Obama's School Plan

[MyDesktopBroke]

Link, (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090927/ap_on_re_us/us_more_school) although I'm sure you all follow politics enough to know what he has suggested, which is long school days in a longer school year.

What are your opinions on this? I think the idea is missing the problem completely. I think the American school system needs a fundamental change if it's not working, not just more of the same curriculum that isn't doing a good enough job. I think American children are not doing well in school due to domestic issues and a non productive social attitude toward learning. I won't get into this because it could be its own thread.

I remember seeing this story on NBC a while ago, and they compared the several schools in America that already skip summer vacation to regular ones. The study showed that the results were minimal at best - small enough to be negligible.

[CorvusCamenarum]

I think American children are not doing well in school due to domestic issues and a non productive social attitude toward learning.

I think this right here sums it up quite nicely.

[Eraserhead]

This sounds like a solid idea, both extending the school day and the school year seem to be pretty important.

That said (source (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13825184)):

The country that tut-tuts at Europe’s mega-holidays thinks nothing of giving its children such a lazy summer. But the long summer vacation acts like a mental eraser, with the average child reportedly forgetting about a month’s-worth of instruction in many subjects and almost three times that in mathematics. American academics have even invented a term for this phenomenon, “summer learning loss”. This pedagogical understretch is exacerbating social inequalities. Poorer children frequently have no one to look after them in the long hours between the end of the school day and the end of the average working day. They are also particularly prone to learning loss. They fall behind by an average of over two months in their reading. Richer children actually improve their performance.

Disadvantaged kids, on the whole, make no progress in the summer, Alexander said. Some studies suggest they actually fall back.

Someone isn't understanding what is going on here.

[AngryApple]

The article says that US students spend more time in school than the students who outperform the US, but they have more days in school. So they have shorter days but have a longer year? I'd be fine with that. I'd also be fine with a long math class period as long as Obama doesn't add 3 hours to the school day.

[Ugg]

Hmmm...

Do longer school years make more sense? Absolutely and I think the number of days a student spends in school should be federally mandated. Too many groups cry about how a longer year with longer winter, spring and fall breaks will impact business but they're the same ones who scream bloody murder at uneducated kids...

We also need to get rid of NCLB. All it's doing is producing little robots who are only capable of regurgitation. At the same time the last thing we need is more 70s feel good schlock.

One test every 3 years is more than enough. I also feel that the US needs to move away from its "University or Die" approach. Not everyone is meant to obtain a BA and those who choose not to attend university are woefully underserved. There needs to be vocational/technical training for real before one leaves high school. A dual or triple track system like many European countries have is much more likely to produce happy people rather than the US system which tries to force every round peg through square holes.

[MacNut]

If kids don't learn anything now what is to say that a longer school year will do any good. All it will do is pay the teachers more to try to teach kids with no attention span.

[Eraserhead]

If kids don't learn anything now what is to say that a longer school year will do any good.

Read the quotes in my above post from the Economist. People who work in schools have said that kids forget stuff over the summer in UK schools, and we only have 6 weeks off.

[MacNut]

One reason for summer vacation in the US is that summers get hot in most of the country. A majority of schools don't have AC. The cost to cities and town's to "summerize" schools would be high.

I don't know if budgets can afford a full year season. A lot of schools are cutting back the school day because of money issues.

[Desertrat]

As usual, the Obaminator is wrong in his notions about solutions.

If more hours is the big deal, riddle me this: How come my generation seemed to do pretty well with school from 8AM to 3PM and nine months a year?

And we had pocket knives--for whittlng or mumble-d-peg, not stabbing somebody.

I graduated from high school in 1951.

A generation before me, the deal was ten years of public school, not twelve. Yet, my mother as a single parent got her PhD in Psychology (1942) and earned international recognition.

More hours? Just more time of not learning what they're already not learning. Warehousing and baby-sitting...

