I understand the argument behind extending the school year, but I'm still resistant to it. I submit to you that:
1) Maybe it's not so much an issue of how LONG kids are in school as what is done with the time they DO spend in the classroom. Perhaps the education system should be open to different types of educational strategies, as opposed to the very strict regimentation in place right now.
2) Learning opportunities and human development -- both personal and intellectual -- are not limited to the classroom. If the time lag between the end of one school year and the beginning of the next threatens to snuff material out of children's memories, perhaps the way to reinforce these things is to get them involved in fun and creative programs like summer camp, library activities, sports, the arts...and even time spent with family and friends, finding ways to tie what they learn during the school year in with these things. And this is something that could fall on the business sector as well -- i.e., not placing such fierce demands on employees' time (I have Corporate America in mind, specifically)and allowing them to spend time with their families so that they can take the kids to a science museum or something.
I'm not an expert, and I certainly don't mean to be arrogant, that's just my 0.02.
Dan, we are on the same page! I don't think a longer academic year will necessarily translate into higher test scores and better-performing schools.
I think too much of today's classroom focus is on test scores. My kids are grown now, but my experience was that teachers in the 80s and 90s "taught to the test" because everything rose or fell based on them, funding, standings, career advancement.
It is perhaps seen as liberal if one supports arts, music and anything other than the "three Rs" in weighing in on how to improve education. Yet many Americans don't feel that way when it comes to money for sports, especially boys' sports.
Education is fostered by the things Dan cites, and so are social skills. However, I do not cotton to the idea of OVER-scheduling (and stressing out) children in the hopes of beefing up their brains and abilities. Kids need goof time. Time to let their minds wonder (and wander) a bit.
But one of the biggest areas of concern I have is over the lack of parent participation I notice.
How many parents go to visit classrooms, attend school functions, know what the school board is doing, or even eat dinner together? Families are splintered, not too few people seem unable or unwilling to do more with less, and kids drift. Meds shouldn't be the answer in so many cases, either.
Fathers need to be more involved, and I know that's a gross generality, but I believe for many, it's an important factor in the health of the family unit as well as a child's education.
Daniel, you make more sense than most of the so called experts. I'd like to add my 2 cents, too. Also as a non-expert.
The school day needs to start later. We are no longer a farm based economy. Studies have proven that just one extra hour of sleep for school aged children have a remarkable effect on performance.
Kids absolutely need to have the basics [reading, writing, arithmatic] before moving on to other things.
It should be recognized that children are not all ready at the same time to learn and that all children are never going to be scolars no matter what you do for them.
These children still need to learn the skills to be productive citizens.
Get rid of Regents tests. Other states do fine without them. In NY, too often classes center around the questions that are asked on the regents, rather than learning the subject.
Finally, to me there is only one purpose beyond teaching the basics and that is to instill in children that there is joy and satisfaction in learning. Children need to learn how to learn!
Janice, I agree with you all except that children need to learn the basics first, before learning other "fun" things. I don't think it's either/or. I think it should be inclusive, with 70 or more percent focused on the basics, and the remainder on so-called "extra-curricular" activities.
This way, children are learning both, to take the "medicine with some sugar," so as to enjoy the process more.
But the quality of teachers', not just the scores their students produce, is key, too. Teachers' unions are outdated and not in the students' best interests. Also, their are NY teachers, and elsewhere, who take in more in pension money annually than they ever did as a teacher. There's something wrong with that picture.
I agree with you on the teachers unions.
When Arnold tried to make it harder for teachers to make tenure the teachers unions had a hissy fit. The problem was there were some of the teachers that hung it up after they made tenure. They took on the attitude that they had a guaranteed pay check. Luckily for me I had a few outstanding teachers growing up in California. They enjoyed teaching.
I don't necessarily think that is the problem everywhere. But the schools should be allowed to remove a teacher that has taken on that attitude with out having to jump through hoops in order to do it.
One possible solution to the debate of should the school year be longer or not, do year round school. What I mean by that is the kids would be in school for three months followed by a one month break and so on through out the rest of the year. Basically a trimester set up. There would be less time for the students to forget what they learned in the previous session.
Jeremiah...I, too, had some excellent teachers growing up in California in the '60s and '70s, but there were many challenges ahead for classrooms there.
In the '80s, for starters, classroom size in a metro area like San Diego grew to unwieldy proportions. In one school district alone, that being El Cajon, there were 36 different languages spoken by the students and a mandate to use their native language and transition them to English.
There was constant strife among the school board members about what new textbooks should be, especially for history, science, and social studies. Self-esteem lessons entered the classroom and controversy over prayer in school, the latter quite understandable in my mind.
And mainstreaming disabled students into the classrooms became the norm, for good or ill.
As for the year-round school calendar, forget it. I covered education for several years in the '90s at a small community paper and learned the pros and cons of it. I came away with thinking that, even though the academic year in America was established for a then-primarily agrarian society, it was a better model than year-round school.
Many parents found year-round to be more stressful, both for them and their children, as it added more juggling to already hectic lives. There was no real stretch of time to go for an extended vacation and just enjoy the summer. Kids tended to feel that were always "on" and that there off time was not all that "off."
I guess some would argue that a year-round school calendar helps boost test scores and that kids retain more of what they learn, but I don't think so. There is value in learning that learning is a lifelong process and there is much to be learned outside of the classroom, too.
