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.
Well, most schools use Channel One while they are taking attendance and doing other administrative work first think in the morning during homeroom. It is NOT taking away valuable education time what so ever. I am glad my kids have a little fun in their school day vs the rigid system you seem to follow. They do learn what they need to know about other countries of the work and looking for 10 seconds at a cute blurb about when M&M's were invented has no bearing on their ability to learn. Talk about over exaggerating what goes on in the classroom for crying out loud.
Here's my concern: I don't really care that much about ten minutes' time spent in administrative duties at the beginning of the day (though I'm not excited about my first-grader sitting through school-sponsored commercials either).
I don't really care about an hour in the afternoon once a week at "Fun Friday".
I don't really care about the half-hour waiting while all the kids in the classroom get through the School Store.
But let's throw in lunchtime, recess (oh, wait, forget that one since our county cut it from the schedule), DARE, Character Education, visits from the Health Department to screen for everything from vision and hearing to obesity...We've whittled down a six hour instructional day to half that. Throw in the push for Reading and Math (since they're tested on these at the end of the year) and you've reduced science, social studies and arts education right out of the schedule.
At the elementary level class time has been pared down to a ghost of its former self. And while I can adequately teach two kids in two-three hours a day (without free TVs, though I will admit to using M&Ms in a math class once), I'm not optimistic that Mrs. Johnson in the third grade class can adequately teach ten or twelve times that many. Particularly when you take into account she has a range from Johnny who doesn't really read yet to Alice who borrows books from her sister in high school.
Well, that is what advertising is all about-of course they want things they see. Again, so what that is what the word NO is for. The minute and a half that Channel One is on has had zero influence in what my kids have bought, had or asked for. It is an absurd reason to homeschool your child.
Any one complaint about public schools is an absurd reason to homeschool your child. The only reason to homeschool is because you believe it to be a better choice at this particular time for this particular child.
OTOH, no one has said that Channel One is the only reason they're homeschooling-- merely that it is yet one more negative they're happy to avoid.
*laughing* I think about this....a kid who would says "LETS GET IT!" to everything on TV. I makes me wonder, is this the mentality of those who keep these commercials going. Something tells me if someone has an "As Seen On TV" product in their home, there are many, many more. Adults with the impulsive control, reasoning, and impressionableness of a child.
Hey now! When you have a couple of preteens with casual regard for getting laundry into the actual hamper, you, too, will discover the wonderfulness that is Oxy Clean.
Though I can say with some satisfaction I own no electronic pest control devices, no blankets with armholes, and no Shamwows. Perfect Pancakes have never Puffed in my house.
Well, as a former history teacher some of that fluff makes history real for kids. It is a very difficult subject to make fun for most kids. It is also hard for kids to relate to something that happened 300 years ago. Having a fun timeline to follow keeps things real. I used to spend a lot of time relating content to ages of people around them--this happened in your lifetime, this happened when your parents were teenagers, this happened when your grandparents were teenagers. It gave them a more concrete way to put history where it belonged. If you said that your grandparents were born around the time M&M's were invented and the stock market crash happened about that same time (I have no idea when M/M's came to be, just using this as an example) kids GOT it vs saying in the late 1920's.... .
I remember one time we were talking about the Vietnam War and the kids were starting that glassy eye "this is boring look" and I asked them when were most of your born--most of the kids had been born in the early 70's. Once they put 2 and 2 together the subject became real to them.
We use genealogy for a good bit of it, and biography for some. I've also related a fair amount of history to the age of our house, though I suppose in McMansionland that could be problematic. Still, as someone who grew up Pre-Channel One and who adores American History, I would suggest that intimate knowledge of the product line of the M&M-Mars Company is not necessary and not even particularly "fun".
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal
I guess I just was able to teach my own kids what advertising was and how it was used at a very young age. I also figured out that when they said "I want that" they really meant that it was kind of cool-not that they really wanted me to buy it. I could tell their interest in something pretty easily-varying from that's cool to I REALLY, REALLY want that. The bigger deal you make out of something like that, the more they are going to push you. As for the "we don't buy anything that they sell on tv, that is just silly. Of course you buy things that they sell on tv all the time? How are you going to explain that you won't buy the ShamWow but you will buy Tide Laundry Detergent?? You are also passing up a GREAT learning experience by not buying the ShamWow and letting them learn that just because it looks cool on TV doesn't mean it is. Oh, and just an FYI-that car windshield wand that they are advertising on TV is AWESOME!!
I think there may be an assumption that because someone would prefer to limit advertising they're not teaching how it's used and what the pros and cons are. My kids are taught to read between the lines; my daughter does so with such relish at times it's faintly obnoxious. It's an economics lesson every child would profit from. Even having learned the trends and pitfalls, though, I'm not convinced it's a necessary or desirable use of time to sit through someone else's pleas for my commerce.
