9
   

School watch

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2013 12:05 pm
@boomerang,
Yeah, physical activity is huge! It doesn't seem to be enough for her these days though -- she will walk to school, have gym there, have a brutal 1.5 -hour soccer practice after school, then go to a friend's house and run around for several hours after that, and still won't necessarily be able to get to sleep before 11. (She goes to BED much earlier, but takes a while to get to sleep.)

Totally right about being sleepy making it hard to concentrate.

Anyway, it's not really a crisis -- we've identified various things that help a lot, and she gets ENOUGH sleep, if not an ideal amount. If her high school starts at 9 though (or even 8:30) by the time she gets there, that would be awesome.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2013 12:23 pm
When i was a kid in school, there was a move in my state for schools to open later (at that time, our school started classes at 7:00 a.m.). Our school district did not go along. Most of our students were farm kids--and i do mean most, the town i lived in had a population of 800 people, the great majority of people in the school district lived on farms. The logic behind the move to start school later was that that way, kids would not be waiting for the bus in the dark. Maybe that would be a reasonable consideration in an urban setting, or a suburban setting on the periphery of a city. It wasn't an issue where i lived. Farm kids are up and doing chores before the sun rises. Farmers are out in their fields or tending their livestock before the sun rises. Many farmers also held down full- or part-time jobs in addition to farming, so the entire larger community was geared to getting up earlier, and going to bed earlier.

I think that's what is conditions this discussion. If you routinely stay up until 11:00 p.m., yeah it's going to be hard to get out of bed early, or to get to sleep if you go to bed earlier. But i do think conditioning matters. I've been getting up at about 4:00 a.m. almost all my life. I will wake up then, whether i get up or not. If i don't get up, i rarely get back to sleep. So i think what we see here is a cultural artifact. These kids live in a cultural milieu in which people--kids and grown-ups--stay up later. It makes sense for school to start later there. Where i grew up, it would just not have made sense to get up, and then wait hours and hours for school to start.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2013 01:08 pm
@boomerang,
I'm a natural night owl of sorts - I remember watching tv to 1 a.m. when I was twelve as my dad and I liked to watch a certain chaotic but interesting chicago late night program, the Tom Duggan show. But even before that, I read in bed until the twelfth of never. Back then we lived close to my school.

In high school, once I hit sixteen I worked three days a week after school and on weekends and dealt with more homework and was reader otherwise. Longer way to school, and more than one bus to my job. Parent picked me up in the hospital circle or a friend who worked there too, in her case as a Tray Girl (helper in the wards), took me home on her way to hers. Midnight awakeness was part of that.

I don't know that it was any kind of circadian change for me though I get that happens - when, over decades, I've had night classes in art or landscape architecture or evening design review meetings, stuff that had me alive and perking, I'd have trouble getting home and bopping right to sleep. When I used to use the now-to-me-fabulous etching press on the sixth floor of the art building often to around 1 a.m., I'd stop at 7-11 on the way home, buy a pint of ice cream and a magazine and go home and loll before getting to sleep. Work at 8 a.m.

Over time I noticed my most energetic/creative time of day was something like 4 p.m.

Years go by and for various reasons I'm up relative to the sun, but sort of jerky as my natural night owl shows up sometimes.

So, re school, what would I like to see for kids? Choices. In this education climate here in the U.S. I don't think that'll happen anytime soon, if ever.

I can well see why Sozobe chose later class times in university years.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  5  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2013 04:57 pm
@sozobe,
My favorite statistic against focusing on science in middle school: Germany's science nobelists. In the first 60 years or so of the 20th century, Germany harvested one Nobel Prize after another in the natural sciences. And when you look at the laureate's biographies, you see that almost all of them came from a humanistisches Gymnasium. That was a branch of the middle- and high school system that focused on learning Greek first, learning Latin second, maybe learning English next, and maybe adding the natural sciences in ninth grade. Technical and scientific high schools existed, too, but somehow they weren't the ones churning out the Nobel-grade scientists.

After World War II, the humanistisches Gymnasium gradually fell out of fashion and the steady stream of Nobel Prizes faded into a trickle. I know, correlation isn't causation and all that, but statistics like these affirm me in my opinion that a broad education is the best starting point for an education in the natural sciences. And an important part of getting such an education is to have a life.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2013 01:39 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
My favorite statistic against focusing on science in middle school: Germany's science nobelists. In the first 60 years or so of the 20th century, Germany harvested one Nobel Prize after another in the natural sciences. And when you look at the laureate's biographies, you see that almost all of them came from a humanistisches Gymnasium. That was a branch of the middle- and high school system that focused on learning Greek first, learning Latin second, maybe learning English next, and maybe adding the natural sciences in ninth grade. Technical and scientific high schools existed, too, but somehow they weren't the ones churning out the Nobel-grade scientists.

