How about some real ideas for school reform?

First, adapt the Montessori method for the lower grades.

While much has been done to address different learning styles, my two older kids were fortunate to attend a Montessori elementary school and I think the hands on approach helps.

Now, in general, the students at Montessori schools tend to be middle and upper middle class kids whose parents are educated, not the sons and daughters of drop-outs who drag schools down. If more students were exposed to Montessori methods, some of these bad attitudes might evaporate. Well, they might lessen and surliness as well as crime will decrease.

Second, teach Latin and Greek in elementary school. Nothing builds vocabularies better than returning to our linguistic roots.

Third, increase science teaching beginning with kindergarten.

Fourth, by third grade, begin instruction in modern foreign languages.

Fifth, art, art, art!

Sixth, music, music, music!

Seventh, recess instead of tests!

<peep>

bm

Very good points, plainoldme.

The Montessori principle is a good one, however, it is expensive
and not regulated, which means every Montessori differs from the
next one, and is completely different than in Europe.
My daughter visited a Montessori only in preschool, before we
enrolled her into a small catholic school.

One criteria in choosing my daughters (now in 4th grade) school,
was a foreign language program they started in Kindergarten, in
addition to computer classes, music, and art.

My thoughts on education have evolved in a strange way (that I never would have imagined when I decided to enter the education field).

This may be a radical statement, but here goes.

Public education in general, as practiced right now, works pretty well.

The education system that we went through, as much as it has been bickered over and maligned, produced us... as well as the workers required to keep the economy going, engineer the burgeoning internet economy and keep society running pretty well.

Our current system of education provides what the top students need. The public education system does a fine job a finding and nurturing students who show potential, drive and talent in math and science and giving them resources to excel. We are producing the leading scientists, engineers, business leaders and managers we need-- and of course not every student can be a leading scientist.

Of course most students won't become leading scientists or engineers or business leaders. Our society simply couldn't handle that either. Our current system does pretty well for the "normal kid" as well. High school in particular is a time to give them a wide understanding of the topics that will effect their lives and they come out (in spite of what the critics say) good enough to start careers or college.

High school is also an important time for socialization-- and public education again in general provides a good environment for this-- including a common experience that all Americans have experienced.

If you doubt this, look at our economy. The fact the economy continues to do weel proves that the griping of the critics is simply wrong.

The sole failure of the education system is dealing with poverty. Without question, if your family is poor and you live in a poor area, the education system will not work for you. The answer for this is to bring schools of impovrished areas up to the standards set by the other schools. Unfortunately this problem is not unique to education and is really a societal problem.

But, in general, I no longer support radical "reforms" to the education system that is working pretty well and is core part of our society.

I do support dropping the tests, but in reality they are a small part of education and although as a science teacher I griped about them as much as anyone, they really didn't change that much except for take a few days (not a large amount of the year). It certainly didn't effect my ability to teach.

I also think that in general our society needs to put real investment in improving education (and healthcare) for people in need. Hopefully this is radical enough to earn back my liberal credentials.

Absolutely agree!
And not just in the US, either.

In my introductory course for my master's in elem ed, the teacher reviewed how schools succeed now as compared to 50 years ago. We seem to think that the system works less well now than it did back then, but that isn't really true. Back then the drop out rate was higher. People spent less time in school, fewer went on to college.

It may be that our students test poorly on an international level. And those tests provide valuable info on where we need to improve. The question is how to improve (maybe even why to improve).

While in any system there is always room for improvement, I don't see our schools as failing.

I like the montessori method. There are methods based on montessori and piaget that are being incorporated into public schools, at the lower grades. We need to resolve our flurry of testing into fewer tests - students spend way too much time preparing for and taking mandated tests.

I like the idea of language education starting young. I think more activity is good.

I really like the multiple intelligence style of teaching.....

I'll try to respond one on one, as long as I can.

Calamity Jane: You write that the Montessori 'system' is expensive and unregulated.

What do you mean?

And the words system and unregulated don't align with each other.

ebrown: While it true that America has been producing the leading scientists, India is now outstripping us in science education.

When I look at education in my own family, my former husband (born in 1942) was educated in public schools in Melrose and Malden, MA, and in Sarasota, FL. He then attended a boarding school in Goshen, ME before going to college. I was educated wholly in Catholic schools in Dearborn, MI, while my two older children attended public schools in Winchester, the Lexington Montessori School and the Cambridge School of Weston. My youngest went only to the Winchester Public Schools.

My former husband's schooling was deficient compared to mine and mine was deficient compared to the school experience my children -- all in their 20s -- had, although I have arguments with the way my youngest child's depression was handled by the school.

So many of the complaints against schools today are hardly grounded in experience on the part of the critics.

There certainly have been changes. One was pronounced by a Florida woman who has been teaching since the 1930s. She sees today's students as less interested in learning. I agree. The real intellectualism of the late 50s through the 60s seems to have disappeared.

littlek -- It is amazing to me what people think is a waste of time in school. Kids need to move, even high school kids. After sitting for a few hours, there is nothing like a run -- either on the playground or on a treadmill to mellow a restless student. We are more than minds.

I agree with you that schools aren't worse. My father started school either in 1929 or 1930. He used to talk about the boys who were held back year and year, waiting until they were old enough to drop out. My father's stories of student disrespect toward authority give lie to the notion that kids were kinder and gentler earlier in the century. After all, the image of children during my father's generation was the Little Rascals.

I didn't use the word "system" - you did!

The Montessori principle according to Maria Montessori is different
in Europe. The guidelines are clearly defined and enforced, teachers
are educated to follow the Montessori principle.

Here (the US) one Montessori differs from the next. Before my daughter
entered preschool, I went to three different Montessori schools and each one had its own rules and regulations. One preschool seemed rather
strict and rigid while the one we ended up with, was more relaxed. However, the teachers had no Montessori training, only the proprietor
did. I paid over $ 500/month for 4 hours daily - clearly more expensive
than conventional preschools.

None of the Montessori schools here in Massachusetts hire teachers without Montessori training although they will hire assistants without said training.

Also, most of the schools offer a foreign language and art which I understand are not, strictly speaking, Montessori.

I have several questions which break down into two tracks.

The first is to all conservatives, who continually warn the liberals here to not introduce their liberal philosophy into their teaching.

Are you afraid to allow students to hear it?

How do you feel about conservatives introducing their point of view?

And, second, considering that the Transcendentalists would feel comfortable with the American left, would you forbid the teaching of Transcendentalism in schools?

How do you feel about the state of Michigan requiring that prospective English teachers take a course dealing with AMerican Literature:1830-65?