'Rat

[takao]

Read the quotes in my above post from the Economist. People who work in schools have said that kids forget stuff over the summer in UK schools, and we only have 6 weeks off.

yet finland is, afaik, plenty ahead in studies with 3 months off


in austria we have the same with "we have to reduce holidays" all over the place and then if you point out that plenty of countries do way better with more time off for the kids you get puzzled faces

[rhsgolfer33]

So I assume the federal government will be funding this entirely for every state then? In California we've already had problems properly funding the amount of school we already have, let alone another couple hours a day and more school weeks in a year. After NCLB I think I'd rather leave decisions related to education up to individual states.

After attending an above average California public high school in a middle class area I've come to the decision that I'll be taking a pass on sending my child (if ever decide to have one) to public high school. Not because of the teachers, administrators, or curriculum, mainly because of the extreme lack of drive, focus on education, and poor quality of parenting of the vast majority of students there.

[NT1440]

So I assume the federal government will be funding this entirely for every state then? In California we've already had problems properly funding the amount of school we already have, let alone another couple hours a day and more school weeks in a year. After NCLB I think I'd rather leave decisions related to education up to individual states.


First off, doesn't California have trouble with just about everything money wise?

Second, why would you be apposed to a federal level change if it was actually done right? NCLB was just another bill that no one really read and it passed because the Bush era method of giving a patriotic name and casting any who appose as being unpatriotic. I don't want states controlling something as vital as education as it should be the same quality across the board. I don't want souther state kids to listen to Creation drivel as if it stands on the same legs as evolution, which is sure to happen in many states.

I've always felt that certain things are just to big or important to give the states the freedom to royal screw them up.

[Zombie Acorn]

Colleges typically get more time off than high schools and the US is doing fine in that area (aside from costs). The mandated curriculum is **** in high school and that is all that the teachers seem to care about. There is no "learning" agenda, they just want to push as many kids on to the next grade without leaving anyone behind, not to mention we can't fire teachers effectively.

The parents are also an issue, if I came back home with anything lower than a B on my report card I would contemplate not going home at all. I remember one time I got a disciplinary check on the back of my report card (5th grade) and I thought I would be smart and simply throw away the report card before I got home. Turns out the teacher called ahead to tell my parents about the issue. Yeh.. that one didn't end well. :eek:

[NT1440]

Why would you want to fire a teacher? As it is there is a major shortage of them, I'd rather get them the training they need to become an effective teacher.

[Zombie Acorn]

Why would you want to fire a teacher? As it is there is a major shortage of them, I'd rather get them the training they need to become an effective teacher.

Personal example: teacher beat the hell out of me because she was off her meds that day. Brought me to the principals office with blood running all over me and thought I was the one who was getting in trouble (she was literally out of her mind).

She still works there.

[NT1440]

Personal example: teacher beat the hell out of me because she was off her meds that day. Brought me to the principals office with blood running all over me and thought I was the one who was getting in trouble (she was literally out of her mind).

She still works there.

Well obviously THAT kind of person needs to be fired, but those cases are in the extreme minority. I thought u were saying teachers with failing students need to be fired, hence my post.

[bradl]

As usual, the Obaminator is wrong in his notions about solutions.

If more hours is the big deal, riddle me this: How come my generation seemed to do pretty well with school from 8AM to 3PM and nine months a year?

And we had pocket knives--for whittlng or mumble-d-peg, not stabbing somebody.

I graduated from high school in 1951.

A generation before me, the deal was ten years of public school, not twelve. Yet, my mother as a single parent got her PhD in Psychology (1942) and earned international recognition.

More hours? Just more time of not learning what they're already not learning. Warehousing and baby-sitting...

'Rat

While you're at it, riddle yourself this:

If 8am - 3pm works for you, why is it now that kids are spending less time in school nowadays compared to when I was in school (graduated in 1992) and when you were in school?

