How we teach our children.

[Seth]

So when do we all get to get off this planet and quit worrying ? :-)

Just as soon as we've quit worrying :)

[omega_shadow]

No kidding OS. Ya chicken :p

Shortly after I posted that I went back and edited in my rant. Nothing chicken here unless you count the buffalo wings I am muching on :P

[JEBWrench]

Oppose structures you say. Well in general.. yes I agree. But... again I point out my earlier reference to religion. Often people are of a certain faith because they were raised that way. They do not choose that faith based on research' date=' but because that was how they were raised. Not always, but often. This goes to politics as well. As for social... they may rebel with teachings of elders... but not of peers. Conformity is a survival technique for teenagers. You know this to be true. If you are different... then you suffer the cruelty of the "in" crowd which can be horrible. I know from experience. So again to rebel against social standards can be rather tough for kids.[/quote']

Excepting that even the rebels conform; pack behaviour is instinctive behaviour. I recall another film, a small independent film called "SLC Punk", about a "punk-lifestyle" teenager living in the conservative world of Salt Lake City. In particular, a quote from that movie, made by a girl the main character was trying to impress - "It looks like you're wearing a uniform."

 

Is it not mostly applicable to state that those rebelling are simply going with an entirely different order to fall in line with. The wide majority of "rebels" are only rebelling against one crowd - usually the "in" crowd. However, they instead find themselves following another charismatic lead that makes them feel like a unique and delicate flower while still following the pack mentality.

 

Now, as far rebelling against social standards being tough for kids, that's what makes it rebelling. If it was easy, everyone would do it.

 

I bet you were and didn't know it. For example... in my class we are NOT allowed to use color sheets (pages with printed images the kids can color.) This stifles their creativity because if they color outside the lines... then their picture no longer looks the way it's supposed to with color only inside the lines. So instead we give them blank sheets of paper. The original idea was not to limit their creativity with color sheets' date=' but rather to teach youngsters to control their hands so that later on they will be able to control a pencil to be able to write legible letters.[/quote']

Quite possibly, I'll give you that, though not in that particular example. We often got praised for colouring outside the lines; I know of a few occaisions while other students exclusively coloured outside the lines - and now I'm leading back to one of the ideas you've expressed before - we were never told we had to colour only in the lines, so we didn't.

 

You had to go there didn't you? Did I not say that it would be impossible to regulate such a thing since no two human beings can ever totally agree, nor would it be moral to do such a thing? I think I did.

 

To address your first statement... you don't accidentally drive a car.... nor can someone "accidentally" get pregnant. Please tell me how that happens? There is one act... and one act only that can result in pregnancy... and there is only two ABSOLUTE ways to avoid pregnancy. So where is the "accident"?

 

On to parenting classes. I have no idea how to respond to that, other than... we both know that some people have no business having kids. That's a problem. Does anyone have a right to limit who has kids and who doesn't? No. But that doesn't change the fact that there is a problem somewhere. And as you stated with plants... "it still must be given the right set of circumstances in order to have the opportunity to succeed and grow well." Children deserve the same.

I agree with you on all fronts in this regard. However, while there is only one act that can cause pregnancy, it is possible for that act to not be a conscious decision. Yes, that's a harsh thing to say, it's a very unfortunate truth.

 

And I stated the plant thing in reference to children. ;)

 

 

 

To needle you a bit... perhaps it is a bad thing. By allowing "any idiot to do it" we have ruled out natural selection and thus the gene pool gets murkier and murkier with every generation. No' date=' I am not advocating a perfect race. So don't even go there. Because there is a flip side... because we can and do share information... where one person gets stumped... perhaps the next has and idea that can build on the original thought and lead to a new discovery, progress, whatever. I just had to aggravate you a bit dear ;)[/quote']

I had to go there; that's part of the fun of friendly debate honey. ;)

 

So, then, is the theory of evolution grounded by the exchange of information? Or are we heightening the likelihood of the survival of the species as a whole by protecting those of lesser ability? While genetics may suffer, it is through human advancement and intervention that people are living longer, and disease is less fatal in general than once was. Is that not evolution at work? I postulated that the information and thought of human beings is now what's evolving, now that we've gotten those pesky opposible thumbs down. ;)

 

 

No... but at the same time if we forget the past we are doomed to repeat it. We can't completely forget the old in favor of keeping with the times. There are tried and true methods that are still the foundation for todays new knowledge. That foundation needs to be laid in new minds in order for the new age knowledge to work properly. Not to mention.... if the new... technology was suddenly gone.. our kids still need to be able to function. If the power goes out... and the computer does not work... then the kid still needs to know how to write' date=' so he can hand write his homework.[/quote']

