#16492
04/30/2002 12:38 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
Ahhh, Max, if you saw my site on word pet peeves, this is one of them! Would it continue to be one of your pet peeves irregardless of whether or not Max did or did not see it (or not)? 
|
|
|
#16493
04/30/2002 12:43 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Ah, Max, ya spoilt muh fun! I wanted to see how long it would take till she figured it out. Anyways, thanks for the kind word and back atcha.
k
|
|
|
#16494
04/30/2002 2:27 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
After rereading my post today, it seems to me I was a lot harsher than I should have been. I apologize if my tone was nasty.
This is a very current concern for us. For the past three years (ever since we got reported to the school), my wife has been nagging me to move out the neighborhood. At the time, I was pretty seriously pissed. But she was actually scared. She comes from communist China where at one time people reported on each other regularly. Everyone's activities were everyone else's business. She just doesn't want to be around people like this. I sympathize with her ... in fact, I agree with her ... but I'm not ready to move yet. But every night after I'm done reading, she's still up reading brochures about places she wants to move to. And I don't want to move. Aside from this incident (and one where some pissants spray-painted "chink" on our lawn and mailbox and one kid nearly putting my daughter's eye out) and a few other very minor things, this is a pretty good neighborhood.
Besides, unless one lives in a very small community, the odds are high one will have at least a few idiot neighbors. We have only a very few idiots. We know the idiots. The idiots know us. The idiots we know are less dangerous than the idiots we don't know. (But as I keep telling my wife, I agree 100% that people who use the school system like this should get the crap kicked out of them - physically and not metaphorically.)
A few odds and ends.
True story. One of my friends in college was another strong atheist. His view of religion was even lower than mine at the time. His father was also a strong atheist. Louisville benefitted and suffered from forced busing and my friend was one of its victims. He was getting beaten up every single day at school. (I strongly sympathize with this, because until I bulked up, I endured a similar fate.) Life was horrible for him, because the school wouldn't do anything about the bullies. They had already far exceeded their quota of black detentions and suspensions and so the bullies were given less than a slap on the wrist and sent out to beat him up again and again and again. He was verging on a nervous breakdown and was considering suicide. He broke down in front of his parents finally and told them he just couldn't go back again. His parents knew what was going on, but couldn't get the school to do anything. As a last ditch effort, they got him enrolled in Walnut Street Baptist Church's school. (I can't remember the exact name, but it's owned and operated by the church.) This is a big church in Louisville and their services are (or were) broadcast in Louisville every Sunday. He finishes school there, gets a national merit scholarship, goes to UL, gets a masters, goes to work for IBM in Lexington and earned a number of patents. Now my friend thought the minister at walnut street was a hypocritical lowlife. And his view of religion kinda grates on me at times - it's not enough that he doesn't believe, but he has to continually ridicule it. All the same, in rare moments, he'll admit he's grateful to that school. They saved his life, he says. And I believe him. I don't believe they got any vouchers. But they should have, imo.
Now there is a worry here that our private schools could turn out like the Madrasses in Pakistan. That's a legitimate concern. In fact, there have been a few like that to arise here in the states already. I'm not entirely averse to having some kind of standard for what is minimally taught, although I'm not sure we would agree on what should be included in a mandatory curriculum. Take evolution and creationism. Now, I'm not too keen on people being taught creationism with "public" funds, but I don't think it's *that* harmful for kids to not be taught about evolution - especially since I can think of at least one subject that's much more important that is given short shrift. Probability. Not one kid should get out of school without knowing something about this subject. It has immediate practicality regardless of how much further one goes with it, and its knowledge has lingering consequences to the long term understanding of other subjects (like evolution). Now, I came to this conclusion a long time ago on my own, but I read somewhere in the last year or two that S. J. Gould also touts prob and stats as an important part of the young student's diet (although I don't know his view on the relative importance of this versus evolution).
For as much evolution as kids are actually likely to get in K-12, they could easily spend a few weeks on their own learning at least that much. Note: I'm not making an argument to not teach evolution in PS. My argument is that no one should be forced to learn it.
Before I say another word, though, I will confess to something. I'm entirely unprincipled. (It's not that I don't have them, it's that I don't bother articulating them. Other people have told me that's the same thing as being unprincipled and I frankly have better things to argue about, so I'll just accept up front that I'm unprincipled.) I'm not going to let my kids be denied an education while people argue over things that are on the whole irrelevant (imo). And so, I'm not at all annoyed, for example, that they have this moment of silence thing in VA schools. In fact, I'm pretty happy about it. I will be very pissed if they get rid of it - not because I want my kids praying during that time, but because there are so many more important things for these guys in the capitol to worry about (budget shortfall in some school districts) that they shouldn't be wasting a single second of time on a side issue. Also, the moment of silence is a compromise and I'm all for compromise. There's just no need to draw lines in the sand or on the school playground.
What I would like to see more of is this: "We mandate as little as possible. We facilitate as much as possible." These parents who are homeschooling and private schooling (not talking about the filthy rich we all love to hate, but the borderline people we're merely envious of) and parochial schooling actually *care* about their kids AND are willing to do something about it. They're making an effort of some kind, which is a lot more than what some parents do. (They had a math night at school a few months back. I looked around. The only families that were there were the ones that didn't need to be. Tragic.) These parents have a lot to give, not just to their own kids, but to other people's kids if they're allowed to. We shouldn't be pushing these people away, we should be asking, "How the heck can we get them to harness all that energy for us?" We should try to embrace them, not by force but (for lack of a better term at the moment) by the continued exercise of good will.