My elementary school went from 9am - 3pm. Junior High/Middle school from 7:45am - 2:20pm. High school? 7:50pm - 2:50pm. The school district where I live now has the kids there from 8pm to roughly 2:30, but the periods where they don't have school, they want the kids off the school grounds. Yes. Gone from there. They don't want them there because for the time they have an open period, they aren't 'active students of the school'.

Oh yes.. this year was actually the first year they had them start before September, adding on 3 weeks, and parents were up in arms about that, because it interfered with 'vacation time'. Add on top of that that curriculums were cut to focus on core basics (which is a farce, and I can say so, being the son of a H.S. principal), and the result is that the kids are robbed of what little fun they can have at school.


In short, what worked for you and I, isn't working for parents nowadays, and what the parents want isn't working for the school systems and learning systems that this country has. Less time is very disproportionate to quality time. What is needed is quality time and quantity time in school and learning.

BL.

[miloblithe]

As usual, the Obaminator is wrong in his notions about solutions.

If more hours is the big deal, riddle me this: How come my generation seemed to do pretty well with school from 8AM to 3PM and nine months a year?

And we had pocket knives--for whittlng or mumble-d-peg, not stabbing somebody.

I graduated from high school in 1951.

A generation before me, the deal was ten years of public school, not twelve. Yet, my mother as a single parent got her PhD in Psychology (1942) and earned international recognition.

More hours? Just more time of not learning what they're already not learning. Warehousing and baby-sitting...

'Rat

So, your indicator of achievement is getting a PhD? Far more people earn PhDs now than did in your generation. So does that mean you think that high school education is better now?

[MacNut]

So, your indicator of achievement is getting a PhD? Far more people earn PhDs now than did in your generation. So does that mean you think that high school education is better now?The education standards have not gotten lower, the problem is that kids don't want too learn anymore. They would rather text or drink. Technology while helping make life easier has also made it harder for kids to learn.

[Desertrat]

bradl, from what you're saying, it's far worse than I've read about.

But I'll stand by my notions of 8-3 and 9 months. After all, there ARE certain minima.

FWIW, my grandparents started teaching school in 1905, and my mother taught Psych for a number of years before her Fulbright work.

Hmmm. As the offspring of a school principal, that means all the teachers knew, and held you to a higher standard. How many times did you catch flack about reflecting poorly on your father (mother?) :D

No, milo, all it means is that it's not "longer hours and more days" that determine the quality of an education. Individual and familial motivations + curriculum do tend to have a modest amount to do with it, I think. :)

'Rat

[NT1440]

The education standards have not gotten lower, the problem is that kids don't want too learn anymore. They would rather text or drink. Technology while helping make life easier has also made it harder for kids to learn.

Oh us whipper snappers :rolleyes:

Have kids EVER been excited to be forced to be in a learning environment for 6+ hours a day? You make it seem like there was a point where school was a child's #1 on places they'd like to be.

[MacNut]

Oh us whipper snappers :rolleyes:

Have kids EVER been excited to be forced to be in a learning environment for 6+ hours a day? You make it seem like there was a point where school was a child's #1 on places they'd like to be.They never had a reason not to pay attention like they do now. I never liked school, but I didn't have anything to occupy my time like kids do now.

My mom was a teacher for 30 years and she said every year the kids would get worse and the attentions spans would get shorter. School has become a daycare not a place to learn. You can't teach kids that don't care to learn no matter what kind of curriculum you throw at them.

[NT1440]

They never had a reason not to pay attention like they do now. I never liked school, but I didn't have anything to occupy my time like kids do now.

Thats entirely on our discipline structure. They are definitely too soft on kids, mainly because of sue happy individuals who ruined it for everything.

[Luigi239]

As a sophomore in high school, I hate the idea of this plan.

My school system in NC works on a block schedule. We have 4 classes each day for an hour and a half each, and get all new classes mid-way through the year. By the end of the day, I'm genuinely worn out from sitting at a desk all day. There are also a lot of after school activities, sports, and not to mention homework that also needs to be done at the end of the school day.

