Anyone else feel like school fundamentally doesn’t work?

[Anonymous]

No, I have never once felt that way. I have 4 kids with the oldest in high school. All of my kids have learned to read without my doing anything other than assisting with reading materials at home. Same with basic math. I send them somewhere most days, and they know all this stuff, make friends, join after school clubs and sports, and I am so so so grateful to their teachers and the schools. One of my kids is ASD/ADHD and she receives plenty of extra services and help. I don’t know what I’d do without school. So no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m all for year-round school, with 2-3 week breaks throughout the year rather than a long summer break.

+1

[Anonymous]

The moderator has noticed a lot more MAGA posters since the inauguration.

Is this coming from a MAGA poster who does not value education?

You're not going to convince anyone on DCUM, buddy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it doesn’t work but for very different reasons than what you’re stating. I think far too much time is lost to transitions and having every kid in the class wait for the very slowest or worst behaved kid. My DD could accomplish everything she does at school with two mornings of 3 hours’ of work. We send her to socialize and have fun opportunities, like learning new sports in PE and doing art projects that we wouldn’t be able to help with.

And she’s at a fancy private school.

My public elementary in the 80s worked far better than anything I’ve seen lately. Unfortunately I think it’s because it had standalone ESL classes, standalone special education classrooms, and leveled classes for reading and math plus entire semesters of pull-out work for gifted kids. Modern schools cannot do all of that without pushback from parents and legal issues. Nevermind that the 80s were probably the last years of truly professional, trained teachers. Many people who would have gone into education when I was growing up have been exposed to far more opportunity than there was back then, and they’re making other career choices. With occasional exceptions, my DD’s teachers have been not-bright and not talented at the art of teaching children or classroom management.

+1 million to all of this

And I did not think my rinky dink public elementary in the 80s was good at all until I sent my own kid to a rich, top rated public. Growing up, lots of kids dropped out. Now the worry is that the kids graduate, but can't actually read or write past a 5th or 6th grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it doesn’t work but for very different reasons than what you’re stating. I think far too much time is lost to transitions and having every kid in the class wait for the very slowest or worst behaved kid. My DD could accomplish everything she does at school with two mornings of 3 hours’ of work. We send her to socialize and have fun opportunities, like learning new sports in PE and doing art projects that we wouldn’t be able to help with.

And she’s at a fancy private school.

My public elementary in the 80s worked far better than anything I’ve seen lately. Unfortunately I think it’s because it had standalone ESL classes, standalone special education classrooms, and leveled classes for reading and math plus entire semesters of pull-out work for gifted kids. Modern schools cannot do all of that without pushback from parents and legal issues. Nevermind that the 80s were probably the last years of truly professional, trained teachers. Many people who would have gone into education when I was growing up have been exposed to far more opportunity than there was back then, and they’re making other career choices. With occasional exceptions, my DD’s teachers have been not-bright and not talented at the art of teaching children or classroom management.

We are at a Title 1 public and I feel the exact same way. Were it not for socialization, I'd just homeschool. Heck, if I could find a homeschooling collective that would enable me to socialize without dedicating all my energy to it, I'd do it (all the homeschooling groups near us are super conservative and religious and we are neither).

And the problem isn't the teachers -- our teachers have been really phenomenal. It's the way school is structured. There is just way too much time wasted on transitions, waiting for transitions, dealing with administrative BS that burdens teachers and kids with little benefit, etc. My kid is bored at school and it has nothing to do with the academics, which I think are on point. It has to do with having to spend a ridiculous portion of the day sitting and waiting or lining up and waiting or standing and waiting, instead of spending that time reading, playing, interacting with classmates, exploring the library, etc.

Schools just shuffle kids around all day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it doesn’t work but for very different reasons than what you’re stating. I think far too much time is lost to transitions and having every kid in the class wait for the very slowest or worst behaved kid. My DD could accomplish everything she does at school with two mornings of 3 hours’ of work. We send her to socialize and have fun opportunities, like learning new sports in PE and doing art projects that we wouldn’t be able to help with.

And she’s at a fancy private school.

My public elementary in the 80s worked far better than anything I’ve seen lately. Unfortunately I think it’s because it had standalone ESL classes, standalone special education classrooms, and leveled classes for reading and math plus entire semesters of pull-out work for gifted kids. Modern schools cannot do all of that without pushback from parents and legal issues. Nevermind that the 80s were probably the last years of truly professional, trained teachers. Many people who would have gone into education when I was growing up have been exposed to far more opportunity than there was back then, and they’re making other career choices. With occasional exceptions, my DD’s teachers have been not-bright and not talented at the art of teaching children or classroom management.

It worked terribly for students warehoused in those classrooms, effectively denied an education because society didn't think they were worth educating.