I understand the argument
I understand the argument behind extending the school year, but I'm still resistant to it. I submit to you that:
1) Maybe it's not so much an issue of how LONG kids are in school as what is done with the time they DO spend in the classroom. Perhaps the education system should be open to different types of educational strategies, as opposed to the very strict regimentation in place right now.
2) Learning opportunities and human development -- both personal and intellectual -- are not limited to the classroom. If the time lag between the end of one school year and the beginning of the next threatens to snuff material out of children's memories, perhaps the way to reinforce these things is to get them involved in fun and creative programs like summer camp, library activities, sports, the arts...and even time spent with family and friends, finding ways to tie what they learn during the school year in with these things. And this is something that could fall on the business sector as well -- i.e., not placing such fierce demands on employees' time (I have Corporate America in mind, specifically)and allowing them to spend time with their families so that they can take the kids to a science museum or something.
I'm not an expert, and I certainly don't mean to be arrogant, that's just my 0.02.
I always learned way more
I always learned way more during summer vacation than I ever did during the school year.
Dan, we are on the same page!
Dan, we are on the same page! I don't think a longer academic year will necessarily translate into higher test scores and better-performing schools.
I think too much of today's classroom focus is on test scores. My kids are grown now, but my experience was that teachers in the 80s and 90s "taught to the test" because everything rose or fell based on them, funding, standings, career advancement.
It is perhaps seen as liberal if one supports arts, music and anything other than the "three Rs" in weighing in on how to improve education. Yet many Americans don't feel that way when it comes to money for sports, especially boys' sports.
Education is fostered by the things Dan cites, and so are social skills. However, I do not cotton to the idea of OVER-scheduling (and stressing out) children in the hopes of beefing up their brains and abilities. Kids need goof time. Time to let their minds wonder (and wander) a bit.
But one of the biggest areas of concern I have is over the lack of parent participation I notice.
How many parents go to visit classrooms, attend school functions, know what the school board is doing, or even eat dinner together? Families are splintered, not too few people seem unable or unwilling to do more with less, and kids drift. Meds shouldn't be the answer in so many cases, either.
Fathers need to be more involved, and I know that's a gross generality, but I believe for many, it's an important factor in the health of the family unit as well as a child's education.
Daniel, you make more sense
Daniel, you make more sense than most of the so called experts. I'd like to add my 2 cents, too. Also as a non-expert.
The school day needs to start later. We are no longer a farm based economy. Studies have proven that just one extra hour of sleep for school aged children have a remarkable effect on performance.
Kids absolutely need to have the basics [reading, writing, arithmatic] before moving on to other things.
It should be recognized that children are not all ready at the same time to learn and that all children are never going to be scolars no matter what you do for them.
These children still need to learn the skills to be productive citizens.
Get rid of Regents tests. Other states do fine without them. In NY, too often classes center around the questions that are asked on the regents, rather than learning the subject.
Finally, to me there is only one purpose beyond teaching the basics and that is to instill in children that there is joy and satisfaction in learning. Children need to learn how to learn!
Janice, I agree with you all
Janice, I agree with you all except that children need to learn the basics first, before learning other "fun" things. I don't think it's either/or. I think it should be inclusive, with 70 or more percent focused on the basics, and the remainder on so-called "extra-curricular" activities.
This way, children are learning both, to take the "medicine with some sugar," so as to enjoy the process more.
But the quality of teachers', not just the scores their students produce, is key, too. Teachers' unions are outdated and not in the students' best interests. Also, their are NY teachers, and elsewhere, who take in more in pension money annually than they ever did as a teacher. There's something wrong with that picture.
Billie, I agree with you on
Billie,
I agree with you on the teachers unions.
When Arnold tried to make it harder for teachers to make tenure the teachers unions had a hissy fit. The problem was there were some of the teachers that hung it up after they made tenure. They took on the attitude that they had a guaranteed pay check. Luckily for me I had a few outstanding teachers growing up in California. They enjoyed teaching.
I don't necessarily think that is the problem everywhere. But the schools should be allowed to remove a teacher that has taken on that attitude with out having to jump through hoops in order to do it.
One possible solution to the debate of should the school year be longer or not, do year round school. What I mean by that is the kids would be in school for three months followed by a one month break and so on through out the rest of the year. Basically a trimester set up. There would be less time for the students to forget what they learned in the previous session.
Jeremiah...I, too, had some
Jeremiah...I, too, had some excellent teachers growing up in California in the '60s and '70s, but there were many challenges ahead for classrooms there.
In the '80s, for starters, classroom size in a metro area like San Diego grew to unwieldy proportions. In one school district alone, that being El Cajon, there were 36 different languages spoken by the students and a mandate to use their native language and transition them to English.
There was constant strife among the school board members about what new textbooks should be, especially for history, science, and social studies. Self-esteem lessons entered the classroom and controversy over prayer in school, the latter quite understandable in my mind.
And mainstreaming disabled students into the classrooms became the norm, for good or ill.
As for the year-round school calendar, forget it. I covered education for several years in the '90s at a small community paper and learned the pros and cons of it. I came away with thinking that, even though the academic year in America was established for a then-primarily agrarian society, it was a better model than year-round school.
Many parents found year-round to be more stressful, both for them and their children, as it added more juggling to already hectic lives. There was no real stretch of time to go for an extended vacation and just enjoy the summer. Kids tended to feel that were always "on" and that there off time was not all that "off."
I guess some would argue that a year-round school calendar helps boost test scores and that kids retain more of what they learn, but I don't think so. There is value in learning that learning is a lifelong process and there is much to be learned outside of the classroom, too.