From the Boston Globe:
"Maine's program to give every middle school student a laptop computer is leading to better writing. 4real!
Despite creating a language all their own using e-mail and text messages, students are still learning standard English and their writing scores have improved on a standardized test since laptop computers were distributed, according to a new study.
And the students' writing skills improved even when they were using pen and paper, not just a computer keyboard, the study says." ...
You can read the entire article by clicking on the link above or see the raw data and study report from the University of Southern Maine by clicking here.
Perhaps handwriting really does get in the way of developing higher level writing skills.
Showing posts with label NCLB. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NCLB. Show all posts
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Elitism and the Struggling Student
The heterogeneous classroom has been all the rage for the last 10+ years. Mixing children of all abilities into a single class allows social and intellectual benefits, proponents say. Struggling students see those of greater ability as role models and mentors. Gifted children learn to deal with and value those whose abilities don't match theirs. Utopia in the classroom!
Bah! I say. And anyone who has been in a heterogeneous classroom would say the same. Think about it. Remember that one smart kid who always had his hand up before the teacher even finished asking the question? Was he a role model? No, he was Teacher's Pet. Was he a mentor, someone you would turn to if you needed help with homework? Maybe, if it was a group project and he was likely to do the whole thing himself. Otherwise, he was a geek/nerd/egghead, read "outcast."
What about intellectually? We got one kid waving his arm like Arnold Horshack and the teacher repeatedly calls on other kids, sometimes even telling him to "put his arm down and give the other kids a chance." Well, if the teacher says to stop paying attention to the lesson, what's a kid going to do? That's one student out of play. Most teachers in heterogeneous classrooms pitch their lessons slightly below the middle level of ability in her classroom. That means it's too difficult or fast-paced for the kids who are really struggling and too easy for at least half her students. In a classroom of 28, that's nearly 20 students tuned out. This can't be good.
So common sense (and the research) shows that heterogeneous classrooms do not accomplish these grand utopian goals we have for them. Smaller classes, critics say. Yes, smaller classes will lessen the overall numbers of kids who are disengaged. But smaller classes means more teachers and more space needed, therefore more money. Differentiation, critics say. Yes, combined with smaller classes, differentiated curriculum can help keep more students learning. But it requires more teacher-training to effectively implement differentiation, not to mention more money for more teachers and classrooms because no teacher can effectivly differentiate the curriculum for 28 individual students.
There is a less expensive option that can be implemented across the country as soon as next August: ability grouping. Ability grouping is decried as "elitest" when parents and gifted advocates talk about it, but in fact, it works for kids of all abilities. Says 8th-grade math teacher Sam Jow in the Houston Chronicle, "Struggling students are often overshadowed by their more accomplished classmates during the regular school year, he said, but in the summer they are grouped with those of similar ability.
"It's a time they can shine," he said."
Shouldn't all students have that opportunity to shine, all year round?
Bah! I say. And anyone who has been in a heterogeneous classroom would say the same. Think about it. Remember that one smart kid who always had his hand up before the teacher even finished asking the question? Was he a role model? No, he was Teacher's Pet. Was he a mentor, someone you would turn to if you needed help with homework? Maybe, if it was a group project and he was likely to do the whole thing himself. Otherwise, he was a geek/nerd/egghead, read "outcast."
What about intellectually? We got one kid waving his arm like Arnold Horshack and the teacher repeatedly calls on other kids, sometimes even telling him to "put his arm down and give the other kids a chance." Well, if the teacher says to stop paying attention to the lesson, what's a kid going to do? That's one student out of play. Most teachers in heterogeneous classrooms pitch their lessons slightly below the middle level of ability in her classroom. That means it's too difficult or fast-paced for the kids who are really struggling and too easy for at least half her students. In a classroom of 28, that's nearly 20 students tuned out. This can't be good.
So common sense (and the research) shows that heterogeneous classrooms do not accomplish these grand utopian goals we have for them. Smaller classes, critics say. Yes, smaller classes will lessen the overall numbers of kids who are disengaged. But smaller classes means more teachers and more space needed, therefore more money. Differentiation, critics say. Yes, combined with smaller classes, differentiated curriculum can help keep more students learning. But it requires more teacher-training to effectively implement differentiation, not to mention more money for more teachers and classrooms because no teacher can effectivly differentiate the curriculum for 28 individual students.
There is a less expensive option that can be implemented across the country as soon as next August: ability grouping. Ability grouping is decried as "elitest" when parents and gifted advocates talk about it, but in fact, it works for kids of all abilities. Says 8th-grade math teacher Sam Jow in the Houston Chronicle, "Struggling students are often overshadowed by their more accomplished classmates during the regular school year, he said, but in the summer they are grouped with those of similar ability.
"It's a time they can shine," he said."
Shouldn't all students have that opportunity to shine, all year round?
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Not on the Test
*Not On The Test *
by John Forster & Tom Chapin
(c) 2007 Limousine Music Co. & The Last Music Co. (ASCAP)
Go on to sleep now, third grader of mine.
The test is tomorrow but you'll do just fine.
It's reading and math. Forget all the rest.
You don't need to know what is not on the test.
Each box that you mark on each test that you take,
Remember your teachers. Their jobs are at stake.
Your score is their score, but don't get all stressed.
They'd never teach anything not on the test.
The School Board is faced with no child left behind
With rules but no funding, they're caught in a bind.
So music and art and the things you love best
Are not in your school 'cause they're not on the test.
Sleep, sleep, and as you progress
You'll learn there's a lot that is not on the test.
Debate is a skill that is useful to know,
Unless you're in Congress or talk radio,
Where shouting and spouting and spewing are blessed
'Cause rational discourse was not on the test.
Thinking's important. It's good to know how.
And someday you'll learn to, but someday's not now.
Go on to sleep, now. You need your rest.
Don't think about thinking. It's not on the test.
by John Forster & Tom Chapin
(c) 2007 Limousine Music Co. & The Last Music Co. (ASCAP)
Go on to sleep now, third grader of mine.
The test is tomorrow but you'll do just fine.
It's reading and math. Forget all the rest.
You don't need to know what is not on the test.
Each box that you mark on each test that you take,
Remember your teachers. Their jobs are at stake.
Your score is their score, but don't get all stressed.
They'd never teach anything not on the test.
The School Board is faced with no child left behind
With rules but no funding, they're caught in a bind.
