Longer School Hours

What's currently happening in the NYC public school system is that Mayor Bloomberg -- in his dictatorial, unrealistic business approach to education -- won't take failure as an option. Ever. The school had better show improvement or it's shut down. If a student fails to learn, it's always the teacher's fault because she/he didn't find the right way to address that particular student's individual/unique learning style (easy enough to do in a class of 35-40 kids, right?) So we have what's called "differentiated instruction," which basically means (when you clear away all the BS), if a student can't pass a test, give him/her an easier test.

The students know this, so there's no sense of ownership in their work, and they still fail. So since everything is always the teacher's fault, there's a lot of score fudging to keep a school open.

In effect, King Bloomberg (who already bought extended term limits, which he initially opposed years ago) is pulling the biggest scam in the history of NYC public education. To those who would disagree, I suggest they contact the local colleges and ask why freshman year remedial courses are more prominent than ever.

Education in NYC has become a farce...and a longer school day ain't gonna fix it.

(BTW, Bloomberg recently shortened the school year by a few days -- a few days he added a couple years back, to "improve" education -- as one way of baiting teachers to vote for him).

Originally posted by inimalist
now, imagine that the only reason you are struggling with school is because you have to work a night shift, because your parents kicked you out and you need to pay rent, and you don't get enough sleep at night.

Originally posted by inimalist

And ya, there are kids who can work 25 hours a week and still do 30 of school. Then again, there are those for whom just the school is nearly impossible. My point was rather to the lack of flexibility in the system to accommodate the people who it is supposed to serve. Really interesting that night courses are offered for highschool aged kids. I would have been all over those.

night - rather, afternoon. But I think I've heard of some education stuff for night classes...

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm pretty sure they have social programs for that in some countries.

rarely for people under 18, where I'm from at least.

Adult school, public highschools wont take you after 21 I believe, costs money and has much lower standards. Its best thought of as a way to get a diploma if you missed out on it. That is good, but the problem is that it is missing all of the other benefits of education, and not very encouraging of further education.

I'm not trying to put all the blame on the system. In fact, I'd say, to echo the point I think mindship was making, failing students could be beneficial. Instead, the school board that governs highschools in my area cut calculus because it was too hard for kids.

I'm talking about education as more than just the piece of paper, which it is to many people (ask university profs about how their institutions are becoming diploma mills). There are benefits to individuals and society by having a well educated population, job salaries aside. But even if we do look at it as only receiving a piece of paper, certain qualities of the system are not congruent with how children, especially boys, are known to behave, and it limits their access to education, and generally sours them to the experience, making such social programs less effective.

So, I'm a strange case in that I'm a university student, but I think maybe 1 or 2 of my 20 closest friends have similar levels of education (most, though attending adult school to get a diploma subsequently, did not initially graduate highschool). Their experiences with adult education is eye-opening to say the least. People still skip, still get suspended for stupid things, still feel like they are being forced to go there. The whole culture of what education is needs to be redesigned. lol, now I'm ranting, but, ya, I love this topic.

Originally posted by Mindship
To those who would disagree, I suggest they contact the local colleges and ask why freshman year remedial courses are more prominent than ever.

When asked about it, any professor I've spoken to will comment that, especially in the past 10 years, the quality of students has gone down dramatically.

Not only is it that they are uninformed (ie, need remedial courses), but they are entirely unmotivated to learn and feel that just by attending classes and paying their tuition, they are entitled to a good mark (not just a passing grade either). The way departments deal with profs has also changed to make the instructor more at the mercy of the student, with their course load (re: how much money they make) dependent on how they are evaluated by these students.

I've had conversations with at least a half dozen profs where they are clearly between a rock and a hard place. They hate that they are teaching to uninterested students who are more concerned about when the powerpoint slides are going to go online (because they aren't taking notes in class) than the course content, but have their hands tied because if they teach to the level that should be expected of university students, a huge proportion of the class would fail.

I was told in a 3rd year Anthropology course that deconstructing the concept of colonialism was "too advanced" for students these days, and could only be asked of grad students or the like.

Originally posted by inimalist
When asked about it, any professor I've spoken to will comment that, especially in the past 10 years, the quality of students has gone down dramatically.

Not only is it that they are uninformed (ie, need remedial courses), but they are entirely unmotivated to learn and feel that just by attending classes and paying their tuition, they are entitled to a good mark (not just a passing grade either). The way departments deal with profs has also changed to make the instructor more at the mercy of the student, with their course load (re: how much money they make) dependent on how they are evaluated by these students.

The only 'consolation' in this is that -- when the shelter of school ends upon graduation -- students get a taste of the real world, moreso than ever, where there is no more coddling.

Originally posted by Mindship
A longer school day is not necessarily the answer (perhaps if done on some kind of voluntary basis, ie, teacher and students genuinely motivated to learn). Valuing education with more than lip service is what's needed.

A number of years ago, a Newsweek or Time magazine columnist wrote that if you want to see what a society really values, look where it puts its time, energy and money. Clearly, much more goes into movies, music, pro sports (ie, entertainment, or escaping from reality) than education (preparing for reality). To much of the population, the ol' addage, "Those who can't do, teach," still holds.

As someone else once put it, "Well, what do you expect from a society that puts real lemon juice in its dishwashing liquid and artificial lemon flavor in its lemonade."

Treat educators like, say, rock stars (and I don't necessarily mean pay them more)...then you'll see a difference in how well students learn. Quality is the answer, not quantity.