The Fix*Compulsory education laws work against high quality education and should be abolished. If you "must" do something, it often becomes a dreaded event. These laws have caused many to see only the "have to" and be blinded to the "need to" be educated. When the "must" is gone, the "need" will be obvious and pressing. *Every child should have the lawful right and opportunity to receive a high quality education. If this right and opportunity was made law, it would be unlawful to infringe upon this right. Such a law would be an important mechanism to eliminate anything that functioned to deny the right. This lawful right could serve as the backbone through which discipline could be applied to bring order to our public schools. It should be against the law to do anything that hinders the right of a child to receive a good education. Disruption of a class would cease to be funny as it became unlawful. Many people think of public education as being free. When something is perceived to be "free," we tend to treat it with its perceived value--free. Maybe if parents had to post a bond for their child to enroll in school we could temper this "free" idea. Portions of this bond would be subject to forfeiture for conduct wasteful of the taxpayer's money. When you add money to almost any equation people tend to regard it with greater importance. Have you noticed how people tend to cuddle those costly little bottles of water? Fines for such things as destruction of school property and behavior detrimental to the functioning of the school would improve the learning environment. Today, the primary purpose of public education is day care. The children should be kept busy for most of the working day. I can't tell you how many times I have heard principals and superintendents say, "work from bell to bell." But this isn't what psychology says about learning. Psychology has evidence which proves that most learning is more efficient and effective if it occurs in conditions of distributed practice. Massed practice (working bell to bell) is not only inefficient and ineffective, but also serves to create a negative attitude toward the subject matter and toward school. Distributed practice involves learning sessions followed by other activities unrelated to the curriculum. In most public schools mass practice is the rule. But this is not how it is in college. In college classes are distributed, and distributed study sessions are expected to occur between these classes. How does a child (with a short attention span) benefit from daily bombardment, while the young adult (with a more mature attention span) benefit from distributed learning sessions? The truth is that we have massed learning sessions in grades K-12 because this is what day care requires. And this is how day care is disguised as education. And, unfortunately, all we have to fill the day is traditional subject matter. Consequently, the effect of disguising day care as education is inefficient learning and negative attitudes toward school, teachers, and the subject matter. It is a design for burn out. Child care has long been bottom rung activity. You might remember that baby sitting was among the first things exempted from minimum wage laws. And back in the old days it was, "Grandma is too old and crazy to work the fields, so she can keep the kids." As long as teachers are primarily "baby sitters" they will be both lowly paid and regarded. Would any profession hold status if its members had to do duty before work, during lunch, and after work? Lawyers doing courthouse duty? Doctors doing parking lot duty? Unlike teachers of grades K-12, college teachers are held in high regard. They have lofty titles, better pay, and better working conditions. And while college teachers may have a higher level of education, they have no day care duties. In my opinion this plays a large role in the respect given to them by students and the general public. In my decades of teaching there were many times when school was canceled for various reasons. Bad weather, bomb threat, gang fight, gas leak, loss of electricity, low water pressure--were just some of the reasons that a school day might be canceled. Over these decades I have never heard a parent complain, "What about the education that my child will miss because of this cancellation?" Instead what is always heard is, "Who's gonna keep my kids now that y'all closed the school?" A system in which the goal is actual education would be a system of attendance five days a week, and 12 months a year. The children would be at school 8 hours a day (or longer if needed for day care purposes) and would take 4 classes each lasting an hour. During the remaining four hours the children would engage in such activities as video games, athletics, card games, internet activities, club activities such as: 4-H, Science Club, etc., nap, educational television viewing, electives such as music, dance, web site construction, internet graphics, etc. But all this would be expensive and the kids really aren't worth it. And we could use better teachers. As it is now we have many good teachers. They are good teachers who happen to want to work on a school schedule. But to get more good teachers, we need to increase teacher pay. As it is now all teachers are paid on a pay scale which is identical for level