“This is the forest primeval. The murmuring pines and the hemlocks, Bearded with moss, and in garments green, indistinct in the twilight, Stand like Druids of eld, with voices sad and prophetic, Stand like harpers hoar, with beards that rest on their bosoms. Loud from its rocky caverns, the deep-voiced neighboring ocean Speaks, and in accents disconsolate answers the wail of the forest.”
To my mind, and likely tens of thousands or more throughout the centuries, this reads as though music; daunting and delicious. Words when painting such pictures are perfection, and education. To be taken into scenes such as these and many others from classic writings our students learn geography, vocabulary, history – all endlessly entertaining. Is there any better way to learn? No.
Can you even imagine today’s students attempting these exquisite and important readings? Hardly. Granted, for current seventh and eight graders classic writings might seem difficult, a slog and perhaps unworthy yet a mere 100 years ago they are the standard. Our children are expected to learn this way so they do.
Quite probably, so sadly we’ve given up on these and too many other kinds of standards. We are left then wondering why education is failing when it appears clear if one only looks; compares.
Within Part Three we’ll see the stark comparisons between then and now. There are clues within this modern reading list: Nothing But the Truth by Avi, A Step from Heaven by An Na, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain, Homeless Bird by Gloria Whelan, The Breadwinner by Deborah Ellis, Uprising by Margaret Peterson Haddix, Chains by Laurie Halse Anderson, Touching Spirit Bear by Ben Mikaelsen, The Last Book in the Universe by Rodman Philbrick, The House of the Scorpion by Nancy Farmer, The Diary of Anne Frank (Drama) by Goodrich & Hackett, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, Of Beetles and Angels by Mawi Asgedom and Call Me Maria by Judith Ortiz Cofer.
Suppose this should focus upon when and how schools – so board members should be considering – open safely. Except I’ve no special insight other than noticing polls are pointing to a likelihood of 40% of parents planning to continue to home school. Interesting.
For some time though I’ve been thinking about the importance of literature and how our students have little to no exposure to it at school any longer. Why? Much of the blame goes to Common Core. CCSS (Common Core State Standards) programs prefer “Reading for information.” Really. Hello? If you can read at all, you can read ‘for information.’
So, the purpose it seems is to prevent our children from knowing and appreciating genuine and long ago history along with learning and recognizing thoughtful and powerful writing. Why? My best guess is – and my best guesses when it comes to CCSS are based on much research, its evident disastrous educational results, common sense too – that denying important knowledge and the very best authors, replacing them with more current topics not necessarily well written is but another opportunity to indoctrinate rather than educate.
One hundred plus years ago our seventh and eight graders were reading: Evangeline by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson, Captains Courageous by Rudyard Kipling, Tanglewood Tales by Nathaniel Hawthorne, Courtship of Miles Standish by Henry Wadsworth Longfield, Gold Bug by Edgar Allan Poe, Stories of Heroic Deeds by James Johonnot, Stories from Dickents by Charles Dickents, Old Ballads in Prose by Eva March Tappan, Knickerbocker’s History of New York by Washington Irving, Grandmother’s Story of Bunker Hill and Other Poems by Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Spy by James Fenimore Cooper, Stories of the Olden Time by James Johonnot, Adventures of a Deerslayer by James Fenimore Cooper, The Young Mountaineers by Mary Noailles Murfree and Harris’s Stories of Georgia by Joel Chandler Harris.
This is from a curriculum reading list writer Annie Holmquist discovers from an 1908 manual at the Minnesota Historical Society for an article she publishes on Intellectual Takeout (https://www.intellectualtakeout.org) within which Ms. Holmquist determines to compare with a more recent list of a highly rated school district.
Despite Governors allotting more and more money for school districts, why isn’t more of it spent on teacher raises? Los Angeles teachers strike wanting primarily salary increases; Denver, Chicago, too, while others contemplate doing so. With funding available, why isn’t it being spent for teacher salary increases in every instance? So many reasons.
District superintendents, so school board members, do have to be attentive to other school related issues – none as important as teachers – still, what if money that comes into districts from a state’s reserves or some kind of surplus is a one time amount? It isn’t sustainable. Wouldst that more superintendents realize this before agreeing to raises that must then be continued but cannot be without taking money from district savings, or more likely levying more taxes.