So music and art and the things you love best
Are not in your school 'cause they're not on the test.
Sleep, sleep, and as you progress
You'll learn there's a lot that is not on the test.
Debate is a skill that is useful to know,
Unless you're in Congress or talk radio,
Where shouting and spouting and spewing are blessed
'Cause rational discourse was not on the test.
Thinking's important. It's good to know how.
And someday you'll learn to, but someday's not now.
Go on to sleep, now. You need your rest.
Don't think about thinking. It's not on the test.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
No Child Left Offline
Is there a better way to spend all the NCLB money the government is currently funnelling to testing companies? A recent study published by the American Psychological Association (APA) Online suggests that putting a computer and free Internet service in the home increases GPA and reading test scores for low income students:
"Does Internet use affect children's academic outcomes?
A considerable body of research has examined the effects of computer use on academic outcomes. However, reviews of this literature typically conclude that the results are inconclusive (e.g., NSF Report, 2001; Roschelle, Pea, Hoadley, Gordon, & Means, 2000; Subrahmanyam et al., 2000). Although benefits of computer use have been observed, they typically depend on a variety of factors (e.g., subject matter). The only cognitive outcome for which benefits have been consistently observed is visual-spatial skills. Computer gaming contributes to visual-spatial skills, at least when these skills are assessed immediately following the computer activity (Subrahmanyam, Greenfield, Kraut, & Gross, 2001).
In the HomeNetToo project we obtained children's grade point averages (GPAs) and scores on standardized tests of reading and math. We then examined whether Internet use during the preceding time period predicted these academic outcomes. It did. Children who used the Internet more showed greater gains in GPA and reading test scores -- but not math test scores -- than did children who used it less (Jackson, von Eye, Biocca, Barbatsis, Zhao, & Fitzgerald, 2003a). Latent linear growth curve analysis supported the conclusion that Internet use leads to improvements in academic performance.
There are important caveats in interpreting these findings. First, HomeNetToo children were performing below average at the start of the project. Mean GPA was about 2.0, and mean percentile ranks on standardized tests of reading and math were about 30%. Whether similar benefits of Internet use will obtain for children performing at or above average is a question for future research. Second, the gains we observed, though statistically significant, were modest in magnitude. Mean GPAs and standardized test scores were still below average at the end of the project. However, even modest gains are encouraging, particularly in light of the fact that HomeNetToo children were not required to use the Internet in order for their families to participate in the project.
Why might using the Internet lead to improvements in GPAs and reading test scores? One explanation lies in how HomeNetToo children used the Internet. Recall that Internet use was primarily Web use, not e-mail use or use of other communication tools. The Web is primarily text. Thus, more time on the Web means more time spent reading, which may explain the increase in GPAs, which depend heavily on reading skills, and in standardized tests scores in reading."
"Does Internet use affect children's academic outcomes?
A considerable body of research has examined the effects of computer use on academic outcomes. However, reviews of this literature typically conclude that the results are inconclusive (e.g., NSF Report, 2001; Roschelle, Pea, Hoadley, Gordon, & Means, 2000; Subrahmanyam et al., 2000). Although benefits of computer use have been observed, they typically depend on a variety of factors (e.g., subject matter). The only cognitive outcome for which benefits have been consistently observed is visual-spatial skills. Computer gaming contributes to visual-spatial skills, at least when these skills are assessed immediately following the computer activity (Subrahmanyam, Greenfield, Kraut, & Gross, 2001).
In the HomeNetToo project we obtained children's grade point averages (GPAs) and scores on standardized tests of reading and math. We then examined whether Internet use during the preceding time period predicted these academic outcomes. It did. Children who used the Internet more showed greater gains in GPA and reading test scores -- but not math test scores -- than did children who used it less (Jackson, von Eye, Biocca, Barbatsis, Zhao, & Fitzgerald, 2003a). Latent linear growth curve analysis supported the conclusion that Internet use leads to improvements in academic performance.
There are important caveats in interpreting these findings. First, HomeNetToo children were performing below average at the start of the project. Mean GPA was about 2.0, and mean percentile ranks on standardized tests of reading and math were about 30%. Whether similar benefits of Internet use will obtain for children performing at or above average is a question for future research. Second, the gains we observed, though statistically significant, were modest in magnitude. Mean GPAs and standardized test scores were still below average at the end of the project. However, even modest gains are encouraging, particularly in light of the fact that HomeNetToo children were not required to use the Internet in order for their families to participate in the project.
Why might using the Internet lead to improvements in GPAs and reading test scores? One explanation lies in how HomeNetToo children used the Internet. Recall that Internet use was primarily Web use, not e-mail use or use of other communication tools. The Web is primarily text. Thus, more time on the Web means more time spent reading, which may explain the increase in GPAs, which depend heavily on reading skills, and in standardized tests scores in reading."
Thursday, July 06, 2006
PS Kids Are Crying Out for Rigor--Will Their Teachers Listen?
This follows along with the previous post about the valedictorian complaining that high school was a waste of time. In the name of self-esteem, we have dumbed down the curriculum so far for so long, that current teachers now think the low standards are the kids' idea. From yesterday's NYT:
Bronx Sixth Graders Master Mysteries of the Biology Regents
By APRIL SIMPSON
Published: July 5, 2006
High school students statewide struggle to pass the Regents exams required for graduation. But at a small Bronx school, a group of sixth graders passed the biology Regents last month, surprising their teachers, although not themselves.
"It wasn't as hard as I thought," said Jose Castillo, 12, who earned an 80, the group's highest score. Passing is 65. "I have taken practice Regents, and they were harder than that."
Jose's school, the Urban Assembly School for Applied Math and Science, opened two years ago with one sixth-grade class. Adding a grade each year, it will eventually serve the 6th to 12th grades. It is one of dozens of small, theme-based public schools that are central to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's education policy.
Although the biology Regents is usually taken in ninth grade, teachers at this school felt that their students needed a challenge, so they essentially started teaching ninth-grade biology and added test preparation.
Ten of the 23 students who took the exam (known formally as the Living Environment test) passed with marks between 65 and 80 on a 100-point scale. Of the 51,000 students who took the exam citywide in the 2003-4 school year, 58 percent passed.
"Our idea is that if we can make math and science fun and engaging and rigorous, then children will want to do it and achievement naturally follows," said Kenneth Baum, the principal.
