# I resent childs homework assignments that require money, supplies, time



## geewiz

My daughter is a top student and always strives to knock it over the fence. We just went thru the stress of her elaborate science project. Cost about $30, 5 hours and we had to cancel plans she wouldn't enjoy so she could finish.

Gets to school this morning and she was the ONLY student that finished it. Other kids stuck in a rut, overwhelmed, need clarification and didn't know where to start. 

Of course its also a group assignment and as usual half of the kids are screwing around, the rest followers and my daughter does all the work and has to share the grade with slackers. Assignment drastically simplified now that it's all done so the other kids can handle it.

I can't stand for teachers coming up with another bright idea that cuts into our time and money while they drop the ball. 

We have about $250 invested in projects this year. Our school taxes are already over $20000 with real estate we own. 

I would like to send these idiots a bill for our time and money their unnecessary assignments costs us. I could have used that money to fix my daughters four wheeler with her. Instead we have a useless automatic dogfood dispenser she built to demonstrate five simple machines.


----------



## NextTimeAround

What type of school are yu in?

traditional public school
charter school
(independent) private school
religious school

I read that in a public school district in Michigan, students had to pay a fee to play on the competitive teams. This was in a letter to the NY times by a high school student who had to stop playing football because his parents could not afford the fee.

Where you live, what type of people are making important decisions about the availability of education where you live?


----------



## NextTimeAround

nikoled said:


> Me too. I resent the amount of time my child spends on school. She is there for 7 hours and then has 3-6 hours of homework a night. Really? we need 10-13 hours of school/schoolwork a day?? That is crazy to me. She is burned out. I am burned out. She is a straight A student in honors classes. No learning disabilities. Every teacher feels the need to assign homework every night- even the elective classes. Often it is "busy work" coloring, etc (And this is high school). I want to be supportive and encourage education, but am having a hard time this year.



what kind of school is your child in? In the '70s when I went to a prep school, they were proud to say that a student would get 30 to 45 minutes of homework each night for each class. We had a choice of taking 4 to 6 classes a semester to graduate.


----------



## John Lee

Well, you can use it to teach a valuable lesson to your kid: sometimes if you want to get ahead in life you have to put up with B.S. Ultimately that $250 per year is a pretty small investment to make to give your child a good future, so look at it that way. If it's really a problem, go to the teacher, the principal, or the school board. Otherwise, suck it up, resentment is a waste of energy.


----------



## unbelievable

Your honor grad student is going to one day be a very successful leader in whatever field she chooses. Maybe she'll earn a comfortable six figure income. Her reward for all her industry and dedication is that she will be vilified and her income will be confiscated to buy cookies for those who seek her ruin. Maybe she will own a business and provide employment for one hundred employees, health care for their families, bread for their tables. Most of them will go home and speak ill of her while their faces are stuffed with bread she provided them. 
There is much that should be resented and that list grows longer by the day. The alternative, however, would be to permit your daughter to join the pathetic ranks of zombies who shuffle their way through life without direction, without ambition, without risks, without any meaningful rewards, who exist for 90 years and die without leaving any positive evidence that they were here. 
Society will not reward your daughter's achievements and "fair" is only a place one visits to ride the rides and eat cotton candy. You and she might as well remove the word "fair" from your vocabulary because it means nothing. Striving, achieving, and growing are their own rewards and humans are something less than complete without those activities. 
You are, very properly, preparing your daughter to one day be a responsible adult in a world full of irresponsible children.


----------



## DoF

Entire school system is a big joke......needs a big RESET button.


----------



## John Lee

People love to complain about schools. They're too easy, they're too hard, they're not tailored exactly to the needs of my kid. As long as your kid is going to a safe, clean place with resources that make it possible for learning to occur, you're really not doing too badly. People love to say "failing schools" but most schools in the US are not really failing at all, they're doing just fine.


----------



## NextTimeAround

DoF said:


> Entire school system is a big joke......needs a big RESET button.


what do you suggest that needs to be done?


