Lately, President Obama and others have been in the news calling for a longer school year. The logic goes that kids lose knowledge over the summer; and if we just cut out that summer break, they would learn more, retain more, and compete more effectively with students from around the world.
I have a problem with this.
My first thought (unfortunately but obviously) was to reject this idea because as a teacher, I would lose my two months of freedom. It's one of the reasons I teach. Don't get me wrong, I love teaching; but I would love it a lot less if I suddenly lost the freedom to do whatever I pleased for two months every year. Selfish, yes; but we choose our careers based on what we think will make us happy, and this makes me happy.
The more I thought about it, though, the more offended I got about the idea for more than selfish reasons. If you think about it, the government is basically saying that they know better how to raise my children over the summer than I do. They want to require my children to spend even more time being influenced by curriculum they choose and less time being influenced by me.
That's pretty arrogant for the government to say. Will my daughters really have a much better life because they did a few more math problems over the summer? Because they read another novel, wrote another paper, did another lab project? Maybe they would, but I'd like to have that choice. I'd like to choose whether to have them do math or take a walk in the woods with me. I, their parent, want to decide if they should spend their time reading or working a job or playing basketball or throwing rocks in the river, just to see them splash. I should get to decide that.
I learned a lot in the summers of my youth. I learned a lot from shoveling manure in the July heat, from lifting weights and playing in basketball leagues, from mowing yards, from dating, and from walking in the shadows of my father and grandfather. I'm not sure what educational standard or objective those events fall under, but I do know my life would be vastly different without those experiences.
If the government is so worried about this learning gap in low-income kids who can't afford "educational" opportunities during the summer, then subsidize summer programs and make them affordable. Provide them as an option.
But to mandate more schooling, more government control over the childhood of my daughters, that's the same as saying that President Obama and Arne Duncan and a lot of other flawed, elected officials know what's best for my kid, and I don't.
This may not be a faith issue, but it certainly is a moral one. And my moral duty as a parent is to want more for my kids' youth than trigonometry and book reports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oh my, where to start....j/k
ReplyDeleteI will have to agree and disagree. One of my reasons for teaching was the schedule also. It's what I grew up with having a teacher as a parent (as well as several relatives). When you become accustomed to something, you tend to prefer it. I too had many educational experiences as a youth during those warm summer months
Here's the catch, most kids these days do not have those opportunities. With many communities reaching upwards of 75-85% free and reduced, low SES populations are in the majority. Those kids do not have the money, resources, or availability (due to parental neglect) to have the same experiences as you and I did.
While government money would allow for low SES kids to attend more school, I am not sure amt. of money would be able to afford the time or resources to give those same experiences (or others like them). A big disconnect between the have's and have not's in school is outside experiences. For many kids the opportunity to see a zoo or museum or go to a state park would be unthinkable for many parents. These kids spend day in and day out in their home communities. Most don't even have to leave to see g'ma or g'pa, heck they might even be living with them.
I just heard a statistic on NPR the other day that socio-economic movement is stalled and has been for some time. This means that people in poverty (and other classes) are not moving up like they might have in the past. An interesting thought when applied to this topic. This doesn't mean that the number in each class is stalled, just the percentage that move up. So numbers within each class could still be growing, and people could be moving down a class.
My suggestion may shock some that know me best, but I propose the year round schedule where you have approximately 3 months on, one month off, 3 months on, etc. Essentially the same effect as your summer off just scattered throughout the year. I see it as best of both worlds. We are not increasing the number of days, we are just spacing out the vacation time.
Thoughts?
...Japan has year-round schooling. It also has one of the highest youth suicide rates in the world. Schools there are super competitive there, too. You have to take a huge test to decide which high school you go to, which decides which college you go to, and decides your whole future. Kids start studying for it years in advance. But, I digress.
ReplyDeleteThis is about us. Summer is a ray of hope for schoolkids. A much-needed break. On the other hand, we could do as other countries do and have year-round schooling with one or two-week long breaks every so often to compensate for the lost summer. School would get done for us earlier. I personally like that plan, but as a teacher, you probably wouldn't. I wouldn't mind year-round schooling, to be honest. Not because I like it, but because it gives me something to do, and focus on. You know what they say about idle hands.