Keith Sheppard, an assistant professor of science education at Teachers College at Columbia University, said that for sixth graders to pass the Living Environment Regents was uncommon, but not unheard of. "Some of the Westchester districts have noted that their life science curriculums are similar to the ninth-grade Regents," he explained.
Still, he said he disapproved of encouraging sixth graders to study for the Regents because they do not develop "an understanding of scientific ideas."
But at Urban Assembly, officials said they were thrilled to see what their students could accomplish. "We didn't know that 11-year-olds were sponges that large for knowledge[emphasis mine]," Mr. Baum said. "It really opened us up to their possibilities."
The school was created with the help of Urban Assembly, a nonprofit group that has established other theme-based schools. It is housed in the basement of a condominium building in Riverdale, awaiting a permanent home in September in the South Bronx. Most of its 155 sixth and seventh graders are from west Bronx neighborhoods and are poor, according to school officials.
Recently, the sixth graders had their final lab of the year, in which they focused on dissecting a three-foot-long pig. Each student drew a diagram of the animal's inner organs and answered teachers' questions.
When Mr. Baum observed a group cutting the skin around the pig's head, he covered his eyes and turned away, but the children did not flinch.
Dhurata Dobraj, 11, pointed at the cranium with a gloved hand: "It's really hard, because when you cut through the skull, you can cut through the brain at the same time, so you have to be very careful." Dhurata earned a 67 on the exam.
It was the culmination of months of hard work. Since February, the students have attended 17 Saturday classes during which they dissected earthworms, frogs and the class favorite, sharks. Jennifer Applebaum, who teaches math and science, assigned extra work from high school and college textbooks, supplemented with magazine articles. Ultimately, the students completed 20 hours of high school lab work. They also received help from English teachers in understanding test questions.
St. Joseph Hall, 11, who earned a 67, attributed his success to rigorous preparation. He now believes that with enough drive, he can pursue his dream: curing AIDS.
"When you get that inspired, that motivated, you feel like you can do anything," he said.
I'd like to point out that these are not gifted kids. They attend a small magnet school, but nowhere in the article does it mention that these are high ability or high intelligence kids. Imagine, regular kids from poor families took the 9th grade biology test as 6th graders and nearly half passed. That's only slightly below the pass rate for 9th graders. Not only did they pass, but they are excited about the material, and attended intensive Saturday classes because they were so excited to learn.
And the teachers didn't know that 11-year-olds were capable of understanding the material. It's not only gifted kids who are suffocating intellectually in the classroom. The cult of positive self-esteem has done disastrous things to our educational system. Teaching to the lowest common denominator is bad for everyone's kids.
school, education, positive self-esteem
Bronx Sixth Graders Master Mysteries of the Biology Regents
By APRIL SIMPSON
Published: July 5, 2006
High school students statewide struggle to pass the Regents exams required for graduation. But at a small Bronx school, a group of sixth graders passed the biology Regents last month, surprising their teachers, although not themselves.
"It wasn't as hard as I thought," said Jose Castillo, 12, who earned an 80, the group's highest score. Passing is 65. "I have taken practice Regents, and they were harder than that."
Jose's school, the Urban Assembly School for Applied Math and Science, opened two years ago with one sixth-grade class. Adding a grade each year, it will eventually serve the 6th to 12th grades. It is one of dozens of small, theme-based public schools that are central to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's education policy.
Although the biology Regents is usually taken in ninth grade, teachers at this school felt that their students needed a challenge, so they essentially started teaching ninth-grade biology and added test preparation.
Ten of the 23 students who took the exam (known formally as the Living Environment test) passed with marks between 65 and 80 on a 100-point scale. Of the 51,000 students who took the exam citywide in the 2003-4 school year, 58 percent passed.
"Our idea is that if we can make math and science fun and engaging and rigorous, then children will want to do it and achievement naturally follows," said Kenneth Baum, the principal.
Keith Sheppard, an assistant professor of science education at Teachers College at Columbia University, said that for sixth graders to pass the Living Environment Regents was uncommon, but not unheard of. "Some of the Westchester districts have noted that their life science curriculums are similar to the ninth-grade Regents," he explained.
Still, he said he disapproved of encouraging sixth graders to study for the Regents because they do not develop "an understanding of scientific ideas."
But at Urban Assembly, officials said they were thrilled to see what their students could accomplish. "We didn't know that 11-year-olds were sponges that large for knowledge[emphasis mine]," Mr. Baum said. "It really opened us up to their possibilities."
The school was created with the help of Urban Assembly, a nonprofit group that has established other theme-based schools. It is housed in the basement of a condominium building in Riverdale, awaiting a permanent home in September in the South Bronx. Most of its 155 sixth and seventh graders are from west Bronx neighborhoods and are poor, according to school officials.
Recently, the sixth graders had their final lab of the year, in which they focused on dissecting a three-foot-long pig. Each student drew a diagram of the animal's inner organs and answered teachers' questions.
When Mr. Baum observed a group cutting the skin around the pig's head, he covered his eyes and turned away, but the children did not flinch.
Dhurata Dobraj, 11, pointed at the cranium with a gloved hand: "It's really hard, because when you cut through the skull, you can cut through the brain at the same time, so you have to be very careful." Dhurata earned a 67 on the exam.
It was the culmination of months of hard work. Since February, the students have attended 17 Saturday classes during which they dissected earthworms, frogs and the class favorite, sharks. Jennifer Applebaum, who teaches math and science, assigned extra work from high school and college textbooks, supplemented with magazine articles. Ultimately, the students completed 20 hours of high school lab work. They also received help from English teachers in understanding test questions.
St. Joseph Hall, 11, who earned a 67, attributed his success to rigorous preparation. He now believes that with enough drive, he can pursue his dream: curing AIDS.
"When you get that inspired, that motivated, you feel like you can do anything," he said.
I'd like to point out that these are not gifted kids. They attend a small magnet school, but nowhere in the article does it mention that these are high ability or high intelligence kids. Imagine, regular kids from poor families took the 9th grade biology test as 6th graders and nearly half passed. That's only slightly below the pass rate for 9th graders. Not only did they pass, but they are excited about the material, and attended intensive Saturday classes because they were so excited to learn.
And the teachers didn't know that 11-year-olds were capable of understanding the material. It's not only gifted kids who are suffocating intellectually in the classroom. The cult of positive self-esteem has done disastrous things to our educational system. Teaching to the lowest common denominator is bad for everyone's kids.
school, education, positive self-esteem
Insulted His Classmates or Told the Teachers How They Really Feel?
