What does it mean, in America at least, to be "educated"?

The 'Education' Mantra

Labels: Education, Social Observation

Chicago schools ban lunches brought from home

Labels: Education, Kids, ObamaNation, Social Observation

Labels: Education

Last Thursday, CNN reported that a Florida legislator has proposed a bill that would have public school teachers issuing a grade to parents. Yes, grading the parents. HB 255 provides that “each prekindergarten through grade 3 student report card shall include a section in which the teacher grades the parental involvement as satisfactory, needs improvement, or unsatisfactory…” based on criteria set by the bill.

The whole idea of setting up public schools as overseers of parents is one more sign that American parental rights are in danger. Parents should not have to answer to government agents unless and until there is solid evidence of abuse or neglect on the part of that parent. Giving a grade to every parent clearly violates this constitutional principle.

In fact, this bill would espouse the same foundational principle as the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child: assume that all parents are bad parents, and that only government oversight can save our children from parental incompetence.

Totalitarian regimes are built on assumed guilt; the nanny state determines which citizens do or do not require their “services.” Florida’s bill would establish a system to do the same. A free nation, on the other hand, operates on the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. Parents do not need government intervention (interference) unless there is proof to the contrary. The Supreme Court has held that “historically, [the law] has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interest of their children.” Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979) Sadly, Florida’s proposed bill recognizes no such thing.

To find out more, and to register your concerns, go here.

Labels: Education, ObamaNation, Social Observation, Theater of the Absurd

A study of more than 2,300 undergraduates found 45 percent of students show no significant improvement in the key measures of critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing by the end of their sophomore years.

Not much is asked of students, either. Half did not take a single course requiring 20 pages of writing during their prior semester, and one-third did not take a single course requiring even 40 pages of reading per week.

The findings are in a new book, "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses," by sociologists Richard Arum of New York University and Josipa Roksa of the University of Virginia. An accompanying report argues against federal mandates holding schools accountable, a prospect long feared in American higher education.

"The great thing — if you can call it that — is that it's going to spark a dialogue and focus on the actual learning issue," said David Paris, president of the New Leadership Alliance for Student Learning and Accountability, which is pressing the cause in higher education. "What kind of intellectual growth are we seeing in college?"

The study, an unusually large-scale effort to track student learning over time, comes as the federal government, reformers and others argue that the U.S. must produce more college graduates to remain competitive globally. But if students aren't learning much, that calls into question whether boosting graduation rates will provide that edge.

Labels: Education, Social Observation

Good news from the world of education today. First, score one for the Lone Star State:
Controversial UIC professor denied emeritus status

Labels: Education

Despite a few ultra-libertarian positions that I'm not totally on board with, I love John Stossel. Especially when he's talking about the boondoggle that is public education. Well, and much private education as well.


Money Is Not What Schools Need

Labels: Education

If you are trying to inculcate good study habits in your children, or if you're simply engrossed with how the learning brain operates, or as in my case, both, you need to read this.

For one thing, it will make you feel better about what you always knew about studying but your mom and the experts told you otherwise. They said study in the same place all the time, minimize distractions, etc. But you instinctively knew you studied best to music, lying on the floor while snacking.

For another thing, it helps to debunk what I've thought for a long time--that all the hoopla about different learning styles is way overdone and really has no basis in scientific research.

One of the reasons I've doubted it is because of my own personal brain quirks. I've always thought of myself as a visual learner, but there are whole areas where I don't learn visually. You've heard people say, "I can't remember names, but I never forget a face"? Well I'm the opposite. I remember the names but I can meet you today and not remember your face the day after tomorrow. I used to think of that as a moral failing, but I've learned that it's just the way my brain works (or doesn't). To make it even more confusing, I can probably identify by face on TV 90 out of 100 U.S. senators, and maybe 30% of U.S. representatives. I can hear the voices of most of them without looking at their faces and tell you who they are. If I don't know their names after hearing their voices, I can probably at least tell you their party affiliation. Isn't that weird? And yet let me meet one of The Papa's co-workers at a Christmas party and then run into him at the grocery store later in the week, and I won't think I've ever met him.

Learning styles are neither as set nor as universal as the past generation of experts has led us to believe. Some kids learn math best visually and literature aurally. Some kids learn science kinesthetically but a hands-on treatment won't help them learn history. And some of us learn best visually at one point in our lives and aurally in another. Moreover, I believe after working with quite a few children that just because they've been tagged as a visual learner doesn't mean you need to use a curriculum with them that is predominantly visual. That may even stunt their growth in other areas by helping them to believe they can only learn one way.