I agree once again in regards to the foundation, but again going back to drawing lines, what is groundwork, and what is simply impractical? Can it not be argued that the retention of impractical facts simultaneously builds a method for the student to retain further knowledge in pursuit of his or her own interests? For example, when I was in elementary school, we studied Japan. This should be considered useless information. However, at the same time, we learned how to study other cultures, should we take an interest in it. And not everyone was interested in Japanese culture. (Though personally I enjoyed making a board game about the Japanese Diet. Not the food, the government. :P) Later that same grade, we studied the Olympics in relative detail. While it is true that it partially steered us in a jingoistic fashion towards a patriotic view of the games, and the information itself was useless in real life, does that mean that such things should never be studied in an educational system?

 

 

Agreed. Children are' date=' and need to be held responsible for their actions. However... children are influenced by the people that are around them most. And as I've previously discussed children learn more and will base their decisions more from what they learn from example. So technically... children are a product of their environment. You yourself were raised around computers. So your "natural" knowledge of computers far exceeds mine. You were raised around a commercial fisherman. So you will have more knowledge there. I was raised around an artist... so my artistic skills will exceed yours. ( I know this to be true ;) ) My style of cooking is based on what I learned from my mother ( who did the cooking at my house.) I am not comfortable in big city settings. I was raised in a small town. That's what is familiar to me. Children raised in rough neighborhoods... will have more street knowledge. As adults... are decisions are based on our knowledge base. They will either reflect that or drastically contrast to that. But regardless... what decisions we make are a direct result from our raising's and environment. If a child is raised with the idea that stealing is ok, and they are never taught that it is wrong... then as an adult... should they be punished for stealing? I know that example is a stretch. But it's the best I can do at the moment.[/quote']

I do agree to an extent that children are a product of their environment, but there are limitations and exceptions. Simply being raised around computers isn't the exclusive source of my admittedly limited knowledge, and that can be evidenced by my older brother who, despite being a year and a half older than me, and was also raised around computers, and who enjoyed using our computers as much as I did, has no interest in them whatsover. And by a similar token, my brother has a much brighter mind for numbers than I do, yet we were raised in a very similar fashion. Which of it, then, is environment, and which is a natural gravitation? Though I admit other environmental factors certainly did play a part in gravitations.

 

Now, I'm not going to deny in any way that environment is not a significant factor, however, education isn't a factor in natural consequences, and such, whether a child knows something is wrong or dangerous, it's certainly possible for them to experience the reprecussions.

 

Let's make a hypothetical situation. Suppose a child with parents of objectionable talent were to put him or herself in a dangeous situation. The child's lack of foreknowledge will not excuse the child in any way from the reprecussions of that action. While it's easily arguable that the parents are responsible for the lack of education on the child's behalf, that will not prevent the child from those reprecussions.

 

Hence why the phrase "Ignorance is not an excuse" is so applicable in terms of the law.

 

Though, technically, in Canada, ignorance of the law is an excuse, since in the Criminal Act it's written that a person, to be found guilty of a legal violation, must know that the act he or she is committing may be against the law.

 

That defense doesn't hold up well in court though, I'm told. ;)

 

 

I don't think it's that difficult to decide what is practical and what is not. The main intention of education should be intellectual development and preparation for adult tasks. Yet, most of what the students are forced to learn promotes the opposite.

 

What is equally concerning, is as parents, we don't have the freedom to choose the type of education that we feel is in the best interest of our children. Oh sure, you can pay for a private school, or attempt home schooling, but they both have to follow the "government" (corporations) guide lines. It's akin to Henry Ford saying, "You can buy a model "T" in any color you want, as long as it's black"

 

Basic math, reading and writing skills are practical on two fronts, 1) They're very valuable in adult life. 2) Those skills help to develop each "side" of the brain.

But are computer skills practical? How about physical education? Should schools make children learn to change tires. (I'm of the opinion yes. ;))

 

Now, here's a bit of unfortunate truth. The majority of jobs in the world don't require much education or intellectual development. They require gruntwork. They require the "what" needs to be done, and the "how" can go off and have fun with the starving artists. So, which should the school really be cultivating if they're to be focusing children on adult life? (Bonnie will have a field day with this one I'm sure. ;))

 

Arithmetic has no creative element at its basics, so I'm not sure how you're arguing it develops the right hemisphere of the brain. The same thing goes with basic reading. Writing has an innately creative element, so I will give you that one. However, what good is creative writing to average adult life? I'd argue to say minimal at best.

