Emily and Katherine came home today with three of the exact same notices. One was a reminder about Mardi Gras, one was a notice about a fundraiser sponsored by the high school Key Club, and another was about football registration. I have often thought that this was a waste. I don't need more than one copy of any single notice and, with the supply shortage in full effect, it would make sense that the notices come home to one student in the elementary school system, as opposed to all. The above mentioned notices may have been printed and copied by the involving parties, but, there have been plenty of notices from the school directly that have come home with both kids.
It might be involved, but it would seem to me that there would be a way of distributing notices to only one student in the system. Perhaps it would be the older student. It just seems like such a waste of paper and time and if a system was put in place, it could save both.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Extended Learning Time: My Take
I have been researching the expanded school year initiative that seems to be taking form across the country, perhaps with more intensity then a person with just a mild interest would. While all areas of public education are of great interest to me, this particular piece has recently become the cornerstone of my research, due in part to the fact that my town has been awarded a grant to study the possibility of implementing an expanded learning time plan in one of the elementary schools, as well as the middle school.
The reason behind the initiative is simple. It would seem that more time in school would result in more learning and better student performance. What I have learned through my reading is that it is not quite that easy. Other factors, like improving the quality of the instructional time have been shown to be equally beneficial, in particular to certain groups of students (such as low income and others who may have limited time for learning outside of school). Other considerations of course, are the money and politics behind expanding learning time, as well as others (aside from the obvious students, teachers and parents) who may be affected by a change in school time. These people would include employers, and many other industries who are dependent on the traditional school day and year.
As anyone who has paid any attention to the current situation in public education knows, educators face never before seen pressures to raise student achievement. Federal and local mandates are handed down and schools are in effect, "threatened" if the requirements aren't meant. The concern behind the increased pressure is that in today's high tech world, students who are not adequately prepared, will not not succeed in this environment. While there may be some truth behind that in specific cases, it seems to me that one thing is being overlooked. The very people who had a hand in inventing, or at least bringing to the forefront some of the technological advances we see today, were educated on a 6 1/2 hour, 180 day school year. This of course is not true of those in other countries, some of which are in school year round, or for longer periods of time on a day to day basis. Still? We (we being anyone who has been educated in the United States public education sector for the past 100 years or so) are doing ok, aren't we? I mean, I'm getting down to the bare basics here, but isn't part of life, learning as you go? We didn't know how to, for example use the Internet when we were in school because, for most of us, it may have been "invented" but it wasn't as mainstream as it is today. There certainly weren't any classes we could take to learn the ins and outs of the Internet, email, or even computers in general. We just learned as we went. And, some of us, on perhaps a broader level, had a hand in pioneering some of these things, even though we were only educated for 6 1/2 hours per day. So why, I ask, is this extended day necessary? Is the current generation incapable of doing just what we did as the world continues to advance?
That being said, if such things are a concern on a national level, more focus should be on those who actually need the extended time. While this could open all kinds of doors for lawsuits and discrimination claims (speaking of current trends), it seems unfair for a student who is successful in this age of high stakes testing to be forced in to an extended day or year. It stands to reason that these tests are a reflection of what students are expected to know in order to succeed in the world. Moreover, while it seems true that a more affluent student may have more access to educational resources outside of school than a poor or minority student, it would be inappropriate to include all poor, minority or even special needs students in the group of students deemed in need of an extended learning day, based on that fact alone (i.e., it should not be assumed that all poor, minority or special needs students will not succeed without the extended time because, some, in fact will, and some more affluent students will not). Each decision should be on a case by case basis, and, in the best possible scenario, it should be a student's (with the help of a parent in the case of younger students) choice to participate in such a program.