Lecture over. Read this and see what you think.

Forget What You Know About Good Study Habits

hat tip: The Papa

Labels: Education, Homeschooling, Learning, Science

Finally...someone in higher education with something worthwhile to say about higher education. Back to School

Labels: Education

Don't let your kids study for their spelling tests on the way to shcool.

Crew Paints "SHCOOL" on Road Outside N.C. School

(The Papa would say there's a reason these guys work on a road crew.)

Labels: Education, Fun, Theater of the Absurd

Two items of interest on the education front today:

Education secretary calls for 12-hour school days, longer school year

Fine with me, actually, until they tell me that I have to prove that I'm "schooling" my homeschooled students 12 hours a day and that WE can't take the summer off either...otherwise, I'm happy to let the government schools do what they want.


And this, via Aubrey, by the very wise Susan Wise Bauer:

What NOT to look for in an academic department

via The Well-Trained Mind by susan on 7/31/10


Here’s a composite email, representing a kind of question that the office gets frequently–and which generally gets passed on to me.

Dear Dr. Bauer,

My high school junior is applying to colleges. He’s a strong reader and an excellent writer, and he’d like to study literature or possibly philosophy at a good school.

Could you help me identify some universities that aren’t completely dominated by liberal faculty and their agendas? We would like him to be in a department that emphasizes reading and writing and discussion but that doesn’t take a politically correct/feminist/postmodernist approach.

We are heartened to see that you are teaching at William & Mary. Would that be a good place for him to apply? Thank you for any help you can offer.

Sincerely,

Worried Parent

I dread these emails, because I can’t really answer the question that’s being asked.

I should say right off that I’m sympathetic to the underlying concern, which is: I don’t want to send my child off to a place where he will be mocked and made fun of for beliefs which may be out of step with those of the majority of his classmates. I’m getting ready to pack my oldest off to college this fall. I too have parental worries.

But this particular way of expressing that concern has three major problems with it that I’d like to point out.

1. Failure to understand the nature of academic departments.

Academic departments, particularly in the humanities, are hardly ever homogeneous. (I’m talking here about medium to large departments at secular, or for-all-practical-purposes secular, schools; the most homogeneous departments around are those at smaller religious schools that require adherence to a confession or creed, but those aren’t generally the schools I’m being asked about.)

Your typical good-sized department will probably contain one or two observant Catholics, two or three observant Episcopalians, a handful of nominal Presbyterians and Baptists who are for all practical purposes secularists, a couple of militant left-wingers out to make converts, one or two ex-hippies, the odd evangelical, and an array of folks who have never had a religious thought in their lives. In any university, you’re likely to find sympathetic faculty and hostile faculty, Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians, gay faculty and straight faculty, faculty with kids and faculty without kids. Universities are kind of like real life in that way (if in very few others). There will be many different voices and many chances to hear them.

2. Failure to understand the terms.

What does “liberal” mean? Votes Democrat? Has different views on sexual morality? Doesn’t go to church? Will advise your child to ignore his parents from here on out?

These terms (liberal/ politically correct/ feminist/ postmodernist) tend to be used as general scare-words, not as representations of particular points of view. “Liberal” and “conservative” are almost empty terms at this point; they’ve got to be defined. Particularly in certain homeschooling circles, “feminist” FAR too often means “Everything that’s wrong with the twenty-first century in my opinion.”

(Hint, people: that’s not what the word means.)

Perhaps you have a particular definition in mind. You may indeed find it worrisome that your child will be taught by Democrats. (See Point #3.) Fine; you’re entitled to your worries. Just be sure that you define those terms clearly for yourself if you’re going to throw them around.

3. Failure to understand the purpose of higher education.

Eighteen and nineteen-year-olds should be mature enough to take classes from faculty they disagree with–or else they’re not mature enough to be at university.

Higher education isn’t just about absorbing information; it’s also about learning how to listen to someone with whom you largely disagree, pick out what’s valuable, and figure out how to respond to the rest. It is also –and this is even more important–about allowing yourself to be challenged. If you go into university unwilling to even listen to opposing perspectives, you’re not likely to benefit a great deal. You’ll be so busy defending yourself that you won’t be able to entertain the possibility that, in some areas, you might be wrong.

