Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Say WHAT? (Italics added by me. Original text emboldened for emphasis.)
By LIBBY QUAID, AP Education Writer – Sun Sep 27, 3:29 pm ET
-- Students beware: The summer vacation you just enjoyed could be sharply curtailed if President Barack Obama gets his way.
Obama says American kids spend too little time in school, putting them at a disadvantage with other students around the globe. [This is the stated rationale for the proposal.]
"Now, I know longer school days and school years are not wildly popular ideas," the president said earlier this year. "Not with Malia and Sasha, not in my family, and probably not in yours. But the challenges of a new century demand more time in the classroom."
The president, who has a sixth-grader and a third-grader, wants schools to add time to classes, to stay open late and to let kids in on weekends so they have a safe place to go. [This is a more genuine rationale.]
"Our school calendar is based upon the agrarian economy and not too many of our kids are working the fields today," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a recent interview with The Associated Press.
Fifth-grader Nakany Camara is of two minds. She likes the four-week summer program at her school, Brookhaven Elementary School in Rockville, Md. Nakany enjoys seeing her friends there and thinks summer school helped boost her grades from two Cs to the honor roll.
But she doesn't want a longer school day. "I would walk straight out the door," she said.
Domonique Toombs felt the same way when she learned she would stay for an extra three hours each day in sixth grade at Boston's Clarence R. Edwards Middle School.
"I was like, `Wow, are you serious?"' she said. "That's three more hours I won't be able to chill with my friends after school."
Her school is part of a 3-year-old state initiative to add 300 hours of school time in nearly two dozen schools. Early results are positive. Even reluctant Domonique, who just started ninth grade, feels differently now. "I've learned a lot," she said.
Does Obama want every kid to do these things? School until dinnertime? Summer school? And what about the idea that kids today are overscheduled and need more time to play?
Obama and Duncan say kids in the United States need more school because kids in other nations have more school.
"Young people in other countries are going to school 25, 30 percent longer than our students here," Duncan told the AP. [This is a spinning of statistics. The next paragraphs, surprisingly, mitigate this spin.] "I want to just level the playing field."
While it is true that kids in many other countries have more school days, it's not true they all spend more time in school.
Kids in the U.S. spend more hours in school (1,146 instructional hours per year) than do kids in the Asian countries that persistently outscore the U.S. on math and science tests -- Singapore (903), Taiwan (1,050), Japan (1,005) and Hong Kong (1,013). That is despite the fact that Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong have longer school years (190 to 201 days) than does the U.S. (180 days).
Regardless, there is a strong case for adding time to the school day.
Researcher Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institution looked at math scores in countries that added math instruction time. Scores rose significantly, especially in countries that added minutes to the day, rather than days to the year.
"Ten minutes sounds trivial to a school day, but don't forget, these math periods in the U.S. average 45 minutes," Loveless said. "Percentage-wise, that's a pretty healthy increase."
In the U.S., there are many examples of gains when time is added to the school day.
Charter schools are known for having longer school days or weeks or years. For example, kids in the KIPP network of 82 charter schools across the country go to school from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., more than three hours longer than the typical day. They go to school every other Saturday and for three weeks in the summer. KIPP eighth-grade classes exceed their school district averages on state tests.
In Massachusetts' expanded learning time initiative, early results indicate that kids in some schools do better on state tests than do kids at regular public schools. The extra time, which schools can add as hours or days, is for three things: core academics -- kids struggling in English, for example, get an extra English class; more time for teachers; and enrichment time for kids.
Regular public schools are adding time, too, though it is optional and not usually part of the regular school day. Their calendar is pretty much set in stone. Most states set the minimum number of school days at 180 days, though a few require 175 to 179 days.
Several schools are going year-round by shortening summer vacation and lengthening other breaks.
Many schools are going beyond the traditional summer school model, in which schools give remedial help to kids who flunked or fell behind.
Summer is a crucial time for kids, especially poorer kids, because poverty is linked to problems that interfere with learning, such as hunger and less involvement by their parents. [Shouldn't we be addressing THIS situation instead of passing the responsibility on to the schools?]
That makes poor children almost totally dependent on their learning experience at school, said Karl Alexander, a sociology professor at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University, home of the National Center for Summer Learning. [Again, what are we doing to remedy THIS? Are we giving parents a "pass"?]
Disadvantaged kids, on the whole, make no progress in the summer, Alexander said. Some studies suggest they actually fall back. Wealthier kids have parents who read to them, have strong language skills and go to great lengths to give them learning opportunities such as computers, summer camp, vacations, music lessons, or playing on sports teams. [What if we applied the $1300 per student toward programs and incentives to promote effective parenting and to keep parents in the home? See next two paragraphs.]