 

The difference lies in that creative thought processes, which I still say cannot be taught, allow for opportunities to go beyond the status quo. However, you still have to provide that status quo. As Bonnie quoted, "To get them to think outside the box, you have to be in the box with them."

 

Speaking of which, has anyone considered being the box? ;) Just a side note from my Cultural Studies classes.

 

Now, you state that parents don't have a "say" in the type of education they receive. Why not? Are children only learning when they're in school? No; in fact, as Mark Twain put it, "I never let school get in the way of my education." A slogan that was proudly written on the halls of my university dormitory.

 

And what if, for the sake of argument, a child simply isn't interested in developing their creative side? What if their interests lie in "booksmarts"? Why should they be curtailed in their interests by a burgeoning endeavour to make children do what they do naturally?

 

This leads into another point. Children are inherently extremely creative. They're going to exercise their right hemisphere naturally a whole lot more than their left. So, if both are to grow equally, shouldn't they be educated in a fashion that focuses on logic and information retention?

 

When I don't know the solution to a problem' date=' I take a book off the shelf, read up on it and experiment till I figure it out.[/quote']

And where did you learn that skill? ;)

 

I can't pass up a good rant.

That wasn't a rant, it was an anecdote. You gotta give us something better to work with than that. You've got a reputation to maintain. ;)

 

 

Now, addressing the Public School system in general. In order to inform the masses, you have to address the lowest common denominator to ensure that the entire group can and will understand what's being conveyed. The trouble then, as I see it, lies in the estimation of what the lowest common denominator is. When it's set too low, children wind up under-educated and risk having their development intellectually stunted. When set too high, children get left behind. So, you have to find a middle ground.

 

I think that for the most part, the public school system serves its purpose to an adequate level. (Keeping in mind that the public school system is a Marxist creation to ensure the next generation of proletariat could be kept able to do their gruntwork, after all).

 

For those who think that it's inadquate, I have a question. The alternative is what?

[JEBWrench]

So when do we all get to get off this planet and quit worrying ? :-)

A week from Tuesday. Nine o'clock. Sharp.

[petef]

For those who think that it's inadquate' date=' I have a question. The alternative is what?[/quote']

The alternative is to eliminate most central controls on school systems that

attempt to dictate the methods used to teach and allow each school and it's

teachers the freedom to implement methods they feel are most suitable.

 

The only central control on the school systems should be a set of standard tests

for each grade level that measure the students ability to perform such things as

reading, problem solving, mathematics, proper spelling and writing using proper

grammar. Each school should receive a rating for it's performance based upon

the ability of the students to pass these tests. Of course, any school would be

free to go beyond those standards.

 

If all the above was implemented, private schools, public schools and

even home schooling could all be measured objectively and scientifically.

The best and worst schools could then be studied and their teaching methods

publicized as a guide to what works and what does not work.

 

---pete---

[AdvancedSetup]

See what you started Seth. Brought out the chatterbox in some.

[help4me]

For those who think that it's inadquate' date=' I have a question. The alternative is what?[/quote']

The alternative is to eliminate most central controls on school systems that

attempt to dictate the methods used to teach and allow each school and it's

teachers the freedom to implement methods they feel are most suitable.

 

The only central control on the school systems should be a set of standard tests

for each grade level that measure the students ability to perform such things as

reading, problem solving, mathematics, proper spelling and writing using proper

grammar. Each school should receive a rating for it's performance based upon

the ability of the students to pass these tests. Of course, any school would be

free to go beyond those standards.

 

If all the above was implemented, private schools, public schools and

even home schooling could all be measured objectively and scientifically.

The best and worst schools could then be studied and their teaching methods

publicized as a guide to what works and what does not work.

 

---pete---

Oooooo I've been waiting for this topic to surface ;) Unfortunately I have to go to work. But I will return soon to address this. Pete you have just made my day :)

[Guest Wolfeymole]

Do I detect that a missile of the foulest description is about to impact upon the revolving apparatus?

http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/surprised/lookaround.gif

[Seth]

See what you started Seth. Brought out the chatterbox in some.

Seth scratches his head due to a memory leak.

 

It's all good.

[JEBWrench]

Do I detect that a missile of the foulest description is about to impact upon the revolving apparatus?

http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/surprised/lookaround.gif

Depends on how Bonnie's day at work is going. :)

 

The alternative is to eliminate most central controls on school systems that

attempt to dictate the methods used to teach and allow each school and it's

teachers the freedom to implement methods they feel are most suitable.