----------



## Anon Pink

Parents unite against science fair projects!

I used to get all loopy about science fair projects and other long term projects. But finally with my 3rd child I got a hold of myself and backed waaaaaay the hell off! I help her organize her time, prioritize her to do list, but it is up to her to get it done. The only supplies I buy are poster boards and project boards. Of course, having kids means there is always a supply or arts and crafts in the home.

When my youngest was in 4th grade they had this huge science fair. I told the teacher that I would not be conducting experiments, but would help her with planning. A week before it was due, my daughter had next to nothing done. Her "research" made no sense in terms of her project. Her experiment made no sense in term of her "science question" and I felt like she had had no direct feedback from her teacher regarding the progress she should have been making all along.

I pitched a bit of a fit about the purpose and intent of science fair projects!

The following year, another huge science fair only this time parents were told EXACTLY what they were expected to do (help with organizing and prioritizing, supplies) but the rest was between the teacher and the student.

Much better experience.

That teacher had 4 kids of her own, so she knew first hand the headaches and problems of getting a parent to lead a child through long term projects.

My youngest is now in 8th grade and is totally independent on all homework and long term assignments. <--- and THAT is the ultimate goal of education. To create life long independent learners!


----------



## Rowan

So far this year, we've had to come up with 3 elaborate costumes (British Royal Guard, Sir Francis Drake, Stonewall Jackson) for a single class, two math projects, and a science project. I figure I'm out $300 or so in supplies for all that. 

I often wonder what happens with the kids who don't have supportive parents, whose families can't afford all these extras, or whose mothers don't have a rather embarrassing number of theatrical costumes packed into the spare bedroom closet.


----------



## geewiz

Rowan said:


> SI often wonder what happens with the kids who don't have supportive parents, whose families can't afford all these extras


They are passed along with average or slightly below average grades. Grades should not be a function of resources available outside of school but it is more so than ever.


----------



## Anon Pink

coffee4me said:


> This is pretty standard where I live. They don't come out and say its a fee they do give you a dollar amount and avenues for the athlete to raise the money but bottom line if your child doesn't raise the money and you don't pay it - your child doesn't get his uniform.
> 
> There are also transportation fees that must be paid in order for the kids to get the bus to games.
> 
> These fees don't just apply to sports teams either. Academic teams like debate must also pay the required transportation and participation fees.
> 
> Add in all the events that teams or clubs have and the parents are asked to donate items.


Not to mention the coaches stipend, the fees to refs, the cost of equipment... It isn't cheap to run a sports team and either parents pay directly or the pay by selling stuff to all their neighbors and friends.


----------



## happi_g_more2

Dont get me started. In ca, our public safety workers make on average 80-100k a year (thats an average of all level). Anything over 30 hours a week is overtime. Many of them have so much free time that they have second jobs. They retire at 50 with very little personal investment in their own retirements. Medical for life. Yet I have to pay out of pocket so that my kids teacher has a pen for her dry erase board. anyway, just sayin


----------



## soccermom2three

> I read that in a public school district in Michigan, students had to pay a fee to play on the competitive teams. This was in a letter to the NY times by a high school student who had to stop playing football because his parents could not afford the fee.


Here in California this is allowed anymore. I believe the ACLU got in involved and the case was settled a few years ago. I think the case didn't just cover sports, it also covered transportation, textbooks, field trips, science and art supplies.

I've noticed that in the past few years that when the school wants money, it's now called a donation. Before that it was called a fee. 

One of my daughter's art teachers called me at home during dinner telling me that that I hadn't paid the art fee. I was pissed only because each child HAS to take a fine art to graduate HS so the class is a REQUIREMENT but I'm supposed to pay a fee to a public school for a class my child has to take to get her diploma. Does that make sense?


----------



## john117

If you think science fair or school projects are expensive wait till art projects, esp. competition variety projects, come along.