Once upon a time schools had a principal – one – not three and often many more assistant principals; a school nurse, secretary and engineer along with teachers. Now? Don’t ask. Then, the gym teacher might have held some after school basketball or baseball games, not an ever growing list of extracurricular activities all of which are costly. Now superintendents are anxious to bring back these activities, school psychologists, teaching coaches; wait, what?
Yep. Teaching coaches who ostensibly help the teacher control his or her classroom. Shouldn’t certified teachers be able to do this themselves? While I am on the Board, intensely curious as to precisely what a ‘teaching coach’ actually does so ask our Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Grades to arrange that I be able to. We attend a third grade class where first I read the children a story and present the book to them for their library. They do listen intently and I suspect will want to read the story again because it is a fun one.
Now, I am sitting with the Assistant Superintendent at the back of the class to watch the teacher in action. The ‘coach’ stands nearby. The lesson is about writing stories and for the grade level essentially makes sense until they come to the part about whether a title needs to be determined prior to the writing of the story. The teacher advises it does need to be (it doesn’t, and often shouldn’t) and the coach agrees. I whisper to the Assistant Superintendent that this is wrong. She whispers back, “That’s okay. It isn’t that important.” Really?
If you think money is the solution to education you
can clearly see here that it isn’t. Two teachers (a teacher and a ‘coach’) and
a quite highly paid administrator either don’t know what they are teaching or
don’t see the problem in it being taught wrong. There are days I want to give
up. I don’t.
Next the four of us meet in a small meeting room – guess that makes sense – the teacher tells us how helpful the coach has been to her and the coach tells us that the teacher is really good on her own. That’s it. Oh. Okay.
Decreasing class sizes. First, any really good teacher can teach a class of 30 if need be. They did it for years, but children were far better disciplined both at home and at school. Teacher’s unions believe more teachers solve this problem. And it sounds good. To reduce class sizes, not only are more teachers required, but what about space? You never hear about this. If we need to reduce a class of 30 to 15 don’t we need another classroom, too? Doesn’t this require additional building? Expensive writ large. This might be another cost to which additional funding needs to be applied.
Superintendents, at the behest of parents, and politicians, wanting improved education, consider all manner of initiatives they think are going to make a difference. Laptops – don’t ask re the problems here; more hours added to the school day (more money for more teachers) along with more professional development for teachers. This is ridiculous. How much development does it take to teach two and two equal four, that George Washington was our first President, and how to stand and say the pledge of allegiance to the flag of our Country each day?
Yes, I understand there is more. But it doesn’t come from ‘development.’ It comes from common sense, caring and teaching from texts which have not been revised to change history, math and even language arts practices. ‘Development’ (remember for each day, a teacher is out of the classroom a substitute is hired so costs money and is not as familiar with the children so may cost them in learning) is not required to teach teachers to teach reading and writing. I mean really.
Finally, many states won’t have the money for teacher pensions they have gotten so out of line. So, are increases more important now, or that teachers receive benefits at retirement that they have been promised? I know, both. But it can’t be both.
It is almost delightful, or perhaps refreshing to learn about a County Chairman in IL inviting superintendents and school board presidents of nine of the 16 districts within his County to discuss what they can do to lower their property tax levies. It’s a start. Despite home values falling due to the crash of the housing market a decade ago, this County’s taxes have steadily increased. This makes no sense, but oh so much doesn’t. What does make sense and is impressive is that this County Board determines to reduce its own budget by more than 10% for this tax year. Maybe school district officials can learn something. I wonder, but maybe.
Demographics show residents leaving this County – and taking their children with them – so there are fewer students to educate and fewer taxpayers to support schools. Still, apparently districts cannot or will not determine ways to reduce their expenses. All local governments have an obligation to taxpayers to restrict their budgets, school boards have a more significant obligation since they account for the largest percentage, always, of property tax bills.
No one wants to criticize public education (except sometimes I do) or the good work teachers try to do but schools must lower their taxes. Period. President Trump, at the time, asks his cabinet members to each reduce their department budgets by five percent. Why can’t school districts do the same? Probably because they have never had to. They want something, the Board votes on it, they tax for it and they get it. Schools are a lot like spoiled children to my mind. What I am unable to understand is how educators/administrators who are entrusted with the education of our children are not able to budget better. Aren’t they intelligent enough, or don’t they want to?
