"Our public schools are failing."

[racecar]

In what regards? We hear this continuously thrown around but I never seem to hear why. We have by far the best colleges and universities in the world, all filled (mostly) by American educated students. People compare our test scores to other countries ignoring the fact that it's practically apples and oranges.

Do I think our education system needs work? Absolutely. I'm a teacher myself in one of New Jersey's inner cities after being educated in one of New Jersey's most rural (and red) counties. The main point I'm struggling with is that why and how have so many people accepted the mantra "our public schools are failing" as fact?

[forgottenamerican]

In what regards? We hear this continuously thrown around but I never seem to hear why. We have by far the best colleges and universities in the world, all filled (mostly) by American educated students. People compare our test scores to other countries ignoring the fact that it's practically apples and oranges.

Do I think our education system needs work? Absolutely. I'm a teacher myself in one of New Jersey's inner cities after being educated in one of New Jersey's most rural (and red) counties. The main point I'm struggling with is that why and how have so many people accepted the mantra "our public schools are failing" as fact?

It has been my experience that the" best and the brightest" do not become teachers.(No offense meant) They normally opt for the private sector, where they don't have to battle against an entrenched liberal establishment. Why would someone decide to make less money and fight the battle, when there is much more opportunity outside of education.IMO it is a waste, we can see the result, US public schools are more like glorified baby-sitters than educational institutions. More social than substance.

[racecar]

It has been my experience that the" best and the brightest" do not become teachers.(No offense meant) They normally opt for the private sector, where they don't have to battle against an entrenched liberal establishment. Why would someone decide to make less money and fight the battle, when there is much more opportunity outside of education.IMO it is a waste, we can see the result, US public schools are more like glorified baby-sitters than educational institutions. More social than substance.

No offense taken. I do it out of passion. I graduated with a degree in physics and I'm well aware of the benefits in the private sector ;) . But my question to you is, then who WILL educate our students? Private school teachers are typically paid even lesssssssssss than those in the public schools, so are you saying elementary and secondary education is a waste in and of itself?

I'm not really sure where you're going with this.

[Dregun]

Our educational system is constantly changing, while I took Algebra in my freshman year, it is now being taught as "Pre-Algebra" in middle school. When I was only required to take 1 year of a foriegn language class, most schools now require 2 years of foreign language. (Im 30 by the way). Our school system for a long time was stuck in the past, I remember my parents helping me with my homework and talking about them taking the same classes when they were my age..to an extent. Now it's much different, I'm worried that when my child is in Highschool that I will not be able to help them with thier studies. The way we are progressing they will be taking Algebra in 6th grade, Geometry in 8th grade and when they get to highschool I'm going to be out of my league. While I can handle Algebra "2" or "Advanced Algebra" I'm rusty, but I couldn't touch calculous and I know it's going to be a sophmore class for him.

Our education system was in a rut while other countries were constantly updating and progressing. We still provide a decent education through our k-12 schools; just that it's not at the level of other countries or where we "ought" to be as a superpower.

Just my 2 cents.

[racecar]

Its tough to compare to other countries. It's so often overlooked but we go to great lengths to make sure that EVERYONE is educated, where as in many other countries those who cannot keep up are left out. Not to mention how distinctly diverse our student bodies are when compared to other countries. It's like applying NCLB to the entirety of Europe. It doesn't make sense, haha.

[Tom Kalbfus]

No offense taken. I do it out of passion. I graduated with a degree in physics and I'm well aware of the benefits in the private sector ;) . But my question to you is, then who WILL educate our students? Private school teachers are typically paid even lesssssssssss than those in the public schools, so are you saying elementary and secondary education is a waste in and of itself?

I'm not really sure where you're going with this.
Private school teachers get paid less because the institutions they work for have to compete with public schools, that tax payers pay for. In order to attract those parents to a private school who are already paying for public schools with their property taxes, those schools do what they can to remain compedative, some of the places they cut are in teachers salaries.

My question is this: Why do we need public schools to have a public education? Why does revenue raised through property taxes have to flow directly into public schools?

Seems to me you can have school districts which hand out vouchers to parents so they can determine which schools to send their children to. That being the case, there is no reason to have publicly funded schools if they can be funded through vouchers instead. The public schools can be privatized, and all the schools can operate on a level playing field competing for those vouchers and whatever extra money the individual parents may want to throw in for a quality education. I figure why not have vouchers for colleges as well? If public education is a societal good, wouldn't it make sense to fund education through college using the voucher system. A person's ability to get a higher education shouldn't be restricted by the income limitations of his parents, and the college loan thing is a gamble, the student has to gamble on what sort of degree to pursue, and if he's wrong about the future job market, he may be liable to pay off that education loan from a low paying job for the rest of his life. So many college degrees turn out to be useless for getting a job.