I don't believe PSes fail because of home schools or private schools. I think there are a multitude of reasons for these failures, partly bureaucratic and partly parental indifference. (Complaining a lot does not disqualify one from being indifferent.)
For the time being, I realize this is just fantasy. It's easier to lay down the law for the dissenters than it is to compromise one's principles (one's own principles being infinitely more important someone else's principles).
Well, I've got more to ramble on about, but I find I've went over my time allotment. Heck, I'm not even finished divigating!
k
|
|
|
#16495
04/30/2002 6:06 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
i don't agree with all your ideas and opinions, but, like Biker Mom, i recognize you are a real asset to your school system. Getting involved, staying involved, in one of the key factors for a child success! I am less involved now, since my kids are grown, and out of school. and my granddaughter age 18 months is still to young!
|
|
|
#16496
05/01/2002 12:17 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163 |
(It's not that I don't have them, it's that I don't bother articulating them. Other people have told me that's the same thing as being unprincipled and I frankly have better things to argue about, so I'll just accept up front that I'm unprincipled.)
My short answer to that is: "Res non verba" (you'll have to forgive any errors in my spelling of that motto)
My long answer: Your friends are wrong. I believe that when you watch someone over a long period of time you will get an idea of what their principles are, whether they articulate them or not. I would believe someone I see actively contributing to their community before someone who just professes it.
The concept of being a hypocrite can be a difficult one. I am Anglican, not Catholic, and I would never convert. I have many fundamental disagreements with some of its teachings, and yet, I attend a Catholic church and the children will go to a Catholic school. I strongly believe that religion can play a positive role in the children's lives and so I will not undermine it by expressing dissenting opinions (for about another 18 years). Children crave certainty and security; they will learn about grey soon enough. Does this count as being a hypocrite?
I sympathise you on the troubles with pinheads in your neighbourhood, but alas, they are everywhere. There is an old lady who walk her dog along our street. The children just love the dog. One day, out of the blue, she
asked, "Aren't you teaching them Canadian?"
"Yes, they speak French"
"No, I meant Canadian, you know, English."
"Well, my in-laws are all French, and they pay their taxes in Canadian dollars, so I'm pretty sure they're Canadian even though they're French." (She seemed immune to sarcasm.)
She also hated seeing French labels on packaging although Spanish on stuff she bought in the U.S. was ok.
Things like this have caused me to make a full-fledged retreat from reality (I've tried reality and found it wanting). No more newspapers. No more news on the radio. No more coming home from work to read about the latest war, scandal, or tax. Instead, it's Tonka toys, a sandbox, Thomas the Tank Engine, Caillou, and if it's raining, jumping up and down in puddles 'til we're soaked. I think reality is over-rated.
|
|
|
#16497
05/01/2002 12:23 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
#16498
05/01/2002 5:08 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
There's this book called The Manufactured Crisis whose thesis is that problems with the US school system are exaggerated by some right-wing conspiracy. I haven't read the book, yet, but I know some people who would disagree. I'm skeptical of the book on the face of it. I know lots of people who have gone to schools overseas and in the US and they say from first hand knowledge that those schools are much tougher. (All but a very few of them.) OTOH, being tough and being good are not synonymous.
I hired a guy last summer who went to an almost all black high school in Baltimore (his description). He went through school with As and decided he would go on to study computer science. He started his program at university with high hopes and what he thought was a reasonable expectation of success. Within a few months, he was squashed like a bug. (I found this info out later. It did not come out in the interview.) He dropped out, completely confused by his dismal showing. "How could this have happened?" He came to realize that his As in high school meant nothing. That he had been allowed to coast. He didn't waste much time. He went back to school shortly and got an easier degree. We hired him based on his ability to perform in this second area of expertise. Things are beginning to come together for him, it appears. But he still feels cheated.
Interjection. I normally put this kind of failure squarely at the foot of the parents. There are very few excuses for parents not to be actively involved. You don't need a PhD to read to your kids when they're young. You don't need any formal schooling to take your kids to the museum or the library. It doesn't cost any money to ask, "How was your day? Did you learn anything this week?" With my own kids, I know they get good test scores and good grades, but I want to check myself. I hand them each a book and say "Read to me." And it's a hard book. They don't have to read the whole thing, but I want to know in my bones that they're ready. OTOH, by fourth grade my parents couldn't help me with my math homework. I reckon my intern's mom couldn't help him very much with calculus. Sometimes you're almost forced to take the school's word for it when it comes to evaluating your kid. If you don't even know what questions to ask, you're kinda screwed - especially if you've bought into the "Just sit tight and listen to the experts" point of view.