OK, well this isn’t working for the vast majority of the kids, so the pendulum needs to swing back a significant bit.

And don’t bother with the BUT IT’S THE LAW clapbacks. Pick up a newspaper once in a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many trolls on DCUM these days.

There's the thread on the College Forum about whether kids will have a normal college experience, given current politics. There's a thread about Elon turning off Teslas remotely.

And then there's you, generalizing your kids' sickness in to a screed about the uselessness of schools.

My kids are in high school and college, and at no point, even in daycare, were they, or any other kid I know (and I know so many after 20 years of parenting), constantly sick. And one of my kids is immuno-depressed!!!!!!

You need to upgrade your family's hygiene routine, OP.
And if it doesn't get better, ask their ped about immune issues. They could have an autoimmune disease you don't know about if they're constantly sick. THat is not a. normal state of affairs.

Also, look into tutoring and learning disorders. A neurotypical child should be able to catch up academically in between bouts of illness. My kid who isn't immuno-depressed has ADHD/ASD/low processing speed, and he's in college now, after graduating with a stellar GPA. It's possible to be successful in school, even with special needs.

Schools will always be useful. What needs to change is YOUR attitude.

To answer your actual question, I would have year-round school: a shorter summer break to eliminate summer brain drain, and larger breaks at other times to allow kids to de-stress at multiple points in the year. It would be great for tourism as well: you could travel in every season (if funds and PTO allow), instead of restricting your big vacation to the dog days of summer. For working parents, it would be easier to schedule camps at 4 points in the year, instead of stringing together care for a huge summer break.

It’s already been tried as a pilot in the DMV and failed. No evidence of all these purported “gains.” Not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

I agree a school schedule change will not happen.

Regardless, for non-academic reasons I wish the US had a school calendar more like some European countries. The ones I like have roughly 3 school terms. First term runs from September to Mid-December and has a 3-week break for Xmas. Second term runs from 2nd full week of January until roughly Easter, then a 3 week break. Last term ran from then until end of June. For our family, and from a child care / vacation perspective particularly, that schedule would work a great deal better. I am sure some prefer the current calendar. YMMV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many trolls on DCUM these days.

There's the thread on the College Forum about whether kids will have a normal college experience, given current politics. There's a thread about Elon turning off Teslas remotely.

And then there's you, generalizing your kids' sickness in to a screed about the uselessness of schools.

My kids are in high school and college, and at no point, even in daycare, were they, or any other kid I know (and I know so many after 20 years of parenting), constantly sick. And one of my kids is immuno-depressed!!!!!!

You need to upgrade your family's hygiene routine, OP.
And if it doesn't get better, ask their ped about immune issues. They could have an autoimmune disease you don't know about if they're constantly sick. THat is not a. normal state of affairs.

Also, look into tutoring and learning disorders. A neurotypical child should be able to catch up academically in between bouts of illness. My kid who isn't immuno-depressed has ADHD/ASD/low processing speed, and he's in college now, after graduating with a stellar GPA. It's possible to be successful in school, even with special needs.

Schools will always be useful. What needs to change is YOUR attitude.

To answer your actual question, I would have year-round school: a shorter summer break to eliminate summer brain drain, and larger breaks at other times to allow kids to de-stress at multiple points in the year. It would be great for tourism as well: you could travel in every season (if funds and PTO allow), instead of restricting your big vacation to the dog days of summer. For working parents, it would be easier to schedule camps at 4 points in the year, instead of stringing together care for a huge summer break.

It’s already been tried as a pilot in the DMV and failed. No evidence of all these purported “gains.” Not going to happen.

It’s not about gains. It’s about reducing learning loss, largely in high FARMs schools.

[Anonymous]

Read John Holt's book on Unschooling. Schools are very flawed. It's an interesting concept even if you don't take it up. I also think every parent goes through a realization period about the flaws of school, and more so if they themselves has trouble with it themselves or have kids who do.

[Anonymous]

“Unfortunately I think it’s because it had standalone ESL classes, standalone special education classrooms, and leveled classes for reading and math plus entire semesters of pull-out work for gifted kids. ”

+1
This is the biggest issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We need less "least restrictive environment" and back to separate classes and more of them. 27 kids in class is nuts. With 15 there is less sickness exposure and more time for material over transitions. Disruptive (truly disruptive kids who are violent) students need more care, separate classrooms etc etc. but that is all astronomical $$ and no state/county has funds for that. My diligent DD would do a lot better without the 2 kids who wander around class all day, interrupt everyone and one gets violent and throws objects. How can anyone learn in that environment.

