1. Fundraisers
Fundraisers are bullsh*t. I hate them. I refuse to do them. Not just because they are an inconvenience to my busy life—and they are. And not just because I am somewhat shy and don't like approaching people to ask for money — and I am. But mostly because the whole premise of fundraisers is SO WRONG!A) Why is this bad?
Well, first of all, as a matter of principle, children should not be performing capitalistic labor for for-profit companies (or any company that accepts money, whether technically for-profit or not). Yes, companies that create those [chocolates, wrapping papers, popcorn tins, and the whole lot of things designed for children to sell as fundraisers], are usually for-profit. Their business model is to make unpaid workers —children— their sales force, then share a sliver of their profits with the fundraiser beneficiary (usually the school). This is unethical on so many levels, which should be enough of an argument to settle it. But there's more. Fundraising also sets a bad pattern for the children's developing self identity. (Learning to see themselves as worker drones of capitalism instead of as citizens of a democracy.)I can hear someone arguing, "well, shouldn't children be trained to do chores, as a matter of contributing to their community?" Yes, they should. Fundraising is completely different than chores, though. I won't argue this out completely here, because I still have 4 other headings to get to, but I think the differences should be pretty obvious. The kids help clean up the messes that they help make around the house, but it is my job as the adult to pay the rent/mortgage so they have a house to live in. It is not their job.
(As a side note, my kid once came home with a fundraising packet for a whole-school effort for The American Heart Association... not even for the school itself! This practically made me apoplectic. For slightly different reasons than the ones I already listed and won't get into here, but still! Ridiculous!)
Second of all, We The People should be funding our schools properly. Period. That includes enough funding for field trips, music equipment, laptops, the whole shebang. Whatever the school determines it needs a fundraiser for, WE SHOULD BE PAYING FOR IT from our taxes (or the school should go without.) I like the quote I saw on a bumper sticker once: "It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."
It really is a matter of getting our priorities straight.
B) What should schools do instead?
This is easy. Just refuse to do the fundraisers. Schools should keep striking and putting pressure on politicians (yay #RedForEd!!!), to demand better conditions. Part of a comprehensive strike strategy should be to refuse to participate in fundraiser activities. Don't send the packets home with kids, don't let the salespeople in the door to schmooze the principal, don't set up competitions, just don't do it. Every time a fundraiser is proposed, the principal sends a letter to our congresspeople demanding proper school funding, and the teachers a letter to the parents telling them to contact their congresspeople as well. Here's a letter I would love to get from a teacher:"Dear Parents,
Our school is recommending that all students take a fundraiser packet home, and engage in a competition as to who can sell the most products. Instead of putting these packets in your child's backpack, though, I am taking this opportunity to ask you to please contact Congresspeople [Jane Doe] and [John Doe], and tell them that education funding is high on your list of political priorities. I want your children to focus on learning and developing into their best selves, not competing to sell trinkets, just to fill in the gaps the adults aren't filling. Please contact your congresspeople today, and ignore the fundraiser packets.
Thank you,
[Mrs. Jones]"
2) Homework
Homework is bullsh*t. I'm sick of dealing with it. Not just because it's an inconvenience to my family's busy life —and it is. But really, because the practice of assigning homework is based on principles that are truly wrongheaded.A) Why is this bad?
There is no good evidence to support the use of homework in elementary school. Homework seems to be only somewhat, tenuously supported in middle school and high school (and its benefits seen in studies are very modest and could easily be gained via other methods besides homework). The #1 proven, consistent, reliable outcome of homework, though, is a suppression of the love of learning.On the top-10 list of predictors for academic success? Love of learning. Kill that, and you kill the education of the child. Nurturing it should be the MAIN GOAL of schools!! And yet they require something known to kill it! It would be like a doctor prescribing cigarettes to her patients. SO DUMB.
B) What should schools do instead?
This is also easy. Change their policies to require that teachers do NOT send homework packet home with kids. Don't take away privileges for not doing homework, don't throw parties for the kids who do homework. Keep school at school. Make learning fun. (But also, do offer parenting resources, such as information about how to raise intellectually curious children... like visiting libraries regularly, reading to children, engaging in complex discussions, spending time in nature, etc. A parent's involvement in a child's education is also crucial.)3) One Recess or less per day, and taking away recess as a punishment
Not getting enough recess is bullsh*t. When I was in grade school, we got three recesses per day. Today I am extremely hard-pressed to find a school anywhere that has more than one recess. And I have looked at a lot of schools. The most number of recesses per day I've seen is two; some schools don't have any recess! Compare this to Japan and some other countries, where students get 10 minutes of unstructured recess per 50 minutes of classtime!A) Why is this bad?
Studies show that recess is extremely important to child development. By recess I mean unstructured free play time. PE class is not recess. (PE is important, don't get me wrong, but the unstructured free time is the important element here.) "Structured recess" is slightly better than none, but still doesn't hit the spot. Children need downtime to let their brains rest, get their wiggles out, socialize, be creative, and develop their imaginations, while connecting with nature. Schools that stick to a higher number of recesses per day get better educational outcomes than those that only have one per day.Additionally, using removed time from recess as a punishment is completely counterproductive. Many children misbehave because they can no longer focus, they are bored, they have pent up energy... THEY NEED RECESS to keep them from misbehaving!
Just today, my kid's teacher took away his recess because he didn't turn in his homework. (We lost it. Looked everywhere, couldn't find it. I'm not making excuses; I searched high and low for an hour, because I didn't want him to be punished. But alas.) Hearing about his punishment made me so angry. She took away something that's proven to improve cognitive outcomes (recess) because he hadn't done something that's proven to worsen cognitive outcomes (homework). SO BACKWARD!