New subject. I tutor at a well-known high school (or I did until this year). For the previous two years I had tutored geometry almost exclusively. Several of the students were complaining about their geometry teacher's incompetence. Now I didn't agree with what this teacher's methods, but on the whole I thought she knew her subject and she genuinely tried to teach. I conveyed the later clause to the students who insisted that they had gotten good grades in algebra the previous year (in one case the girl had gotten an A in algebra) but were now failing geometry. The problem with their thesis was that their failings in geometry were actually failings of understanding in algebra. They could *do* the geometric part, but they couldn't do the most elementary algebra. Their incompetence was far more, I thought, than could reasonably have been accounted for by a summer of carefree indolence. No, I was convinced (and am still convinced) that the person who failed them was not their geometry teacher who was "failing" them, but the algebra teacher who had given them good grades when they couldn't grasp the most elementary concepts of the subject.
Interesting note here. Several of these kids had calculators that put mine to shame. My employer bought me a nice casio. I seldom use it, but sometimes it's just really handy. I think it was about $60. These kids were using $100 and $150 calculators. But they couldn't punch in the numbers correctly and they refused to stop and think about what they were doing. For example, they didn't realize that to divide by 10, you just move a decimal over one place. Using a calculator for this is a waste of time. (I'm really busy and I *hate* wasting time.) They couldn't figure out how to do anything with negative numbers. They were oblivious to precedence.
Now these weren't dumb kids. Some were stupid to the extent that they didn't want to learn. (Close to my personal definition of stupidity.) But they could actually do the work if they wanted to. On more than one occasion, I would come in and I would have these guys staring off into space not paying attention to a word I was saying (acting, it seemed to me, like gang members or something). I would persist, going to each kid in turn and asking him a specific question. After maybe 10 minutes, they would be glancing over at the work I had laid out in the center of the table. Ten minutes later they would be actually leaning over the work and soon they would be actively involved. We almost always ended with everyone contributing.
But usually the same subset of kids would show up: girls who had jobs after school, boys who had baseball practice, kids of either gender who were out partying 3 nights a week and so didn't have time to study. I couldn't help thinking, "What the hell are their parents doing?" Eventually I figured out that for many of the kids, they were out partying 3 nights a week because their parents were out partying 3 nights a week.
Of course these are all anecdotal. A bunch of anecdotes don't prove anything. I have done some reading in education, but it's sparse and disconnected. Still, I have opinions formed from my own experiences (as a student and as a tutor and as a college teaching assistant -- assist nothing, we taught the classes -- from the experiences my kids have had, and from those of my acquaintances).
It's not all bad. There are some things that I like about what the schools are doing these days - giving kids schedule books, for example. Great idea. And in my kids' school they have some great reading stuff going on. (I recently wrote a letter to the superintendent commending the school for their reading programs. This should mean something as I'm not the kind of person to give unrestrained praise.) Probably the best thing is the sports. Now this could be just because my kids are girls. I'm not sure. But they're actually *learning* in PE class. This is astounding to me. I have never, in my entire life, ever *not one time* EVER met a single PE teacher or coach for whom I had any respect whatsoever. Not one. Not ever. I have always loathed them as among the lowest, most comtemptible pieces of human garbage on the planet. (I've come to terms with the lie that when you're attacked you should tell the teachers, but this business about people learning sportsmanship in PE class is just too much.) OTOH, my kids had a birthday party a while back and I took the girls to the basketball court. I was genuinely surprised. There was a lot of traveling, but they were playing quite well, passing, dribbling (sometimes), being good sportsmen, being supportive to their team-mates, humble in victory, noble in defeat. "Where did you guys learn to play like that?" "Oh, we learned this in PE." (Wow! I'm not even going to go into my experience at basketball in PE. The only people who learned anything about basketball were the people who already knew basketball.) I'm considering writing another letter to the school praising the PE teacher (whom I haven't even bothered to get to know), but I'm just not much into getting or giving a lot of compliments. Still, I've pretty much resolved that I'm going to talk to the principal about this. I mean - if they were screwing up, I wouldn't hesitate to go down there and ruffle feathers. It seems only fair I should be willing to tell them they've done something very well. Also, I've felt for some time that we should just fire every single PE teacher and ban the "subject" from schools. But I could re-evaluate that position, if it could be shown that things have changed in general.
Unfortunately, while I went to a lot of elementary schools back in the day, I only have first hand experience with this single, elementary school these days. Also, it is one of the better school districts in the country. So it's not generalizable. But I'm hesitant to just write it off.
It's not that they're not worthy of some criticism. It's that the amount and severity of criticism due them is vastly less than I would give to some of the elementary schools I attended. Also, they've done some great things that ameliorate and overcompensate for any failures.
k
|
|
|
#16499
05/01/2002 5:24 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
I'm a little curious. Do yer kids learn French in school?
I'm also a little envious. My kids only know English. Their mom promised to only speak Mandarin to them, but that didn't go anywhere. Caused us a lot of familial strife, but there's not a lot we can do about it now.
I agree. There are a few idiots most any place you live. And really we don't have that many of them near us. But, like idiots everywhere, they really stand out. That's why I vote we stay. OTOH, she just found out yesterday she's losing her job, so maybe she'll give it a rest for a while.
Are you saying that you feel hypocritical BECAUSE you are an Anglican attending Catholic school and sending your kids to a Catholic school?
k
|
|
|
#16500
05/01/2002 11:36 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163 |
Do yer kids learn French in school?