I myself have had a very frustrating time teaching students who come into William & Mary primed to resist the lies of “liberal faculty.” (That includes a lot of home educated students, who register for for my classes because they think I’m safe.) Every time I say something that strikes them as possibly “liberal,” all of their defenses go up and they tune me out. I can’t play devil’s advocate or dialogue with them–they immediately put me on the list of untrustworthy professors and stop listening.

And at that point they become unteachable.

I’m often asked how home educated students stack up against others in my classes. My overwhelming impression is that they’re more fragile. They’ve got little resilience; I can’t push at their presuppositions even a little bit. Maybe they’re afraid those presuppositions will shatter.

See why I can’t answer the questions in those emails?

What should these parents be asking instead? How about: How can my student find a group of likeminded peers, a religious community, a church, to support them as they study? In my opinion, that’s far more important than finding faculty that agree with you. How can I find a Dean of Students office that thinks parents should be partners in education, rather than telling them to bug off and leave eighteen-year-olds to their own devices? I think the most destructive attitude to encounter in university staff and faculty is the one that says: They’re grown-ups. Pay your tuition and get out of their lives. Do you know of a faculty member in literature/philosophy/biology/history who is thoughtful and trustworthy and willing to mentor? One or two close relationships are important; a whole faculty that agrees with your entire belief system is not.

[Aubrey's note: Notice, near the end: "(homeschooled students) are more fragile". Just what I dont want my boys to be!]

[And Kristen's note, on reading this: Great insight! I want both my daughters and sons to be strong enough to hold their own, not be hand-held through college.]

What are your thoughts?

Labels: Education, Homeschooling

A New England school district has approved a measure that will provide free condoms to elementary school students and direct teachers not to comply with parental wishes to the contrary.

The policy, unanimously approved by the Provincetown School Committee does not include an age limit — meaning children of any age ask for — and receive — free condoms.

The committee also directed school leaders not to honor requests from any parent who might object to their child receiving condoms. In other words mommy and daddy — you don’t have a right to prevent your 7-year-old from getting a contraceptive device. [emphasis mine]

This would be outrageous enough if it stopped after the free distribution of condoms. But the idea that the school is to ignore requests from parents is even more disturbing. When parents can't opt out of an immoral, destructive, and objectionable policy, it's clear we've gone all the way down the road to the state owning the child.

Finish reading the rationale here (including the fact that some on the committee objected even to having the child talk to a school nurse before receiving condoms!):

Schools to give 11-year-olds condoms

School leaders OK condom policy

hat tip: The Papa

Labels: Education, Social Observation, Theater of the Absurd

It's a story of an industry that may sound familiar.

The buyers think what they're buying will appreciate in value, making them rich in the future. The product grows more and more elaborate, and more and more expensive, but the expense is offset by cheap credit provided by sellers eager to encourage buyers to buy.

Buyers see that everyone else is taking on mounds of debt, and so are more comfortable when they do so themselves; besides, for a generation, the value of what they're buying has gone up steadily. What could go wrong? Everything continues smoothly until, at some point, it doesn't.

Yes, this sounds like the housing bubble, but...

Find out what it is at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections

Labels: Education, Money, Social Observation

...but here's how it really works. Or not. This one doesn't lend itself to song, does it?



View it full sized here.

Labels: Education, Political Observation

Oh, what I could have done with $11,000 per pupil per year for the past 25 years! Let's see, that would amount to.....a fortune.

As we close out this school year, taxpayers may wonder what kind of bang we're getting for our educational buck, asks Michael Quinn Sullivan, President and CEO of Empower Texans.

• Texans now spend more than $11,000 per year, per student on public education -- with less than half going toward instructional expenses.
• In the 2008-2009 school year -- the last for which data is available -- Texas schools spent $11,084 per kid; 10 years ago, Texas spent just $5,857 per pupil.
• If per pupil spending had risen with inflation, the cost after 10 years would have approximately been $7,545.

So where is the money going? Well, it's not going to the classroom, says Sullivan:

• If you think of each kid the way school bureaucrats do -- as bags of money -- and consider your average third-grade class capped at 22 students per teacher, that's $243,848 sitting there.
• But the money isn't going to the teacher; average teacher pay was $47,313 in the 2008-2009 school year (up from $34,357 a decade ago).

So where's the other $200,000 derived from our average classroom going, asks Sullivan:

• Of the $11,084 spent per pupil on public education in 2009, only $4,831 went for anything that could even remotely be considered "instructional" expenses as defined by the Texas Education Agency.
• Over the last decade, student enrollment has risen 15 percent -- from 3.9 million students to 4.6 million students.
• In that same period, the number of teachers grew accordingly, at 19.3 percent.
• We now have 14.4 students for every teacher (in 1999 it was 15.2 students per teacher).