of education and years of experience. This is why it is difficult to get good Science and Mathematics teachers. If you want to get well-qualified teachers in these areas, a good salary will bring them in. But the truth is that if the pay scale for all teachers was significantly higher, you would have very bright, highly qualified teachers in all areas. The children who will grow up to be unhappy, unproductive and expensive problems are children who do not receive love, affection and stimulation in early life. These kids need to be in the public education system as young as possible. No later than age three. They should be raised and taught by trained professionals. Although the parents would likely have little concern with the benefits this could bring, the fact of free day care will bring them in droves. Story Time: Years ago I had a student in my Physical Science class who was 17 years old, but still in the ninth grade. I could tell that he was bright, but he never made a grade higher than an F. He never did homework, he often slept through class, turned in blank tests, and generally did nothing but attend class physically. His parents never showed up for conferences, never came to open house, and never attended parent-teacher meetings. One day he did something that caused him to be suspended with a recommendation for expulsion. His mother was immediately at the school raising hell about this. When this action did not produce the desired results, she went to the school board to try to get her son back into school. After they did allow him to return to school, I asked him why his mother cared if he was in school. After all, he didn't pass any subject, was learning little or nothing, and was beyond the age for compulsory attendance. With a promise to not tell, he told me the following. He said that a few years back his mother took him to a doctor where they told the doctor that he was daydreaming in class and having trouble concentrating. He was diagnosed as having an Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), and was prescribed the drug Ritalin. And, since he had been in a few fights and had been arrested several times, the district classified him as Behavior Disordered, and as having special needs. Along with this designation came $900 each month from the government to help with this special needs child. Quickly I knew why she was concerned about his possible expulsion. *Today our schools are saddled with too many kinds of special needs students. In addition to what we traditionally think of as special needs, almost all of the symptoms of normal childhood and adolescence can now bring special needs designation. And it is the law that public schools must provide these students with an appropriate education. But there is no law that requires public schools to provide an appropriate education for "normal" students. So our public schools must use their resources to obey the law first, then whatever is left over can be applied to educating the "normal" students. And because some special needs come with extra government money for the parents, the incentive to have special needs children is there. Recognition of and adjustment to special needs can be a good thing for the child who does truly have special needs. But if schools stopped educating to fit the fame work of day care, there would be fewer children with special needs. And there must be something(s) at work that has resulted in this dramatic increase in special needs kids. It might be worth our while to look into what these factors might be. A parable with apologies to Jesus: Once there was a shepherd with 100 sheep. Upon counting, he noticed that one was missing. So he left the 99 and went searching for that one lost sheep. After a lengthy search he found the lost sheep and returned to the place where he left the 99. But they were now lost. Free will is a very intriguing topic. Almost everyone has contemplated this philosophical concept. And, however how you feel about free will, it doesn't matter. We all feel and act as if we have free will. But let's imagine that it were possible to believe and operate as an absolute determinist. Without the belief that our thoughts and actions are ours, would we feel emotions other than those that are, in their entirety, chemically induced? Maybe boredom. We like to feel that we are in control. And the more we know--the more things we know how to do--the more in control we feel. The more we know--and the more things we know how to do--the greater is our self-esteem and the better we feel about ourselves. And good feelings are what life is all about. Increasingly, the public schools in America are teaching only the 3 Rs. In a growing number of our public schools there is no art, no music, and no athletics other than the obligatory football, basketball, baseball and track. Instead of increasing the opportunities for students to develop skills for which they can feel pride, our public schools are decreasing these opportunities. But isn't that the job of parents? "We don't need a village to raise us because we have parents." While those of means do not necessarily raise better kids, they at least have the means to provide their children with the opportunity to develop knowledge and skills which will give them self-esteem. And we think we are saving money