I have long thought that homework was a waste of time, but, if this extended learning time plan is implemented, it should be eliminated completely from the curriculum. The idea behind homework is totorture the parent and child reinforce what was taught during the day. Extending the day really should provide more time to "reinforce" while there, with hands on learning, field trips, and other "reinforcing" type activities. Taking in to consideration also, everything else that needs to be done when school is out (extra curricular activities, dinner, showers, quality time with the family), extending the day and including homework, would not only seem like overkill, but also not in any way beneficial. The whole thing would be rushed and just done in a manner reflective of getting to the next thing on the list, which truthfully, in this house is how it gets done now, without the added pressure of a longer day.
When it comes down to it, what matters most is those moments, which seem far and few between right now, in which students are engaged in activities that are adequately challenging, and at the same time, allow them to experience success. It seems to me that this type of learning could be achieved without the consequence of adding hours or days to the existing school year. It would be behoove those "in charge" to prepare a study in which the current way time is used in schools is studied intensely, improved upon within the current structure, and further evaluated after, to see if in fact, extending the day is the way to go.
The reason behind the initiative is simple. It would seem that more time in school would result in more learning and better student performance. What I have learned through my reading is that it is not quite that easy. Other factors, like improving the quality of the instructional time have been shown to be equally beneficial, in particular to certain groups of students (such as low income and others who may have limited time for learning outside of school). Other considerations of course, are the money and politics behind expanding learning time, as well as others (aside from the obvious students, teachers and parents) who may be affected by a change in school time. These people would include employers, and many other industries who are dependent on the traditional school day and year.
As anyone who has paid any attention to the current situation in public education knows, educators face never before seen pressures to raise student achievement. Federal and local mandates are handed down and schools are in effect, "threatened" if the requirements aren't meant. The concern behind the increased pressure is that in today's high tech world, students who are not adequately prepared, will not not succeed in this environment. While there may be some truth behind that in specific cases, it seems to me that one thing is being overlooked. The very people who had a hand in inventing, or at least bringing to the forefront some of the technological advances we see today, were educated on a 6 1/2 hour, 180 day school year. This of course is not true of those in other countries, some of which are in school year round, or for longer periods of time on a day to day basis. Still? We (we being anyone who has been educated in the United States public education sector for the past 100 years or so) are doing ok, aren't we? I mean, I'm getting down to the bare basics here, but isn't part of life, learning as you go? We didn't know how to, for example use the Internet when we were in school because, for most of us, it may have been "invented" but it wasn't as mainstream as it is today. There certainly weren't any classes we could take to learn the ins and outs of the Internet, email, or even computers in general. We just learned as we went. And, some of us, on perhaps a broader level, had a hand in pioneering some of these things, even though we were only educated for 6 1/2 hours per day. So why, I ask, is this extended day necessary? Is the current generation incapable of doing just what we did as the world continues to advance?
That being said, if such things are a concern on a national level, more focus should be on those who actually need the extended time. While this could open all kinds of doors for lawsuits and discrimination claims (speaking of current trends), it seems unfair for a student who is successful in this age of high stakes testing to be forced in to an extended day or year. It stands to reason that these tests are a reflection of what students are expected to know in order to succeed in the world. Moreover, while it seems true that a more affluent student may have more access to educational resources outside of school than a poor or minority student, it would be inappropriate to include all poor, minority or even special needs students in the group of students deemed in need of an extended learning day, based on that fact alone (i.e., it should not be assumed that all poor, minority or special needs students will not succeed without the extended time because, some, in fact will, and some more affluent students will not). Each decision should be on a case by case basis, and, in the best possible scenario, it should be a student's (with the help of a parent in the case of younger students) choice to participate in such a program.
I have long thought that homework was a waste of time, but, if this extended learning time plan is implemented, it should be eliminated completely from the curriculum. The idea behind homework is to
When it comes down to it, what matters most is those moments, which seem far and few between right now, in which students are engaged in activities that are adequately challenging, and at the same time, allow them to experience success. It seems to me that this type of learning could be achieved without the consequence of adding hours or days to the existing school year. It would be behoove those "in charge" to prepare a study in which the current way time is used in schools is studied intensely, improved upon within the current structure, and further evaluated after, to see if in fact, extending the day is the way to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)