But neither life nor learning come neatly packaged in a box. I know you bake with your boys. You can really tell if they have learned their fractions by whether they can tell you which measuring cups they will need in order to come up with 1 3/4 cups of flour, or if you are doubling a cookie recipe, to tell you the most efficient way to measure out two times 2/3 of a cup. That's enrichment.
I absolutely understand the point of view as well. I've been debating from the point of view of how I think schools should work, not how they actually work in the U.S.. Fwiw, the Swedish system does at least ensure a decent (if basic) level of education for most students, but it doesn't always work well for the brightest students. No system is perfect.
Why would you say that theatre activities won't prepare Liza for college? If they are as important to her as Katie says they are, and she is gaining as much as Katies says she is from participating, then her theater experience might provide just as much of the learning necessary for college success as anything that goes on in the classroom. Theater activities seem to Liza to be what math tutoring was for my son a few years ago -- an avenue to classroom success.
It is not a goal that can be reached (or even remotely approached) unless there is some recognition that schools should ensure at least a basic level of education for all, regardless of parental participation.
"And what's "essential" to one parent, and results in a "C" grade type of understanding, does not meet my definition of "essential" knowledge."
Beyond the basics, parents can, of course, set higher expectations and provide the support needed to meet those expectations. When a child is expected to get help from home in order to learn how to read a basic text or solve a basic equation, however, there is (imo) a problem with regard to the division of responsibility between the school and the parent.
To bring the analogy home, that was the point of NCLB- to "ride herd on the plumber to get it done" mainly because when parents went to the plumber, they were told "the pipes you asked us to work on just weren't very good quality and there's nothing we can do about that". (Boy did I abuse that analogy.)
"I expect it is the school's job to make sure all children have grasped the essentials."
Bwahahahaha! It took the passing of NCLB to make that the school's job. And even now, with NCLB "riding herd" on them to make them follow through on that job, it frequently doesn't get done. But before NCLB passed, if kids didn't grasp the essentials they were just SOL and they failed unless their parents were both willing and able to intervene in some way. A failing child was just simply not their problem. They handed out the failing grade and went on their merry way. Their job was present the information via classroom and homework and then test how well the kid grasped it. If the kid didn't grasp it, that was the KID'S problem, not the school's. NCLB made it the school's problem.
Until the passage of NCLB, that wasn't even the school's goal. The problem wasn't that they assumed parental particip[ation that may or not have been there. The problem was that they didn't see it as a problem if a kid didn't grasp the essentials. They simply failed the kid and wrote them off. It was NEVER their goal to make sure everybody got it. It sure seems like it ought to be their goal, but it wasn't.
Pages
I absolutely understand the point of view as well. I've been debating from the point of view of how I think schools should work, not how they actually work in the U.S.. Fwiw, the Swedish system does at least ensure a decent (if basic) level of education for most students, but it doesn't always work well for the brightest students. No system is perfect.
"But that's simply the goal, not reality."
It is not a goal that can be reached (or even remotely approached) unless there is some recognition that schools should ensure at least a basic level of education for all, regardless of parental participation.
"And what's "essential" to one parent, and results in a "C" grade type of understanding, does not meet my definition of "essential" knowledge."
Beyond the basics, parents can, of course, set higher expectations and provide the support needed to meet those expectations. When a child is expected to get help from home in order to learn how to read a basic text or solve a basic equation, however, there is (imo) a problem with regard to the division of responsibility between the school and the parent.
To bring the analogy home, that was the point of NCLB- to "ride herd on the plumber to get it done" mainly because when parents went to the plumber, they were told "the pipes you asked us to work on just weren't very good quality and there's nothing we can do about that". (Boy did I abuse that analogy.)
"I expect it is the school's job to make sure all children have grasped the essentials."
Bwahahahaha! It took the passing of NCLB to make that the school's job. And even now, with NCLB "riding herd" on them to make them follow through on that job, it frequently doesn't get done. But before NCLB passed, if kids didn't grasp the essentials they were just SOL and they failed unless their parents were both willing and able to intervene in some way. A failing child was just simply not their problem. They handed out the failing grade and went on their merry way. Their job was present the information via classroom and homework and then test how well the kid grasped it. If the kid didn't grasp it, that was the KID'S problem, not the school's. NCLB made it the school's problem.
Until the passage of NCLB, that wasn't even the school's goal. The problem wasn't that they assumed parental particip[ation that may or not have been there. The problem was that they didn't see it as a problem if a kid didn't grasp the essentials. They simply failed the kid and wrote them off. It was NEVER their goal to make sure everybody got it. It sure seems like it ought to be their goal, but it wasn't.
Pages