No, they're too young yet (39 months and 20 months) but we speak French to them about 80% of the time and with the advent of DVD's, we can put most movies on in French. We also switched from cable to satellite tv last December so we could get more French channels. We read both English books and French books to them as well.
Language is a funny issue here as you might know. In Quebec you can send your children to French school without any restrictions, but must have English language rights to send them to school in English. The reverse it true elsewhere in Canada. Because I was educated in English and am not Catholic and my wife is both French and Catholic, we can choose any of the four school boards.
We chose the French board as opposed to a French immersion program at the English board because then they will have friends that will speak French away from school as well as at school. They'll never have problems learning English.
I am sorry to hear about your wife's impending job loss. I hope she is quickly able to find another job she likes.
Are you saying that you feel hypocritical BECAUSE you are an Anglican attending Catholic school and sending your kids to a Catholic school?
No, I don't feel that way, but the opinion has been expressed to me.
|
|
|
#16501
05/02/2002 12:47 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
, but must have English language rights to send them to school in English. The reverse it true elsewhere in Canada.
You need permission to learn English? (Or French elsewhere?)
Since I play ethics by ear, or as I go along, I never worry about where I get ideas from. For example, being raised a Baptist, I've read quite a bit of it. And I still read it on occasion. Some of my atheist buddies consider me a so-so atheist (a likely back-slider) because I would defend The Good Book on occasion. But a few of them get it. (I'm particularly fond of Ecclesiastes.)
It's odd to me that anyone would consider your behavior remotely hypocritical. Wisdom is where you find it.
I'm reminded of a letter I once read from Benjamin Franklin to his daughter who was considering quiting her church because her preacher was a hypocrite. He admonished her to continue going since just as clean water can come from the dirty ground, so can wise words come from hypocrite. Something like that. I don't remember the exact wording.
Also, I remember reading of a stir George Washington caused during a stay in Canada when he attended a local Catholic mass. Apparently his troops thought this was pretty shady, but GW responded with some pretty conciliatory language that I should have remembered and didn't.
k
|
|
|
#16502
05/02/2002 1:00 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
They had a science night at the school last night so I took the opportunity to pull the principal aside and tell her what a good job I thought the gym teachers were doing. Gave her the one minute synopsis, too, of why it was utterly unexpected to me. She introduced me to the gym teacher (the only of my kids' teachers I've never met) and I complimented him in person.
I'm still not ready to change my mind on the general case, though. One decent guy doesn't compensate for a boatload of buttheads. The local school board is facing budget cuts and they're thinking of cutting the planetariums that some of the schools maintain. I've been sitting on a letter I wrote a long time ago that suggests it would be far better to ditch PE classes. I stopped short of sending it last time because the recipients would just toss it aside as kooky.
OTOH, if the general case is true, and PE classes are no longer the training grounds for bullies that they once were, then it would obviously be worthwhile to keep them over the planetariums. I don't know. It's a pretty big leap for me to think that IN GENERAL, kids really are learning good sportsmanship in PE. For the past 30 years I've been convinced that good sportsmanship was an oxymoron.
k
|
|
|
#16503
05/02/2002 1:07 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156 |
You need permission to learn English? (Or French elsewhere?)
In Quebec, yes. Maybe we should get belM in here for the details. I think it's easier to get your kid into a French school (not the same as a French immersion school) outside of Quebec than to get into an English school in Quebec. I'm trying to find information on it for my old province (Manitoba) but can't seem to find anything. I had the impression you didn't have to be a "native" French speaker to go to French schools in Manitoba. Let me look into it further.
Edit: I realized that I left half of your question unanswered. You don't need permission to learn French as a second language (ie. one class per day) or even go to French Immersion schools, but to go to a school where life happens in French and all the kids there speak it as a FIRST language is a different story. Those schools are different than French Immersion schools, where the kids' first language is English and they are learning French as a second language.
|
|
|
#16504
05/02/2002 1:26 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156 |
I managed to locate the information at the Division Scolaire Franco-Manitobaine (of course). Looks like you either have to have French as a first language, or have been instructed for at least four years in French, to go to a Francophone school in Manitoba. So a kid with no French at all couldn't do it - quite understandably, since the other kids in that school would have learned French right from the womb - but if you lived in Quebec for some years and your kid went to French school there, or if you had them in a private school where they taught in French, then they could go there.
They do, in Manitoba, have a 50/50 program where some classes are taught in French, some in English, resulting in a 50/50 split, and any kid can enroll in that program. Mind you, they have similar programs in Ukrainian and German, too.
|
|
|
#16505
05/02/2002 2:13 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Ah, okay. That sounds reasonable.
k
|
|
|
#16506
05/02/2002 3:14 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163 |
Greetings:
The requirements Bean articulated are roughly the same across Canada. I think it has to do with a provision in the constitution that services must be provided in the "minority" language where numbers warrant.
In Ontario:
English Public: Anyone. French classes start in kindergarten or grade 1. Immersion and bilingual programs available from kindergarten on.
French: Mother tongue must be French and at least one parent must have been educated in Canada in French.
