: 1. School shouldn't be just a big social machine that sucks you in at age 5 and spits you out at age 18 with hardly enough knowledge to function ideally on all levels of life.SDF: But that's what it is. A re-examination of the social purposes of schooling is in order here.
: 2. I agree with DDN's phonics suggestion, all children at the proper age should have their own phonics kit, teacher assisted and/or parent assisted, paid for by the government. Hopefully this will help develop their reading skills tremendously. (I went to a private school for 3 years, and we had an individual phonics class, which I relate to my reading ability today).
SDF: You must be one of those special students who didn't figure out the sound-letter correspondences (which is what phonics IS, it's learning phonemes) without instructional help. Most readers learn phonics without instructional help, they learn to read not only by phonics but also by understanding how to make sense of sentences, paragraphs, books, etc. Sure, it's important to understand that there is such a thing as phonics, that certain sounds correspond (in languages such as English, and especially so in languages like Spanish) to certain combinations of letters. It's not the only aspect of learning to read, just as we wouldn't learn to read only through grammar or spelling. Some instructors in my district are trying to make phonics substitute for real literacy teaching, they need to know that.
Certainly you didn't learn how to read ONLY through phonics instruction! Frank Smith's book UNDERSTANDING READING cites a study that shows that, even if we isolate out common 3rd-grade level words from the English languages, we can identify 166 different phonemes, 166 different correspondences between sound and syllable. Did your teachers instruct you in the proper use of all 166 of these phonemes before you learned to read? Or did you figure some of these out BY YOURSELF??
Me? I learned to read all by myself sometime shortly before my 3rd birthday, or so my parents say. I can't remember a time when I wasn't literate.
: 3. With all of the problems of school violence these days, maybe its time that school taught some basic universal values (they do exist) without getting into personal religions. Values that should be taught are: its wrong to kill others, its wrong to steal from others, cheating is wrong, etc. on more advanced levels: rape is wrong, humans are NOT immortal as most youth have a false sense of immortality, actions Do have consequences, etc. Every school I have ever attended on the public level doesn't stress personal responsibility of one's actions enough. Example: a fight in school costs a small fine and a 3 day suspension, a fight in somewhere else than school costs possible jail sentence and a substantially larger fine.
SDF: "Consequences" doesn't teach anyone anything, it just creates a new industry for those who promote them. In the case of schools this means Lee Canter and the whole "Assertive Discipline" scam, which isn't real behaviorism. Please notice how this works in the prison system
At any rate, "Assertive Discipline" doesn't work because:
- It makes students dependent upon teachers for the will to learn. Nobody under "Assertive Discipline" schooling wants to do work anymore without the promise of extrinsic reward combined with the threat of punishment.
- It doesn't teach kids how to behave well in school. There's one school in my district where "Assertive Discipline" is used primarily as a substitute for the teaching of good behavior. I won't go there anymore.
- It allows teachers to think they're teaching because their class is being made to step in line, when in fact such teachers are doing nothing of the sort.
- It makes schooling into a punitive experience. Anyone who thinks this is a good thing should be made to read B.F. Skinner's TECHNOLOGIES OF TEACHING.
- In short, it isn't good behaviorism. See all of the above.
: 4. If schools were so good, we wouldn't need truancy laws. If educational programs were designed to stimulate student input and interest, the students would come to school on their own free will. This one way lecturing and rote learning just isn't doing the trick.
SDF: Precisely!
: 5. Academics over athletics: American schools are becoming so focused on athletics (although physical fitness and sports are an essential part of a well rounded education) that academics are being left in the gutter. No way should an athlete receive higher grades just becaue he/she needs to compete in the game on Friday night. He/she needs the knowledge to play in life more than on a trivial high school athletic game. Academics should be a priority, not a stumbling block for athletes who can't make the grade. If they can't make the grade, no sports until they do make the grade.
SDF: Again, we need to ask why. What about academics will make society better? Sounds to me like we need a smarter society, not just a few smarter people in the same old stupid society we have today.
: 6. Everyone should have access to the best education possible, regardless of family income. An inner city school should be just as good as a school located in an affluent suburb.
SDF: Precisely!!!
: 7. Keep corporations out of schools. Please keep in mind that children are very impressionable people, don't let corporations influence their thinking at such an early age.
SDF: Good...
: 8. Every teacher must pass a set of standards, such as grades received in their own education and qualifications.
SDF: As CBS News discovered when it investigated this Linda Darling-Hammond proposition that you restated above (Linda is a bigshot with Phi Delta Kappa International), teachers are "unqualified" because the qualified ones already burned out due to lack of administrative support, so they quit and had to be replaced. You've got to solve the original problem before attending to its symptoms.
: 9. Education should be based on outcomes set at a high standard, not strictly on hours spent in a classroom. If a student can't meet these outcomes, he/she should have access to free intensive tutoring so that he/she can meet these outcomes.
SDF: What about the outcome we call "overeducated losers"? Seems to me we don't really check up on students this way, we harness "outcome-based education" to the same wrongheaded notions of what schools should teach.
: Well I have more but I have some work to do; I'll post them later.
None.