I have friends who do not get home until 8 some nights due to all their after school activities, and are up until 2 AM doing homework for all of their AP classes (this is mainly the seniors). The current workload and learning produced by the current school day is more than enough, and I can't imagine staying in school up until dinner time like Obama would like.

Instead I think that a system like the one at my school with 90 minute classes would be beneficial to a lot of students, as the traditional 45 minute classes do not provide enough time to let a teacher really get into detail with his or her class.

[eawmp1]

I think American children are not doing well in school due to domestic issues and a non productive social attitude toward learning. I won't get into this because it could be its own thread.


We could have the greatest school system in the world, but if parents don't 1) reinforce that a child's primary job is to go to school and get an education, 2) take an interest in their education and work with them outside of school, 3) ensure a well-rested, adequately-fed pupil, all is lost.

Second, NCLB is an impossible dream. No educational system, anytime or anywhere, has achieved 100% at grade level competency in their children. Not every student will be able to master concepts that allows him/her to earn a traditional HS diploma that is worth anything. My HS had a great vocational education program that allowed those not "book smart" to learn skills that got them good jobs (that are now outsourced overseas, I grant you).

Third - when "tracking" became taboo, the system really began to fail. Instead of three levels of rigor (my HS had three different tracks based on achievement) the schools now teach to the mean. And with NCLB, that has shifted to the left of the mean. Average and above-average students are left bored and not stimulated. Look at the rising drop-out rate of "gifted" students. Our brightest minds are being squandered.

We don't have an educational system problem alone. We have a societal problem.

[MacNut]

Thats entirely on our discipline structure. They are definitely too soft on kids, mainly because of sue happy individuals who ruined it for everything.This is true, the kids have learned how to run the system. They know that if a teacher lays a hand on them they can sue. No more hits with a ruler because that would be considered abuse.

[Cassie]

Oh us whipper snappers :rolleyes:

Have kids EVER been excited to be forced to be in a learning environment for 6+ hours a day? You make it seem like there was a point where school was a child's #1 on places they'd like to be.

Perhaps, but you can't say something hasn't changed. It's pretty much fact that less kids pay attention in school then they did in the past. What do you think is causing that?

[NT1440]

This is true, the kids have learned how to run the system. They know that if a teacher lays a hand on them they can sue. No more hits with a ruler because that would be considered abuse.

I'm not for that kind of discipline, but I really don't know an effective alternative. Students that ive been with just see suspension as a vacation and detention as a annoyance that if they skip, they will just get a vacation (suspension)

[NT1440]

Perhaps, but you can't say something hasn't changed. It's pretty much fact that less kids pay attention in school then they did in the past. What do you think is causing that?

See my other posts for my thoughts, not really an all inclusive answer

[Zombie Acorn]

Third - when "tracking" became taboo, the system really began to fail. Instead of three levels of rigor (my HS had three different tracks based on achievement) the schools now teach to the mean. And with NCLB, that has shifted to the left of the mean. Average and above-average students are left bored and not stimulated. Look at the rising drop-out rate of "gifted" students. Our brightest minds are being squandered.

We don't have an educational system problem alone. We have a societal problem.

I have to agree here, most of the teachers time was spent helping kids in HS "catch up" with the rest of the class. Not only did the interruptions distract the kids who already "got it" it made sure that the curriculum did not get fully explained.

[MyDesktopBroke]

My concern is that kids are pushed into class rooms at such an early age, receive most of their social cues from other children (who may be abused, ignored, or have other #$&* going on at home), then develop ADD from over exposure to TV or whatever, and now they want to ax summer vacation.

Basically their entire youth (plus college) will be spent totally in a class room. When they're at home they have homework.

Yes, they need the education, but how well can you expect kids to believe or understand it? It's like when people say "this is going to hurt me more than you" when they're beating the tar out of a kid.

Ironically, I'm not smart enough to really articulate what the problem is, and I'm still in college so I don't know first hand how kids are dealing with spending more and more time in a class room environment. I just feel that increasing the work load without adapting it to meet with the changing dynamics of society is not going to help anyone in the short or long term.