In Quebec: Reverse the Ontario case except that they don't have English immersion and they do not teach English before grade 4. Some francophone parents to a case to the Quebec Court of Appeals (think State Supreme Court) to argue for their rights to have their children learn English. They argued that the children's futures were being limited by not being allowed to learn English. If you, as an American, moved to Quebec, you would not be allowed to send your children to English school because you did not go to school in English in Canada. French parents would get around restrictions by sending one child to private English school for one year and thereby get the right to send their siblings to English public schools.
Très compliqué, n'est-ce pas?
|
|
|
#16507
05/02/2002 4:44 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156 |
I think it has to do with a provision in the constitution that services must be provided in the "minority" language where numbers warrant. I found it in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Before that, and especially because education is under provincial jurisdiction, I don't think anything was guaranteed. For example, in Manitoba, in the beginning, there was French education, and the school board had a Catholic and Protestant Branch. The repeal in 1890 of the Manitoba schools act meant that the Catholic (and usually French) schools no longer qualified for government funding. Then in 1916 French-language education was abolished in Manitoba altogether. Tiny steps toward re-instating French were made on and off until 1970 when French and English were given equal status in Manitoba schools. When we learned about this (in French immersion school) it was always cited as one of the reasons that there was French-English animosity in Manitoba. BTW, all those dates weren't just in my head. (It's been too long.) I got them from http://www.franco-manitobain.org/sfm/livret/en003.html.
|
|
|
#16508
06/12/2002 9:18 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
I had an interesting and extremely heated argument with a few friends the other day. I like arguing with these guys, because at the end we can each just agree that the other is an asshole and then go out and have a few beers together (over which libation we generally find some other thing about which to argue).
One of them was arguing that schools are just completely screwed up these days - utterly worthless. At first I thought he was playing advocatus diaboli, or maybe just yanking our chains, but I gradually came to understand that he was serious.
There are a number of things I think have actually improved over the years. First, teaching seems to be a lot more organized than I remember. Students where I'm at get daily planners and the planners are checked. Second, and probably more important, I think school, etc. are coming to realize the importance of parents in kids' educations. (I've always thought the debate over homeschooling was silly, really. The question isn't whether good parents homeschool, but only whether they do it full time. Of course, all good parents homeschool in the general sense - the important sense.) Thirdly, and this is a big one for me, I think the awareness of and handling of bullying is improving. (In fact, everyone else present - all over 6" tall - didn't think this was an important thing at all.)
I'm ambivalent over technology. I think it's a great thing, but that there are other things more important. Further, I have reservations about technology when its place in the curriculum hasn't been well-established. Also ambivalent over testing. I'm actually in favor of standardized testing - but I think the number of tests taken is ridiculous- one a year should be plenty.
Ah, boogers. I've gotta go. Haven't even gotten to the meaty part yet.
k
|
|
|
#16509
06/13/2002 5:34 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
TFF - Oh, you big tease!
You mentioned that schooling seemed to be more organized than before! This is for a number of reasons. Testing, testing and more testing (as you pointed out) needs results! These structures are gearded toward achieving these results. They also serve to hold the teachers accountable for not achieving these results. Structures keep the children busy and have less time for *bullying, etc. They are designed to move from one subject to another quickly so as to keep up with kids short attention spans (so *nicely designed by the tellie). Teachers planners were a blessing when I worked as a substitute teacher, almost as if the need for a substitute had been anticipated (note sarcasm there). There were some classes that didn't have them. They were the "looser" students, but you could tell they enjoyed learning, unlike the ones that followed strict structures. The teacher who didn't have them usually had their s**t together both socially (with students) and daily teaching requirements.
I think two tests a year help identify problems a little (but significantly) sooner...
...are coming to realize the importance of parents in kids' educations
The one's that truly do may be making a bigger effort, but I doubt if the actual number of realizers are increasing. Maybe.
|
|
|
#16510
06/13/2002 8:10 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Not trying to be a tease. Had to rush off and now I can't recall exactly where I was headed. I remember the real conversation starting with the bullying thing and then led onto the other stuff. (Once again they started on that baloney about kids learning "sportsmanship" in PE and I just was not going to let that slide without comment. I don't know that teachers actually do anything about bullying these days, but at least people are aware of the problem.)
I don't have an opinion of teacher's planners. As I was teaching in college I never used one. What I was referring to mainly was the planners they give the students and continually remind the students to write in ("everyone take out your planners *now* and write down the assignment on the board - XYZ, that means you too!") Back to the teacher's planners - I think the better teachers have a good plan, but know how to improvise. They don't need a whole lot of detail.
The testing thing is good and bad. I can see the need for, say, one real, standardized test per year (and even that borders on excessive). But, jeez, the kids sometimes get like three tests in one year. A special reading test, an SOL test (standards of learning), and some kind of aptitude test. The homeschoolers I mentioned previously were not homeschooling because of religion, btw (well, I don't *think* they were). I think they were particularly annoyed at all the tests the kids had to take. I think there view is that teachers are forced into teaching to the test. I don't think that's true in general, but I think it's what a lot of people believe. And I suppose it could be true in some subject areas (some of the questions on the VA history SOL are inane, e.g. "What year was tobacco introduced to Virginia?" and the answers are several choices spaced two years apart.) In our particular case, I like having an SOL as it provides a balance to the very nebulous-sounding "basic school" philosophy that our school uses. (Not 'basic school' as in the three Rs type, but basic school as expounded by the Cargnegie institute. It's a good thing, imo, but very nebulous.) So I like the idea of testing as a balance to nebulousness. I'm not sure I like the idea of testing to ensure accountability. Or, if they're going to use it that way, then I think parents need to be held accountable.