Yes, salary increases, perks, benefits, retirement programs union member teachers negotiate for and receive are received by school administration and staff, too. So, rather than fight against some of these expenses, districts prompt their boards to agree. Then there are the costly extraneous programs from which students benefit hardly at all, but additional personnel and so costs are required. Textbooks – now nearly all are Common Core aligned while every knowledgeable parent and serious educator is working against this program – are immensely expensive, yet districts buy them. Or, I should say, taxpayers buy them and they don’t want them. Why can’t district financial officers, or Financial Assistant Superintendents – title equals higher salary – figure out how to reduce costs?
Sure, taking lecture notes via laptop is quick, but isn’t nearly as effective as handwriting notes. Your school board wants the best (and most expensive) and up to date equipment for the students at its district schools but do they ever think it through? No, and here’s why: Spending more money should help to ensure reaching educational goals – it hasn’t. In fact, our students are being less and less educated with every dollar (or million dollars) our districts spend.
As laptops become smaller and more ubiquitous – typing notes is faster which comes in handy when there is much to copy. It turns out though that there are still significant advantages to doing things the old fashioned way. Typing is fast but will you go back to reread these notes? Whereas handwritten notes actually help you to learn as they are written.
Research has proved that laptops and tablets have a tendency to be distracting – so easy to click over to Facebook during that dull lecture. Other studies show that while you have to be slower, and more deliberate taking notes by hand is what makes them more useful.
Of course you can type more words per minute that you can hand write, and when questioned re facts, like dates, students in each group do equally well; however, when asked about concepts students with handwritten notes do significantly better.
So, why are districts throughout the Country dropping
cursive? Computers – yes, they are useful in any number of instances – but as
for studying, not so much. Why then are they the replacement for inexpensive
pencils and paper?
Follow the money is not any hollow expression. To make money on level after level our so called educational leaders are willing to seriously impair the ability of our students to truly learn.
The Illinois legislature is considering putting into law that the children of the state must start school at age five. They may have by now. Does such an action improve education? Because it has been proven otherwise. A number of districts in IL and other states have convinced Board Members to vote to levy taxpayers to pay for pre school (that would be before kindergarten, before age five) buildings which all but ensures that the government gets their hands on our precious children at ages three and four. Insanity writ large.
There are times I wonder whether school board members ever really think through the issues upon which they are expected to vote. Other times I wonder why parents are not required to drop off their babies at public nursery school on the way home from the hospital. Maybe that will be next.
No time to play isn’t at all good for children’s learning. We need to stop, look and listen.
A kindergarten teacher friend claims the decline of play is quite true. Teachers are given just the number of minutes that are required to teach each subject area. She is told the designated minutes per day the children are to be instructed in language arts, math, science, social studies, specials (PE, art and music) and this breakdown includes lunch. It totals 380 minutes. The day is 390 minutes long. Aside from the fact that school children at any grade level are simply not given enough time to eat lunch and digest it, this breakdown does not include recess or play. The mantra is fairness among grade levels. Kindergarten is lumped in with 5th grade and has an equal number of language arts (ELA) minutes because ‘that’s fair.’
The fact is, fairness is misused in schools and in this ‘schedule of mandated minutes.’ Fairness is giving kids what they need. It isn’t about equal time spent on ‘subjects.’
In schools we are spending a lot of time trying to help kids who suffer from anxiety and depression by hiring more social workers, adopting social emotional curriculum (SEL) and at the exact same time we demand these be part of our day we unilaterally dismiss the importance of play.
My friend, and I agree, posits that if kids had opportunities for play, we wouldn’t need social emotional learning integrated into lessons. We wouldn’t need an abundance of social workers and psychologists in schools. By the way, when our students at whatever grade level leave the classroom to talk to a social worker, they miss valuable instruction time they cannot get back.
It is a vicious cycle and kids pay the price. Teachers know this, but data collecting curriculum directors disregard everything but test scores.
Her school district has suffered two suicides just this year. No one is certain of the reasons, but it’s almost always assumed to be bullying or home life. Maybe we need to look more closely and carefully. Maybe we’re doing it wrong in our schools is a thought she adds. To my mind clearly our schools are doing it wrong – way wrong.
Likely we have forgotten that play shouldn’t be and isn’t a break from learning, for young children it IS their learning.