That would create very distinct discrepancies in the education that children receive. Especially in larger cities, where many schools may be located. Supposing that the methodology of an elementary school was counter-intuitive to the methodology of the local high school for an area. That would result in children being unable to adapt to their high school, and very likely, a significant dropoff in the quality of education.

 

The only central control on the school systems should be a set of standard tests

for each grade level that measure the students ability to perform such things as

reading, problem solving, mathematics, proper spelling and writing using proper

grammar. Each school should receive a rating for it's performance based upon

the ability of the students to pass these tests. Of course, any school would be

free to go beyond those standards.

They do that. That's part of why the education system, at least in places I've lived, keeps getting dumbed down.

 

If all the above was implemented, private schools, public schools and

even home schooling could all be measured objectively and scientifically.

The best and worst schools could then be studied and their teaching methods

publicized as a guide to what works and what does not work.

How can you measure them objectively when the methods involved are being created subjectively?

 

Also, how can you accurately measure why which techniques work and others don't?

[petef]

They do that. That's part of why the education system, at least in places I've lived, keeps getting dumbed down.

 

How can you measure them objectively when the methods involved are being created subjectively?

 

Also, how can you accurately measure why which techniques work and others don't?

Very simple, you devise tests based upon the level of abilities of the average student

of the top rated schools and raise the bar just a bit to encourage further improvements

in the future. In other words, no one should be expected to get a perfect score.

This solves the dumbing down issue. Instead of having tests that are dumbed down,

the bar has potential to be raised in subsequent years as the schools improve year

after year.

 

Create tests that measure the abilty to perform specific tasks where there are

definitive answers if the standard rules of math, spelling, grammar, etc., are

followed.

 

All it takes is common sense.

 

---pete---

[help4me]

Very simple, you devise tests based upon the level of abilities of the average student

of the top rated schools and raise the bar just a bit to encourage further improvements

in the future. In other words, no one should be expected to get a perfect score.

This solves the dumbing down issue. Instead of having tests that are dumbed down,

the bar has potential to be raised in subsequent years as the schools improve year

after year.

 

Create tests that measure the abilty to perform specific tasks where there are

definitive answers if the standard rules of math, spelling, grammar, etc., are

followed.

 

All it takes is common sense.

 

---pete---

America has done just that.... create tests....

 

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110), commonly known as NCLB (IPA: /ˈnɪkəlbiː/), is a controversial United States federal law (Act of Congress) that reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend. Additionally, it promoted an increased focus on reading and re-authorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The Act was passed in the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001[1], Senate on June 14, 2001[2] and signed into law on January 8, 2002.

 

NCLB is the latest federal legislation (another was Goals 2000) which enacts the theories of standards-based education reform, formerly known as outcome-based education, which is based on the belief that high expectations and setting of goals will result in success for all students. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. NCLB does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state.

 

The Act also requires that the schools distribute the name, home phone number and address of every student enrolled to military recruiters, unless the student (or the student's parent) specifically opts out.[3]

 

The effectiveness and desirability of NCLB's measures are hotly debated. A primary criticism asserts that NCLB could reduce effective instruction and student learning because it may cause states to lower achievement goals and motivate teachers "to teach to the test." A primary supportive claim asserts that systematic testing provides data that sheds light on which schools are not teaching basic skills effectively, so that interventions can be made to reduce the achievement gap for disadvantaged and disabled students.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind

 

The second statement in the last paragraph is the exact flaw that we are seeing with the NCLB law. Teachers teach to the test because if they don't... they get in trouble. Their ability to teach is put into question. Second, schools lose money if the students don't "perform" to standard. This isn't REAL teaching. Get the kids to give the right answer and be done with it. That's all they want... right answers. Not actual learning.. but rather the ability to give the correct answer on demand. It's a money game and I have seen it in play countless times. I myself am encouraged to look over the formal tests given to our preschoolers. The idea looks good on paper Pete... but in reality... it's nothing but garbage.

 

What standards should America go by? Foreign schools? Let me tell you this... American kids are every bit as smart as kids anywhere else, but the standardized test scores don't show it. Why is that? I'll tell you why. Because here in America, every child gets to go to school. Everyone has the chance for higher education. If you want to go to college... then go. But it's not like that in some other countries. Some places(and no I am not going to tell you where), if your scores aren't good enough... then you are not allowed to continue your education. Only the best of the best get to go to school. So their test scores are going to be wonderful. But we allow EVERYONE to go to school here. So our scores are going to look like American kids are stupid. Not the case at all.

