With 2.2 million children now being home-schooled, compared with 850,000 in 1999, it’s time to ask why (“Parents are giving up on public schools to home-school their kids,” New York Post, Oct. 12).  Contrary to widespread belief, religious fundamentalism is not the reason.

Most parents say they want to avoid the lockstep education provided by public schools, citing the role that standardized tests play in shaping what is taught.  But  no matter how motivated and committed parents are, they can’t provide the socialization that traditional schools do.  That doesn’t mean home-schooling is inferior.  Some parents are better suited than others.  In the final analysis, therefore, the success of home-schooling rests on the individual qualifications of parents.

The parents I’ve known who have home-schooled their children say they underestimated the time and effort involved to provide a complete education.  Unfortunately, too many parents don’t realize this until it is too late.

(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)

 

In an attempt to recruit and retain teachers in struggling schools, bonuses are being used as a lure (“Bonuses of Up to $8,000 to Teach in Struggling New York Schools,” The New York Times, Oct. 12).  The latest example involves paying teachers in New York City between $5,000 and $8,000.

I seriously doubt that the Bronx Plan, as it is called in New York City for the borough where many of the 180 public schools are located, will do the job.  For one thing, the bonuses alone are not that attractive in light of the challenges facing teachers in the targeted schools.  Moreover, the bonuses are not tied to success in the classroom.  As a result, the few teachers who will bite will not necessarily be the system’s best.

The truth is that teachers are not mercenaries or missionaries.  They simply want to be able to teach their subject as they were trained to do.  When they have to perform triage on a daily basis because of the disadvantages that so many students in failing schools bring to class every day, they soon experience burnout and quit.

Would increasing the amount of the bonuses make a difference?  Perhaps for some, but even then the bonuses would have to be stepped up dramatically.  I personally would not be interested.

(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)

The latest criticism of public schools today is that they have largely failed to prepare students to be good citizens (“Educate to unify: The urgent need for better civic education in our dangerously divided nation,” New York Daily News, Oct. 7).  Yet I wonder if greater emphasis on citizenship in schools will change matters.

I say so because current events demonstrate that this country is a democracy in name only.  In reality, it is an oligarchy.  America is divided for good reason.  The top one percent exert a stranglehold on virtually all issues.  Even if teachers were allowed to honestly focus on controversial subjects in the news, which in most cases they may not, I question what difference that would make. For example, the protests about the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court did not succeed.

In the final analysis, there is growing cynicism on the part of the public about how democracy works in reality.  We should certainly try to change that attitude in young people while they are in public school.  But I seriously doubt anything significant will come of it.

(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)

It comes as no surprise that employers are hard pressed to find workers who can effectively communicate (“What Skills Do Students Really Need for Work? Education Week, Sep.26).   I say that because I taught English for 28 years in the same high school in the Los Angeles Unified School District.  During that time, I saw the disconnect between the kind of writing curricular guides required and what I knew the workplace demanded.

I have nothing against creative writing.  But I question if the skills required are transferable.  Employers need workers who can clearly and succinctly express themselves.  I seriously doubt that courses in creative writing will provide students with that wherewithal.

Journalists are criticized for being mental lightweights.  But they are successful in making sense of even the most arcane subject.  I attribute their ability to do so by having their writing scrutinized by their editors.  When I was working on my M.S. in journalism from UCLA, I learned how to take even the most complex subject and make sense of it for readers through constant practice followed by immediate feedback.

Creative writing certainly has its place.  But if the goal is to prepare students for the job market, it will not be seen as an asset.

(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)

By now, anyone who follows education in this country knows about the lawsuit filed by Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University (“Harvard on Trial,” The Weekly Standard, Oct. 22).  It charges that Harvard discriminates against Asian-Americans by holding them to a higher standard than students of other races.

I’m one of the few educators who believes that academics alone should be the sole basis for admission to private colleges and universities.  If that results in a far less racially diverse student body, so be it.  It’s not that I don’t see the benefits of having students from diverse backgrounds.  All I care about is the ability of students to handle the work

Consider the California Institute of Technology.  It uses no racial or legacy preferences in admissions.  Not surprisingly, its student body is more than 40 percent Asian-American.  Are students there being shortchanged by not being in a school with more students of other races?  Perhaps, but I maintain that the price they may be paying is worth it in light of the school’s high academic standards.

Put differently, how are students who lack the aptitude and ability to handle complex material helped if they are admitted on the basis of achieving diversity?  I believe that everyone is good at something.  The challenge is finding what it is and then pursuing a career.  You don’t have to go to Harvard to do that.

(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)

Since standardized tests are not going away anytime soon, it’s time to revise the way they are used (“New York’s state English exams are a horrific waste,” New York Post, Sep. 30).  At present, most state tests are administered in April, but the results are not released until summer.  That makes no sense.