This is a long one, so I kept the editorial comments to a minimum. I'd love to hear anyone else's thoughts!
Principal interrupts valedictorian's criticism of Mainland
By REGINA SCHAFFER Staff Writer, (609) 272-7211
Published: Thursday, June 22, 2006
Updated: Thursday, June 22, 2006
Kareem Elnahal learned a lesson Tuesday night - even in graduation, the school still rules.
The class valedictorian surprised administrators and his fellow 2006 graduates at Mainland Regional High School when he opted to give an unapproved speech criticizing the school. Mainland, Elnahal said, does not encourage intellectual thought and the exchange of ideas. The senior, in a detailed speech that referenced philosphers and ethics principles, referred to his education as "entirely hollow." The speech was interrupted by the principal, and Elnahal cut his remarks short and left the ceremony. Mainland principal Robert Blake said the speech insulted Elnahal's classmates. "That was so hypocritical of him to make that statement," Blake said. "It was an insult to everyone here at this school ... he made inflammatory comments about the school in general."
Reached at his home Wednesday, Elnahal said he regrets the way the situation unfolded. He was embarassed and apologetic. "I put the principal in a very uncomfortable position - he's a very nice guy, actually - I feel bad," Elnahal said. "I feel bad that he had to deal with this."
"I just wanted to finish up, I felt pretty guilty," he said. "I felt embarassed that the ceremony had to happen this way. It's supposed to be a day of celebration."
At the same time, Elnahal said he is glad he had the opportunity to make his point. "I went to two parties last night, and I'm their hero now," he said.
"I felt like this was the right thing to do," Elnahal said. "I couldn't show the speech (to officials) beforehand because they would have rejected it. I could tell by the reaction from students that they felt the same way. I had to express it or I felt that nothing would change."
In Elnahal's original approved speech, he was to touch on the high and low points of school and the experiences that moved the class to maturity. But once he took the podium, Elnahal changed gears and began to speak about the shortcomings of the American education system - specifically, at Mainland, a school that prides itself as being one of the premier area high schools.
"In my reflection ... and I have reflected on this a great deal, I found that many of life's important questions are ignored here," Elnahal said, according to a copy of the alternate speech he provided to The Press. He went on to say, "I speak today not to rant, complain or cause trouble ... rather, I was moved by the countless hours wasted in those halls."
Blake said he and other administrators realized after a few moments that Elnahal's speech was different than what was approved. Blake said he approached Elnahal, let him know he was disappointed with what he was saying, and asked him to wrap up his speech. Elnahal described the incident the same way. After he finished the speech, Elnahal walked off the stage and left the school grounds by his own choice. "I thought it would be better for the ceremony to go on without me," he said.
Blake noted that the very education system Elnahal criticized helped him get into Princeton University. "He conveyed that he felt his education was worthless," Blake said. "We have an outstanding education system here."
Blake said the audience had a mixed reaction to Elnahal's comments. Some yelled comments regarding freedom of speech after the speech was interrupted. Blake said he heard some students cheering and applauding Elnahal's comments.
"I truly don't believe they understood what he was saying," Blake said [emphasis mine--because it proves Elnahal's point. The administration has no idea what teens are actually capable of]. "My hope was they did not hear or understand what he was saying. Whether it was intentional or not, he was belittling the diplomas of every one of those kids."
Blake said that as with every valedictorian's speech, there is a process of review to make sure the speech is appropriate. Elnahal's original speech was approved. "This is a school (sanctioned) program," Blake said. "We give them latitude. However, to say inflammatory things - no, I won't allow that. We have several thousand people in the stands."
"He has a right to his comments, but he shouldn't have been using that pulpit to put forth his limited viewpoint," Blake said. "Hopefully people kept it in context."
David Hudson, a research attorney at First Amendment Center, said it is difficult to say in a situation like this who is right and who is wrong. "The question becomes whether (the student's) speech is student initiated or school sponsored," Hudson said. "It's a hazy issue." Hudson noted that students do not have full First Amendment protection, and do not have the right to say whatever they want at a school event.
But at the same time, disliking a student's speech is not a reason to stop it, Hudson said. If there was substantial concern that the student's words could cause a problem, then someone has a right to step in, Hudson said. Blake said that Elnahal's diploma still is at Mainland. He has not yet contacted the school about obtaining it. "I guess I have to go pick it up," Elnahal said.
The Press of Atlantic City chose to run the young man's speech following the above article:
ELNAHAL'S SPEECH
Four years ago, we gathered here for an education. Today marks a milestone in that pursuit, a culmination of four years of learning, growth and shared memories. At such times, it is appropriate to reflect on years past, to examine what we have done and what we have learned. Today I am charged with that difficult task, and I would like to thank the school for the opportunity to stand before my peers and reflect on our time together.
Education can be defined a number of different ways. For me, it is the product of human curiosity. Intellectual thought, as far as I can tell, is nothing but the asking and answering of questions. In my reflection, however, and I have reflected on this a great deal, I found that many of life's most important questions are ignored here. What is the right way to live? What is the ideal society? What principles should guide my behavior? What is success, what is failure? Is there a creator, and if so, should we look to it for guidance?
These are often dismissed as questions of religion, but religion is not something opposed to rationality, it simply seeks to answer such questions through faith. The separation of church and state is, of course, important, but it should never be a reason for intellectual submission or suppression of any kind. Ethics - it is what defines us - as individuals, as a society - and yet it is never discussed, never explained, never justified. Rousseau, Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Aquinas, nearly every major writer I've encountered devotes time to the subject.
And it's not as if these questions are without practical concern, that they are less immediately relevant than science for instance. Our laws, our institutions and all our actions are a reflection of our ethics. Our own society owes itself to the writers of the enlightenment, but we never probe their work - we fail to espouse the movement's central principle, doubt -doubt everything. We study what is, never why, never what should be. For that reason, the education we have received here is not only incomplete, it is entirely hollow.
What's more, this same lack of focus can be found in many of the subjects we do study. We approach history as though it were a story, endlessly cataloging every major character or event. But the details of that story are insignificant - what is significant is the progression of ideas. A study of history should get some sense of how the society he sees around him developed from those built thousands of years ago, what ideas changed and what changed them. When humanist scholars looked into ancient Rome during the Renaissance, they searched for moral examples, for ideas. They didn't mull on every single daily event. They were inspired, and they transformed society. History is not an end in itself; it should act as a tool for greater thought.
