13:36 Which classes does FCPS even use textbooks for? Is this a big issue? I keep hearing there aren't any, but only have a 3rd grader. I do not like the non-text book way of teaching because for example in my child's language arts class, everyone now reads a different book and talks about it instead of everyone reading the same story. With a textbook nowadays, I can look up exactly what they're studying and even buy it for myself. In addition, my child gets dittos all the time. They are always black and white and uninteresting. Textbooks come with more engaging workbooks nowadays. I see them in the local parochial school. The parochial school has lots of other resources, but also has textbooks. The teacher can either use dittos or have the kid answer questions from the workbook or write down answers on paper from the textbook.

Textbooks become dated too easily and very expensive to replace

History books: not so much. Except for recent events. And, the internet is great, but you have to be sure that kids are using reliable sources.

Anonymous wrote:00:45 There are already no text books in elementary and middle school. Why does everyone want to get rid of textbooks so much? Kids are having to share books, parents don't know what is going on at school anymore? I wish there were more textbooks.

Textbooks become dated too easily and very expensive to replace. Good, progressive schools and school systems are realizing the benefits of using additional resources for kids to learn and the limitations of an only textbook environment - not to mention the cumbersome task of carrying these textbooks! Not to say that textbooks aren't useful in some contexts, but overall I believe a combination of different resources is the best approach for learning.

I'm not sure what you mean by parents not knowing what is going on in school anymore…are you saying that using a textbook somehow makes parents automatically connected to what is happening in the classroom? How would that be any different than other periodicals that your child is using? You simply need to talk to your kids about what they are learning in class. I bet they are so much more engaged when they are taught to find a reliable and quality source online or elsewhere that will be more than willing to talk about a subject with you - it happens with my kids. The resources that are available to kids now are so wonderful and though-provoking that I personally don't understand when people want to hold onto only textbooks. It's different than when we were going to school and change is often hard to accept, but the benefits are there.

Anonymous wrote:I recomend googling 'On the reading of old books' by CS Lewis. He said it better than I can.
BTW, I am a scientist in the biomedical field and love old fiction, esp. British classics.

NP here, thanks for the suggestion PP. I had never read this. http://www.theelliots.org/Soapbox2008/OntheReadingofOldBooks.pdf

So many children use the computer for their non-fiction research. I don't know what the fuss is about no textbooks. There are other books as well to refer to in class and the library of course.

Anonymous wrote:

I'd much rather students read real nonfiction sources in history and social sciences

Just what do you consider "real nonfiction sources" in the social sciences? Primary sources in history, I understand and the kids do read some of those. It would be impossible to read enough to learn history.

I'm not even sure what a non-real non-fiction source would be. If it is non-fiction, then it is by definition real. Perhaps the poster meant serious works of history and not picture books.

In any event, primary sources are not the only "real" sources. Any well-written history book is a "real" source of non-fiction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ones that want their students to go to college.

Really, which public school systems require all students to study foreign language? Does MCPS? I don't know of a public system that does this.

Whether or not they require it, area high schools strongly urge their college-bound students to take languages. This is because they know that many colleges require 1-2 years of language as a prerequisite for admissions. Without 2+ years of a language, you might as well not apply to certain top colleges. Further, once you get to college, most will make you take 1-2 years of a college-level language. You may be able to test out of college language requirements if you did enough languages in high school, and that's a second reason to take languages in high school.

This is not simply because colleges like to torture students about languages any way they can. It's that global competitiveness thing again

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'd much rather students read real nonfiction sources in history and social sciences

Just what do you consider "real nonfiction sources" in the social sciences? Primary sources in history, I understand and the kids do read some of those. It would be impossible to read enough to learn history.

not just primary sources in history. Public histories of ears and biographies are secondary. The instructor can present some background factual info. There is a huge tradition of public historians students can read. The social sciences also have a huge tradition of public writing - Nickle and Dimmed in America for sociology. Tipping point for sociology or maybe psychology.

Again you'd need good teachers to present background concepts, but students would be so much more engaged with both reading and the ideas if they were reading real things.

Down with textbooks!

eras, ha ha

Anonymous wrote:

I'd much rather students read real nonfiction sources in history and social sciences

Just what do you consider "real nonfiction sources" in the social sciences? Primary sources in history, I understand and the kids do read some of those. It would be impossible to read enough to learn history.

not just primary sources in history. Public histories of ears and biographies are secondary. The instructor can present some background factual info. There is a huge tradition of public historians students can read. The social sciences also have a huge tradition of public writing - Nickle and Dimmed in America for sociology. Tipping point for sociology or maybe psychology.

Again you'd need good teachers to present background concepts, but students would be so much more engaged with both reading and the ideas if they were reading real things.

Down with textbooks!

I'd much rather students read real nonfiction sources in history and social sciences

Just what do you consider "real nonfiction sources" in the social sciences? Primary sources in history, I understand and the kids do read some of those. It would be impossible to read enough to learn history.

00:45 There are already no text books in elementary and middle school. Why does everyone want to get rid of textbooks so much? Kids are having to share books, parents don't know what is going on at school anymore? I wish there were more textbooks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:15:05 again. Let me be more concrete in my proposal: Instead of a typical high school education that includes four years of English classes with only fiction books, how about ensuring that one-fourth of the books taught each year are non-fiction. That leaves 3 total years of fiction English, and one year of non-fiction.

Perhaps I am off-base. I also think forcing all students to learn several years of foreign language is silly.

Which public schools force all students to study a foreign language for several years?

The ones that want their graduates to be competitive in an increasingly global economy.

Anonymous wrote:The ones that want their students to go to college.

Really, which public school systems require all students to study foreign language? Does MCPS? I don't know of a public system that does this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Isn't that one of the things Common Core is trying to change? Having students read more non-fiction?

Yes but MCPS interpreted this as replace science instruction with reading assignments that include science as the topic. Not a good solution.

People who go into education are weak on STEM and heavy on humanities. There is a natural bias and comfort level with reading and analyzing fiction. Everything else is ignored or second class.

I agree that reading fiction is important but it is overdone in the schools at the expense of other subjects. Changing this, means changing the requirements to get an education degree so you can have teachers who know how to teach other subjects.

How is it overdone? Are the kids reading novels in biology? Are they reading poetry in history class? Are they reading short stories in math class? I took some fantastic literature classes in high school, but the only classes in which we read fiction were lit classes--all the other classes were "non-fiction." I don't see how fiction can be taking over if it's one class out of what, six?

I agree. I never read fiction outside of English class. The problem is outside of English, I never read anything but textbooks. That's the real problem - all the textbooks. I'd much rather students read real nonfiction sources in history and social sciences. Save textbooks just for math and science. Then everyone can be happy - lots of nonfiction in history and social science (and yes in EN - memoirs etc) and lots of fiction in English. Common Core tries to do this but goes to far. Only 10% of a child's total school reading will be fiction.

I think there's a lot of non-fiction reading in other classes. English class did contain biographies, newspaper articles both fact and opinion, and similar non-fiction pieces, but I'm not sure it's the place for reading about cells when you already have a biology class with required and optional reading. In elementary the kids sometimes read a fiction and non fiction book on similar subjects, but I'm not sure if high school classes could work this way. Freshman year about 20 years ago I took a basic English class in FCPS and felt like I was back in 6th grade. Luckily the honor and AP classes moved much faster and were taught with more depth. If the general ed classes are still this bad, the teacher doesn't have time to focus on anything other than literature.