I say that because the primary purpose of standardized tests is to provide teachers with feedback about their instruction.  The sooner they get the results the sooner they can revise their lessons.  For students, the delay is even more troublesome because it’s too late to enroll in summer school.  In New York City, this year’s summer school enrollment was down by more than half since 2013.

Further, unless standardized tests are directly aligned with the curriculum, scores are relatively meaningless.  They essentially are measuring what students bring to class in terms of their socioeconomic backgrounds rather than what they learn in class through effective instruction.  That’s an important distinction given short shrift in the debate.

(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)

Mention the term diversity to most people and chances are they will assume it refers strictly to race.  But in actuality it can also mean socioeconomic diversity or academic diversity (“NYC’s school diversity plan could lead to another ‘white flight,’ “ New York Post, Sep. 29).  The differences in meaning create different reactions from people – and for good reason.

Parents want the best education for their children. Racial and socioeconomic diversity has proved to be beneficial, which is why parents tend to support that goal.  What they don’t support, however, is academic diversity because it undermines quality.  For example, efforts are underway in New York City, home of the nation’s largest school system, to open the doors of its academically rigorous high schools to students who want to go there.  The trouble is that students who are unprepared for the tougher curriculum will fail.

What will no doubt happen then is that they will drop out or standards will be lowered to accommodate them.  If the past is any indication, it will be the latter.  As a result, parents will likely pull their children out of these schools and enroll them in either private school or in charter schools.  I don’t blame them.  They’ve made great sacrifices to provide their children with a quality education.  If academics are to be undermined in the interest of other considerations, they will do what’s best for their own.

(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)

 

 

 

 

Until recently, the fate of college students who were accused of sexual misconduct was determined by campus disciplinary bodies.  But the federal Sixth Circuit appeals court correctly ruled that they have a right to due process (“Thank the courts for rescuing college kids from unfair sex-assault charges,” New York Post, Sep. 28).

The truth is that campus courts were kangaroo courts, which favored accusers.  They did not allow cross-examination.  Without it, those accused were unable to mount a defense.  As a result, being accused of sex assault was tantamount to being found guilty.  It was a travesty of justice.

Victims of sexual assault should be required to file a complaint with off-campus police.  Disciplinary systems on campus have long been tilted in favor of accusers.  Yes, they have rights, but so too do the accused.  Too much is at stake to return to the old system.

(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)

Although the focus today is on for-profit schools that have defrauded students, I submit that they have no place whatsoever in education (“What Betsy DeVos Thinks She Can Get Away With,” The New York Times, Sep. 24).  That’s because producing a profit is fundamentally incompatible with education’s basic mission.

Let me explain.  In an ideal world, schools and students would equally benefit. But I don’t think that’s possible in for-profit schools.  Finding themselves caught between the interests of students and those of financial stakeholders, for-profit schools will invariably choose the latter or soon find themselves out of business.  For example, studies show that students learn more effectively when classes are small.  But hiring more teachers will always cut into profits.

Worse, for-profit schools have engaged in a pattern of lying about career opportunities.  That’s not surprising because they are always under pressure to boost profits.  In order to keep their financial backers happy, they must always produce ever greater returns.  What better way to achieve that objective than by misrepresenting facts about gainful employment.

Education is by its very nature extremely labor-intensive.  The steps that companies in the private sector have taken to please financial backers will shortchange students.  That’s why I maintain that education should remain non-profit at all levels.

(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)

 

When Jeff Bezos announced that he is donating $2 billion to create a network of free Montessori-inspired preschools, he was praised for not following in the footsteps of other titans who have chosen to financially support top-down charter schools (“How to Realize Preschool Dreams,” The New York Times, Sep. 21).

That’s because recent research conducted at the University of Virginia found that children from low-income families in public Montessori programs were more likely to catch up to their advantaged peers than those who attended programs elsewhere.

But the study did not specify what those other programs were.  That’s an important omission because it leaves unanswered if the other programs were charter schools or traditional public schools.  For example, how did children in Montessori schools compare with children in Success Academy?  How did they compare with children in public schools in affluent suburban areas?

Montessori schools may be a godsend for some children but a disaster for others.  So much depends on what parents believe their own children need.  The Montessori model emphasizes child-directed learning in multiage classrooms.  It individualizes instruction. I vividly remember the media hoopla given to Summerhill School in Suffolk, England in the 1960s.  It appealed to parents who saw traditional British and American schools as rigid, joyless places.

I’m glad that Bezos is going to invest in a Montessori network.  His funding will give parents even more options than they have now.

(To post a comment, click on the title of this blog.)