But it's not only history. I've taken a literature class nearly every year of my life, but never has a question so basic as "What is good writing?" come up. Literary technique, what should be the focus of the class, is never discussed. How does an author develop plot? How can an author control mood or tone in his writing? What is the advantage of one author's methods over another's? Such matters are never discussed. We read for the sake of reading, to talk about our interpretations in class as though we were in a book club. But no attention is paid to why we read the books we do, what makes them so special. And this pattern, grade for the sake of a grade, work for the sake of work, can be found everywhere.
Ladies and gentlemen, the spirit of intellectual thought is lost. I speak today not to rant, complain or cause trouble, and certainly not to draw attention to myself. I have accomplished nothing and I am nothing. I know that. Rather, I was moved by the countless hours wasted in those halls. Today, you should focus on your child or loved one. This is meant to be a day of celebration, and if I've taken away from that, I'm sorry. But I know how highly this community values learning, and I urge you all to re-evaluate what it means to be educated. I care deeply about everyone here, and it is only our fulfillment I desire. I will leave now so that the ceremony can go on. Again, my deepest apologies, God help me.
The following article is from today's Press of Atlantic City's (New Jersey) Editorial Section:
MAINLAND'S VALEDICTORIAN
He proved his point
Published: Friday, June 23, 2006
Updated: Friday, June 23, 2006
Imagine the nerve ... a high-school valedictorian, on his way to Princeton next year, daring to speak about a topic he obviously has given much thought to - the American education system.
It beats the more typical "We are all astronauts on the spaceship to tomorrow" speech, if you ask us.
In fact, the unapproved speech that Mainland Regional High School valedictorian Kareem Elnahal tried to deliver before he was hustled off the stage by Principal Robert Blake was rather thoughtful and quite interesting.
Yes, schools have a right and a responsibility to screen graduation speeches. But Elnahal's speech wasn't a puerile rant filled with expletives- it was an on-the-money critique of the public education system. In fact, both Mark Twain ("I have never let my schooling interfere with my education") and, slightly more crudely, Paul Simon ("When I look back on all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all") have offered similar critiques.
Mainland officials simply proved Elnahal's point by not letting him give
this speech. Listen to what he said.
And the principal's reaction? He said Elnahal's speech was "hypocritical" and "an insult." Speaking of the other students in the audience, Blake said, "My hope was they did not hear or understand what he was saying. ... He was belittling the diplomas of every one of those kids."
Nonsense. Elnahal was making those kids, and everyone else, think.
School officials should be asking themselves why they wouldn't have approved this speech in the first place. Elnahal's fellow graduates and Mainland's teachers and administrators shouldn't be embarrassed by him. They should be proud of him.
school, education, valedictorian
Principal interrupts valedictorian's criticism of Mainland
By REGINA SCHAFFER Staff Writer, (609) 272-7211
Published: Thursday, June 22, 2006
Updated: Thursday, June 22, 2006
Kareem Elnahal learned a lesson Tuesday night - even in graduation, the school still rules.
The class valedictorian surprised administrators and his fellow 2006 graduates at Mainland Regional High School when he opted to give an unapproved speech criticizing the school. Mainland, Elnahal said, does not encourage intellectual thought and the exchange of ideas. The senior, in a detailed speech that referenced philosphers and ethics principles, referred to his education as "entirely hollow." The speech was interrupted by the principal, and Elnahal cut his remarks short and left the ceremony. Mainland principal Robert Blake said the speech insulted Elnahal's classmates. "That was so hypocritical of him to make that statement," Blake said. "It was an insult to everyone here at this school ... he made inflammatory comments about the school in general."
Reached at his home Wednesday, Elnahal said he regrets the way the situation unfolded. He was embarassed and apologetic. "I put the principal in a very uncomfortable position - he's a very nice guy, actually - I feel bad," Elnahal said. "I feel bad that he had to deal with this."
"I just wanted to finish up, I felt pretty guilty," he said. "I felt embarassed that the ceremony had to happen this way. It's supposed to be a day of celebration."
At the same time, Elnahal said he is glad he had the opportunity to make his point. "I went to two parties last night, and I'm their hero now," he said.
"I felt like this was the right thing to do," Elnahal said. "I couldn't show the speech (to officials) beforehand because they would have rejected it. I could tell by the reaction from students that they felt the same way. I had to express it or I felt that nothing would change."
In Elnahal's original approved speech, he was to touch on the high and low points of school and the experiences that moved the class to maturity. But once he took the podium, Elnahal changed gears and began to speak about the shortcomings of the American education system - specifically, at Mainland, a school that prides itself as being one of the premier area high schools.
"In my reflection ... and I have reflected on this a great deal, I found that many of life's important questions are ignored here," Elnahal said, according to a copy of the alternate speech he provided to The Press. He went on to say, "I speak today not to rant, complain or cause trouble ... rather, I was moved by the countless hours wasted in those halls."
Blake said he and other administrators realized after a few moments that Elnahal's speech was different than what was approved. Blake said he approached Elnahal, let him know he was disappointed with what he was saying, and asked him to wrap up his speech. Elnahal described the incident the same way. After he finished the speech, Elnahal walked off the stage and left the school grounds by his own choice. "I thought it would be better for the ceremony to go on without me," he said.
Blake noted that the very education system Elnahal criticized helped him get into Princeton University. "He conveyed that he felt his education was worthless," Blake said. "We have an outstanding education system here."
Blake said the audience had a mixed reaction to Elnahal's comments. Some yelled comments regarding freedom of speech after the speech was interrupted. Blake said he heard some students cheering and applauding Elnahal's comments.
"I truly don't believe they understood what he was saying," Blake said [emphasis mine--because it proves Elnahal's point. The administration has no idea what teens are actually capable of]. "My hope was they did not hear or understand what he was saying. Whether it was intentional or not, he was belittling the diplomas of every one of those kids."
Blake said that as with every valedictorian's speech, there is a process of review to make sure the speech is appropriate. Elnahal's original speech was approved. "This is a school (sanctioned) program," Blake said. "We give them latitude. However, to say inflammatory things - no, I won't allow that. We have several thousand people in the stands."
"He has a right to his comments, but he shouldn't have been using that pulpit to put forth his limited viewpoint," Blake said. "Hopefully people kept it in context."