 

So here in is the problem..... everyone gets to go to school. But there has to be some level of achievement. So where do we set that bar? Who decides? What is fair? How about the kids that really tries to do his best in school, but his grades are still about average. That kid just seems to struggle more than other kids. Is it the teacher's fault? Should her ability come into question? Is every child going to be a straight A student? Is the teacher expected to churn out straight A students? What about Einstein? Did you know he failed math? Yet he is considered one of the most intelligent thinkers of the 20th century. What would have happened to him under standardized tests?

 

Furthermore... what the heck do tests show anyway? That a student knows the right answer. That's it. That's all it shows. It does not convey if the student can USE that information he/she has learned. Omega illustrated that point in one of his posts. His friend has the degree, but hasn't got the smarts to use what he has learned, or how to learn what he needs to know to do his job.

 

There is no fair way to set standards because no two children learn the same way. No two children process information the same way. Yes we need to measure progress, but how does a written test show that? Written tests show only how smart you are on paper. It does not measure intelligence at all, because true intelligence is more than facts and figures filled away in your brain.

 

Tests do nothing more than placate the voter and give the politicians an out claiming that they are doing something to insure that American children are getting a proper education. But teachers and school leaders know this is hogwash. But if they don't show the results on paper... then they lose funding, and possibly their job. So more and more teachers are teaching to the test. It no longer matters if a child knows why 2+2=4, so long as they answer 4.

 

I am not bashing teachers saying that they are giving up and sacrificing kids' education to keep their jobs. Teachers do the best they can. But in order for them to keep trying... they have to show results or all is lost.

 

I understand why the system is what it is. There had to be accountability and some way to make sure that schools have "qualified teaching professionals that are capable and effective." But, with the current system, teachers are expected to make silk purses out of sows ears. Not every child is going to be able to be a rocket scientist. But with the NCLB act, schools had better show that every child can meet those standards. And in order to do that...the standards had better be low enough that every child can achieve those levels. As the saying goes, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So the load you expect that chain to haul better not be more than what the weakest link can handle.

[help4me]

Do I detect that a missile of the foulest description is about to impact upon the revolving apparatus?

http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/surprised/lookaround.gif

LOL... no of course not ;)

 

However, I am very passionate about this topic because I am in the middle of it. I am a teacher that understands what true teaching is all about, but because of issues that have been brought up in this thread, I can't effectively do my job in a manner that coincides with my value system.

 

Finally I have a way to voice my opinion and someone is actually listening. There is a problem with today's school systems, and I don't know how to begin to fix it. I see and feel that our kids are on the losing end of this situation... and yet I can't do anything about it. If I continue to teach the way I do and refuse to conform to the way my bosses want me to, then I'll be out of a job. Then who will fight for our kids? I will just be replaced by a "yes sir" employee. If I give a little and conform a bit, then I might have a chance to teach the right way when no one is looking. However... once you breech your own standards... then it's not so hard for them to force you to compromise again. When do I say enough is enough? And then... what happens to the kids? Who's going to be there for them? Who's going to be their voice? I'm not a JUST a teacher.... I am a CHILD ADVOCATE. (appropriate super-hero music plays here ;) )

[petef]

The second statement in the last paragraph is the exact flaw that we are seeing with the NCLB law. Teachers teach to the test because if they don't... they get in trouble. Their ability to teach is put into question. Second' date=' schools lose money if the students don't "perform" to standard. This isn't REAL teaching. Get the kids to give the right answer and be done with it. That's all they want... right answers. Not actual learning..[/quote']

Ok, I understand your point about teaching to a test, but if you can teach

to test by teaching the "answers" without having to know how to obtain the

answers, then the test is flawed.

 

Bonnie, I think you'd have to provide a few examples of the tests that

are subject to being taught the answers as you claim, then we can

discuss that further.

 

Maybe I'm wrong in my thinking that a valid test can be designed where

it's impossible to teach the answers, but I think if modern technology

is used properly, a test can be provided to each student that would

have them perform real life tasks that would measure their ability

to perform a variety of skills.

 

For example, a given test could begin with a list of items purchsed by

cash and checks. Then have the student complete the sample

checkbook by balancing the checkbook.

 

In the example above, if computer technology was used to create

the test, each student would have the same basic example but with

different values to calculate. So no one could cheat by lookig at

their neighbor's test and the teachers could not provide the answers

in advance. In other words, the teacher would have to teach how to

balance a checkbook using simple addition and subtraction.