"If your parents are high school dropouts with low literacy levels and reading for pleasure is not hard-wired, it's hard to be a good role model for your children, even if you really want to be," Alexander said.
Extra time is not cheap. The Massachusetts program costs an extra $1,300 per student, or 12 percent to 15 percent more than regular per-student spending, said Jennifer Davis, a founder of the program. It received more than $17.5 million from the state Legislature last year.
The Montgomery County, Md., summer program, which includes Brookhaven, received $1.6 million in federal stimulus dollars to operate this year and next, but it runs for only 20 days.
Aside from improving academic performance, Education Secretary Duncan has a vision of schools as the heart of the community. [There you have it! The basic organizational unit is no longer the family.] Duncan, who was Chicago's schools chief, grew up studying alongside poor kids on the city's South Side as part of the tutoring program his mother still runs.
"Those hours from 3 o'clock to 7 o'clock are times of high anxiety for parents," Duncan said. "They want their children safe. Families are working one and two and three jobs now to make ends meet and to keep food on the table." [A child's sense of security starts with the faith that Mom and Dad are always going to be there for him or her. Children have to BE WITH Mom and Dad to acquire that faith. Day care, pre-school, full-day kindergarten, extended-day school programs, etc., have their function, but we should not look to them to raise our children.]
Monday, September 07, 2009
Nobody's been commenting, so let me try this...
It is virtually impossible to have a complete understanding of a public issue, and I do not profess to have a complete understanding of the controversy associated with President Obama’s upcoming address to the nation’s school children. Still, I thought some of you, knowing that I am a teacher, might wonder what my opinion is.
For good or ill, public awareness of his speech came on the heels of the “I Pledge…” incident in Farmington, Utah (See my previous post "Food for Thought"). The Farmington incident was a consequence of a local decision, but nonetheless may have helped set the scene for an outcry from conservatives when the announced nationwide address became center-stage. I think it is well within the president’s role to address our nation’s children. Conservative presidents have done it in the past, and have even used some of the phrases that President Obama’s critics find offensive.
As a consequence of the outcry, the speech has been amended, and the administration has moved more to a soft-sell in promoting it. The original perception was that it would be near-obligatory viewing for children, and an imposition upon classroom teachers.
Today I read the speech, and only had two editorial comments.
First, President Obama seems to be assuming that most of his listeners dislike school, come from broken homes, are underprivileged, or have a disability. I would like to have read more material directed at normal, motivated, well-nurtured children. In our press to promote a spirit of inclusion, I feel we sometimes overlook our mainstream majority.
My second observation is in the final full paragraph, where the president says:
“Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn (italics added). But you’ve got to do your part too. So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.”
The president is right in encouraging children to do their best. He is right to want to create a nationwide environment that promotes successful schools, so that children have the opportunity to get the education they need. I do not believe it is his role, however, to fix classrooms and get materials. That is the role of the states, counties, and individual school districts. He is implying a constitutional national responsibility for education. If the federal government would leave more money in the states, schools wouldn’t have to write federal grants to run their programs.
For good or ill, public awareness of his speech came on the heels of the “I Pledge…” incident in Farmington, Utah (See my previous post "Food for Thought"). The Farmington incident was a consequence of a local decision, but nonetheless may have helped set the scene for an outcry from conservatives when the announced nationwide address became center-stage. I think it is well within the president’s role to address our nation’s children. Conservative presidents have done it in the past, and have even used some of the phrases that President Obama’s critics find offensive.
As a consequence of the outcry, the speech has been amended, and the administration has moved more to a soft-sell in promoting it. The original perception was that it would be near-obligatory viewing for children, and an imposition upon classroom teachers.
Today I read the speech, and only had two editorial comments.
First, President Obama seems to be assuming that most of his listeners dislike school, come from broken homes, are underprivileged, or have a disability. I would like to have read more material directed at normal, motivated, well-nurtured children. In our press to promote a spirit of inclusion, I feel we sometimes overlook our mainstream majority.
My second observation is in the final full paragraph, where the president says:
“Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn (italics added). But you’ve got to do your part too. So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.”
The president is right in encouraging children to do their best. He is right to want to create a nationwide environment that promotes successful schools, so that children have the opportunity to get the education they need. I do not believe it is his role, however, to fix classrooms and get materials. That is the role of the states, counties, and individual school districts. He is implying a constitutional national responsibility for education. If the federal government would leave more money in the states, schools wouldn’t have to write federal grants to run their programs.
Friday, September 04, 2009
Reconnecting With Old Friends
Not long ago, I played a concert with Jason. Yesterday I ran into Nuray, her mom, and her two adorable children. They go to the same weekly pre-school program as Alex at the Lemon Grove Library.
Food for Thought