B) What should schools do instead?
This would require a bit of restructuring of schedules, so it wouldn't happen overnight. But it could be done. Make sure every student in K-6th has at least three 20-minute recesses per day. Older kids would benefit from breaks, too. We ALL benefit from breaks!Part of the reason schools are reducing recess has to do, again, with slashed funding. They remove two of the three recesses, shorten the school day slightly, and save on their electric bill by closing the building earlier. Again, though... This is not a good reason. We must demand adequate funding for our schools!
Another part of the reason schools are doing this has to do with No Child Left Behind tying funding to test scores in reading and math. Schools want to be SURE their students can pass those math and reading tests (by non-evidence-based deadlines), so they devote twice as much time to these subjects as before, at the expense of things like recess. They are shooting themselves in the foot, though. Students may indeed fly through the NCLB hoops due to more time focusing on these subjects, but they lose out on a lot of other really important developmental things. This stifles their academic growth long-term.
4) Cutting the so-called "extra-curriculars"
Cutting extra-curriculars is bullsh*t. After "No Child Left Behind" was implemented, schools started cutting their art, music, sports, and other programs that were not directly related to reading and math. Much ink has been spilled about the disastrous consequences, so I won't go into it all. I'm sure most people agree, schools should include bountiful opportunities for other classes besides the so-called core subjects. And just one music class per week or one art class per month doesn't cut it.A) Why is this bad?
A rich environment full of diverse activities is healthy for a developing brain. The more kids do things besides math and reading, the better they get at math and reading. It's counter-intuitive, maybe, but it's true. Science knows this. Policymakers should get on board.And really, it shouldn't be counter-intuitive. Math and reading are both tools... means to other ends, not ends unto themselves. The human mind is wired to search for meaning, and it performs better on tasks its finds meaningful. When a child engages in things like designing an art project or developing a strategy for winning a game of soccer, their brain lights up and builds all the wonderful connections it needs to mature properly. And the amazing thing is, in the process of doing these things THE CHILD IS USING MATH AND READING SKILLS, albeit indirectly. She is using the skills of math and reading in the ways that they are supposed to be used--as tools to accomplish other things. Then, when she has to focus on the actual tools themselves, the math and the reading classes, she has a a plethora of meaning-based schemata to work from to help her learn.
Cutting out all these "extra-curriculars" cuts out the opportunities for the child to build truly rich academic skills.
B) What should schools do instead?
This is pretty tough, because schools are stuck following wrong-headed guidelines coming from the Feds. Additionally, with state budgets being slashed left and right, sometimes the art teacher is the first salary to look expendable... This part goes back, again, to my first point about continuing to strike, and demand proper funding. We The People should simply not put up with Ayn Rand-grown zombies trying to destroy our great system of education. Fight back. (Easier said than done, I know, but I'm trying to put this in a nutshell!)Schools, themselves, meanwhile, need to recognize that the arts, sports, emotional intelligence programs, project-based learning initiatives, and other programs that aren't so-called "core" are absolutely vital to the proper development of the core learning we claim to want. Fight to keep them, tooth and nail.
5) Grade Levels
This is going to sound weird, maybe, but hear me out. Grade levels are bullsh*t. I don't believe schools should divide kids into "First grade," "Second grade," and so on.A) Why is this bad?
I'll have a hard time arguing that grade levels are bad, per se, in the sense that my other four points are about morally bad things. It's more like, they are an extremely clumsy tool that misses the mark most of the time, and we could do a lot better for our kids. Not every child develops at the same rate, in the same way, as his peers of the same age. And there's nothing wrong with this. Cognitive diversity is normal and wonderful and healthy! Meeting children where they are is an important component of teaching.Additionally, children do not benefit from spending most of their time with a crowd of people that are all the same age and maturity level as them. This breeds a lot of unhealthy socio-emotional habits, and is completely unnatural. Older students benefit from de facto mentoring relationships that develop when they spend time with younger students, and younger students benefit from looking up to older ones. Silo-ing children by age is weird, from the perspective of human history.
B) What should schools do instead?
Most schools have already caught on to the concept of differentiated instruction and its wonderful benefits, but differentiated instruction usually only goes so far. We could take the concept a lot further, in ways that nurture and energize our students to achieve thier maximum potentials.I envision classrooms that are intentionally built with a whole spectrum of ages, from 5 years old to 12 years old, all together. (But no more than 25 students per classroom... ideally, 15-20 students per room.) These classrooms are "home rooms," where the cohorts develop close relationshisp as they work on projects together, with each student contributing to the projects according to their abilities. Then, students leave their home rooms throughout the day to attend classes that are at their level.
Individual subjects would be divided by "levels." For example, take the entire scope of elementary reading curriculum, and divide it into 100 "levels." When a student passes one level, they go to the next one, at the pace comfortable for them. So the same student might go to Reading level 1, Math level 14, Science level 10, and Social Studies level 3, all on the same day. There would be no shaming allowed for a student being at a lower level of something... it would be completely normal, because everyone would do it.
I have two very bright children, who could be working on course work several "grades" ahead of where they are forced to study right now. I have talked with them about homeschooling, so they could soar to higher academic levels, because it really bugs me that they are stuck studying things that are way too easy for them. Their answers? "I don't want to be different from all the other kids." How sad! If we had schools that allowed and encouraged each child to perform at the levels they are capable of, nobody would be artificially held back due to social pressures.
No comments:
Post a Comment