[Apatriot]

Private school teachers get paid less because the institutions they work for have to compete with public schools, that tax payers pay for. In order to attract those parents to a private school who are already paying for public schools with their property taxes, those schools do what they can to remain compedative, some of the places they cut are in teachers salaries.

Generally it depends on the type of private school. Religious private schools usually pay less (partly because most of the teachers are believers). Non-religious private schools pay comparably to public schools (and are quite expensive for parents).

My question is this: Why do we need public schools to have a public education? Why does revenue raised through property taxes have to flow directly into public schools?

That you have to bring up to your state. It is a state by state choice, and all seem to have made the same choice. Public schools were started in colonial times in Massachussetts. In my opinion, public schools were the well-spring of the American Revolution.

Seems to me you can have school districts which hand out vouchers to parents so they can determine which schools to send their children to. That being the case, there is no reason to have publicly funded schools if they can be funded through vouchers instead. The public schools can be privatized, and all the schools can operate on a level playing field competing for those vouchers and whatever extra money the individual parents may want to throw in for a quality education. I figure why not have vouchers for colleges as well? If public education is a societal good, wouldn't it make sense to fund education through college using the voucher system. A person's ability to get a higher education shouldn't be restricted by the income limitations of his parents, and the college loan thing is a gamble, the student has to gamble on what sort of degree to pursue, and if he's wrong about the future job market, he may be liable to pay off that education loan from a low paying job for the rest of his life. So many college degrees turn out to be useless for getting a job.

Where do you propose getting the money for vouchers? What limitations are you going to place? Are you going to allow Baalzebub's Satanic elementary school to get money? How about Abdullah's Islamic Center? Are you going to require these schools to take special ed students? If not, what are you going to do with special ed students?

Finally, if vouchers come in, the first thing the current non-religious private schools will do is raise their tuition. The main purpose of non-religious private schools is to keep rich kids away from poor kids. Hence, they are going to increase their tuition by about 3/4 of the worth of the voucher. That will help them to get better schools, AND will also help them keep out riff-raff, and will be a slight tuition break for their parents. Everybody wins except the taxpayers. The main purpose of religious private schools is to teach kids about their religion. I'm not sure we want taxpayer money going that way either.

In terms of college, we already subsidize a lot of college students through Pell grants, etc. Anybody who really wants a college degree can raise the money to finance one.

[merickson]

I graduated HS in 1973. And I've been around the University of California since then, in various capacities.

One thing that I have noticed is that the percentage of students taking Subject A (Bonehead English) has increased. When I entered college, it was odd for people to take it, now its almost assumed that a freshman will take it.

That and the percentage of people taking Math A,B,C,D (a.k.a. high school math) in college could be used as a measure of whether public schools are teaching as well as they used to. What percentage of university freshmen need to take high school level courses and has that percentage increased?

I don't know the answer, but it seem to me to be a more useful metric than SAT scores.

(Side note: Do High Schools still offer Latin?)

[Apatriot]

I graduated HS in 1973. And I've been around the University of California since then, in various capacities.

One thing that I have noticed is that the percentage of students taking Subject A (Bonehead English) has increased. When I entered college, it was odd for people to take it, now its almost assumed that a freshman will take it.

That and the percentage of people taking Math A,B,C,D (a.k.a. high school math) in college could be used as a measure of whether public schools are teaching as well as they used to. What percentage of university freshmen need to take high school level courses and has that percentage increased?

I don't know the answer, but it seem to me to be a more useful metric than SAT scores.

(Side note: Do High Schools still offer Latin?)


Sounds to me like the problem is that UC is taking students who aren't qualified.

[merickson]

Sounds to me like the problem is that UC is taking students who aren't qualified.The UC draws its students from the top 12% of high school graduates.
If UC is accepting unqualified students, then the top 12% of CA high school students ...

I think this says more about High Schools than the U.

[Apatriot]

The UC draws its students from the top 12% of high school graduates.
If UC is accepting unqualified students, then the top 12% of CA high school students ...

I think this says more about High Schools than the U.


Didn't know that was the sole qualification. Don't SAT scores or other things enter into admission, or is it purely top 12%?