After World War II, the humanistisches Gymnasium gradually fell out of fashion and the steady stream of Nobel Prizes faded into a trickle. I know, correlation isn't causation and all that, but statistics like these affirm me in my opinion that a broad education is the best starting point for an education in the natural sciences. And an important part of getting such an education is to have a life.
I find your argument convincing, Tom.
More than that, I stand in awe of your mastery of English as a second language.
U r a lot more lucidly articulate than most Americans; that 's mildly astonishing to see.





David
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2013 10:51 am
@Thomas,
Interesting!

I definitely agree re: the importance of having a life, especially at this age.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2013 11:19 am
@Thomas,
That IS interesting. Can you point me towards more information about this as I'd like to share it with someone who believe humanities to be a waste of time and effort. Most of the articles I'm finding are in German, even when I click asking for links in English only.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2013 12:57 pm
@boomerang,
Quote:
someone who believe humanities to be a waste of time and effort

care to narrow it down some? this group is 90+% of America. the humanities departments at universities lost when universities turned to corporate funding to keep the lights on. corporate america wants university to function as an apprentice program, they have no interest in educating people. Young people who have never had it explained to them why education is important dont see the value in it either, they just want the piece of paper to help them get a job. so who exactly is going to value humanities now? Rebel parents and their kids yes, but not many people over all. the destruction of the American economy made this all worse as people became more and more desperate to get one of the fewer and fewer jobs that can fund the American Dream but the seeds were sown way back on the early 80's, when corporate funding of the universities began. it was not long before they demanded a return on investment, which was more time in course work devoted to skill training and less on education. now study after study shows that humanities majors and those who come from strong humanities universities make substantially less money first five years after graduation.

Game. Set. Match.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2013 07:14 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:
Can you point me towards more information about this as I'd like to share it with someone who believe humanities to be a waste of time and effort.

I'm afraid I don't right now. My mother owns a book with pictures and bios of all science Nobelists up to 1970 --- which is when she bought it, I suppose. That's where I learned about the pattern. But I'm in New Jersey right now. My mother and her book are both in Germany, and even if they were here the book would still be written in German. I'll have to bail on this one.
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2013 02:04 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
Multiple studies link music study to academic achievement. But what is it about serious music training that seems to correlate with outsize success in other fields?

The connection isn’t a coincidence. I know because I asked. I put the question to top-flight professionals in industries from tech to finance to media, all of whom had serious (if often little-known) past lives as musicians. Almost all made a connection between their music training and their professional achievements.

The phenomenon extends beyond the math-music association. Strikingly, many high achievers told me music opened up the pathways to creative thinking. And their experiences suggest that music training sharpens other qualities: Collaboration. The ability to listen. A way of thinking that weaves together disparate ideas. The power to focus on the present and the future simultaneously.
.
.
..
Consider the qualities these high achievers say music has sharpened: collaboration, creativity, discipline and the capacity to reconcile conflicting ideas. All are qualities notably absent from public life. Music may not make you a genius, or rich, or even a better person. But it helps train you to think differently, to process different points of view — and most important, to take pleasure in listening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/opinion/sunday/is-music-the-key-to-success.html?hp&_r=0

something the get Boomer thinking of why Humanities are good for the brain!
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2013 05:42 am
@hawkeye10,
Ha! I just came to the thread to post that. You beat me to it.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2013 09:27 am
@Thomas,
Thanks anyway! I'm sure with a lot of googling I can come up with biographies of Nobel winners.

0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  3  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2013 09:42 am
@hawkeye10,
Thanks for the link! That's a very good article.

I loved this:
Quote:

He says music “reinforces your confidence in the ability to create.”


There's something about the habit of putting your work out there and opening yourself to criticism (both good and bad) that is really risky. I think that willingness to risk yourself in that way leads to innovation.

Anyway....

I'm reminded of the woman who runs the brain bank that studies concussions -- she has a fine arts background. She said it was her training as a painter that helped her recognize patterns that have informed so much of her research.

I read some rant the other day by a parent who couldn't believe that some friend of theirs was allowing their college aged kid to waste their time studying history. The smartest people I've ever known have an expansive knowledge of history. I can't believe anyone thinks history is a waste of time.

I have always believed that humanities were important! I think they provide the human context to science (and life in general).
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2013 10:04 am
I was talking to a mom of another kid who really wants to go to this STEM school (nooooooooooo!) and some of the things that came up in the conversation included:

- This is an important time of life, that you can't get back. There is no reason to rush it. You can go to college when you're 18 or you can go to college when you're 38, but you just can't be 12 again in any meaningful way.

- It's important to develop not only academic skills but the ability to be self-sustaining in challenging fields that they want those academic skills to lead them to. My husband sees physicists all the time who were the smartest ones in the room through college and even grad school, but when they get to the point where they're trying to make a career out of it, they're amongst nothing but those kinds of people. It's an extremely challenging field and you have to work your ass off, and you have to have the resources to be able to deal with that. Internal resources and the ability to create an external support network. Otherwise, no matter how smart you are, you burn out. Which he has seen over and over agan.