Whatever problems exist today (real or imaginary) I think are exacerbated by parents not demonstrating the proper interest. Interesting thing a few weeks back (or maybe it was a few months ago - time is a blur for me), they had a math night at the school. There were a *lot* of empty tables - in fact, most were empty. Most of the kids who were there did not need to be there. And most of the parents who were there, were also there at the previous gatherings on science, math, etc. (I will say that the science night was a little better.) Some parents convey to their kids that this stuff is important and others may or may not give lip service to it, but regardless don't seem to be really interested in demonstrating to their kids that it's important to them.
Another really good thing: at the high school level it used to be an infrequent thing for high school students to take college courses. I've noticed a pretty fair number of HS students taking college courses in differential equations, physics, etymology, history, writing, debate and a few other things. This is a good trend, I think - particularly the diversification in subject matter.
I'm not sure what you mean by "looser" students. Do you mean students who are less ridid in their learning strategies? Or were you refer to "loser" students in an ironic manner?
In general, the best classes I had in K-12 were free format - the "looser" the better. I heard a statistic a while back about testing they had done on prisoners - turns out that some outrageous percentage of them (like 70% or better) were kinesthetic learners. Which might explain why so many denizens of our prison system did poorly in school. A looser format might allow people to learn in their own way. I dunno. It also might let them goof off more. I remember teaching a class to 8th (or maybe 9th graders) once. Everyone was very interested except one student who just couldn't keep her mouth shut. It was amazing. Teacher never tried to put the student in line. I didn't realize it at the time, but the county had no procedures for kicking students out of class. Amazing how a single individual was allowed to disrupt an entire class.
k
|
|
|
#16511
06/13/2002 9:32 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
My use of the term "looser" was not at all continuing with my history here of *toying with the spelling of 'loser'.Looser structures, as you indicated here... "I think the better teachers have a good plan, but know how to improvise."...are the ones that inspire students and instill the ability to adjust, adapt and learn in different settings. They ask more questions because they are challenged in more ways than regurgitating "The year tobacco was introduced in Virginia". They are being exposed to useful concepts at an earlier age. 'Competition' and 'stress from testing' aren't two of those useful concepts... 
|
|
|
#16512
06/14/2002 12:39 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
I agree that some of the Virginia standards are questionable. However, the state regularly examines its standards, and they are changed periodically.
I'm going to paste here my general philosophy of music education for anyone here to examine and respond to. I have to have it polished as part of a professional portfolio (a huge undertaking to be completed by July 24th). I offer this philosophy in hopes that any of you may react to problems with it that you identify. No thin skin here. I've given a lot of thought to the writing of it as the introduction to the portfolio, but it is a starting place. And I do welcome reaction. Here it is:
Philosophy of Teaching
Theresa Ranson
June 9, 2002
Education begins from the time an infant socially interacts with parents, relatives, and
friends to the end of conscious life. Formal education builds upon the sensibility each child has
developed during these social interactions. Students come into the classroom expectant, nervous,
sometimes belligerant, but each having the shared hope that the place into which he enters will
provide something new of interest, something reassuring of safety, and somewhere conducive to
friendship. It is in the control of the teacher to provide an environment that is physically rich in
ambience, one that speaks to each of the senses, and one that is original, pleasant, and
comfortable. The physical environment of the classroom requires careful planning by the teacher in
order for materials to be easily available, for visual aids to be well in view for each student, for
students with special needs to receive consideration, and for the execution of speedy room
rearrangement to be possible when needed.
Perhaps most important in the creation of an environment that students welcome is the
teacher's design of situations in which students may interact in cooperative learning groups.
Vygotsky (Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological
processes), in his brief but brilliant career, documented studies in the early twentieth century in
which students learned from each other in a process he called scaffolding, a process that moved
beyond the traditional lecture format. I believe that the essence of his work, the scaffolding of
knowledge shared among learners, has developed into current studies in the advantages of
cooperative learning groups. When cooperative learning activities are developed with attention to
group cohesiveness, to authentic learning outcomes, and to levels of challenge that are interesting
yet achievable, students learn more. These activities require a great deal of preplanning by the
teacher, but student involvement is generated and learning becomes more widespread for all class
members.
My own field is elementary music education. The Virginia State Department of Education
dictates music standards of learning to be taught at each of the elementary grade levels. Broadly
included in the standards are singing, dancing, playing of instruments, and reading of notation.
These standards provide the framework upon which I build my educational goals. I believe musical
performance of student work is the best possible motivator for student attainment of displaying the
standards in action, and I provide numerous opportunities for my students to sing, dance, drum, and
play recorders to a variety of audiences.
The best single method of documenting student achievement I have come across is use of
the videotaped performance, both as a means for students to examine and evaluate their own work
and as a way for them to critique and learn from past student performances. I have witnessed
sometimes stunning growth in my students' performances that I credit entirely to their analysis of
past performances, their setting of their own performance goals to equal or surpass past student
achievements, and their desire to receive praise from their audiences.
