Schools simply do not teach writing any more

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since you now have the opportunity to teach the skills you want them to learn at home, order some workbooks and do it. Don't wait for the teachers.

All the involved FCPS parents I know already supplement heavily. Our kids will be fine. What about the kids whose parents can’t, won’t, or don’t notice they need to, though? Shouldn’t the teachers and administrators care that what they do doesn’t work?

Having schools closed has allowed me to supplement while working around only 2-3 hours of class instead of 7+bus ride time, and it has been glorious.

Why do you assume heavy supplementation by parents can replace a good education in school?

I do not have the confidence that I—as someone who has zero teaching experience—can teach my child the core of what she needs to learn in school. Her education is too important to be left to my own abilities. I would be very scared that I missed something.

We’re paying for private school as a result.

Have a look at stats for home schooled kids. I think you will be surprised. I personally would never do it because I think the loss of socialization is too great a price to pay but the academic results can be wonderful. I have said before that this is the way great thinkers were educated for hundreds of years. Governess + music/art/language teachers used to add up to aristocratic education. I consider myself an acolyte of Harold Bloom. The problem is the inferiority of the reading material we give our children these days -- books that do nothing more than reflect their limited understanding of the world and do not challenge them intellectually. It must be easy and contemporary and may not contain any words or phrases they do not already know. Even the language used by characters on Sesame Street 30 years ago would be incomprehensible to most children now.

I think it’s really odd that you equate “aristocratic education” with producing “great thinkers.” Who are you specifically referring to?

I know homeschooled kids tend to do well, but they are following a prescribed curriculum and often are actually in virtual—or sometimes even very small in-person—classes with other kids. It’s really a much more involved proposition than buying some workbooks and “supplementing” after school.

[Anonymous]

The bottom line is that the states mandate education through grade 8 so they should be actually providing the said education. If the majority of our population is functionally illiterate after they graduate high school we have failed them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since you now have the opportunity to teach the skills you want them to learn at home, order some workbooks and do it. Don't wait for the teachers.

All the involved FCPS parents I know already supplement heavily. Our kids will be fine. What about the kids whose parents can’t, won’t, or don’t notice they need to, though? Shouldn’t the teachers and administrators care that what they do doesn’t work?

Having schools closed has allowed me to supplement while working around only 2-3 hours of class instead of 7+bus ride time, and it has been glorious.

Why do you assume heavy supplementation by parents can replace a good education in school?

I do not have the confidence that I—as someone who has zero teaching experience—can teach my child the core of what she needs to learn in school. Her education is too important to be left to my own abilities. I would be very scared that I missed something.

We’re paying for private school as a result.

Have a look at stats for home schooled kids. I think you will be surprised. I personally would never do it because I think the loss of socialization is too great a price to pay but the academic results can be wonderful. I have said before that this is the way great thinkers were educated for hundreds of years. Governess + music/art/language teachers used to add up to aristocratic education. I consider myself an acolyte of Harold Bloom. The problem is the inferiority of the reading material we give our children these days -- books that do nothing more than reflect their limited understanding of the world and do not challenge them intellectually. It must be easy and contemporary and may not contain any words or phrases they do not already know. Even the language used by characters on Sesame Street 30 years ago would be incomprehensible to most children now.

I think it’s really odd that you equate “aristocratic education” with producing “great thinkers.” Who are you specifically referring to?

I know homeschooled kids tend to do well, but they are following a prescribed curriculum and often are actually in virtual—or sometimes even very small in-person—classes with other kids. It’s really a much more involved proposition than buying some workbooks and “supplementing” after school.

I am the PP who said every FCPS parent I know supplements. I WAS homeschooled, and among my peers saw homeschooling done both well and poorly. I supplement with pieces of homeschool curriculum and rely on homeschool reading lists. So I do feel fairly confident. Most people I know who supplement spend as much time on curriculum as homeschool parents. Math-U-See or Singapore Math, Logic of English, and other popular homeschool products stock shelves of public school families in VA.

I would guess that an aristocratic education means a governess or tutor teaching a rich British kid in the classical tradition, or maybe an old-school boarding school. Lots of personalized learning in Latin, Greek, math, geography, history, grammar, and classic literature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since you now have the opportunity to teach the skills you want them to learn at home, order some workbooks and do it. Don't wait for the teachers.

