We,
as a nation, have fallen behind our international peers. Former Dallas ISD
Superintendent Linus Wright has made that point many times. He says it is
because foreign nations that score higher attend school for longer hours of the
day and more days of the year. We have examined that closely, and found that
more hours don’t always mean greater success. That some countries attend school
for fewer hours and have greater success, at least based on PISA scoring.
So
when Wright says that he wants to restructure schedules and curriculum, you might
ask yourself, “How is that going to help?”
His
fourth point states:
4. Restructure
elementary, middle and high schools to accommodate (a) flexible scheduling that
is parent-friendly, (b) flexible curriculum to meet the needs of students as
they achieve at different rates, and (c) longer school days and longer school
years.
There
are a few things to notice here.
First,
we’ve talked about how important parent involvement is for student achievement.
I would think what Wright means by a parent-friendly schedule is one that
starts before their work day starts and ends after their work day ends. This
would, mostly, eliminate the need for busses and allow parents to pick up their
children on the way home from work. While picking up their children, they could
stop in once or twice a week, every other week, a couple times a month, etc.,
and chat with teachers to see how their children are doing, what problems need
to be addressed, what insight can they give the teachers to help them teach
their children?
Second,
I think most who have attended public school in the last couple of decades can
agree that the quickest learners get bored and the slowest learners get left
behind as curriculum and teachers attempt to teach at an average, moderate pace
that fails to challenge many of its students. There are methods, such as
Montessori, that have disputable success stories, and that allows the student a
chance to move at his or her own pace. The Kahn Academy also promotes
at-your-own-pace student learning that reverses homework and class work.
The
problem with these methods is your risk students graduating with two different
skills sets -- a student who worked hard and learned entire textbooks, etc. and
a student who didn’t work hard and learned only several lessons. You can
imagine the many scenarios, and you get the point.
But
let me give you an example of something that I believe could work, and that
isn’t a radical, costly or risky change. Instead of cramming students,
especially elementary students, into blocked periods of limited required math
time, the school day is more fluid. Teachers teach lessons at the highest
level, and then allow students to complete assignments, asking questions as
they need. Students who complete the homework correctly and prove they fully
understand the material are allowed to attend fluid classes were they learn
hands on skills, the arts, etc. or occasionally get extra recess time.
You
might mention that this seems to favor the quickest learners. That slow
learners will not learn hands on skills or the arts, etc. To counter this,
teachers could release the slowest learners at a certain point, telling them to
finish their assignment as homework. If, as I assume Wright is suggestions,
students went to school from, let’s say, about 8:00 to about 5:30, there would
certainly be time to fit all the classes in, add hands on learning, extended
recesses and a time for meals. And students would learn new skills that would
prove beneficial both for daily tasks and the development of their minds (problem
solving skills, confidence, etc.).
Finally,
as we’ve mentioned before, longer school days and a longer school year could
work, but only if the way we use our time is improved. The amount of wasted
learning time and expected time of waste (last week of school, anyone?) is a
hindrance, and adding hours and days of this wasted time is, in and of itself,
a waste.
Why
waste our children’s futures?
No comments:
Post a Comment