[merickson]

There are bells and whistles (SATs and diveristy, etc.) to the admissions process, but top 12% is the stated figure.

One would have to dig into the figures, but I'll bet that enrollment in remedial courses (Subject A, Math A,B,C) has risen faster than overall enrollment.

In general, I think that performance in the next level is a better indicator of instruction that exit exams. To judge how good a particular English 1 instructor is, track their students' grades in English 2. To track how high schools are doing, look at what percentage of their graduates need to take HS level courses their first year at college. (Caveat: This technique is good for comparing school A year X vs. school A year Y or school A year X vs. school B year X, it is not good for school A year X vs. school B year Y)

[Dregun]

Actually as far as I know Freshman are "required" to take these "bonehead" classes, thats why many people go to community college or why some HS students are taking those college courses while still in High School.

If someone wants a good education and wants to save money the best way to do that is to go to a cumminity college for the first 2 years and then transfer to a regular University after.

The real problem is that we are requiring PAYING students to take these standard classes even if they are already gifted in these subjects. Why do you think so much drinking and partying goes on the first couple years of college? It's because half of the classes they take the first year are "bonehead" classes and half of those are required by the school. Mix that with the "freedom" that these teenagers now posess and you see whats happening more clearly.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Generally it depends on the type of private school. Religious private schools usually pay less (partly because most of the teachers are believers). Non-religious private schools pay comparably to public schools (and are quite expensive for parents).
As they are not publically funded, I'll bet you the operating costs of nonreligious private schools and public schools are similar though, the only difference is that public funds are piped directly into the public schools instead of into parents hands in the form of vouchers. When you consider that their are more taxpaying households than there are households with school age children, the formula for determining the worth of the voucher is simple the amount of revenue collected for public education divided by the number of school age children in the district, the district mails the vouchers to the parents one for each school age child that they have and they are payable to any accredited private school. Once you do this all formerly public schools in the district become private schools funded through tuition, the schools incorporate and become private businesses, and thus compete with everyone else for students.


That you have to bring up to your state. It is a state by state choice, and all seem to have made the same choice. Public schools were started in colonial times in Massachussetts. In my opinion, public schools were the well-spring of the American Revolution.



Where do you propose getting the money for vouchers? What limitations are you going to place? Are you going to allow Baalzebub's Satanic elementary school to get money? How about Abdullah's Islamic Center? Are you going to require these schools to take special ed students? If not, what are you going to do with special ed students?
The vouchers are payable to accredited private schools, to get that accredidation, the school in question must meet certain standards, and certain things like teaching evil can disqualify a school from receiving an accredidation, its no difference from licensing private doctor practises, you can't get an insurance company to write a check to a witch doctor who shakes a rattle above a patient, or who applies leeches or practices transindental meditation to cure cancer - the doctors must be licensed, and in a similar vein educational institutions must also be licensed to deposit those vouchers. Having a license to practise and being a public run institution are not necessarily the same thing.
Finally, if vouchers come in, the first thing the current non-religious private schools will do is raise their tuition. The main purpose of non-religious private schools is to keep rich kids away from poor kids. Hence, they are going to increase their tuition by about 3/4 of the worth of the voucher. That will help them to get better schools, AND will also help them keep out riff-raff, and will be a slight tuition break for their parents. Everybody wins except the taxpayers. The main purpose of religious private schools is to teach kids about their religion. I'm not sure we want taxpayer money going that way either.
When you put the purchasing decision in the hands of parents, then they decide individually and not as a society. When you go buy a pizza for instance, you don't have the whole community decide whether the pizza is good for you and if you should have it. It the purpose is to put the purchasing power in the hands of the parent, then the purchasing decision also goes with that parent rather than a school administrator, and you don't have your neighbors voting to decide whether you should send your son to school X or Y. Some parents will want to provide religious instruction to their kids along with their education, what business is it of your neighbor's to send your children to Catholic school or not? Yes, maybe some of his taxpayer's money is going for that, but maybe some of your taxpayer money is going towards his child's Hebrew school. The parent makes the decision, the state only acts as the enabler, so its not a violation of the seperation of church and state. The State or District makes an education available by providing the opportunity, it doesn't decide which school to send your child too.
In terms of college, we already subsidize a lot of college students through Pell grants, etc. Anybody who really wants a college degree can raise the money to finance one.
Why do we need two systems to fund public education? Pell Grants only cover part of the cost, and student loans, are often subsidized at public expense. We learned from Ginnie Mae and Freddie Mac how dangerous subsidizing loans is, or mandating artificially low interest rates, the costs don't become apparent until the market crashes. I figure why not pay for colleges the same way we pay for primary schools, just funnel the taxpayers money to pay for the vouchers, since not everyone is going to college at the same time, this has the same effect as college loans society wise while spreading the risk. One of the problems we have is too much indebitedness anyway, why have more of it through student loans?