 

I know I could come up with some better sample tests that test

more than additoin and subtraction because I use a similar technique

when interviewing people for a particular job. I give the job applicant

a real life task where they must read and follow some simple instructions

and then use the computer and MS WORD to complete the task. It's

quite effective for measuring their reading comprehension, their

attention to detail and their ability to use MS WORD. They can't be

taught the answers in advance because there are no answers to

memorize.

 

Again, Bonnie, I'm kind of getting your point, but I'm saying there are

ways to design a test to overcome the flaws you speak of. If you

would show me a few examples of the tests you are referring to,

I'll do my best to show how they can be redesigned.

 

Bottom line, in real life we are expected to perform tasks that

require a variety of skills such as reading, spelling, writing, math,

problem solving, and drawing information from a set of knowledge

base. If a person does not have all the skills, they can't complete

the task. This is the kind of tests that can be used to test the

students.

 

---pete---

[petef]

Excerpt from the referenced article....

 

NCLB is the latest federal legislation (another was Goals 2000) which enacts the theories of standards-based education reform, formerly known as outcome-based education, which is based on the belief that high expectations and setting of goals will result in success for all students. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. NCLB does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state.

Bonnie, I studied the topic of Goals 2000 back around 1999 when I came

across the article on Outcome Based Education & Higher Order Thinking Skills.

Back then, there was much controversy about the hidden agenda of these

programs and how government should not be allowed to control what

is being taught in the schools because history has shown that Nazi Germany

and Soviet Russia could never have happened if the state had not been in

control of the education of the youth.

 

The article I read back in 1999 on the above topic is at the link below...

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Ed/Gls2000b.htm

 

So my idea of national testing standards can be a dangerous thing if

combined with other government programs and agencies. This is why I

feel that most centralized control over the education systems must be abolished, but I still feel it would be beneficial to have a way to objectively measure the quality of education that each school is providing.

 

---pete---

[petef]

Finally I have a way to voice my opinion and someone is actually listening. There is a problem with today's school systems' date=' and I don't know how to begin to fix it. I see and feel that our kids are on the losing end of this situation... and yet I can't do anything about it. If I continue to teach the way I do and refuse to conform to the way my bosses want me to, then I'll be out of a job.[/quote']

Bonnnie, I've been following this thread and maybe I missed it, but

can you explain a bit more about what you feel is wrong that needs

fixing? What are they trying to make you confrom to?

 

---pete---

[help4me]

Finally I have a way to voice my opinion and someone is actually listening. There is a problem with today's school systems' date=' and I don't know how to begin to fix it. I see and feel that our kids are on the losing end of this situation... and yet I can't do anything about it. If I continue to teach the way I do and refuse to conform to the way my bosses want me to, then I'll be out of a job.[/quote']

Bonnie, I've been following this thread and maybe I missed it, but

can you explain a bit more about what you feel is wrong that needs

fixing? What are they trying to make you conform to?

 

---pete---

I'll do the best I can to explain.

 

The first example... We have an alphabet chart. For each letter there are about six picture cards with a picture of something that starts with that letter. On the back of the card is the word. (i.e. A has a card with a pic of an apple and on the back of the card is the word apple). So... on the first day that I introduce a letter... we go over the sounds that letter makes and then I use the letter's cards. First I describe the picture without showing it to see if they can use their skills to guess what the picture is from the clues I give. Then I over emphasize the beginning sound and ask what letter does the picture start with. Then I show them the back of the card with the picture's word. We go over that... A-P-P-L-E spells apple. The reason I do this is not to teach them that A-P-P-L-E spells apple but that groups of letters = words. I am trying to convey the mechanics of language. How letters work together to form words. The next day... we go over the letter again and the cards again. This time I show only the back of the card. I spell the word. And my kids tell me what word I spelled. They can do this not by knowing what word I spelled but rather by the shape of the card. The apple card looks like an apple. The point is not to teach them how to spell apple. The point is to teach them that certain letters put together = something specific. That's it. I'm not suppose to do this anymore because I am "teaching these kids phonics and that is above their level. That is 1st and 2nd grade concepts and way too advanced for preschoolers. " No... it isn't. Now if I gave them a spelling test... yeah... that's too much. I know my kids and what they can and can not deal with. I know how to set the bar just high enough to keep them challenged but not so high they can't reach for it.