Do schools employ full inclusion models because evidence shows that kids who have learning differences have better outcomes when they learn alongside their peers? Or do school systems no longer have the funding for separate classrooms or both?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need less "least restrictive environment" and back to separate classes and more of them. 27 kids in class is nuts. With 15 there is less sickness exposure and more time for material over transitions. Disruptive (truly disruptive kids who are violent) students need more care, separate classrooms etc etc. but that is all astronomical $$ and no state/county has funds for that. My diligent DD would do a lot better without the 2 kids who wander around class all day, interrupt everyone and one gets violent and throws objects. How can anyone learn in that environment.

Do schools employ full inclusion models because evidence shows that kids who have learning differences have better outcomes when they learn alongside their peers? Or do school systems no longer have the funding for separate classrooms or both?

They employ them because it is the law to put students on the Least Restrictive Environment.

Even if LRE wasn’t the law, there would not be sufficient funding for standalone classrooms unless profoundly disabled students were completely excluded from public education, as they were before the 80s/90s.

I live in a school district where special education funding makes up almost 25% of the budget and they have phased out high-cap programs. Buildings are aging and levies barely pass, and don’t pass in surrounding districts. Yes, there isn’t funding to serve anyone but the legal stuff is the first constraint.

PS I think all children deserve an inclusive public education that meets their needs but I don’t think anyone wants to fund it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it doesn’t work but for very different reasons than what you’re stating. I think far too much time is lost to transitions and having every kid in the class wait for the very slowest or worst behaved kid. My DD could accomplish everything she does at school with two mornings of 3 hours’ of work. We send her to socialize and have fun opportunities, like learning new sports in PE and doing art projects that we wouldn’t be able to help with.

And she’s at a fancy private school.

My public elementary in the 80s worked far better than anything I’ve seen lately. Unfortunately I think it’s because it had standalone ESL classes, standalone special education classrooms, and leveled classes for reading and math plus entire semesters of pull-out work for gifted kids. Modern schools cannot do all of that without pushback from parents and legal issues. Nevermind that the 80s were probably the last years of truly professional, trained teachers. Many people who would have gone into education when I was growing up have been exposed to far more opportunity than there was back then, and they’re making other career choices. With occasional exceptions, my DD’s teachers have been not-bright and not talented at the art of teaching children or classroom management.

Your dig at the quality of teachers is gross.

But many of your other points are good. Standalone services MUST have been more effective than the crap we have now.

My kids are in high school, and from what I can tell, inclusion-for-all means that some kids get to high school unable to adequately read, write, and reason, then get understandably frustrated when they're shoehorned into the same "gotta go to college" classes that everyone else is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it doesn’t work but for very different reasons than what you’re stating. I think far too much time is lost to transitions and having every kid in the class wait for the very slowest or worst behaved kid. My DD could accomplish everything she does at school with two mornings of 3 hours’ of work. We send her to socialize and have fun opportunities, like learning new sports in PE and doing art projects that we wouldn’t be able to help with.

And she’s at a fancy private school.

My public elementary in the 80s worked far better than anything I’ve seen lately. Unfortunately I think it’s because it had standalone ESL classes, standalone special education classrooms, and leveled classes for reading and math plus entire semesters of pull-out work for gifted kids. Modern schools cannot do all of that without pushback from parents and legal issues. Nevermind that the 80s were probably the last years of truly professional, trained teachers. Many people who would have gone into education when I was growing up have been exposed to far more opportunity than there was back then, and they’re making other career choices. With occasional exceptions, my DD’s teachers have been not-bright and not talented at the art of teaching children or classroom management.

Your dig at the quality of teachers is gross.

But many of your other points are good. Standalone services MUST have been more effective than the crap we have now.

My kids are in high school, and from what I can tell, inclusion-for-all means that some kids get to high school unable to adequately read, write, and reason, then get understandably frustrated when they're shoehorned into the same "gotta go to college" classes that everyone else is.

You may be in a strong school district or near some colleges with great teacher training programs. Unfortunately I am not and also live in an area with far higher COL than DC. It is very challenging to find quality teachers willing to work here. This isn’t even a teaching-specific problem. Same for many other professions- the quality of tradespeople, mid-level white collar workers, and others in my area is poor relative to other regions.

And you can argue in circles that teachers now are better than they were 40 years ago, but the standards and the education and achievement level of the people going into the profession has objectively gone down since the 70s and 80s. When women graduating from average backgrounds in the 60s and 80s had the option to be a secretary, nurse or teacher, salaries were pretty similar. Now women’s options are quite broader and so are the salaries, and teaching salaries have fallen to the low end relative to other professions. It means the profession attracts a few talented wealthy types who don’t need to worry about money, a few who care so much about teaching they don’t care about the small income, and the vast majority who would do something else with higher pay if they could access it.