[Zombie Acorn]

My concern is that kids are pushed into class rooms at such an early age, receive most of their social cues from other children (who may be abused, ignored, or have other #$&* going on at home), then develop ADD from over exposure to TV or whatever, and now they want to ax summer vacation.

Basically their entire youth (plus college) will be spent totally in a class room. When they're at home they have homework.

Yes, they need the education, but how well can you expect kids to believe or understand it? It's like when people say "this is going to hurt me more than you" when they're beating the tar out of a kid.

Ironically, I'm not smart enough to really articulate what the problem is, and I'm still in college so I don't know first hand how kids are dealing with spending more and more time in a class room environment. I just feel that increasing the work load without adapting it to meet with the changing dynamics of society is not going to help anyone in the short or long term.

I think one of the big issues is that parents basically leave education 100% up to the schools. Are they working with them in the summer at all?

[Shivetya]

So, your indicator of achievement is getting a PhD? Far more people earn PhDs now than did in your generation. So does that mean you think that high school education is better now?

No offense, but PhDs, like degrees, are many times nothing more than assembly line in the matter of which they are produced. Big schools are just as guilty, with effortless financing they simply tailored programs for it and made a bundle.

[Wotan31]

I don't know about Obama's school plan, but I want one of these!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCiTAJi1yRk

[gibbz]

I think one of the big issues is that parents basically leave education 100% up to the schools. Are they working with them in the summer at all?

+1. First off, I will not trust schools to fully educate my children (when I eventually have any) and secondly, learning does not adhere to a schedule, it is a lifelong process. For these reasons, I will most assuredly take an active role in the education of my child, especially above and beyond what they get in a school setting.

No offense, but PhDs, like degrees, are many times nothing more than assembly line in the matter of which they are produced. Big schools are just as guilty, with effortless financing they simply tailored programs for it and made a bundle.

Given the work and sacrifice that Ph.D.s entail (I know, I am in the middle of obtaining mine), your sentiments are overstated. There are certainly some programs that try and rush people through, but for the most part, the standards and workload required to obtain a Ph.D. in the U.S. are extremely high.

[Lyle]

Are they working with them in the summer at all?Eraserhead pointed this out way back in post #3 of this thread, and there's a good discussion of this issue in Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers as well.

I will probably forget some of the finer points, but Gladwell describes a study where they tracked the progress of a group of students over a number of years. What they found was that at the beginning of the first year (first grade I think), all of the students were more or less on the same footing; they were all reading at roughly the same level. By the end of the school year, testing showed that all had improved by roughly the same amount. And then they went home for summer vacation.

When that group of students returned to school after summer break, the reading levels for kids from wealthier families had improved. These kids had books to read at home, their parents took them to the library, maybe they were involved in other sorts of educational activities. Meanwhile, the kids from poorer families had stayed at the same reading level or (worse) even regressed a bit. Over several years that gap between the two groups grew wider and wider.

As the husband of a teacher, I'm glad to see that most people here recognize that the teachers have very little to do with how schools are run. They just have to make the best of what they get.

[Eraserhead]

I think one of the big issues is that poorer parents basically generally leave education 100% up to the schools.

That's better ;).

My concern is that kids are pushed into class rooms at such an early age, receive most of their social cues from other children (who may be abused, ignored, or have other #$&* going on at home), then develop ADD from over exposure to TV or whatever, and now they want to ax summer vacation.

And if the parents have to work over the summer and can't take annual leave (which if they have a bad job they'll only get 2 weeks off work or something), and are too poor to afford lots of summer camps what are they going to do but leave them at home in front of the TV?

[Wotan31]

As the husband of a teacher, I'm glad to see that most people here recognize that the teachers have very little to do with how schools are run. They just have to make the best of what they get.
I think this is true, to an extent. A child's parents, family life, etc. of course play a significant role in that student's ability to learn.