David Hudson, a research attorney at First Amendment Center, said it is difficult to say in a situation like this who is right and who is wrong. "The question becomes whether (the student's) speech is student initiated or school sponsored," Hudson said. "It's a hazy issue." Hudson noted that students do not have full First Amendment protection, and do not have the right to say whatever they want at a school event.
But at the same time, disliking a student's speech is not a reason to stop it, Hudson said. If there was substantial concern that the student's words could cause a problem, then someone has a right to step in, Hudson said. Blake said that Elnahal's diploma still is at Mainland. He has not yet contacted the school about obtaining it. "I guess I have to go pick it up," Elnahal said.
The Press of Atlantic City chose to run the young man's speech following the above article:
ELNAHAL'S SPEECH
Four years ago, we gathered here for an education. Today marks a milestone in that pursuit, a culmination of four years of learning, growth and shared memories. At such times, it is appropriate to reflect on years past, to examine what we have done and what we have learned. Today I am charged with that difficult task, and I would like to thank the school for the opportunity to stand before my peers and reflect on our time together.
Education can be defined a number of different ways. For me, it is the product of human curiosity. Intellectual thought, as far as I can tell, is nothing but the asking and answering of questions. In my reflection, however, and I have reflected on this a great deal, I found that many of life's most important questions are ignored here. What is the right way to live? What is the ideal society? What principles should guide my behavior? What is success, what is failure? Is there a creator, and if so, should we look to it for guidance?
These are often dismissed as questions of religion, but religion is not something opposed to rationality, it simply seeks to answer such questions through faith. The separation of church and state is, of course, important, but it should never be a reason for intellectual submission or suppression of any kind. Ethics - it is what defines us - as individuals, as a society - and yet it is never discussed, never explained, never justified. Rousseau, Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Aquinas, nearly every major writer I've encountered devotes time to the subject.
And it's not as if these questions are without practical concern, that they are less immediately relevant than science for instance. Our laws, our institutions and all our actions are a reflection of our ethics. Our own society owes itself to the writers of the enlightenment, but we never probe their work - we fail to espouse the movement's central principle, doubt -doubt everything. We study what is, never why, never what should be. For that reason, the education we have received here is not only incomplete, it is entirely hollow.
What's more, this same lack of focus can be found in many of the subjects we do study. We approach history as though it were a story, endlessly cataloging every major character or event. But the details of that story are insignificant - what is significant is the progression of ideas. A study of history should get some sense of how the society he sees around him developed from those built thousands of years ago, what ideas changed and what changed them. When humanist scholars looked into ancient Rome during the Renaissance, they searched for moral examples, for ideas. They didn't mull on every single daily event. They were inspired, and they transformed society. History is not an end in itself; it should act as a tool for greater thought.
But it's not only history. I've taken a literature class nearly every year of my life, but never has a question so basic as "What is good writing?" come up. Literary technique, what should be the focus of the class, is never discussed. How does an author develop plot? How can an author control mood or tone in his writing? What is the advantage of one author's methods over another's? Such matters are never discussed. We read for the sake of reading, to talk about our interpretations in class as though we were in a book club. But no attention is paid to why we read the books we do, what makes them so special. And this pattern, grade for the sake of a grade, work for the sake of work, can be found everywhere.
Ladies and gentlemen, the spirit of intellectual thought is lost. I speak today not to rant, complain or cause trouble, and certainly not to draw attention to myself. I have accomplished nothing and I am nothing. I know that. Rather, I was moved by the countless hours wasted in those halls. Today, you should focus on your child or loved one. This is meant to be a day of celebration, and if I've taken away from that, I'm sorry. But I know how highly this community values learning, and I urge you all to re-evaluate what it means to be educated. I care deeply about everyone here, and it is only our fulfillment I desire. I will leave now so that the ceremony can go on. Again, my deepest apologies, God help me.
The following article is from today's Press of Atlantic City's (New Jersey) Editorial Section:
MAINLAND'S VALEDICTORIAN
He proved his point
Published: Friday, June 23, 2006
Updated: Friday, June 23, 2006
Imagine the nerve ... a high-school valedictorian, on his way to Princeton next year, daring to speak about a topic he obviously has given much thought to - the American education system.
It beats the more typical "We are all astronauts on the spaceship to tomorrow" speech, if you ask us.
In fact, the unapproved speech that Mainland Regional High School valedictorian Kareem Elnahal tried to deliver before he was hustled off the stage by Principal Robert Blake was rather thoughtful and quite interesting.
Yes, schools have a right and a responsibility to screen graduation speeches. But Elnahal's speech wasn't a puerile rant filled with expletives- it was an on-the-money critique of the public education system. In fact, both Mark Twain ("I have never let my schooling interfere with my education") and, slightly more crudely, Paul Simon ("When I look back on all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all") have offered similar critiques.
Mainland officials simply proved Elnahal's point by not letting him give
this speech. Listen to what he said.
And the principal's reaction? He said Elnahal's speech was "hypocritical" and "an insult." Speaking of the other students in the audience, Blake said, "My hope was they did not hear or understand what he was saying. ... He was belittling the diplomas of every one of those kids."
Nonsense. Elnahal was making those kids, and everyone else, think.
School officials should be asking themselves why they wouldn't have approved this speech in the first place. Elnahal's fellow graduates and Mainland's teachers and administrators shouldn't be embarrassed by him. They should be proud of him.
school, education, valedictorian
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Can Schools Change Intelligence?
An article from the June 2, 2006 Wall Street Journal: Do School Systems
Aggravate Differences In Natural Ability? I've reproduced the article below with my comments, because there were so many rebuttals to make. The author's point, or at least her position, seems to be that schools should be able to make everyone equally intelligent.
"In our mobile societies, few of this month's graduating high-school seniors have been with the same classmates for 12 years. But if you know such students, think back to the pupils who, at 5 years old, were pint-size math whizzes and spelling champs. Now match those memories with the seniors at the top of their class. You'll likely find a near-perfect match.
That raises some disturbing questions. Why doesn't 12 years of schooling raise the performance of kids who start out behind? Can you really tell which toddler is destined for Caltech?"
This is the first of a number of wrong-headed questions in this article. Schooling does raise the performance of kids--all of them are performing better academically as high school seniors than they did as kindergarteners, even if they started out behind. Achievement (performance/product-what you know) is not the same as intelligence (process-what you are capable of learning).