----------



## larry.gray

Rowan said:


> I often wonder what happens with the kids who don't have supportive parents, whose families can't afford all these extras, or whose mothers don't have a rather embarrassing number of theatrical costumes packed into the spare bedroom closet.


Much of the time the kids from families that can't afford it aren't required to cough up the money. Often it is based on if the kid qualifies for free or reduced lunch.


----------



## NextTimeAround

larry.gray said:


> Much of the time the kids from families that can't afford it aren't required to cough up the money. Often it is based on if the kid qualifies for free or reduced lunch.


In some ways that's unfair too. If a parent is required to pay for each and everything, imagine how much power the parent has over the child.

My parents when I was in my 40s started hassling me about "all that money " that they spent on my education. When I started saying, well, if you hadn't made so much money I would have been eligible for some needs based scholarships, they dropped the issue.


----------



## appletree

Isn't there a P&C (parents and community) in the USA were these things can be discussed?
Here public schools cost maximally maybe $40 a year for material and the uniforms but there are second hand uniforms too. Excursions and thing have to be payed too.


----------



## Rowan

larry.gray said:


> Much of the time the kids from families that can't afford it aren't required to cough up the money. Often it is based on if the kid qualifies for free or reduced lunch.


We live in a county where the poverty rate is so high that the entire school system is on free lunch. That means that no one has to qualify and no one has to pay. Our combined family income is over $140K a year - that's a lot in the rural South - and we've never paid for school meals. In fact, well-off families are actively discouraged from sending lunch from home, to help keep the school lunch participation rate high enough that the county doesn't lose the funding that pays to feed those children who live in poverty. 

In reality, I know where the money and supplies for many of those children without resources at home comes from. From other parents who donate supplies, teachers who pay out of pocket, school administrators who give or loan out whatever is needed. We don't have school fees or mandatory donations here. Those who can, give or pay or do. And usually a little more than is strictly necessary, because we know that any extra goes to help out the kids whose parents either can't or won't.


----------



## DoF

NextTimeAround said:


> what do you suggest that needs to be done?


Too many issues at hand to have 1 solution.

Heck, that applies to education, justice system,healthcare, government.....corps.....

Don't get me going.



Entire system is overly complicated/complex for it's own good......but that's just me.


----------



## happi_g_more2

We could start with a system that disallows people to collect money from like minded people and then take that money and give it to congressmen in exchange for them passing laws that allow the original group to then take more money from the system


----------



## m0nk

No offense friend, but you are airing concerns in a limited environment. Hopefully you have already contacted the teacher, department head, principal, and school board. There is a hierarchy of getting things done in education, and following your "chain of command" will allow your voice to be heard. Complaining to your daughter (who is clearly driven and sets goals) only serves to make her uncomfortable. A parent of action will maintain contact with the above people until something is solved. I have NOTHING against school projects as an indicator of a student's mastery of skills. I have NOTHING against a minimal fee for art supplies or a book drive that could be waived if the parent is unable to pay. I have NOTHING against school supply lists stocking a teacher's rooms for other students with things like markers and tissues and the like...it's the students who use them and benefit from them directly, and most teachers worth their salt spend $500 plus on supplies and books for students that go unseen or unappreciated (in the true sense of the word as most are ignorant of how a good teacher's time is divided). I have NOTHING against parents being involved in their child's education as this shows you can problem solved together and she is a priority to you time wise and money wise. I have EVERYTHING against group work that is not assessed individually OR that takes up a major grade in the grade book. Interacting with others is a skill we ALL face in school, so it should be a processing grade and NOT an assessment. Group work should be assessed as a group grade in the upper levels of AP (COLLEGE level classes) to reflect real world problem solving. I'm not saying we're not on your side OR that its not frustrating to give 110% and others give NONE, but if your voice is silent and you don't raise concern with people who can affect change, no change will happen. Just an opinion from a passing teacher...best of luck! It sounds like you and your daughter have good heads on your shoulders.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## married tech

> I can't stand for teachers coming up with another bright idea that cuts into our time and money while they drop the ball.