- The one who has already gone to the STEM school and the one who wants to made up, with sozlet, the trio of super-smarties at her current school. They've pushed each other and challenged each other and have been really good for each other's development. Aside from seeing them less in general and being sad about that, I think it would be a real loss for her personally to be left alone in that way. There are other smart kids, to be sure, but nobody can challenge her like those two.

The mom actually doesn't want her daughter to go to the STEM school (for all of the above reasons + more, good discussion, plus she knows some specific things about this school that I hadn't known that she's concerned about) but knows from experience that if she's too dogmatic about it her daughter will just dig in and it will be a big thing. So she's going along with it for now. Open house in the winter, will see how that goes. Etc.

I'm so hoping this one stays.

Fingers crossed.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2013 12:03 pm
@sozobe,
these people who spectacularly flame out have usually made the mistake of not following their bliss, they were never very engaged so their path can not sustain them. changing the university mission from education to job skills training makes the problem worse, university used to be a place to really get the juices flowing, now they are relatively empty boring places. who ever now gets off the tred mill of becoming a trained monkey long enough to discover who they are and what they love to do?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2013 07:27 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
“The notion is, let’s transform higher education into job training,” Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law and political science at Yale, told me disapprovingly. That sort of sentiment, he said, was detectable in President Obama’s recent remark that it might be wise to shorten law school from three years to two.

Ackerman said that when you also factor in the proliferation of online courses for disadvantaged students, you begin to see what could easily become an overly tiered, wildly inconsistent college landscape of “a few superstars and then a lot of glorified teaching systems” that aren’t all that constructive.

We’re in a tricky, troubling spot. At a time when our nation’s ability to tackle complicated policy problems is seriously in doubt, we must pull off a delicate balancing act. We must make college practical but not excessively so, lower its price without lowering its standards and increase the number of diplomas attained without diminishing not only their currency in the job market but also the fitness of the country’s work force in a cutthroat world.

“Our economic advantage has been having high skill levels at the top, being big, being more flexible than the other economies, and being able to attract other countries’ most skilled labor,” Anthony P. Carnevale, the director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, told The Times’s Richard Pérez-Peña in an article about the new skills survey last week. “But that advantage is slipping.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/opinion/sunday/bruni-colleges-identity-crisis.html?hp&_r=0

this push to turn out college grads sounds disturbingly like the previous push to make as many families as possible home owners. standards be damned, chance of long term good outcomes be damned as well, BUMP UP THOSE NUMBERS!
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sun 13 Oct, 2013 11:33 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Do people really need to know about these formulas if they aren't mathematicians?
We have to realize the power of mathematics. By now it's well-understood that the global economic crisis was caused, in part, by misuse of mathematical models. People who understood those models were actually sounding the alarm. It was the executives who had the power, who were the decision-makers, who did not understand how these formulas functioned. Their logic was: "Well, while these things work, we're making profits."

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2013/10/edward_frenkel_on_love_and_math_what_is_it_like_to_be_a_mathematician.2.html

Edward Frenkel is a mathematician working in representation theory, algebraic geometry, and mathematical physics. He is Professor of Mathematics at University of California, Berkeley.

nicely encapsulating why the corporate class can not be allowed to continue to destroy the university in their effort to to create automatons to make for them financial profits. Just as they are too ignorant to know that they need government to protect them from themselves they also dont know that they need an educated public to protect them from themselves. If the University does not educate then no one will. We will be fucked more than we already are.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Oct, 2013 12:00 am
@hawkeye10,


more truth than most anyone can take......
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Oct, 2013 09:00 am
Quote:
GOLDSBORO, N.C. — Eastern Wayne Middle School students were terrified when they were told there was an armed robber in the school with a mask and a handgun Friday. However, they quickly learned it was all part of a school lesson.

Nonetheless, some parents are not happy with the exercise and school officials admit it was a bad move.

In a letter that was sent home to parents, the school said it was part of enrichment exercise trying to teach kids to be aware of their surroundings. A school employee dressed up in a ski mask and carrying a fake gun pretended to be a robber.

The school system admits – in light of the school shootings making headlines around the country – they should have been more sensitive.

“It obviously did lack that sensitivity that was needed…all of our schools work very hard to promote a safe learning environment…in this situation, the exercise in its original intent was appropriate, but in how it was executed it obviously lacked judgment,” said Ken Derksen, Public Information Officer with the Wayne County Public Schools.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Oct, 2013 09:24 am
@boomerang,
Isn't that the point of having a drill though --- teaching students how to deal with real threats? Fire won't be sensitive to them. Amok shooters certainly won't. No threat to students' lives is ever going to be sensitive to them, by definition. Without some realism about this frightening fact, how are schools supposed to prepare their students for the real thing? I'm afraid I'm on the organizer's side on this one.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » School watch
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/30/2020 at 02:12:27