by cutting such programs. But are we really saving money? Are we saving a little now only to spend a lot later? Or are we just raising more kids who will have low esteem and live unhappy lives? The undeveloped mind is a bored mind and will likely find trouble. When I was a kid there was a woman in our neighborhood who taught piano. Several of the other kids took lessons from her and I wanted to do so as well. I asked my dad and he said, "No." A few years later the Jackson (Mississippi) Public Schools, through the Jackson Symphony Orchestra, offered free music lessons to any student. All the student had to do was to rent or buy the instrument. I asked my dad if we could rent a violin and he said, "No." Later in the seventh grade, I took Choral Music. In addition to singing, the teacher would play a note on the piano and we would have to match that note with our voice. I could never quite get it. She said that I was tone deaf; gave me a D and made me promise that I would never take a music course again. In the 10th grade I broke this promise and took Choral Music. Again, I could not match the notes. This time I got an F and was told that music was not for me. Later I taught at a community college and one of the perks was that we were allowed to take any course free. I befriended the piano teacher, a nice lady named Mrs. Ballard. One day as we worked registration together, I related to her of my desire to learn to play the piano. I also mentioned my negative history with music. I told her that I knew that I had no musical talent, but that I did have an excellent memory and thought that I could learn to play a few songs on the piano from memory alone. I remember so well, she said to me, "Honey, don't you worry about a thing. You sign up for my course and I will teach you to play the piano." I signed up but before my first class she was diagnosed with cancer and died within a month. I thought, this is getting serious. First I was just pissing people off; now my desire to learn music is killing people! I gave up. But even to this day I would love to be able to sit on one of those little stools and move my fingers along that keyboard to recreate a beautiful song. And I know how great I would feel to be able to do this. And how wonderful I would feel if, at someone's home, I could walk over to their piano and WOW! them with a well-played song! And you ask, did my dad and society pay a price for my not learning to play music? Yes, both did, but I never got caught so I'm not going to talk about it. It is fun to know things. It's fun to sit with a group of people watching "Jeopardy" and give the right questions before the contestants and anyone else in the room. It is fun to explain to your grandkid what Art Deco is, and how it differs from Art Neauvo. And fun to be able to answer questions like, "If our dog is a Pomeranian, where is Pomerania?" It is fun to know how to do things. It is fun to hit a golf ball with accuracy and power. It is fun to put over-spin on a tennis ball and watch it hit the line. It is fun to build a baby bed for your granddaughter. It's fun to amaze and amuse by juggling or doing magic. It's fun to run the table in eight ball, or to be skilled at all those new video games. Generally speaking, the better you are at these activities, the more fun they are to do. One of the most important responsibilities of parents and of a society is to raise kids who know stuff and know how to do things. These kids will grow to be adults who have self-esteem--they will feel good about themselves and about life. Good feelings are the meaning of life. Education must include as many opportunities to learn stuff and to learn how to do interesting, productive things. This will cost big bucks, but will pay great returns--economic returns and returns in happy lives. Education is what can change this country from a plutocracy to a democracy. Can you imagine what a great nation this would be if our people were happier and smarter? We know scientifically that there are critical periods in our development during which learning has greater affect. This likely involves using specific brain circuits which otherwise might be flushed from the brain. We know that mentally active older people are less likely to suffer from dementia and even if so predisposed, they can delay the onset via mental stimulating activities. So schools should be about more than math, science, history and the like. It should be about chess, checkers, computer languages like LOGO, learning html, playing strategy games--anything that is mentally stimulating. In the course of such a program, more math, science, history and the like will be learned. Teaching morality can also be effectively done. While religion-based morality is losing power as the credibility of religion erodes, morality is a simple topic whose benefits are obvious. And it is simple to convince people that happiness is achieved by living a loving life. But these things must be taught often to emphasize their importance. Over decades we have slowly, but surely, decided to invest our money in subsistence welfare and prisons rather than in developing the potential of our people. It will not be easy to reverse these decisions. But it will never be easier than it is now. In fact to wait will eventually make such a change impossible. |