I'll start by saying that being a public school teacher is one of the most underappreciated jobs in the country, and they should all be paid much more highly than they are.

Here in the DC area however, we have a problem with the teachers unions. The DC public schools are one of the very highest funded public schools in the nation, (in terms of dollars per student per fiscal year) yet they consistently return some of the lowest scores and results.

The problem stems from the fact that the teachers here all belong to a union, and they are "tenured" so to speak. They cannot be fired. They get guaranteed raises each year. There is no incentive for them to do a great" job vs. just showing up and doing nothing. NYC has the same problem. They have administrative buildings with hundreds of paid tenured union workers that do not interact with the students in any way, are not teachers, and don't really do any productive work all day. Yet they are on the pay roll.

I think it should be an incentive based system, that also takes into consideration the specific population at each school. The fact that these teachers get guaranteed raises and cannot ever be fired is just ********.

[Shivetya]

Eraserhead

As the husband of a teacher, I'm glad to see that most people here recognize that the teachers have very little to do with how schools are run. They just have to make the best of what they get.

When school systems spend nearly as much on non-teaching jobs it is really easy to see where we went wrong. Atlanta city schools are a great example of this, stacked full of friends of the politicians who run the city. Their cost per student is almost twice some of the surrounding counties yet they test and graduate lower. Worse, some of the schools desperately need money to renovate by salary costs are eating too much of the budget.

In the great tradition of Atlanta politics, when they needed a new tax increase for even more government employees they threatened to lay off teachers, firemen, and the police. Needless to say who was excluded.


NCLB did some schools in Florida really well. However in Georgia it revealed the extend of which some school Administrators would go to cheat instead trying to fix the problem. Two got busted for fixing tests. Instead of focusing on why the children weren't progressing they simply fixed the tests after they were taken. In other words, they were never concerned with the kids

[yojitani]

Some of the responses here are funny, especially the 'when I was young' category. I understand it's a temptation to compare how things were to how things are, but you are deceiving yourself if a) you think 'we' can go back to those halcyon days b) you think that what worked then will work now. And then the very middle class response: "parents don't spend enough time educating their kids" - right, like 80% of the parents on section 8 (like council flats, UK members) at my kid's school who work two (or more) crappy jobs on (an unlivable) minimum wage have time to do that.:rolleyes:

What Obama is proposing looks to me like sensible first steps, not THE solution. Longer days not only keep kids in the books, but they also allow parents a bit more time at work. Keeping schools open after hours and on weekends is definitely the right way to go. More school centered activities are not only good for education, but help to form communities (and let's face it, 'community' has lost a lot of currency in the US). I don't see this as a terminal plan. Finally, someone in government is taking a sensible look at education, not this no child left behind punitive stuff (although Obama has favored NCLB, which is unfortunate).

[Shivetya]

I think it should be an incentive based system, that also takes into consideration the specific population at each school. The fact that these teachers get guaranteed raises and cannot ever be fired is just ********.

How about the spending on the wrong types of teachers? Look to Illinois for some of the problems facing educating our children.

* a physical education teacher earning $163,000 (more than 400 earn in excess of $100,000)
* an English teachers earning $164,000 (more than 300 earn in excess of $100,000)
* a driver education teacher earning $170,000 (94 earn in excess of $100,000)

[Eraserhead]

^^ How do you know they aren't brilliant teachers?

[rdowns]

^^ How do you know they aren't brilliant teachers?

There are always examples like that but thankfully, it is not the norm. However, you surely can't be defending a gym teacher making $163,000. I would much rather see 3 academic teachers at $55,000 or 2 at $80,000 instead.

[Eraserhead]

However, you surely can't be defending a gym teacher making $163,000.

Good point, it does seem more than a little excessive, my bad :o.

[Zombie Acorn]

That's better ;).


I don't completely agree, I know many middle class families that use the schools as day cares too, and could give a crap less about teaching their kids.