- This topic has 4 voices and 12 replies.
-
Posts
-
Being prepared to slam the political nature of what will be said and having now read same online I am happy to report I see nothing that is so bad, nothing that shouldn't be said to kids every year at this time… in fact anytime we can. Nothing worse than a typical first week pep-talk. This could have been delivered by a parent, teacher, counselor, principal, or Supt. In fact, better than many I heard in a lifetime as a student and teacher. The main point, for many, is the hope that the Prez. will carry more weight on this. For some I'm sure it will, for others it will be 15 minutes of so to screw off. Sad but true in the real world of education.My only real crit is the WH and DoEduc writing lesson plans for same. Teachers should be able to run with this w/o their help. I hope two things: 1) every kid sees this, listens, and follows the advice 2) every teacher ignors the lesson plans and speaks to the kids from their heartsBest I can do.
I just read through the speech and I agree it seems like it invokes the idea of general civic responsibility, i.e. students need to take their education seriously for the good of themselves and their country. I wonder how much of it has been tweaked after the recent backlash. I think the concern has been that Obama might use it as a means by which he recruits students onto the Obama bandwagon rather than the American bandwagon. We have already seen videos of young kids, reminiscent of Nazi Youth, who make their “pledges” to Obama or sing utopian songs to their dear leader. I think that many were concerned that based on a pattern of events, the Obama address might be more of the same…”indoctrination”, if you will.Anyway, seems to me like the speech is a bit long for students to sit through and that it should have been cut down a bit (though I could be wrong here). Also, the last line, "Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America" makes me wonder whether this will rile the ACLU and hard-core liberals....
....Anyway, seems to me like the speech is a bit long for students to sit through and that it should have been cut down a bit (though I could be wrong here). Also, the last line, "Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America" makes me wonder whether this will rile the ACLU and hard-core liberals....
The principal at my old HS said this... "The mind can absorb only what the posterior can endure." I agree on the ACLU point too.
The Full text is here: Obama's speech to studentsYes, it is full of the kind of stuff that every parent and teacher should be telling students. My question is why does he feel the need to address every student in the nation? I dont remember any other president doing that when I was in school, at leas not during the school day. My reservations are just the gerneral creepiness and big brotherishness of the president talking to all the students in America. I dont like it because it does smack of indoctrination even though the content is very run-of-the-mill. I guess I object on principal.
One of my concerns is the idea that test scores are being promoted as an evaluation tool; yes most jobs are judged by results, I grant that; however, for numerous reasons the students don't see the tests as being important as the educ. system does. Like saying a Dr. that lost several patients (that all came to him with terminal illnesses) wasn't doing his job because these folks died. Did we consider how far gone they were when they came to him? Did we look at the other factors that helped shorten their lives… smoking, drinking, etc., etc., or that they didn't follow any of his advice, picking only the parts that they liked or thought were cool? I'm not saying all teachers are Mr. Chips types nor that all kids come to school (or should) on meds for ADHD, have rotten homes, are drug babies, have AFS, or all of the above but a significant numbers are messes... these, though, do make it much harder to help those that are there, squared away and ready to go. (Think of the family of the sick guy above, giving him foods that will make him sicker.Obama and the Dept. of Ed are gonna have to get out of the way (Bush and Kennedy with NCLB really got some great roadblocks going) or we are on our way to 3rd class status. Ski, you wrote a paper on NCLB awhile back... what's your read on this? Blackmailing the states (again) isn't the answer.IMHO, we need tech schools, art schools, humanities schools, math / sci schools... one size doesn't fit all and we can't seem to hit the happy medium of the old comprehensive high school of the 40's, 50's, and 60's.Currently we push academics to the loss of the more technically inclined kids.So too, until we fix a society that wants nothing but reality TV, and such... well....
It was a persuavive writing assignment and I purposely took the pro side of NCLB even though I'm against it. It was a real reach to get all this pro stuff. Sorry, but 5 small schools in a poor area having improved test scores is not an indication of success. (wonder what the results were of the 100s of other poor schools not mentioned).
I wonder why we don't just concentrate on teaching basics and get rid of all the wishy-washy stuff. It seems to me that we were much stronger and smarter as a country when we concentrated on the 3 R's. I mean, did the schools not work before the 60's and all these new-age educational theories became fashionable? Apparently schools worked then and don't now, what changed? I don't think everything can be blamed on bad parenting or society, the educational methods employed today have some part to play in the mess America's education system has become.I intensely dislike NCLB too by the way.