And it's kind of amusing to note that we insist upon zapping commercials in our own viewing, and have passed laws limiting ads on children's TV (though admittedly those laws have been watered down over the years)-- and then we subject them at school to the same things we won't countenance at home.
Yeah....lets see...we could do something like.....We could show how Johnny ate 5 bags of M&M's a day and Suzy ate one a day, and Pat did not eat any. After one year, which student gained the most weight and with had the most radioactive, er I mean tooth decay. Which student was the healthiest, which student was the most active, which one had the most confidence, which one paid attention better in school?
I think you're probably ascribing far more power to M&Ms than they actually have. Tooth decay and obesity, maybe (though since the Health Department comes in to teach them how to brush their teeth and weighs & measures them every year I'm guessing that could be a wash)...but confidence?
We have a mantra in our house, especially around the Christmas season: "We don't buy things that they sell on TV." My kids have asked for ShamWows, those stupid toothpaste squeezers, and pixel dots. No thanks!
If you think I've ready any of your responses, IT, I haven't . I have no interest in anything you say because you are biased and ignorant regarding this topic.
Actually, what Ivory Tickler said is 100% correct.
Public Schools are required to accept every student in their district - even if that student is mentally handicapped. Many public school classrooms have several students who cannot speak English.
My daughter attends an upper-tier magnet high school that is in an economically-distressed area of the city. There is a vast divide between the top-achieving students and the bottom-enders. (In fact, there were 4 students who got perfect scores on their ACTs last year.) Still, the WHOLE SCHOOL AVERAGES may not look overly impressive, even though it's an extremely impressive school!
Basically, you're comparing apples & oranges - and that simple isn't honest.
Most (all?) students are exposed to history well before high school. Details vary by state, but a strong foundation of history is built up year after year. It's also integrated into various other lessons, when reading a historic novel, for example. My background is in history (with a heavy emphasis on public history, including facilitating and leading student-oriented visits to historic sites and museums); elementary school students are definitely learning about history.
I'm very glad they're doing so in your area and glad they're taking advantage of sites and museums, et cetera. In our area, history education through the elementary and middle school years is very spotty and self-centered, beginning (as I think I may have said on other posts) with My Neighborhood and My Community and focusing on U.S. holidays. It's not that those things are bad -- of course not -- but My Neighborhood and My Community are better handled, I think, by the family. Forgive me if I am repeating something I said already, but in the ten thousand years of human civilization (to say nothing of the two million-year history of the human species), My Neighborhood isn't very important.
Students in our district really don't get exposed to the real "story" of history until high school, and even then, world history is a one-year class. It's a genuine shame, because history is fascinating. The ways in which people solved problems of everything from daily living to astronomy is compelling, and it's a shame that it's buried under chaotic presentation, product placement, and special interests.
Quote:
In short, a box of ice cream might on the surface seem like pure fluff, but you can use it to connect the little things that make up the daily life of regular people to the larger issues facing society as a whole.
You can, and writers like Mark Kurlansky have done just that with two book-length works on salt and cod, to name just two -- to say nothing of guns, germs, and steel (Jared Diamond, for those folks who haven't read this excellent work). However, I would say that this "fluff" (to use your word) works best when it's added onto an existing framework of big-picture history that you've already taught the students. And yes, when that's done, I think it can and does act as a fascinating litmus test for everything from changing demographics to changing gender roles. In the hands of a good teacher, it can be a fascinating choice.
In the hand of a lesser one, though, the "fluff" all too easily replaces that crucial framework structure -- and unfortunately, that happens with regrettable ease. I can see you're concerned about that too when you said,
Quote:
I think stuff like that is interesting, although I would make an effort to make sure that the candy (or any product) was not itself the focus of the lesson, but rather a fun accessory to launch a more substantial discussion.
Actually, what Ivory Tickler said is 100% correct.
Public Schools are required to accept every student in their district - even if that student is mentally handicapped. Many public school classrooms have several students who cannot speak English.
My daughter attends an upper-tier magnet high school that is in an economically-distressed area of the city. There is a vast divide between the top-achieving students and the bottom-enders. (In fact, there were 4 students who got perfect scores on their ACTs last year.) Still, the WHOLE SCHOOL AVERAGES may not look overly impressive, even though it's an extremely impressive school!
Basically, you're comparing apples & oranges - and that simple isn't honest.
It works both ways, though. If public schools are not expected to claim responsibility for the failures related to children who come to school ill-equipped or (gasp!) disabled, neither can they claim responsibility for the successes of the children whose parents read to them, expose them to a variety of outside experiences, and who are exceptionally bright or academically talented to begin with. If we posit that the former are simply destined to fail, then we must also accept that the latter are simply destined to succeed.
Statistically, disregarding only the bottom of the bell curve is dishonest and bad practice.
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.
