<p>[Lexington:</a> The underworked American | The Economist](<a href=“http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13825184]Lexington:”>The underworked American)</p>
<p>I think that’s a great article. I’ve been saying that exact same thing for years - I think our system is totally antiquated. Not sure if we’ll ever be able to get to a better system in this country, but I think we’re doing our kids (and our country as a whole) a disservice by not making changes. I’m sure lots of people would disagree with me, but that’s definitely how I feel.</p>
<p>While I agree with much of the article, there is no way you could have my community’s children in school in July and August for the simple reason that our schools are not air conditioned and are miserably hot and humid during those months. Very little learning would happen in that environment.</p>
<p>I think part of this is the chasing of sports and ECs. When the baby boomlet of kids passes in a few years, hopefully that will come to an end.</p>
<p>I’m not sold on the idea of a longer school day or year. When my S was homeschooling, our groups standardized test scores were substancially above the school districts. Most of the families averaged approx 2-3 hours of formal school work per day. How did the kids get those scores?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>We were a self-selected group, I know that is a big factor. We were better educated than the average citizen yet our incomes were lower. As a group, they were substancially lower.</p></li>
<li><p>Here’s what our kids did not do; travel from home to school, homeroom, walk between classes, listen to teachers discipline other students, attend rallies (pep, selling things, entertainment), walk to lunch/wait in line for lunch/wait in line to leave lunch/walk back to classroom, travel from school back to home.</p></li>
<li><p>Each child’s instructional method was customized for them. For example, my S required virtually no one-on-one instruction. He read books and figured things out. That’s how he learned best at that age.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Until we make the school day far more productive than it is, I see added time as yet more itme wasted.</p>
<p>pugmadkate:</p>
<p>If each child could stay home to be educated, it would save a lot of time commuting. But is it realistic? If each teacher could focus on only one or two children at a time, it would save a lot of time, but again, is it realistic? In each class of anywhere from 15 to 35, a teacher has to teach to the middle, which means less attention to those who are not in the middle. With one-on-one instruction, there is no “middle” and no kid is either struggling or too advanced. Let’s not compare homeschooling with school-based teaching.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I completely agree, and that’s even without the home school / public school model. I spent two years at public high school - not to mention the other nine years of school - and the amount of time wasted would make you sick.</p>
<p>I’m not sure longer hours are going to change much. Here in France our educational system, once one of the best in the world, is going to the dogs despite 8 hour days of class. Why? Because extending high school education to all and spending most of the state funding on those who will not learn has created a system in which kids are packed 35 to 40 in a classroom and forced to proceed at the same rate, regardless of their level or interests. Very few electives, and no ECs unless you’re prepared to drag your exhausted kid to ballet class at 7 PM and then write an apologetic note to the teacher explaining why homework wasn’t done.
My D is in college in the States after 13 gruelling years of French force feeding. I was very interested to see how her level would compare with her American peers and I have to admit France does not win hands down,although one has to take into consideration that she got off to a shaky albeit understandable start due to the fact that she was what I’d call “semi-bilingual” rather than fluent in English. Her one strong point is that she is used to concentrating for long stretches of time, and does not seem to suffer from taking 4 classes a day.
On the other hand, homeschooling is a luxury only well-educated parents can afford, so I agree with Marite that it could never be seen as a global solution.
(Sorry about the rant, but I’m an exhausted and discouraged high school teacher at the end of a long year ((yes, most kids will be on holiday on the 8th of July)</p>
<p>Lost in Translation:</p>
<p>I, too, had a very shaky start owing to language difficulties (I could not be said to be bi-lingual despite all those years of English!). I did find that my French classical education equipped me well for American university. But it was a pre-68 education. 