[rebel1776]

The main point I'm struggling with is that why and how have so many people accepted the mantra "our public schools are failing" as fact?

Hello.

I think what you are hearing are the cries of frustrated parents who are paying an obscene amount of school taxes and see little for thier investment. The public school system is now geared towards teaching kids what to think instead of how to think. What emerges are generations of young adults who lack basic problem solving skills. This is not your fault or that of your contemporaries. Teachers are handcuffed to a curriculum that is geared towards state test scores instead of true learning. Let's face it, the better the scores, the more money that is filtered to the district. It is a design flaw in the system that feels it is better to dummy down the curriculum so that more children can "succeed." The No Child Left Behind Act ensured that ALL children were left behind.

[ConnieB]

As a parent of a 13 year old and an 18 year old (who just graduated HS), I would like to say a few things.

Concerning my daughter...she has been an A-B honor roll student all of her high school years while taking college prep courses along with a course from the local community college. She took 5 science classes and 4 math classes. she took the ACT for college and got a 20 overall....now she has to take remedial math at the university she will be going to in the fall. We are fighting it because they based this only on her ACT and not what she did in school.

I started back to school myself 3 years ago:
I haven't had math for 20 years, so I had to take remedial math and I understood that. But when I got into my class....15 out of 24 students were fresh from high school. Most of them could NOT do fractions, long division or basic algebra. I was more advanced in math skills then they were.

I also had to take remedial English to catch me up on my skills...12 of those students were fresh from high school and had a hard time understanding the concepts we were using and had a hard time comprehending the books we read. I was actually recommended for Honors English....even though I have not had English in 20 years.

In my opinion, this does not say much about our schools if these students fresh from high school can not do basic math and basic English.

My son just finished up the 7th grade, and he struggled most of the year. I tried to help him as much as possible and I even went to the teachers several times about it. I didn't know he was failing his classes until it was too late in the marking period to do anything. My question...why didn't the teachers take time to contact me or even send a letter my way, are they that lazy now a days to let a child slip through the system? The first hour of school, my son watched a news channel at school. One day I was in there and took a peak at what was on...it was about how the children suffer as they walk from Mexico to the USA to attend school. What does that have to do with my son's education? The next story was about how the soldiers in Iraq were killing innocent children...again what does that have to do with my son's education? I agree with Rebel1776 and that the schools are telling our kids what to think and not how to think for themselves. So now I'm homeschooling him this summer as I am slowly losing faith in the public schools.

I feel the schools are pushing the kids too fast. Why do we need our kids doing algebra in the 7th grade? Why do we need our children learning Spanish and French from kindergarten through 8th grade (and the do this by switching each marking period)? Why do we need our children reading 3 books/week in the first grade? They are pushing them way too hard and way too fast. Forget about how many books they can read, I feel its about what they comprehend from the stories they read. Forget about doing algebra in the 7th grade...focus on getting those basic math skills down pat first, then move on.... As far as foreign languages...I think they need to concentrate on English and its components before learning another language. If they are going to require a foreign language, then have them do Spanish during their last two years of school, and nothing more until college. Kids are slipping through the cracks, I have seen it personally and my son is not the only one in his class (he switches between 6 teachers, so it not just one teacher). The curriculum at his school stinks....so yes I do believe our schools are failing.

[angelicmadrigal]

I feel the schools are pushing the kids too fast. Why do we need our kids doing algebra in the 7th grade?

Because there are CAPABLE of it. I have Kindergarteners that no lie understand how to solve the problem 400+_______=625. Yeah, my kindergarteners know how to carry and borrow, and solve a VERY basic algebra problem by "working backwards" to find the missing number. It's actually a VERY simple process to teach. At that age you don't teach WHY you do it, you just teach the process, and once the process has been mastered you can explain it when they are ready to understand it. Most young kids LOVE puzzles and games, so if you teach them these things like a game or explain it in a way that interests them you'll be surprised what they absorb. For instance teaching multiplication facts through music, I found made it less boring, and younger children are less likely to find it "hokey" or "lame", young children find that FUN. So for me I'd rather introduce all that stuff while they are YOUNG and can appreciate it, than when their older and don't want to listen to a damn thing that comes out of your mouth.