All the involved FCPS parents I know already supplement heavily. Our kids will be fine. What about the kids whose parents can’t, won’t, or don’t notice they need to, though? Shouldn’t the teachers and administrators care that what they do doesn’t work?

Having schools closed has allowed me to supplement while working around only 2-3 hours of class instead of 7+bus ride time, and it has been glorious.

Why do you assume heavy supplementation by parents can replace a good education in school?

I do not have the confidence that I—as someone who has zero teaching experience—can teach my child the core of what she needs to learn in school. Her education is too important to be left to my own abilities. I would be very scared that I missed something.

We’re paying for private school as a result.

Have a look at stats for home schooled kids. I think you will be surprised. I personally would never do it because I think the loss of socialization is too great a price to pay but the academic results can be wonderful. I have said before that this is the way great thinkers were educated for hundreds of years. Governess + music/art/language teachers used to add up to aristocratic education. I consider myself an acolyte of Harold Bloom. The problem is the inferiority of the reading material we give our children these days -- books that do nothing more than reflect their limited understanding of the world and do not challenge them intellectually. It must be easy and contemporary and may not contain any words or phrases they do not already know. Even the language used by characters on Sesame Street 30 years ago would be incomprehensible to most children now.

I think it’s really odd that you equate “aristocratic education” with producing “great thinkers.” Who are you specifically referring to?

I know homeschooled kids tend to do well, but they are following a prescribed curriculum and often are actually in virtual—or sometimes even very small in-person—classes with other kids. It’s really a much more involved proposition than buying some workbooks and “supplementing” after school.

I am the PP who said every FCPS parent I know supplements. I WAS homeschooled, and among my peers saw homeschooling done both well and poorly. I supplement with pieces of homeschool curriculum and rely on homeschool reading lists. So I do feel fairly confident. Most people I know who supplement spend as much time on curriculum as homeschool parents. Math-U-See or Singapore Math, Logic of English, and other popular homeschool products stock shelves of public school families in VA.

I would guess that an aristocratic education means a governess or tutor teaching a rich British kid in the classical tradition, or maybe an old-school boarding school. Lots of personalized learning in Latin, Greek, math, geography, history, grammar, and classic literature.

Ok, so you happen to have access to those materials and have experience in it. That’s very different than the vast majority of parents.

Also, I know what that PP was referring to; I just really question that that’s what produced “great thinkers.” I took Latin and Greek and read a lot of classic literature. It’s very important, but isn’t the be all/end all for creating “great thinkers.” For one, that setting produced a TON of elitism and pigheadedness. But that PP loves Harold Bloom, so it makes sense he/she would talk about an “aristocratic education.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grammar and parts of speech are pretty easy to supplement with Khan Academy and Bee Star, if you are so inclined.

Yes, I will supplement, but that is not the point. This is the most basic thing that the school should be able to do.

+1

I agree, OP. Too many people are OK with this. Everyone needs to complain because this is the result: it's increases inequity in education.

It's not right! Yes, Catholic schools and private schools still teach parts of speech, grammar and technical aspects of wiring. So those affluent kids are getting a good foundation. Public schools across the country have phased this out, and children who need this foundation most are not getting it.

I can't understand for the life of me, how public schools would let this happen to our kids.

We moved out of DC into a suburb in “flyover” country with great public schools. I have 3 kids in elementary school and they teach writing, grammar and spelling daily. In 2nd and 4th grades now with remote learning, they have writing, editing and grammar lessons practically daily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not affluent but I send my child to a Catholic school. I'm a single parent and a public school teacher. The basics are not the newest fad so public schools aren't really interested in teaching them. You shouldn't have to pay tuition for the basics IMO.

Another single mom here. Do they push a lot of religious studies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since you now have the opportunity to teach the skills you want them to learn at home, order some workbooks and do it. Don't wait for the teachers.

All the involved FCPS parents I know already supplement heavily. Our kids will be fine. What about the kids whose parents can’t, won’t, or don’t notice they need to, though? Shouldn’t the teachers and administrators care that what they do doesn’t work?

Having schools closed has allowed me to supplement while working around only 2-3 hours of class instead of 7+bus ride time, and it has been glorious.

Why do you assume heavy supplementation by parents can replace a good education in school?

I do not have the confidence that I—as someone who has zero teaching experience—can teach my child the core of what she needs to learn in school. Her education is too important to be left to my own abilities. I would be very scared that I missed something.

We’re paying for private school as a result.