"For as long as there has been a science of intelligence (roughly a century), prevailing opinion has held that children's mental abilities are highly malleable, or "unstable." Cognition might improve when the brain reaches a developmental milestone, or when a child is bitten by the reading bug or suddenly masters logical thinking and problem solving.
Some kids do bloom late, intellectually. Others start out fine but then, inexplicably, fall behind."
"Inexplicably." Gifted underachievers, anyone? Schools are very good at producing those.
"But according to new studies, for the most part people's mental abilities relative to others change very little from childhood through adulthood. Relative intelligence seems as resistant to change as relative nose sizes.
One of the more striking findings comes from the longest follow-up study ever conducted in this field. On June 1, 1932, Scotland had all children born in 1921 and attending school -- 87,498 11-year-olds -- take a 75-question test on analogies, reading, arithmetic and the like. The goal was to determine the distribution of intellectual ability. In 1998, scientists at the Universities of Edinburgh and Aberdeen tracked down 101 of those students, then 77 years old, and administered the same test.
The correlation between scores 66 years apart was a striking .73. (A correlation of 1 would mean no change in rankings; a correlation of .73 is very high.) There is "remarkable stability in individual differences in human intelligence" from childhood to old age, the scientists concluded in a 2000 paper.
In the U.S., two long-running studies also show the durability of relative intelligence. The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, launched in 1998, tested 22,782 children entering kindergarten. As in the Scottish study, individual differences in mental ability were clear and persistent. In math and reading, when the children were sorted into three groups by ability, ranking stayed mostly the same from kindergarten to the end of the first and third grades. Some gaps actually widened.
The National Education Longitudinal Study tested 24,599 eighth-graders on several subjects, including math and reading comprehension, in 1988 and again two and four years later. "There was a very high correlation between the scores in eighth grade and in 12th grade," says Thomas Hoffer of the National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago. Again, rankings hardly budged."
So clearly the science says that intelligence is stable over time and should be at the same distribution at age 18 as it is at age 5. But we're getting into trouble again:
"[Hoffer] suspects that the way schools are organized explains some of that. Eighth-graders who show aptitude in math or language are tracked into challenging courses. That increases the gap between them and their lower-performing peers. "It's not that [relative student performance] can't change, but that standard practices in schools work against it," says Mr. Hoffer."
Most schools abolished tracking in the 1980-90s "positive self-esteem" movement, so I doubt that had anything to do with Mr. Hoffer's study. And again, we're confusing achievement with intelligence. There is no exacerbation here. The distribution is virtually unchanged. To me this means that, while it has a slightly positive effect on achievement, school has little effect, positive or negative, on intelligence. And author Begley confirms that explanation:
"Now there is evidence that cognitive ability, or intelligence, is set before kids sit up. Developmental psychologist Marc Bornstein of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and colleagues followed children for four years, starting in infancy with 564 four-month olds. Babies' ability to process information can be tested in a so-called habituation test. They look at a black-on-white pattern until their attention wanes and they look away, or habituate. Later, they're shown the pattern again. How quickly they sense they've seen the image long enough, or have seen it before, is a measure of how quickly, accurately and completely they pick up, assimilate and recall information.
The scientists evaluated the children again at six months, 18 months, 24 months and 49 months. In every case, performance mirrored the relative rankings on the infant test, Dr. Bornstein and colleagues reported this year in the journal Psychological Science"
Fine, intelligence is set at birth and remains consistent over time. Couldn't have offered much more proof of that theory than you already have. Unless you're trying to massage the data to come up with a more-PC interpretation. Such as:
"Such stability, he says, "can entice" scientists to conclude that inborn, inherent, even genetic factors determine adult intelligence. But he believes crediting nature alone would be wrong.
For one thing, these tests don't measure creativity, gumption, character or other ingredients of success. For another, there are many cases of kids catching up, as when Mexican immigrant children in the U.S. start out with math skills well below their U.S.-born white peers but then catch up, says education researcher Sean Reardon of Stanford University. And as those familiar with management training and military training show, it's possible to turn even the most unpromising candidates into leaders."
Clearly, intelligence does not predict achievement/success. The parent of any underachieving gifted child can tell you this is true. Just as many studies as support the idea of set intelligence tell us that it's the bright-but-not-gifted high achievers with strong emotional intelligence that most consistently achieve success, as it is defined by our culture. (For an overview, click here.) These facts do not contradict the theory of set intelligence.
"That leaves the question of how current education practices (and, perhaps, parenting practices) tend to lock in early cognitive differences among children, and whether those practices can be changed in a way that unlocks every child's intellectual potential."
Argh! According to your own review of the research, intelligence is something we are born with. It does not change. And if you really can "unlock every child's intellectual potential," guess what? Everyone will perform at a higher level but there will still be a distribution of achievement and intelligence! The only way for everyone in a given high school graduating class to achieve equally is to actively dumb down the students in the top half of the class and concentrate on improving performance in the bottom half. "Actively dumb down?" you say. "That's absurd!" It is, but as the research shows, even if we do nothing with these high performing kids, they'll still end up at the top of the class. All else being equal, intelligence will not be equal. And there is nothing the schools, or the social scientists, can do about that.
Aggravate Differences In Natural Ability? I've reproduced the article below with my comments, because there were so many rebuttals to make. The author's point, or at least her position, seems to be that schools should be able to make everyone equally intelligent.
"In our mobile societies, few of this month's graduating high-school seniors have been with the same classmates for 12 years. But if you know such students, think back to the pupils who, at 5 years old, were pint-size math whizzes and spelling champs. Now match those memories with the seniors at the top of their class. You'll likely find a near-perfect match.
That raises some disturbing questions. Why doesn't 12 years of schooling raise the performance of kids who start out behind? Can you really tell which toddler is destined for Caltech?"
This is the first of a number of wrong-headed questions in this article. Schooling does raise the performance of kids--all of them are performing better academically as high school seniors than they did as kindergarteners, even if they started out behind. Achievement (performance/product-what you know) is not the same as intelligence (process-what you are capable of learning).
"For as long as there has been a science of intelligence (roughly a century), prevailing opinion has held that children's mental abilities are highly malleable, or "unstable." Cognition might improve when the brain reaches a developmental milestone, or when a child is bitten by the reading bug or suddenly masters logical thinking and problem solving.