Students respond well when teachers make connections between units of study and the
world that exists beyond the school yard. In music, these connections are easier to make when the
music comes out of the student's contemporary culture. However, it is by far more difficult when
music is foreign to the student's experience. It is part of my responsibility to help students find
bridges between the music of the past and their own experience. In kindergarten, for instance,
students listen to Chopin's two piano concertos. My task is to help learners make the bridge
between Chopin's world of Romanticism and the sensitive one of their own limited experience.
However, these young children are very much in tune with their feelings and can readily identify a
variety of feelings and situations that have aroused them. The bridge is the heart and its language,
Chopin's music illustrating deep emotions typical of the Romantic period as one side of the bridge,
and the child's own experience of emotions forming the other. Teachers do well to take subjects
immediately out of the classroom into the living world and into the world of the past in order to help
students flesh out subjects and to make them real.
Although I offer a wide range of listening experiences to my students, I place most
emphasis upon student performance itself. I believe students learn most by doing, particularly
students who have problems in processing information strictly by reading and listening. I also
believe students learn most by duplicating actual performance habits of professional musicians.
Any technique I either read about or witness in the performances of professional musicans that may
be practiced in the classroom, my students will emulate. Again, this strategy builds the connection
between the classroom and the outside world. The two worlds become unified.
My mission is to develop and enhance my students' musical skills and abilities, based in
the state standards for each level, but, more important, to increase their awareness that music and
the lives of musicians are part of the fabric of our world's way of widening and deepening
communication of the mind, the heart, and the soul through an often complex, but always emotional
aural medium. The ways in which these children learn to communicate the message of the song, of
the drumming routine, of the dance, of the performance of a recorder melody to their audiences
parallel the methods of professional musicians. The beams and braces students place in the
scaffolding of what is communicated from individual, ensemble, or chorus to audience and from
musician to musician become part of the structure students will inculcate in many, if not most, of
their future musical communications inside and outside of the classroom. We hear, we think, we
feel, we perform, we hear performances, but, finally, we are connected to each other through the
mystical workings of music, the universal language and one of the ultimate emotional bridges
in communications among people.
|
|
|
#16513
06/14/2002 12:54 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
i am in awe. One phrase particulary struck me.
I also believe students learn most by duplicating actual performance habits of professional musicians.
i have a friend, who says, for him a career in science began in HS, when in biology, a teacher greeted each student at the door of the lab, and had them don lab coats..
"clothes maketh the man" was never truer, than in that class for him. in a lab coat, he could see himself persuing a life of science.. putting on the lab coat let him try putting on the career, and he liked the fit.
the effect might not be the same on everyone, but i suspect, doing what you do, letting children "try on" careers is a wonderful thing. letting them see in them selves a possiblity.. but even if only one child in 1000 is so effected, what an effect!
|
|
|
#16514
06/14/2002 2:55 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
lovely by each of the two preceding posters.
|
|
|
#16515
06/14/2002 9:20 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
If you're including this as part of a portfolio, I think you need a few (very minor) edits.
It's not something I would write (too mushy), but I enjoy your relaxed, semi-conversational style. It strikes me as very sincere. It's a nice piece. You might consider submitting it for publication.
I agree with the gist of the emphasis, too. Music and performing arts are about communication. (Theoretically, if students learned in PE classes what PE teachers claimed they were learning in them, that too would be at least partly about communication.) I'm not sure how much data is really available, but I know there has been some work done showing a correlation between musical training and mathematical ability. Further, as I mentioned previously, recent studies show our prisons to be populated largely with people who are not analytical learners, but kinesthetic learners who just might be reached by this. Not that you *should* necessarily mention these (and certainly not without looking into a bit yourself). I'm not really sure what my point is, except that these various mechanisms for communicating might be related - individually in our brains and collectively in our society.
I don't know. Anyway, thanks for submitting that. It's good.
k
|
|
|
#16516
06/14/2002 5:26 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
directly after my post, keiva posts
lovely by each of the two preceding posters.
trick 1,keiva tries to show that we are in agreement or somehow linked.
he is free to, and post his own opinions all the time,, but he is still using his tricks..
his wife tell me i should be thankful and happy that keiva is so nice to me, no one is nice to her. she doesn't understand why i don't want to be sweet talk to by him..
but i am an adult, and i reserver the right to chose for myself who my friend are. and i dislike saccarine post that are intended to mislead. i am not fooled by this sweet talk, don't you be either.
|
|
|
#16517
06/16/2002 8:11 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
kids short attention spans (so *nicely designed by the tellie)
I'm not sure. I like television. I especially enjoy watching television with my kids. But it's a very different thing for us than it "may be" for others.
detour=>
I saw a report the other day which I'm inclined to accept because it agrees with both my prejudice and my experience. They examined children who watched violent TV shows and then tested the kids about how they felt about using violence to resolve issues. Unsurprisingly, the kids who watch voilent programs were more likely to think it was okay to initiate violence (compared to the control group). OTOH, they repeated the experiment, but this time they had parents talk to the kids about the violence they saw. Miraculously, the kids who saw the violent programs were no more likely to think initiation of violence was okay than those who did not see violent programs.