Have a look at stats for home schooled kids. I think you will be surprised. I personally would never do it because I think the loss of socialization is too great a price to pay but the academic results can be wonderful. I have said before that this is the way great thinkers were educated for hundreds of years. Governess + music/art/language teachers used to add up to aristocratic education. I consider myself an acolyte of Harold Bloom. The problem is the inferiority of the reading material we give our children these days -- books that do nothing more than reflect their limited understanding of the world and do not challenge them intellectually. It must be easy and contemporary and may not contain any words or phrases they do not already know. Even the language used by characters on Sesame Street 30 years ago would be incomprehensible to most children now.

I think it’s really odd that you equate “aristocratic education” with producing “great thinkers.” Who are you specifically referring to?

I know homeschooled kids tend to do well, but they are following a prescribed curriculum and often are actually in virtual—or sometimes even very small in-person—classes with other kids. It’s really a much more involved proposition than buying some workbooks and “supplementing” after school.

DP. I always disparaged homeschoolers for obvious reasons. But now that I’m seeing how much public schools have changed? I actually think homeschoolers (in balance) likely do better. And that doesn’t mean homeschoolers are great educators. It reflects how much public schools have fallen. The teachers are largely good. It’s the district policies that are detrimental.

[Anonymous]

I've noticed this "trend", as well. I told my sixth grader I will have her do some writing this summer when the assigned school work is over. I will pull up sites such as National Geographic, find a picture, and have her write a paragraph about it. Then we can discuss punctuation, use of adverbs vs. adjectives, the differences between writing a text to friends and writing for teachers, etc. I am a former journalist who is determined that my children will write well. Not good, well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is not the case in our DCPS school. 4th grade.

Same. NW DCPS school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised at the amount of "free independent reading" in my dc FCPS elementary school. A whole hour each morning and another 20 minutes in the afternoon. That's a lot of instructional time.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is not the case in our DCPS school. 4th grade.

Same. NW DCPS school.

OP here and we are in upper NW DC school so definitely the case in ours. I also want to add that just because they are assigned a lot of writing, as is the case with my son, does not mean they were given the tools to be able to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is not the case in our DCPS school. 4th grade.

Same. NW DCPS school.

OP here and we are in upper NW DC school so definitely the case in ours. I also want to add that just because they are assigned a lot of writing, as is the case with my son, does not mean they were given the tools to be able to do it.

NP here and my kid is also in 4th at DCPS. For some subjects I have been impressed with the new methods of teaching. Writing has been a mixed bag. DS learns about constructing arguments which is fantastic, but simple things like sentence sentence structure fall by the wayside. I also recall asking about spelling tests when DC was in 2nd grade and being brushed off. We’re trying to supplement grammar and writing while home, but it’s frustrating the basics aren’t being taught in school.

[Anonymous]

So, here's the counterargument (or, why not to worry so much): I didn't learn grammar or any formal writing techniques until 7th grade, and it didn't hurt me at all. I write for a living, have been praised as an excellent writer, and it's nothing that was formally taught to me before high school. My 5th grader has gotten very little formal instruction in writing, but is a huge reader; he is also an excellent writer, with little teaching from me. The more you write the better you get!

I don't expect him to be writing 10 page polished essays or diagramming sentences at his age; there's plenty of time for that. What's the most important is that he enjoys writing and doesn't dread it. Everybody just relax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, here's the counterargument (or, why not to worry so much): I didn't learn grammar or any formal writing techniques until 7th grade, and it didn't hurt me at all. I write for a living, have been praised as an excellent writer, and it's nothing that was formally taught to me before high school. My 5th grader has gotten very little formal instruction in writing, but is a huge reader; he is also an excellent writer, with little teaching from me. The more you write the better you get!

I don't expect him to be writing 10 page polished essays or diagramming sentences at his age; there's plenty of time for that. What's the most important is that he enjoys writing and doesn't dread it. Everybody just relax.

I trust the middle school and high school teachers who say the kids are coming in barely able to write more than you, with your anecdotal examples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not affluent but I send my child to a Catholic school. I'm a single parent and a public school teacher. The basics are not the newest fad so public schools aren't really interested in teaching them. You shouldn't have to pay tuition for the basics IMO.

Another single mom here. Do they push a lot of religious studies?

Push? The students have religion class every day and mass once a week. I am not practicing and I don’t agree with everything the Catholic Church does.