 

Second... many of our preschoolers watch the kiddie show "Dora the Explorer." Dora is bilingual. So many of our kids try to imitate speaking Spanish like Dora. So... to go with that, I began teaching colors to the kids.... in Spanish. Just a few. And not sit and drill until they know either. We were talking about who had on what color shirt that day... and so I threw in The Spanish name for the color as well. It is proven that young kids are the perfect age to learn a new language. I have studied this in college so it's not just a personal observation. Anyway, so we were talking about colors. So I'd say, "Joe has on what color shirt?" They'd tell me. Then I'd say, "Right, a white shirt. Dora would say that Joe has on a "blanco" shirt. Blanco is the Spanish word for white." And then we'd move on. Just a tid bit of information tossed in here and there. Later the same day kids were asking me what Dora would call various colors. So I went with it. They asked me a question, so I'll do my best to answer it. They are seeking knowledge. I was told by my superiors that that teaching Spanish was not appropriate for preschool age children. It will do nothing but confuse them because they don't yet have a firm grasp on the English words for colors and to throw in Spanish will confuse them. BULL!!! First you have to find out what the kids know. Then you build from there. If they don't know colors... then no... I shouldn't be teaching them Spanish colors. I agree there. This is why I am not teaching the Spanish for shapes, or letters. Because they don't yet have a firm hold on the English. And I use Spanish as an example. I also will throw in other languages. But... to conform... I stopped the Spanish. That was two months ago, and do you know that 95% of my kids can still tell me the Spanish for a few colors.

 

Both of the examples were shot down by the "head office." My reasoning for doing what I do is not to teach the kids that A-P-P-L-E spells apple, but rather that letters form words. I don't throw in Spanish so that the kids learn to speak Spanish, but rather that there is more than one way to do things.

 

Am I wrong? I ask this seriously. I am asking for honest opinions. Did I do wrong?

[help4me]

Pete... I will respond to your other posts later on today. :)

[petef]

The point is not to teach them how to spell apple. The point is to teach them that certain letters put together = something specific. That's it. I'm not suppose to do this anymore because I am "teaching these kids phonics and that is above their level. That is 1st and 2nd grade concepts and way too advanced for preschoolers. " No... it isn't. Now if I gave them a spelling test... yeah... that's too much. I know my kids and what they can and can not deal with. I know how to set the bar just high enough to keep them challenged but not so high they can't reach for it.

It's hard for me to judge due to the age of the kids, but I'm thinking the teachers

should be able to use whatever methods they feel works best, within reason.

But to complete that concept there has to be some kind of testing to evaluate

the students to see if the teacher's methods are working. If you had such proof

that your methods work, you would have some power over your superiors to

teach the way you want to.

 

 

I was told by my superiors that that teaching Spanish was not appropriate for preschool age children. It will do nothing but confuse them because they don't yet have a firm grasp on the English words for colors and to throw in Spanish will confuse them. BULL!!! First you have to find out what the kids know. Then you build from there..........

 

..............Am I wrong? I ask this seriously. I am asking for honest opinions. Did I do wrong?

I'm thinking that you'd have to consider the parents' opinions on this issue and how

important they feel their kids need to know Spanish. Would you feel comfortable

asking that question? If you would not, or if you anticipate a negative reaction

by the parents, then I think you have your answer. After all, this is America and

English is the primary language. Personally, I feel that the student should be the

one to choose the second language they'd like to learn and that might not be

practical until a later age. In any case, I do agree that the ability to learn a

second language is there, even at such a young age of 5 years old.

 

---pete---

[help4me]

Yes, we do get the parents involved in teaching. Parents in fact are supposed to suggest ideas for lesson plans and so on. But most of them do not. At the first parent teacher conference, I go over what I have observed of the child, what they can do, and areas that I think the child needs to work on in order the meet federal standards. Then I ask the parent what their goals are for their child, what do they want them to learn this year. So on and so forth. When a parent first enrolls their chld they fill out several forms that state what the parent wants their child to learn and things that the parent absolutely does not want their child to be exposed to, and this gives the teachers a base idea of where to start. As a parent and a teacher, I understand how important it is to have parent input on each child's education. In that respect we agree Pete. Parents should be active in their child's education, and teachers need to respect that and incorporate parent's ideas as much as possible.

 

Previously you had asked about the formal testing we use. Here are a couple of links.

 

This is the homepage of Brigance

http://www.curriculumassociates.com/products/detail.asp?title=BrigScreenPre&Type=SCH&CustID=164637532701271018203

 

Here is a wiki link to the Denver Scale which includes a link to Denver's home page if you scroll down the page.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_Scale

 

I teach in a preschool... children ages 3-5.

[Guest Wolfeymole]

As an aside from this Dora the Explorer thing can I just ask why you would want to teach the kids Spanish Bonnie?

