Arne Duncan, the Education Secretary in Obama's Cabinet favors a longer school year to help our students catch up and become/remain competitive with those in foreign countries. His concerns are drop out rates in both high school and college. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/education.school.year/index.html) I am a teacher, and although I have not been teaching long I can tell you that a longer school year is not going to make us more competitive. Our school systems reflect our culture: students do not face the consequences of their actions and very little is expected of them. Students in other countries know what is expected and they know that one bad choice can effectively change the course of their lives. That is not the case for students in America. I teach in a school that has students from both the low and high ends of the socioeconomic spectrum. Many students refuse to open books at home. They do not study and yet they expect not only to pass their classes but to do so with As and Bs. They do not want to take notes in class, they want open book and open note tests and feel entitled to high grades regardless of their actions. A longer school year will not do anything to change the attitudes of these students, and I think more will drop out. In many European countries high school is a privilege, not a mandate by law. If this were the case in America (which I'm not advocating, but merely making a point) our students would look smarter and more competitive. However, when all of our students are compared with the best of everyone else's, of course we're going to look bad.
I recognize that my high school was a very different environment, although drugs and alcohol and sex were prevalent, the focus was on high grades, good colleges, and the future. Many of the students at my school work jobs simply to help their parents pay the bills. Others are already addicted to drugs or alcohol. And even still, others go home to parents who simply do not care. I agree that changes need to be made. But, a longer school year is not the answer. Higher pay for better test grades is not the answer. No Child Left Behind is not the answer. What is the answer? I don't know exactly. But I do know that it lies in family values, involved parents, and consequences. Without these things, our students will never be able to compete on an international stage. I just hope our leaders will see that before too long; and not only see it but have the guts to do something about it . . .
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
EA, the problem is that we leave the well-being of our educational system primarily in the hands of people who have not taught in the classroom themselves. Therefore, they lack the basic comprehension of the typical circumstances we face daily, and no amount of statistics, assessments, and data will compensate for that. The answer isn't as easy as saying, "well, such-and-such study shows an x% rise in student performance with increased hours in school. Let's try that."
I've argued the more pressing need is to tackle the lack of follow-up on the home front. Which is a much stickier issue (and often why it is usually ignored - b/c we can far more readily say it's the teachers' fault our kids don't learn rather than admit parents don't follow through). When high expectations and moral behavior aren't reinforced daily at home, teachers can only affect so much long-term change.
I have students who have straight- A mentalities beaten into their brains to the extent that they think it's all that matters - I admire their ambition, but grades aren't everything (a lesson I myself learned the hard way in grade school), and a kid isn't in any way "entitled" to an A or a B he/she haven't earned. Yet I still have parents who complain to me if their kid's GPA is a single point off from an A.
On the flip side, I have students who shrug off consequences such as notes home, referrals, and detention because none of that makes it past the school doors. They have none of those consequences reinforced at home - either because they're more worried about getting through the day, or - worse - their parents simply don't care.
Would that the government would stop poking the beehive with a stick.
Interesting points. I agree that a large piece of this results from failure in the home. That's a huge issue, but not sure one the gov't can/should get involved with. That might likely be the job of civic and religious organizations.
In the meantime however, what are the options? The gov't does need to be involved in making sure our gov't run schools are working. If the system is broken, we all have a responsibility to fix it. Unfortunately that takes money (something this country is rather short on these days).
I think what makes me crazy about this national dilemma is that the gov't wants better schools but seems less than interested in backing that with dollars. More money, better spent, would like solve more of these issues than longer school days.
I think that teachers need to have a bigger role in how the money is dealt and where it goes and programs and such. But I learned a few weeks ago that teachers are one of the most under-represented groups in Washington and are not politically involved. I have a few reasons why: they are too busy to add something to their agends, no one listens to what they have to say, and why talk to people who constantly criticize the job you do. Hopefully change will continue to come.
Post a Comment