[ConnieB]

Because there are CAPABLE of it. I have Kindergarteners that no lie understand how to solve the problem 400+_______=625. Yeah, my kindergarteners know how to carry and borrow, and solve a VERY basic algebra problem by "working backwards" to find the missing number. It's actually a VERY simple process to teach. At that age you don't teach WHY you do it, you just teach the process, and once the process has been mastered you can explain it when they are ready to understand it. Most young kids LOVE puzzles and games, so if you teach them these things like a game or explain it in a way that interests them you'll be surprised what they absorb. For instance teaching multiplication facts through music, I found made it less boring, and younger children are less likely to find it "hokey" or "lame", young children find that FUN. So for me I'd rather introduce all that stuff while they are YOUNG and can appreciate it, than when their older and don't want to listen to a damn thing that comes out of your mouth.Believe me, if they don't understand the concepts, then they don't appreciate it. I mean how can they appreciate something they don't understand? I feel this is all for you. Just like having the school record of the most books read by a 1st grade class (this is where reading 3 books/week comes into play for my son's school). Now my son HATES to read thanks to this particular teacher. Its more for the teacher bragging rights, then it is for students.

Not all young kids can do this...and that is the problem. Many teachers think the majority of their students will learn a certain way or should be able to learn what is taught, and they push the students instead of actually teaching and paying attention to whether or not these students learned it AND understand it. In Kindergarten...why do kids need to know how to carry and borrow or solve basic algebra in the first place? For many, kindergarten is the first year of school so why focus on academics such as this....lets get them use to being school, teach them how to respect others in a school setting...actually this would be a very good time to begin lessons about how not to be a bully and how to take care of yourself. Not basic algebra. Like I said, our schools push our kids too fast....and because of it, our kids individuality and uniqueness has been forgotten about. No two kids learn the same way or the same pace.

[rebel1776]

Because there are CAPABLE of it.


You are absolutely right. During the developmental stages is when you want children learning logic and critical thinking. It develops those parts of the brain and primes them for more difficult problem solving later on. The problem with public schools, at least here in the Northeast, is that they no longer provide kids with a means to challenge themselves. In a setting where everyone is praised for effort rather than accomplishment, kids never learn how to really push themselves. This shows up later in life in their college educations and their work ethics. When you praise kids for the bare minimum, what motivates them to go any further?

[Apatriot]

As they are not publically funded, I'll bet you the operating costs of nonreligious private schools and public schools are similar though, the only difference is that public funds are piped directly into the public schools instead of into parents hands in the form of vouchers. When you consider that their are more taxpaying households than there are households with school age children, the formula for determining the worth of the voucher is simple the amount of revenue collected for public education divided by the number of school age children in the district, the district mails the vouchers to the parents one for each school age child that they have and they are payable to any accredited private school. Once you do this all formerly public schools in the district become private schools funded through tuition, the schools incorporate and become private businesses, and thus compete with everyone else for students.

What do you do with the special ed students who will need much more than the standard formula?

Actually, non-religious private schools tend to be more expensive than public schools.

According to CAPE (Council for American Private Education), non-sectarian private schools in 2003-2004 cost an average of $13,419 in tuition. That same year, according to the NCES, public schools cost an average of $8310 per student. (Catholic schools $4254, Other religious schools, $5839). Considering that religious schools are subsidized by churches, it seems that there is no real plausible way that vouchers will work.

http://www.capenet.org/facts.html
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66




The vouchers are payable to accredited private schools, to get that accredidation, the school in question must meet certain standards, and certain things like teaching evil can disqualify a school from receiving an accredidation, its no difference from licensing private doctor practises, you can't get an insurance company to write a check to a witch doctor who shakes a rattle above a patient, or who applies leeches or practices transindental meditation to cure cancer - the doctors must be licensed, and in a similar vein educational institutions must also be licensed to deposit those vouchers. Having a license to practise and being a public run institution are not necessarily the same thing.