Is the neighbourhood predominantly hispanic or something?

The reason I say this is because schools over here are starting to introduce methods to teach ethnic languages as part of this multi-cultural image.

I think it's offside personally and should not be encouraged.

Then you get teachers with yashmacs on with just a pair of eyes showing, how can a kid identify with a teacher who they cannot see and looks like some obscure Ninja cat?

[help4me]

As an aside from this Dora the Explorer thing can I just ask why you would want to teach the kids Spanish Bonnie?

Is the neighbourhood predominantly hispanic or something?

The reason I say this is because schools over here are starting to introduce methods to teach ethnic languages as part of this multi-cultural image.

I think it's offside personally and should not be encouraged.

Then you get teachers with yashmacs on with just a pair of eyes showing, how can a kid identify with a teacher who they cannot see and looks like some obscure Ninja cat?

The reason is because the kids were trying to imitate speaking Spanish. While it's a normal kid thing to do... and there is really nothing wrong with them doing that... in a way it is a bit rude. SO rather than them jabber nonsense words pretending to speak Spanish... I threw in some real Spanish words. Mainly because the kids brought it up. If the kids bring it up, I talk about it. Or if we are in our multi-cultural week of themes. It's not something I purposely teach the kids, because I agree that this is America and we speak English here. Now that might change if we had quite a few bilingual students, in which it would only be fair to incorporate their family traditions and culture into our studies, as I would for any family that wished to contribute ideas to the lesson plans. Of course we do have a process through which that is done, so as not to offend any other family, nor neglect our state and federal mandates.

 

If the kids bring up Batman.. then we talk about Batman, which in turn leads to a discussion and learning about bats. As teachers we need to respond to almost every idea the kids bring up, as long as we do so in a suitable and appropriate fashion.

[JEBWrench]

So my idea of national testing standards can be a dangerous thing if

combined with other government programs and agencies. This is why I

feel that most centralized control over the education systems must be abolished, but I still feel it would be beneficial to have a way to objectively measure the quality of education that each school is providing.

 

---pete---

A couple questions pop into mind about de-centralizing the power structure of the education system. First of all is where the funding for the various newly created educational systems going to come from? Without some sort of government or private backer, the system will likely be even more underfunded (current funding is, needless to say, a whole other kettle of fish in the topic of education). Otherwise, even public institutions will require a tuition fee, the very sort of thing that had inhibited many member of my family before public education became truly public. Second is how to ensure that all regions are building a similar base of developmental standards. Otherwise, it may be even more difficult should a family relocate to another part of the country or even the same state for the students to adjust to their new educational environment.

 

And no, I'm not saying these things because I inherently disagree with what's being discussed. They're just issues that come to mind when I think of them.

[petef]

A couple questions pop into mind about de-centralizing the power structure of the education system. First of all is where the funding for the various newly created educational systems going to come from?

Well, as it is now in the USA, the federal government is the source of a great

deal of funding and they abuse the power by witholding funds if your school

does not comply with their demands. That is one way to control things that

can be very destructive to an entire nation and most likely a contributing

factor to the degradation of the American schools which are now sub-standard

in comparison to many schools in other countries that are less prosperous.

The federal government has too much to say about what goes on in the

schools because they control the funding. This has to change if we desire

the schools to be less prone to interference and more free to improve as

each school sees fit.

 

Funding should come from the local governments if the school systems

are to have freedom and conrol over themselves. The federal government

at most, should be there to serve the nation by monitoring the performance

of the schools so we know which are doing well and which are not.

 

We'd have to lower federal income taxes and raise local municipal taxes

to acomplish this. However, since the federal government is not likley to

go along with such a plan because it means giving up power and control,

there's not much chance of it happening. So guess where we are headed?

 

---pete---

[help4me]

Calling American schools sub-standard compared to other countries is unfair considering how some countries do not allow all children to go to school. Some places only allow the best of the best to attend. Therefore their national test scores are going to be higher than American schools. Now if you limit your comparison to a few countries that have a similar education structure to that of the United States, then ok... I might agree with you.

 

Secondly, there must be some sort of national conformity in order for children to be able to transfer from state to state. A good example of this is military families that may move several times within a school year. Also take a look at colleges and how hard it is to transfer credits from college to college. The private college in this town accepts most credits from other colleges, but many of their credits do not transfer out. So if a college student has to transfer, they almost have to start their education over.

 

So how do we reach a compromise and allow schools freedom yet enough similarities that education is transferable?