Some kids do bloom late, intellectually. Others start out fine but then, inexplicably, fall behind."
"Inexplicably." Gifted underachievers, anyone? Schools are very good at producing those.
"But according to new studies, for the most part people's mental abilities relative to others change very little from childhood through adulthood. Relative intelligence seems as resistant to change as relative nose sizes.
One of the more striking findings comes from the longest follow-up study ever conducted in this field. On June 1, 1932, Scotland had all children born in 1921 and attending school -- 87,498 11-year-olds -- take a 75-question test on analogies, reading, arithmetic and the like. The goal was to determine the distribution of intellectual ability. In 1998, scientists at the Universities of Edinburgh and Aberdeen tracked down 101 of those students, then 77 years old, and administered the same test.
The correlation between scores 66 years apart was a striking .73. (A correlation of 1 would mean no change in rankings; a correlation of .73 is very high.) There is "remarkable stability in individual differences in human intelligence" from childhood to old age, the scientists concluded in a 2000 paper.
In the U.S., two long-running studies also show the durability of relative intelligence. The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, launched in 1998, tested 22,782 children entering kindergarten. As in the Scottish study, individual differences in mental ability were clear and persistent. In math and reading, when the children were sorted into three groups by ability, ranking stayed mostly the same from kindergarten to the end of the first and third grades. Some gaps actually widened.
The National Education Longitudinal Study tested 24,599 eighth-graders on several subjects, including math and reading comprehension, in 1988 and again two and four years later. "There was a very high correlation between the scores in eighth grade and in 12th grade," says Thomas Hoffer of the National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago. Again, rankings hardly budged."
So clearly the science says that intelligence is stable over time and should be at the same distribution at age 18 as it is at age 5. But we're getting into trouble again:
"[Hoffer] suspects that the way schools are organized explains some of that. Eighth-graders who show aptitude in math or language are tracked into challenging courses. That increases the gap between them and their lower-performing peers. "It's not that [relative student performance] can't change, but that standard practices in schools work against it," says Mr. Hoffer."
Most schools abolished tracking in the 1980-90s "positive self-esteem" movement, so I doubt that had anything to do with Mr. Hoffer's study. And again, we're confusing achievement with intelligence. There is no exacerbation here. The distribution is virtually unchanged. To me this means that, while it has a slightly positive effect on achievement, school has little effect, positive or negative, on intelligence. And author Begley confirms that explanation:
"Now there is evidence that cognitive ability, or intelligence, is set before kids sit up. Developmental psychologist Marc Bornstein of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and colleagues followed children for four years, starting in infancy with 564 four-month olds. Babies' ability to process information can be tested in a so-called habituation test. They look at a black-on-white pattern until their attention wanes and they look away, or habituate. Later, they're shown the pattern again. How quickly they sense they've seen the image long enough, or have seen it before, is a measure of how quickly, accurately and completely they pick up, assimilate and recall information.
The scientists evaluated the children again at six months, 18 months, 24 months and 49 months. In every case, performance mirrored the relative rankings on the infant test, Dr. Bornstein and colleagues reported this year in the journal Psychological Science"
Fine, intelligence is set at birth and remains consistent over time. Couldn't have offered much more proof of that theory than you already have. Unless you're trying to massage the data to come up with a more-PC interpretation. Such as:
"Such stability, he says, "can entice" scientists to conclude that inborn, inherent, even genetic factors determine adult intelligence. But he believes crediting nature alone would be wrong.
For one thing, these tests don't measure creativity, gumption, character or other ingredients of success. For another, there are many cases of kids catching up, as when Mexican immigrant children in the U.S. start out with math skills well below their U.S.-born white peers but then catch up, says education researcher Sean Reardon of Stanford University. And as those familiar with management training and military training show, it's possible to turn even the most unpromising candidates into leaders."
Clearly, intelligence does not predict achievement/success. The parent of any underachieving gifted child can tell you this is true. Just as many studies as support the idea of set intelligence tell us that it's the bright-but-not-gifted high achievers with strong emotional intelligence that most consistently achieve success, as it is defined by our culture. (For an overview, click here.) These facts do not contradict the theory of set intelligence.
"That leaves the question of how current education practices (and, perhaps, parenting practices) tend to lock in early cognitive differences among children, and whether those practices can be changed in a way that unlocks every child's intellectual potential."
Argh! According to your own review of the research, intelligence is something we are born with. It does not change. And if you really can "unlock every child's intellectual potential," guess what? Everyone will perform at a higher level but there will still be a distribution of achievement and intelligence! The only way for everyone in a given high school graduating class to achieve equally is to actively dumb down the students in the top half of the class and concentrate on improving performance in the bottom half. "Actively dumb down?" you say. "That's absurd!" It is, but as the research shows, even if we do nothing with these high performing kids, they'll still end up at the top of the class. All else being equal, intelligence will not be equal. And there is nothing the schools, or the social scientists, can do about that.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
NCLB and the Gifted
From today's NYT: "No Child Left Behind? Ask the Gifted"
Mostly a fluff piece about an immigration field trip by a group of NJ fifth-graders, it mentions how NCLB has forced districts to refocus their budgets on the low end of the educational spectrum, leaving kids on the other end to fend for themselves.
"A new study by the Center on Education Policy found that the federal law put so much emphasis on reading and math, there has been a reduction in teaching history, science and the arts. And that appears to have affected field trips.
Peter O'Connell, who runs the educational program at the national park in Lowell, Mass., just completed a survey of school visits to 10 history museums in New England, including Old Sturbridge Village and Plimoth Plantation. He found a 20 percent decline in student visits in the last few years. "Schools aren't devoting as much time to history, especially urban districts," Dr. O'Connell said."
Mostly a fluff piece about an immigration field trip by a group of NJ fifth-graders, it mentions how NCLB has forced districts to refocus their budgets on the low end of the educational spectrum, leaving kids on the other end to fend for themselves.
"A new study by the Center on Education Policy found that the federal law put so much emphasis on reading and math, there has been a reduction in teaching history, science and the arts. And that appears to have affected field trips.
Peter O'Connell, who runs the educational program at the national park in Lowell, Mass., just completed a survey of school visits to 10 history museums in New England, including Old Sturbridge Village and Plimoth Plantation. He found a 20 percent decline in student visits in the last few years. "Schools aren't devoting as much time to history, especially urban districts," Dr. O'Connell said."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)