When you put the purchasing decision in the hands of parents, then they decide individually and not as a society. When you go buy a pizza for instance, you don't have the whole community decide whether the pizza is good for you and if you should have it. It the purpose is to put the purchasing power in the hands of the parent, then the purchasing decision also goes with that parent rather than a school administrator, and you don't have your neighbors voting to decide whether you should send your son to school X or Y. Some parents will want to provide religious instruction to their kids along with their education, what business is it of your neighbor's to send your children to Catholic school or not? Yes, maybe some of his taxpayer's money is going for that, but maybe some of your taxpayer money is going towards his child's Hebrew school. The parent makes the decision, the state only acts as the enabler, so its not a violation of the seperation of church and state. The State or District makes an education available by providing the opportunity, it doesn't decide which school to send your child too.


Well, in the case of most FL school districts, provided a student isn't a trouble maker, they can go to almost any public school of their choice(with the exception of some magnet schools which have lotteries/qualifications).

Realistically, all vouchers will do is to enrich the current private schools, who will remain exclusive. A new set of schools that are similar to current public schools will arise, but with less money on average than they had before (due to the money being used by the current private school students, who weren't costing districts anything before). There will really be no change of benefit.

[Apatriot]

Hello.

I think what you are hearing are the cries of frustrated parents who are paying an obscene amount of school taxes and see little for thier investment. The public school system is now geared towards teaching kids what to think instead of how to think. What emerges are generations of young adults who lack basic problem solving skills. This is not your fault or that of your contemporaries. Teachers are handcuffed to a curriculum that is geared towards state test scores instead of true learning. Let's face it, the better the scores, the more money that is filtered to the district. It is a design flaw in the system that feels it is better to dummy down the curriculum so that more children can "succeed." The No Child Left Behind Act ensured that ALL children were left behind.

Our international comparison test scores have gone up since NCLB. We are becoming much more competitive.

I do agree that for already good schools, all the B.S. test teaching strategies are stupid. However, for poor schools, they are a good idea.

Also, realistically speaking, it's the bad schools getting more out of NCLB. They are getting all kinds of supplemental money to improve schools.

[Apatriot]

As a parent of a 13 year old and an 18 year old (who just graduated HS), I would like to say a few things.

Concerning my daughter...she has been an A-B honor roll student all of her high school years while taking college prep courses along with a course from the local community college. She took 5 science classes and 4 math classes. she took the ACT for college and got a 20 overall....now she has to take remedial math at the university she will be going to in the fall. We are fighting it because they based this only on her ACT and not what she did in school.

I started back to school myself 3 years ago:
I haven't had math for 20 years, so I had to take remedial math and I understood that. But when I got into my class....15 out of 24 students were fresh from high school. Most of them could NOT do fractions, long division or basic algebra. I was more advanced in math skills then they were.

I also had to take remedial English to catch me up on my skills...12 of those students were fresh from high school and had a hard time understanding the concepts we were using and had a hard time comprehending the books we read. I was actually recommended for Honors English....even though I have not had English in 20 years.

In my opinion, this does not say much about our schools if these students fresh from high school can not do basic math and basic English.

My son just finished up the 7th grade, and he struggled most of the year. I tried to help him as much as possible and I even went to the teachers several times about it. I didn't know he was failing his classes until it was too late in the marking period to do anything. My question...why didn't the teachers take time to contact me or even send a letter my way, are they that lazy now a days to let a child slip through the system? The first hour of school, my son watched a news channel at school. One day I was in there and took a peak at what was on...it was about how the children suffer as they walk from Mexico to the USA to attend school. What does that have to do with my son's education? The next story was about how the soldiers in Iraq were killing innocent children...again what does that have to do with my son's education? I agree with Rebel1776 and that the schools are telling our kids what to think and not how to think for themselves. So now I'm homeschooling him this summer as I am slowly losing faith in the public schools.

I feel the schools are pushing the kids too fast. Why do we need our kids doing algebra in the 7th grade? Why do we need our children learning Spanish and French from kindergarten through 8th grade (and the do this by switching each marking period)? Why do we need our children reading 3 books/week in the first grade? They are pushing them way too hard and way too fast. Forget about how many books they can read, I feel its about what they comprehend from the stories they read. Forget about doing algebra in the 7th grade...focus on getting those basic math skills down pat first, then move on.... As far as foreign languages...I think they need to concentrate on English and its components before learning another language. If they are going to require a foreign language, then have them do Spanish during their last two years of school, and nothing more until college. Kids are slipping through the cracks, I have seen it personally and my son is not the only one in his class (he switches between 6 teachers, so it not just one teacher). The curriculum at his school stinks....so yes I do believe our schools are failing.