While it is an ideal for which we should all aim, the key is that it would and does need to involve families and communities as well as schools. I happen to believe that someone must first want an education and teachers cannot be expected to prepare young people for careers the young people care nothing for.
At the same time, when a teacher finds a poor child, perhaps from a broken home who displays a talent or curiosity that teacher should have every avenue open to him or her with which to help that individual child. And I would guess that it is exactly these types of students who go on to become the successes that the ‘legend’ refers to when it claims that it has transferred/taught so much to so many.
There weren’t too many, of course, and the “successes” wanted to be.
Gratefully, I’ve been taught that if I want to complain that’s fine, but I’d best have a better idea and it seems this colors my thinking while reading this, so that my reaction to the author is somewhat negative. Peter Schrag’s review (back cover) calls the book “brilliant” and perhaps it is considered so by readers within the academic field. If parents read it, those same parents likely have a high level of interest in education. If there were very many of them, some of the problems would surely be alleviated. I am somewhat confused by Greer’s semi fiction style, quotes ad nauseam, early 1900’s New York statistics and bad writing.
Some school board members research the newest
available academic programs. Others simply agree to the appeal of the district
administration. All in a frantic attempt, perhaps, to reform the chaos and
somehow improve actual education. Teachers, politicians and education reformers
seeking a silver bullet. Not happening though. Indeed, our children are
learning less at the same time funding increases incredibly.
How many in either group look back? I would posit few,
if any. For one thing, there isn’t any money in doing so. It cost less, if
anything to implement ideas that have shown value during the past. So, why ever
doesn’t anyone in any position to help to improve education do so? Money,
probably. But let’s consider education history anyway.
Firm Discipline: My son who teaches first grade is a gentle, kind and fun teacher. But first, say the first week or two of class each year he is especially strict in these ways: Students are taught that they are expected to raise their hands before speaking, how to line up when leaving or returning to the classroom, insists they say please and thank you, sets high expectations, personally bonds to encourage trust so each student is more motivated – and are willing to take chances which helps to develop their critical thinking – how to discuss and learn from each other. Confidence and trust is of utmost importance if learning is to be optimized. Some teachers may not realize this, but unless it exists, there can be no satisfactory progress. Teachers must handle his or her own classroom problems and earn the respect of their students. Interestingly, my son wears long sleeved shirts with ties everyday to show his respect for his students. Many of his students begin wearing ties, too, even some of the girls. So nice.
Memorization: Old time, for sure. Remember memorizing times tables? I do. Not easy for me as math never is. But I do memorize them. Other lessons should be memorized because it is efficient and because memorized words express ideas to be conveyed better than a pupil can present them in his or her own language. Fear of memorization without understanding is groundless because future oral examination of students make it impossible for the learners to acquire mere words without ideas. Today memorization is considered ‘old school.’ Good. It is. But it works. Look back.
Teacher Autonomy: While a school may lay a framework of rigorous (overused jargon these days) study, this framework didn’t constrain teachers who had freedom to set their class structure and timetable. This gave the teacher the flexibility to spend time with students who might be struggling. Now, we just hire more teachers, teacher coaches, counselors. Best and most effective the way it used to be handled. Oh, and less costly.
One Class: There was a time albeit long ago when schools had an entire class study every subject in one classroom, with one teacher throughout the entire year. Students moving from room to room at the sound of a bell actually hinders learning and rather, trains students to obey rather than think. The previous arrangement produced better results than when frequent changes are made. Interesting and important concept.
Accelerated Learning: While a time was set aside for the course work, the school encouraged ambition by noting that “scholars” would have the option of completing their course in less time when willing to make due exertions they could be advanced according scholarship. Students also did not take multiple tests. How different from today. There was on final exam with the rest to be taken in college. And, in college there was no remedial education. Once again, yet again how very different from today. If students failed there, any diploma or certificate of scholarship which they might have received would have been a mockery. Students then obviously earned degrees. Too often now they just ‘get’ them. I like looking back.
This is how far back: During the mid 1800’s the Boston Latin School (the oldest and longest operating public school in America) was led by Francis Gardner who believed that “the sole true end of education is . . . to teach men how to learn for themselves; and whatever instruction fails to do this is effort spent in vain.” I agree and believe that some of the practices of that school would help to restore order and vigor in today’s classrooms.
How much might we learn about effective education by looking back? Clearly, very much.