<= end of detour
I've been convinced for a very long time based only on my intuition about it and prior to having read anything on the subject, that much of what kids learn whether directly (acceptability of violence) or indirectly (short attention span) is the failure of the parent to interact with the kids regarding what they watch. I watch lowly shows all the time with my kids and they have very long attention spans and stay out of trouble at school. I've also played some really violent video games with them - still no problem. I'm not passing a judgement here on people who elect not to let their kids watch crap. I sympathize with them and am grateful (as a member of the larger society) that they are actually thinking the problem through and making an effort to do the right thing by their kids.
In general I get a lot of out watching tv with my kids and talking with them about what they see. And I think they're getting a lot out of it as well.
When my youngest was 4 I took her to a rated R movie (that one about the last dragon where sean connery does the voice - don't remember on what basis it took that rating). I've even made a point of watching Howard Stern and Jerry Springer with them - not on a regular basis, but enough to let them see that part of the world. While we're watching, I'm commenting "Do you think that was a good thing to do? Was there something else they might have done instead? Is that solving a problem?"
A good argument could be made, I think, that it would be better to teach kids these things from, say, the great classics of literature. I'm reading W&P as I mentioned previously (and this really could be the greatest novel ever written), but I think my kids would have been too bored by this - even the condensed version - when I started the process. (Just a guess.) Also, people read these stories all the time and don't learn from them. I *do* love this book - the sycophantic prince vasili who weasel's private gain from other's misfortunes, the gossipy Anna Mihalovna who uses rumor and innuendo to sew discord (but always with the most noble intentions, she believes, but really to maintain her position in society), the young rostov who keeps imagining himself a great hero on the battlefield, but habitually fails to live up to his ideal of himself (but then reinvents his failure into success when he tells his story), the bungling Pierre who wants to do the right thing, but is so incompetent from a youth squandered in dissipation that he can't get it right ... well, I love this, but it's so abstract sounding ... to a child. I mean adults can read this stuff and say, "Oh, yes, I get it! This is marvelous!" But then they go right out and act like Prince Vasili or Anna Mihalovna. That's because in real life, the process of embracing evil is gradual. (I think Tolstoy has this right over Dostoyevsky.) (My 9 yo asked me last year to read A Tale of Two Cities to her, one of my favorite books, but I've held off partly because I don't want her to suddenly get bored with it - and I want her to really get into the characters.)
I can watch the Springer stuff with them and they see it immediately and they understand in their bones. "Daddy, he's very bad." "Well, he's not acting very charming is he?" "No. Not at all."
Having a few examplae non gratiae is arguably a convenience for "reality-based" parenting, but why is it necessary to have 24 hours of continuous crap? And for that I offer no explanation. The vast majority of what is on is not stuff I find remotely entertaining.
I'm reminded of an incident with my oldest. I used to get home really, really late. If my kids were up, one would lay in front of me facing the tv on the couch, while the other would lay atop. On this occasion, the youngest had already gone to bed and the oldest (maybe 6 to 10 at the time) and I were watching Beavis and Butthead about midnight or so. It was one where they go to see a medium. She looks in her crystal ball and says, "I see you are not ze A students." BnB are not impressed. "And I see you are not ze B students." BnB are slightly alarmed. "And I see you are not ze C students!" BnB are utterly amazed now. My daughter turns her head to me and says, "Daddy, I love Beavis and Butthead, but nobody's that stupid. Not really." Poor kid. I didn't have the heart to tell her.
Aside from the refutation of bad examples, though, I think the television has helped my kids in their vocabularies. They learned a lot of made-up words from their mom. The freezer is "the frozen place" and the shade is "the shadow place." That's fine, but they failed to learn common words like "drapes" and "cupboard" (really, no kidding) and so forth. Playing games with them has helped a lot in this, but also I think they've learned a heck of a lot of common vocabulary by watching television.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm uncertain, but my bias is to think that it isn't that television is the culprit by itself - it's that people are using the tv like a baby-sitter. Kids need interaction. TV by itself just isn't going to be able to do this (well, not now anyway).
k
|
|
|
#16518
07/01/2002 12:59 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 475
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 475 |
I was badly failed by the hotchpotch bodgeup they call the LEA as were most of the special needs children that were shunted around units with me. I honestly believe in fully comprehensive schools, with no child being excluded from any particular school based purely on their personal religion, wealth, or academic achievement. Having been to a church school, a hospital unit, a selective school, a girls school and an inner city comp I think they all could have been improved by a little bit of diversity of intake. Schools need to be place where kids learn skills like reading or woodwork, surely, not religion or their 'place' in life. Children who could achieve high academic standards can be failed in the comprehensive system by the scarcity of resources and the absence of similarly able peers. Conversely, kids in special interest schools can be failed by their exclusion from the rest of the world which, lets face it, they're going to have to live in eventually. I think if we stop categorising children at five or seven or eleven they might surprise us with what they can achieve, and what they can make of the world once it is in their hands. Many of the kids I went to school with left with no qualifications and now are rotting away on the dole or in the factory, including myself. The world is losing out on the contributions they could have made given equality of opportunity. Pool the resources I say.
|
|
|
|
|