The rest of the world teaches algebra starting in the 6th grade. I do agree we need to concentrate more on basic math facts (i.e. times tables), but we can't just waste their middle school years doing that (which is pretty much what we've done until very recently, and IMHO, it hasn't worked). We really need to split up math students by capablity in middle school.

In terms of foreign language, it is much easier to teach foreign languages to elementary school aged kids, than to wait until high school. Kids need to be reading alot. 3 books a week (of appropriate reading level books) is nothing in the 1st grade.

[angelicmadrigal]

Believe me, if they don't understand the concepts, then they don't appreciate it. I mean how can they appreciate something they don't understand?

Because you dont' need to understand the concept to get the correct process. The point of taeching them that young is that when they run across it later in life it is familiar to them and not as scary.



Not all young kids can do this...and that is the problem.
Not all, but the average child can follow steps given to them. That's why EVERYTHING in Montessori is sequential and step by step based.


Many teachers think the majority of their students will learn a certain way or should be able to learn what is taught, and they push the students instead of actually teaching and paying attention to whether or not these students learned it AND understand it.
Actually the problem with that is children with similiar learnign styles should be placed together, or else the classroom has to be set up to provide individual instruction. Problem is NO ONE wants to do that.


In Kindergarten...why do kids need to know how to carry and borrow or solve basic algebra in the first place?
So that they are ahead for one. The second reason is I find it gives a lot of kids confidence to know they can do the harder work, and they know that if they can't I'll help them through it. A lot of kids appreciate the one on one time, as well as the sense of achievement.


For many, kindergarten is the first year of school so why focus on academics such as this....lets get them use to being school, teach them how to respect others in a school setting...actually this would be a very good time to begin lessons about how not to be a bully and how to take care of yourself.
That's what PRESCHOOL is for, and it looks like in our state it may become mandatory.


No two kids learn the same way or the same pace.

Then you adjust the plans accordingly, that isn't a big deal. But when you know a child (or a group of children) are capable of higher level work you do a disservice to them not give them the work they are cabable of doing.

My school teaches English, Spanish, and American Sign language as well, and honestly the children (even my Japanese students) seem to have no issues since we teach everday words.

Though true to Montessori you don't "grade" work. You can look over it , which is what I do and if an answer is not quite correct I usually urge the child to "take it slow and try again" so I can watch them and see what they are doing incorrectly, but they usually find thier own mistakes before I need to. Kids are capable of so much more as a group then people give them credit for, and that's a tragedy.

Not every child is a little mathematician or writer, but you still don't give up on trying to get them to improve at the things they do not do well, and you sure as hell don't stop challenging them in what they are good at.


In first grade 3 grade level books a week is NOT ecessive. I don't even see a problem with a child answering a few questions (about 5) either orally or written to make sure they UNDERSTAND what they have read. It's also a good way to sort out reading issues before they become a problem.


I have Kindergarteners that read on their own w/o prompting, I also have some that don't enjoy reading as much but understand that we don't always get to do what we like most all the time and that I have to see/here them read because 1) I like to listen to them and 2) It's my job to make sure they learn how to read. Most children are VERY responsive to knowing that an adult is listening to them read, and cares about them. The majority of young kids in my experience love one on one time even if it isn't doing thier favorite thing.

[angelicmadrigal]

You are absolutely right. During the developmental stages is when you want children learning logic and critical thinking. It develops those parts of the brain and primes them for more difficult problem solving later on.

I think that's why they encourage parents and teachers to ask children "what do you think will happen next" when you read a story or do an "experiment", because even kids in Pre-K and K are capable of that, and can be delightfuly insightful. We have this one activity in the preschool and Kindergarten with two containers half full with water one says FLOAT the other says SINK, the kids learn pretty early on which container is which (if it's a problem you can make the water colored differently). We give them a variety of items in a tray and tehy predict which items will float and which ones will sink. Of course at first we have to define what is floating and what is sinking, but after that we encourage the children to make guesses (and we change the items around periodically), which they love. We also encourage them to tell a friend what they observed. Fun thing for us teachers is they don't even realize or care they are using parts of the scientific method.