Speaking to the Board of JobsOhio, the states not for profit economic development corporation outgoing Governor John Kasich apparently expresses disappointment at his being unable to accomplish reeducation reform and workforce development. Great beginning to a potential presidential campaign.
The former Governor said that the state’s K-12 education system needs a “fundamental restructuring” that involves more direct involvement by the business community. Don’t they all? It’s rhetorical
Ohio children need to learn skills that businesses need so they can get good paying jobs as adults. I’m wondering the particular ages of the children to whom Kasich is referring. K-12 is quite a span. “And who can do that better than business? (He must mean business people.) Who can explain this to kids better?” Kasich asks. This has the tone of the proposal announced by former, Education Secretary DeVos and Labor Secretary Acosta re plans to merge the two federal departments. This is, to my mind, simply senseless too.
The Governor all but mourns though that two of his proposals in recent years to directly involve business people in K-12 education are not approved. One is to put two non elected business people on every school board in the state so they can offer guidance on school curriculum. Is he kidding? With few exceptions e.g., large cities, school board members are elected. If a member of the business community wants to serve on their school board they can run for the office. That’s how it’s done and there are usually at least a board member or two from the world of business anyway.
The other proposal expects teachers to shadow a local businessperson before they can renew their teaching licenses. What. Precisely what is the merit to a kindergarten teacher to spend time he or she doesn’t have to shadow someone in business. For one thing it makes less than any sense. Oh, but while this was to be a state law, localities would be permitted to choose the business or company at which they wanted to ‘shadow.’ Generous. What if the businesses haven’t the time to spend by employees explaining ‘business requirements’ when they are busy working. Consider that concept. Business is an enterprise that earns money for its owners, employees and stockholders. Teachers should be focusing on teaching. I mean really.
The purpose of education is not work force development. It’s not the job of K-12 schools to feed the workforce pipeline. It might well be helpful to return home economics and shop to middle school, and vocational training to high school. But our children still need a basic academic education. Unless and until our educators recognize and act on this none of these other supposed clever helpful extraneous ideas will be worth a whit.
Just as Governor Kasich’s plans would require legislative approval, merging the federal departments of Education and Labor will require congressional approval. Truly I wonder why the time and money are spent on such possibilities. I’m so certain I recall candidate Trump telling Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that if elected he would consider “Cutting the Education Department.” He may have ‘considered’ doing so, but it hasn’t happened. Here’s why it should: Billions of dollars spent, millions of employees (could fill the many current job openings) and this Department has yet to educate one child.
Prior to Common Core State Standards Massachusetts was
considered to have one of the best, if not the best, educational system in the
Country. The math and language arts programs, which are not copyrighted as is
CC, were effective and available to governors of other states to implement.
Yep, follow the money, most states took federal funds to sign onto to CC before
even knowing what it involved and/or whether it was of academic merit. It
isn’t.
But we know that. Back to Massachusetts where the former senate president sponsors a law to make civics education uniform across the State and the Governor (Charlie Baker) insists the new requirements be expressly non partisan before signing it. The result of a 2017 study finding civics education in American schools has been dormant since the 1990’s, state lawmakers and education officials are taking a two part approach to bring discussion to every history and social studies classroom in the state. The state curriculum framework will now also require a full year civics course for eighth graders which goes along with a new civics education law interjecting topics like local history and the branches of government becoming mandatory learning throughout student education.
Students will have to complete a civics project in both middle and high school. I should think so. It isn’t mentioned in these projected programs but won’t eighth graders be required to pass a test on the Constitution in order to graduate on to high school? It was always thus. Or until sometime during the 1990’s. Or, before.
At the very least, to my mind, we are supposed to be educating
students in academic basics – when we are – but as American citizens as well. So,
without Civics how, precisely, do we do that? How about we don’t. Unacceptable.
If you are a parent, grandparent, or property taxpayer get a group together to attend your next district school board meeting. Sign in for citizen comments and when you are called upon tell them what Massachusetts is doing and ask why you are not. They won’t answer but at least you’ve brought the issue to their attention. Often local media is present at these meetings so they might write about, so publicize your request. Follow up with an email and/or phone call to each board member to remind them and request that they explain whether they are considering following Massachusetts. The district does not need legislation in order to include Civics in their curriculum. Remind them, if need be, that they work for you (volunteer or otherwise) and that this is what you want.