Beane:
ReplyDeleteWith a month off at different intervals, conceivably this "learning gap" would happen 3 times instead of one. Also, as a teacher, you and I both know that one month off is more like 2 weeks. 1 month for the kids means we then have a couple days of inservice and/or grading at the beginning of the break and a couple of days of prep at the end of the break. That doesn't really allow for time to recharge and get ready to go back into the fray refreshed. Additionally, I usually take classes or read on my own for the summer towards some sort of personal betterment. When does that happen now? And if it doesn't, are teachers better?
I understand the problem for the poor/neglected kids, which is why I wouldn't have a problem with subsidized summer education opportunities. It would end up basically being summer day care; but so what? That's what education is year-round for many parents. Provide the option and pay for it if it's so important for the government to raise the kids whose parents won't. Just don't require my kid to attend something created to combat parental neglect.
Oooo....some fire in Dykstra's spirit this post! I like it!
ReplyDeleteI guess I don't see the month break as being as detrimental as the 3 month break. It might cut into some teacher pocket books as roofing, odd jobs, etc. wouldn't be as easy to accomplish.
The burn out and recharge phase happens with teachers almost as much as the students (for some it's more). I think I could be fresher with more frequent breaks than one long one, but thats personal.
"A summer day care...so what?" These are the kids that frustrate you when they can't write or read. Have you ever been to a summer school program? It's reading. It's what parents should be doing with their kids on top of taking them places and spending time with them. These kids are missing someone to look up to, someone to follow...to emulate. They don't need someone to wipe their dirty faces and make sure they eat their carrots. If its anything these kids know, it's survival. They need much more than babysitting.
It's not the government that's paying for those programs, we are. It's your taxes that are being spent. Do you feel that this is the best way to spend your hard earned teaching money?
My summer day-care comment comes from the perspective of what parents are looking for, not what could be provided. As a UNI Dr. Berg disciple, I learned in my undergrad that one of the 6 great purposes of education in this country is child storage. Sad but true. As parents have worked more, we've extended the school day to include breakfast, before-school, and after-school programs. The function more education serves to many parents is simply more cheap daycare. I've got no doubt that teachers who do summer programs provide much more than that. I'm sure it's excessively positive. And I'm happy it's available - just as long as it doesn't become a requirement. My problem isn't with summer school programs - it's with a longer school year. The longer school year would actually probably kill the necessary remedial summer school options for struggling students.
ReplyDeleteOn the other note, would my contributed taxes be well-served here? Probably not. As I've said before, I think we rely too heavily on government intervention without doing enough as individuals in a society ourselves for the greater good. Obviously I've said before that churches should be filling these needs, and I believe that. But even for non-Christians, wouldn't it be more efficient and cost-effective to organize money, resources, and volunteer time as citizens working towards the indivdiual needs of a community as opposed to waiting for the government to fix things? Maybe that's not realistic, but that's only because our society has become very accustomed to finding someone else to clean up our messes.
Shannon, I completely and entirely agree with your basic premise here: who is in charge of raising our country's children? While it is true that many children in this country do not have the sort of learning opportunities you and many other parents provide their children, that should not be the added responsibility of government (and I can't believe that my bleeding heart is allowing me to think this, let alone write it down).
ReplyDeleteThere are times when I'm standing in front of a class, looking over the faces of kids I barely know--and, admittedly, sometimes barely care about--and I can't help but suffer a sort of momentary crisis. Why are these kids being subjected to spend their days rotating on a cycle of monotony and lack of choice and lack of true learning options? My education was strengthened by the fact that my parents took me to plays and musicals and art museums and sporting events and every state and, at the same time, allowed me to read whatever I wanted to. That's what influenced me, not school. Yes, it's a shame that not every family can do this, but mandating that the government take on even more of an active role in the family's life accomplishes two things: resentment from families who already do this, and further reliance on the state to do what a parent should do.
Rant over. You struck a nerve.
I love striking a nerve. That's what this blog is for. Your commentary is welcome any time.
ReplyDelete