. I realize these already exist in a limited format, but I would change them to a full-day scheme. These would start in 9th or 10th grade. Also, I would create MONITORED apprenticeship arrangements for students pursuing trades whose communities would not support in-school programs.
2. That said, raise the standard of curricula (at least) in "standard" high school. Make the "normal" curriculum more like AP or IB.
3. Make high school (and to a limited extent, middle school) more similar to college. Have one or two required classes (perhaps more in 9th grade, and 4 or 5 in 7th and 8th grade) and the rest be electives. Change liability laws and allow students to leave the campus.
Yes, I'll concede that parents will always have issues with finding suitable child care, and that some of them stress over finding somewhere for their children to go.
While I'm sure that you're probably right about picnic baskets, adding homework/projects/after school activities/ for the entire year just perpetuates the "run, run, run - rush, rush, rush" mentality society seems to have now IMHO. Even amongst the working families I know (all shifts) there seems to be a sigh of relief when the "final cleanout of the binder and tossing of stubby pencils" time of the year arrives. Surly teenagers tend to be much more jovial and well-behaved even if it's only briefly.
I'd rather see the day lengthened a bit. My beef with our school is that it is supposed to start at 8:10 a.m. Reality dictates that the kids are filing off the bus at 8:10, and by the time they are actually settled down, they begin their day at 8:35 a.m. I've timed it. School ends at 2:10 p.m. They start preparing to go at 1:55 p.m. Right there we've lost nearly a whole class.
I've also looked over the school calendar. With one half day per month for teacher inservices (basically, they say the pledge, eat a snack, perhaps take a quiz, eat lunch and then are dismissed at 11:30 a.m.) I may as well just keep my kids home. Because they have stayed long enough to be fed lunch, it counts as a school day. There are a couple months where they are only "in school proper" for 2 weeks. The year before last, they had 180 days. Last year and again this year, they are in for 175 (which is legally the amount of days required). That's a whole week less time to learn a whole lot more.
You seem to be arguing in favor of summers off because people like it. Is that really reason enough? I'm sure most factory workers would like the summers off too, or even frequent weeks off. Do we really have any proof that lots of time off actually facilitates learning? Or are we just doing what has always been done because it's always been done that way?
By the time my kids are off 5 or 6 weeks, they're getting lethargic. I have to work at keeping them engaged and working on constructive things. It woule be much easier to keep them engaged if their vacations looked more like the vacations we get in industry. Even as a teacher, I find there's a costly ramp up at the beginning of the year. It takes me a while go get back into work mode from summer mode.
And the point wasn't that parents need child care. It was to show that parents don't have the summers off with their kids to be spending time with them. Is life less hectic in the summer? Probably but much of our hectic lifestyle is our choice not the fault of the schools. With music camps and getting ready for competitions, summer can be more hectic for us but we choose not to do a lot of exra curricular activities during the school year. This has more to do with how you choose to use your time than anything else.
People resist change (why do you think our eduation system resembles education of 100 years ago?) and having the summers off is the way we've always done it. Honestly, if you were designing school, from the ground up, today, would you put in a 12 week summer break? What would be your justification? The only benefits to summers off I see are financial. You don't have to run busses, you don't have to cool the school buildings, you need only a skeleton maintenance crew and you can get away with paying teachers less because they have the summers off.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 12-31-2009 at 04:58 AM..
Let's change the question. Instead of fixing our current schools, which requires starting with framework already in place, let's play a game of what if. What if you could start over. Design a school system from the ground up. What would it look like?
I don't think anyone would argue against the idea that our current system looks too much like schools of 100 years ago while society and industry have changed, drastically. What would your school system look like if you were designing one from the ground up. Let's assume that society supports schools that prepare kids for the real world here and assume we have funding .
I'll have to think on this one. I know I'd incorporate technology from an early age. I wouldn't teach tech classes. I'd simply require that technology be used as a tool the way it is in industry but this is just one small piece of the puzzle.
You seem to be arguing in favor of summers off because people like it. Is that really reason enough? I'm sure most factory workers would like the summers off too, or even frequent weeks off. Do we really have any proof that lots of time off actually facilitates learning? Or are we just doing what has always been done because it's always been done that way?
No, but I do think we should refrain from considering growing children as little cogs in the wheel of business because when it comes to being a child, nothing is ever in black and white like it is when we are adults IMO, and frankly, I have personally seen children with psychiatric/depression meds lists as long as their arm. Many of these drugs have had no previous studies done on the effects to a prepubescent or adolescent body.
How many people know children who are on ADHD meds? How many actually have a physical problem (and before I get flamed - yes, I know there are actual cases where medication is necessary). Think back to your own childhood and ask yourself: "Do I really think the same way about things as I did when I was, say, 15?" Funny, my mother used to tell me that, yet I didn't believe her until years later. Human nature. That's what I'm talking about.
By the time my kids are off 5 or 6 weeks, they're getting lethargic. I have to work at keeping them engaged and working on constructive things. It woule be much easier to keep them engaged if their vacations looked more like the vacations we get in industry. Even as a teacher, I find there's a costly ramp up at the beginning of the year. It takes me a while go get back into work mode from summer mode.
Okay, I can respect that from a teacher's point of view, but don't you also see lethargy with kids toward the end of the year when the sun is shining and the outside calls? I don't know how your school does it, but my school (IMHO) wastes better than two weeks of time testing to see where the kids are at instead of just reviewing material. Perhaps that's simplistic of me to think that, but again, that's what I've seen.
And the point wasn't that parents need child care. It was to show that parents don't have the summers off with their kids to be spending time with them. Is life less hectic in the summer? Probably but much of our hectic lifestyle is our choice not the fault of the schools. With music camps and getting ready for competitions, summer can be more hectic for us but we choose not to do a lot of exra curricular activities during the school year. This has more to do with how you choose to use your time than anything else.
Well, I guess we misunderstood each other then, because child care seemed to be the focus of what I read. I guess it's situational in terms of areas because I see working parents more decidedly relaxed during the summer than during the school year. I suppose things are different everywhere.
People resist change (why do you think our eduation system resembles education of 100 years ago?) and having the summers off is the way we've always done it. Honestly, if you were designing school, from the ground up, today, would you put in a 12 week summer break? What would be your justification? The only benefits to summers off I see are financial. You don't have to run busses, you don't have to cool the school buildings, you need only a skeleton maintenance crew and you can get away with paying teachers less because they have the summers off.
I think education is faddish. Case in point, curriculum. Only see this time around, when the parents question it, they appear to be automatically dismissed because, silly us, what do we know? We're resistant to change.
I have to respectfully disagree with you about the education system resembling education of 1909. In 1909, students went to school and learned how to use their brains to figure things out more IMHO. Also, if they misbehaved, they were tossed out with no legal recourse. Try that now. They were expected to do their work and not have anyone do it for them. IMHO, there's no comparison.
Yes, I still would put in a 12 week summer break because again, I believe that children should not be worked like adults. As far as the expense goes, with the current economy, I don't see the feasiblity of it. I guess I'm a realist to that end. We constantly throw money at issues in some sort of hope that it will cure the ills. At what point do we say enough?
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.
). Add to the costs of bussing, building maintenance, salaries...etc...and I can see working parents having to pick up another job just to pay the ensuing property tax rise to pay for it all. 
. Well, I do come in handy for rides to the mall and money.)