[BagleyClan]

The trouble that I have seen here in Washington State is the fact that they try to come up with all these "creative" ways of teaching kids, and that they miss teaching them the basics. For example, when it comes to math, there is this weird way that they devised for teaching the kids in my kid's school. My son struggled to complete a division problem which took up the whole page. I sat down with him and in 5 minutes I taught him long division like I was taught. The problem now only took up an 8th of the page and he could do it faster and it made more sense. This is 5th grade math.
The major problem I feel is all of those who have their hands in the Education Department's pockets to get paid to come up with "creative" means to teach the simplest of things. It all goes back to greed and not caring about the kids.
So, my son did all of his homework in correct long division and took it to school. His teacher made him redo it in the stupid way because, "we will be teaching that method next month." WHAT? They teach a stupid, harder, more confusing way first, then the correct way later. Talk about confusing the kids. Thats like when a child asks for a popcicle and you turn around and shove a hot coal in their mouth, all the while saying how good it is, then giving them the popcicle the next day. It makes no sense. The US is so far behind other countries in education, that it isn't funny.
They need to teach the basics in an accelerated pace. If I was able to teach a first grader large multiplication in a few days, I think the teachers could do the same.

[rebel1776]

The trouble that I have seen here in Washington State is the fact that they try to come up with all these "creative" ways of teaching kids, and that they miss teaching them the basics. For example, when it comes to math, there is this weird way that they devised for teaching the kids in my kid's school. My son struggled to complete a division problem which took up the whole page. I sat down with him and in 5 minutes I taught him long division like I was taught. The problem now only took up an 8th of the page and he could do it faster and it made more sense. This is 5th grade math.
The major problem I feel is all of those who have their hands in the Education Department's pockets to get paid to come up with "creative" means to teach the simplest of things. It all goes back to greed and not caring about the kids.
So, my son did all of his homework in correct long division and took it to school. His teacher made him redo it in the stupid way because, "we will be teaching that method next month." WHAT? They teach a stupid, harder, more confusing way first, then the correct way later. Talk about confusing the kids. Thats like when a child asks for a popcicle and you turn around and shove a hot coal in their mouth, all the while saying how good it is, then giving them the popcicle the next day. It makes no sense. The US is so far behind other countries in education, that it isn't funny.
They need to teach the basics in an accelerated pace. If I was able to teach a first grader large multiplication in a few days, I think the teachers could do the same.

I had to do the same thing with my son when he was learning basic algebra. I typed him up a step by step explanation with examples on how to solve for X. He took it to school and showed his teacher. The teacher made copies and handed it out to the students. So tell me again, why am I paying school taxes?

[Apatriot]

The trouble that I have seen here in Washington State is the fact that they try to come up with all these "creative" ways of teaching kids, and that they miss teaching them the basics. For example, when it comes to math, there is this weird way that they devised for teaching the kids in my kid's school. My son struggled to complete a division problem which took up the whole page. I sat down with him and in 5 minutes I taught him long division like I was taught. The problem now only took up an 8th of the page and he could do it faster and it made more sense. This is 5th grade math.

The reason for that technique was probably to show what was actually being done mathematically.


The major problem I feel is all of those who have their hands in the Education Department's pockets to get paid to come up with "creative" means to teach the simplest of things. It all goes back to greed and not caring about the kids.

Greed is probably accurate, but I have found almost nobody in education (outside of teachers nearing retirement) who don't care about kids. (also, greed is why capitalism works, and socialism doesn't)


So, my son did all of his homework in correct long division and took it to school. His teacher made him redo it in the stupid way because, "we will be teaching that method next month." WHAT? They teach a stupid, harder, more confusing way first, then the correct way later.
Nope, they are teaching him in a way so that he understands what the actual process is, rather than the easy way which you are doing. Basically, it's kind of equivalent to teaching how to multiply by doing successive addition at first. Until students understand what they are doing conceptually, there is no sense teaching them the streamlined method.


Talk about confusing the kids. Thats like when a child asks for a popcicle and you turn around and shove a hot coal in their mouth, all the while saying how good it is, then giving them the popcicle the next day. It makes no sense. The US is so far behind other countries in education, that it isn't funny.
They need to teach the basics in an accelerated pace. If I was able to teach a first grader large multiplication in a few days, I think the teachers could do the same.

A first grader should be learning addition and subtraction.

Let me try to explain the whole reason for the two different division methods.

The first method (which you and your son found confusing) is teaching the concepts. It's kind of like teaching that 2x3 is 6 by adding 2+2+2. It's harder than simply memorizing 2x3=6. If a student doesn't understand that 2x3 is the same as 2+2+2, then there is no need teaching multiplication at all.

Another analogy is that the first math teaching method is phonics. The second is whole word. We all use whole word, but it's hard to master until you know phonics.