Once I was more fluent in English, things improved dramatically.</p>
<p>marite, I apologize that my post was not clear. My point was not that all children should be homeschooled but rather that there is a tremendous amount of time wasted in the school day. If we started streamlining the learning day, that might make a difference but longer days or school years of based on the ineffective use of time that is the standard? I’m not buying into the idea that that will work.</p>
<p>However, considering the ways in which homeschooling has succeeded where public school has failed, I do think it’s worth looking at homeschooling to see what is useful for classroom settings. </p>
<p>Lostintranslat, I did not have a college education. When my son returned to public school, he tested far above grade level. There are many ways to learn and homeschoolers do have luxury of figuring out their best way. Often, that does not require a parent with a college education or a lot of money but rather a library card, the internet and a community of friends willing to pick up the slack in certain areas.</p>
<p>I’m sorry you are feeling discouraged. Enjoy your break, you surely earned it!</p>
<p>I am a huge advocate of specializing our high schools quite a bit more. Not for specific disciplines, but for different levels of academic achievement and potential. A great deal of our brightest childrens’ time is wasted on disciplining other students, ridiculous graduation requirements (mine REQUIRED that we take a one-semester “Career Workshop” where we were expected to determine our career path our freshman year of high school. Waste of time.) and way-too-easy core subjects.</p>
<p>The best solution to this is more charter and magnet schools in America’s cities. The best students can be brought from throughout the city to a free, publicly-funded school whose academics and resources rival an expensive private school. These excellent students can be challenged and their potential realized in small classes with the best teachers around without having to waste time listening to teachers disciplining those who don’t want to be there or explaining concepts that should have been learned years ago.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the teacher’s union despises charter schools because they are partially deregulated in exchange for demanding results.</p>
<p>New York City, for example, does a fantastic job with its charter/magnet schools. Take a look at where Stuyvesant and Bronx Science students go for college.</p>
<p>Here’s an update on what’s going on with charter schools right now:'</p>
<p>[Obama’s</a> Charter Stimulus - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476693275708519.html]Obama’s”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476693275708519.html)</p>
<p>pmk, a smart kid may test way above grade level even without homeschooling, My kids did. I think there is a lot to be said for magnet and charter schools. My sons’ elementary school was a magnet school and while the magnet program often got watered down (since the powers that be felt it was unfair for one school to get more dollars than the other.) But the magnet program meant that the curriculum was constantly being evaluated and it attracted more involved parents. </p>
<p>As to the question of going to school in the summer. We are very spoiled. I went to school in Africa for much of my childhood. We had no air conditioning - and guess what we survived and managed to learn plenty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. It’s just that that was one of the most common question I got when S was homeschooling. “You don’t have a teaching degree? Aren’t you afraid he’ll be way behind when he returns to school?” </p>
<p>Of course, the most common questions were about socialization but worries about how he would fare should he return to public school or want to attend college were way up there as well.</p>
<p>I should also add that I in no way believe that learning is restricted to classrooms. I consider the lazy days reading, camp and vacations just as important to my son’s education as his formal instruction. I guess I’m sort of a hippie in suburban mom clothing!</p>
<p>Tough call. For the majority, I suspect, more time in school will result in more learning. However, there is also a smaller group of very intelligent children whose intellectual growth comes from exploration, play, and idle time to think and create. My own children despise the drudgery of the ordinary school day but make great use of their free time, which is when they do much of their learning. I can’t imagine a longer school day or year doing anything but holding them back.</p>
<p>A study done by the University of Kansas on engaged time in school, found that the typical “high performing” student spends less than 2 hours of at school time actually engaged in academic activities. There is plenty of time to do more in a typical school day before the day is lengthened, or attend in the summer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All children’s intellectual growth comes from exploration, play and idle time. The idea that that stops at age 6 or whatever other arbitrary cut off, except for the very intelligent, is not one I find credible. I’ve just never seen the body of evidence that supports this and I’ve seen research showing that doing things like canceling recess has a poor effect on learning for all children.</p>
<p>I also worry greatly about children who feel they are already poor learners being forced into longer days and school years. These kids need a break for their self-image and self-esteem. It would be like forcing kids who are not naturally adept at sports into year round athletic team participation. </p>
<p>We treat formal education as if it is natural but it is not. I simply do not understand, based on past results, why more of the same seems a good idea.</p>
<p>PMK–Because childhood isn’t an end to itself. It’s simply a means to get ahead, a way-station on the path to success–anything that gets those rascals properly regimented is a good thing, right? didn’t you get the memo?</p>
<p>garland, I know you are being sarcastic, but it absolutely horrifies me that the majority of people agree with your statement (un-sarcastically).</p>
<p>and if you try and lengthen the school day and/or year you will have teachers saying they need to be paid more…</p>
<p>Of course they would need to be paid more. Or do you think that all of us should accept extra hours without asking for more pay? How odd.</p>
<p>garland & QM, I know. I am truly puzzled by how people keep talking about how the future of America is not in making things in factories but in coming up with ideas. So the way to prepare them for that is…less time for playing for the sake of playing and being for the sake of being. That’s how we’re going to raise a generation of creative thinkers?</p>
<p>The thing that has currently been on my mind is the every growing body of research on learning/memory that just gets ignored. We’re actually learning how the brain learns and it’s getting pushed aside. It makes me sad, especially for kids who are not in the top percentiles, who could really benefit from this information.</p>