But non-teachers? That's where the growth is. We had 22 percent more in 2009 than in 1999, says Sullivan.

So for all this spending, and for all these new, non-classroom employees, surely there's been some marked improvement in academic performance. Actually, there's been a decline in results, says Sullivan:

• The average Texas SAT score in 1999 was a 992.
• Over 10 years it has fallen to 988.

TEXAS SCHOOL SPENDING TOPS $11K PER PUPIL

Labels: Education, Homeschooling, Theater of the Absurd

WASHINGTON—According to a report released Monday by the U.S. Department of Education, an increasing number of American parents are choosing to have their children raised at school rather than at home.

Deputy Education Secretary Anthony W. Miller said that many parents who school-home find U.S. households to be frightening, overwhelming environments for their children, and feel that they are just not conducive to producing well-rounded members of society.

Thousands of mothers and fathers polled in the study also believe that those running American homes cannot be trusted to keep their kids safe.

"Every year more parents are finding that their homes are not equipped to instill the right values in their children," Miller said. "When it comes to important life skills such as proper nutrition, safe sex, and even basic socialization, a growing number of mothers and fathers think it's better to rely on educators to guide and nurture their kids."

You MUST read the whole thing, down to the last line :-)

Increasing Number Of Parents Opting To Have Children School-Homed

hat tip: Dr. P

Labels: Education, Fun, Homeschooling, Kids

It gets scarier and scarier:

Do you believe in the American dream -- the idea that in this country, hardworking people of every race, color and creed can get ahead on their own merits? If so, that belief may soon bar you from getting a license to teach in Minnesota public schools -- at least if you plan to get your teaching degree at the University of Minnesota's Twin Cities campus.

Don't be smug just because it's Minnesota. Your state has a University of [fill in your state] where they're probably debating the same thing.

Years ago when race and gender studies were just breaking into academia, lone voices warned that this would happen, only to be ridiculed by the keepers of the liberal left agenda...

The report advocates making race, class and gender politics the "overarching framework" for all teaching courses at the U. It calls for evaluating future teachers in both coursework and practice teaching based on their willingness to fall into ideological lockstep. [Emphasis mine]

God, save us from those who teach the teachers.

Future Teachers May Be "Re-educated"

hat tip: The Papa

Labels: Education, Social Observation, Theater of the Absurd

Another voice in the ongoing discussion about the importance of practicing, and especially teaching, the art of cursive writing. (I say art rather than skill, because I come down pretty firmly on the side that as nice as it is, it's no longer a necessary skill in today's world and to insist on its mastery only takes time away from other skills that really will contribute to the education of a useful citizen. Nothing wrong with teaching it, but teach it for what it is: an elective.)

Cursive writing may be a fading skill, but so what?

Labels: Education, Homeschooling

There's a lot of talk these days about the death of handwriting. Conservatives, especially, bemoan it right along with the "dumbing down" of history and English. There was a time when I, too, fretted about it and put it in the same category as "slouching towards Gomorrah."

No longer. For the past twenty years I've been trying to convince fellow homeschooling parents to lighten up, especially in the last decade as we've become less and less dependent on anything handwritten. I get static from the folks who believe if it's old it must be better than anything new, but I respectfully disagree. More than once I've used the example that when I graduated high school in 1972 you weren't considered educated if you couldn't use a slide rule. My kids don't know what a slide rule is, and I'd bet money that most of you can't use one even if you have a vague idea of how it worked.

Lovely handwriting is just that: lovely. But it is not a necessity and it will become even less relied on than it is at this dawning of the millennium. I love it that my best friend has beautiful handwriting and that I get to see it when she sends me a card in the snail mail. But I will not put the burden on my children and grandchildren to develop a skill which has no real relevance in modern life unless they have a particular interest in it.

With that disclaimer, I invite you to read but will not take part in TIME magazine's

Mourning the Death of Handwriting

Labels: Education, Homeschooling, Technology

As I understand it there are still several jobs open in the Obama administration, and I'd like to nominate this young woman for....well, I suppose she could be a Czar in many different areas. If you have an idea of the job she'd be ideally suited for, please contact the appropriate department.




Actually, I think the most remarkable thing here is that the City Council of Santa Cruz couldn't think of a single reason not to hear her out...

And they wonder why we homeschool.

hat tip: The Papa

Labels: Education, Theater of the Absurd