[For Phid]Why go that way... just go back to a comprehensive HS with programs keyed to the students.The big bogeyman years ago was tracking. X kids were college bound; Y's would graduate and go to a tech school, JC, military or to a job that might require some special training; Z's were terminal, either not likely to finish or if did make grauation were going to unskilled laboring type jobs. Most kids that got into a given track stayed there and that was the rub. As we know many folks bloom late or need something to hook them; tracked kids often didn't get the exposure they needed so it went away infavor of all kids getting the same education (cookie cutter style) equality instead of equity.My point is that some kids get off on the math end of physics and others on the smoke and explosions... some kids want to read the classics and others go for Harry Potter; if kids are working on a level that is challenging to them (but not impossible and not a gimme) they will accomplish more and stay engaged. [scout]In the 70's we wanted all kids to go to college; Jackie Mason (famous comic... Ed Sullivan and the finger ;)) had it right: "If everybody goes to college who will wrap the fish?"Give the kid in the back that doodles an art class, the kid over ther that's taking his pen apart a shop class... give e'em some direction rather than warehousing them anfor 12 years.This for ski: The testing is a deadend road. Over time all schools will fail. In the quest to reach 800 (the magic #) each school is give a goal, if the reach it it is raised (plus it is now predicated on target groups, not just the whole school averaage ... and many kids fall into multiple groups; average anglo kids count once, if the kid is economically disadvantaged, latino, and a second language learner they can count 4 times... each of the groups and whole school)... this might be real if you were testing the same kids each year but you aren't. At my school we turn over 1/4 of the students (typical, right? 8th grade goes to HS and we get new 5th graders)... one of the students a couple of years back spotted the problem... you do really well one year (really bright 8th graders that had be getting better each year) the next year you do really poorly, falling back. Why? Bright 8th graders left, the kids coming up were average and really dumb 5th graders coming in. How is this the fault of the teachers? If the gain wasn't because of the teachers... usually hyped as successful interventions, following the standards, and a culture of success at the given school... then neither is the drop their fault.All should read, Feds in the Classroom.edited to catch up with the newer posts ;D
But isn't putting kids on some track pegging them and setting their destiny for them? Sounds like you are advocating some version of the Gymnasium, Realschule, Hauptschule system of Germany. I guess the heart of my question is that the Amewrican education system evidently worked well until about 30-35 years ago, what changed? I am not talking about families, bad parents have always existed, even in the old days. But I guarantee you that 30 years ago kids did not graduate high school functionally illiterate, why do they do so today?
But isn't putting kids on some track pegging them and setting their destiny for them?
That was the gripe that got the system changed. Kids like me that were sort of between tracks often did get lost (I was lucky to have a couple of teachers that pushed me into X track classes... was taking some but got tracked into Y history and English... very little challenge) so instead of fixing the problem trashed the whole idea.
Sounds like you are advocating some version of the Gymnasium, Realschule, Hauptschule system of Germany.
Need to think pathways rather than tracks... if the kid, the folks or the teacher thinks the kid can do more, push him, if not let him run in the groove that best suits him.
I guess the heart of my question is that the Amewrican education system evidently worked well until about 30-35 years ago, what changed? I am not talking about families, bad parents have always existed, even in the old days. But I guarantee you that 30 years ago kids did not graduate high school functionally illiterate, why do they do so today?
Basically the crash was about 40 years ago; stopped grouping kids by ability (tracking) and started the warm and fuzzy idea of education. Kids needed to feel good about themselves, no failure, values clarification and the rise of liberal studies majors. No more geography and history teachers that majored in those areas: social studies teachers that majored in dabbling. Main reason it took me almost 20 years to get a job teaching. [...only then by fate, luck, accident, and nepotism...]
Wally, I agree something needs to be done. We are graduating a generatrion of morons from our high schools now, I have to deal with them every day. Kids that graduated high school and have trouble reading the daily paper. I would love to see a return to the old methods that self-evidently worked, I am just not certain that the majority of today's teachers have the knowledge or ability to teach to the old standards or methods.
.... I am just not certain that the majority today's teacher have the knowledge or ability to teach to the old standards or methods.
Spot on; most of my younger colleagues were the results of the improved programs I mentioned... it is their nature.Have faith though, the education pendulum* swings back and fourth, we'll get there (sort of) eventually.*My first year teaching I went to a presentation by a retiring (after 40 years in the field) Educ. prof from a nearby college that stated he had seen "the Back to Basics movement 10 times." So hang on scout, there is hope just down the road... 😉