You would have loved me as your kid! If I couldn't get it done at school I never brought it home unless forced at proverbial gun point and even then I was pretty crafty at making damn sure the teacher paid for it in stress later if I did so as to not have it expected of me again! :smthumbup:


----------



## papa5280

geewiz said:


> Gets to school this morning and she was the ONLY student that finished it. Other kids stuck in a rut, overwhelmed, need clarification and didn't know where to start.
> 
> Of course its also a group assignment and as usual half of the kids are screwing around, the rest followers and my daughter does all the work and has to share the grade with slackers. Assignment drastically simplified now that it's all done so the other kids can handle it.
> .
> .
> .
> I would like to send these idiots a bill for our time and money their unnecessary assignments costs us. I could have used that money to fix my daughters four wheeler with her. Instead we have a useless automatic dogfood dispenser she built to demonstrate five simple machines.


So, who learned more, the kids who got the simplified assignment or your daughter? Isn't learning the objective?


----------



## married tech

> So, who learned more, the kids who got the simplified assignment or your daughter? Isn't learning the objective?


Hey now don't be making school about actual learning and stuff. It could ruin everything the American public education stands for!


----------



## Sandfly

geewiz said:


> Of course its also a group assignment and as usual half of the kids are screwing around


It's not at all fair on her. Can you get her into a school which doesn't advocate teaming your daughter up with lazy retards?

It's very important to her motivation.


----------



## Jimena

If you're used to paying a lot for projects and special events, then you're probably in a school district that's pretty well off and has a high degree of student success. Consider yourself lucky that you can do all that at the drop of a hat for your child.
As for the schools in impoverished districts, teachers don't have those kinds of expectations. 
Yes, parents do need to supply the basics: tissue, hand sanitizer, markers, paper towels, because that's all incredibly expensive x30 for every classroom... and yes it does all get used before the year is up.


----------



## married tech

Not to be the bad guy here but you have to consider that every public school system has one huge monster of a financial drain that no one ever talks about. 

Special needs kids. If a kid needs an adult assistant or worse to be able to make it through the days due to ADD, ADHD, Aspergers, Autism, Mental Retardation, Emotional Disorders or what ever consider that that one kid alone is draining about $90,000 on average from the school system.

BTW on average most school systems have a budget of around $9000 - $10,000 per student which means that if you have 20 kids in a classroom and two are special needs they are placing as much on the school s financial budget as the other 18 kids combined are. 

Thats why your teachers don't get paid as well, trained as well, and you have to cough up cash for school supplies and extra curricular activities to no end. 

As I said not trying to be the bad guy here but just letting everyone know there is a reason why schools don't have money to spend on your normal kid. One child costs as much as nearly ten regular students.


----------



## NextTimeAround

married tech said:


> Not to be the bad guy here but you have to consider that every public school system has one huge monster of a financial drain that no one ever talks about.
> 
> Special needs kids.


There's an interesting irony here....... my brother has some friends who have a severely handicapped child. Both of the parents are lawyers making $250K+ each.......

However, the wife decided to become a full time mom and quit her job and now spends part of her time lobbying the school district and the state so they will provide more of the services that her child needs.....

and here, the GOP tells us that those who make USD250K are job creators........ but this family is refusing to hire their own nannies, tutors, and physical therapist...... they want the state to provide them .......


----------



## john117

I would, too.

I pay lots of taxes and would expect that when I need them they'll step up to the plate for me.


----------



## married tech

So what are the parents of the other 9 kids who are losing out on educational opportunities supposed to think and say? 

How is it fair that the 90% of the kids who will grow up to become productive contributing tax paying assets to society should give up half of the education potential so that the other 10% who will likely go no where and be anything can have the best care possible at their expense? 

I am not against helping the less fortunate but I am against dumping half of the total resources into <10% of the population at a noticeable expense and burden to the other >90% with a near zero chance of them ever contributing a measurable fraction of it back. 

Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few is what I am saying.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Married tech, my SIL worked many years as a special ed grade school teacher. Even in the very rich county (I remember at least one time the 15th richest in the nation) she said the school district was trying to save money by "mainstreaming" students. She was a third grade teacher.

She said that at the beginning of the year an Administrator would come to class to explain to the class that certain of their classmates were special needs and to not be jealous / put off / whatever by the fact that the teacher gives them an easier time.

She once had an ADHD student who attacked his classmates with a fork at lunchtime. She had a lot of trouble trying to get rid of him. She also learned that that parents didn't like giving him Ritalin EXCEPT when they had to be around the entire day as well. ie The mother admitted that on a road trip, he was attacking his siblings so they decided using Ritalin that day was a good idea. 

The school was also very PC. For example, if she had even one Jehovah witness in the class, she could not celebrate any holidays or anyone's birthday.


----------



## married tech

My mother was a special needs worker as well and my dad does schools financial budgets so yea believe me I have heard everything in detail about how who gets treated and at what ultimate expense it is to the majority. 

Both were of very strong opinions that if how much money, work and resources went into the minority of the students at the expense of the majority getting people pay school taxes would be impossible or at least how schools are required to spend their money and how much on who would be substantially changed. 

It might not seem fair to the special needs kids and their parents but it would be putting the needs of the many over the needs of the few by simply bringing the per student expenditures down to a level and more equal playing field. 

It's not that the special needs kids would get left behind as so much as they would be taken out of public school and placed in dedicated schooling systems where 100% of their budget faculty and facilities are set up to work properly with those kids.


----------



## john117

And the dedicated special needs schooling system will be funded how?

Public schools are not fee for service, rather they're a pooled resource.


----------



## NextTimeAround

And what aabout charter schools?

they are funded taxpayer's money; owned by hedge and equity funds? Run by career CEOs, not school principals and from what I read refuse to retain behavioral problems. Those students get sent sent back to the state and then taxpayers will have to cough up more money to do something with them.


----------



## unbelievable

"How is it fair that the 90% of the kids who will grow up to become productive contributing tax paying assets to society should give up half of the education potential so that the other 10% who will likely go no where and be anything can have the best care possible at their expense?"

You wish your kids would only have to carry 10% of unproductive people. Right now, we have a labor force participation rate of about 63%. Only about 49% of wage earners pay any federal income taxes.


----------



## john117

Most charter schools are a thinly disguised attempt to dismantle public education...


----------



## Happyfamily

We're thinking homeschooling.


----------



## john117

unbelievable said:


> You wish your kids would only have to carry 10% of unproductive people. Right now, we have a labor force participation rate of about 63%. Only about 49% of wage earners pay any federal income taxes.



They pay lots of other taxes, not that it matters to sloganeers. The labor participation rate was also below 60% before St. Reagan singlehandedly invented DINK's and yuppies.


----------



## Happyfamily

We pay the property tax. That's for the schools. It's a democracy, and even if you don't agree with everything the system does, democracy is what we want. We want everyone's kids to be educated, and so the schools are there but the parents have to be involved and aware of what their kids are doing. It's sort of like giving people a free gym. It's there for them to take advantage of, but the only way you get in shape is to motivate yourself and use the equipment. 

Our oldest is roughly in second grade and bilingual but his age group won't be in kindergarten for two more years. Hard to say where he will be a couple years from now. But we can't put him in with kids that are going to be so far behind him. The socialization is bad at the public schools here too. 

We do reading, math, music, and PE for the older one as separate subjects. Science is kind of woven in throughout the day. So many science questions come up that they just ask about. 

I'm a little mixed up with my thinking because on the one hand it is surprising how little time it takes in direct instruction to teach them. An hour a day at most with the older one, less for the younger. So it makes me wonder what they are doing with their time in the public schools. 

But on the other hand since I am with them all day I am teaching them 24/7 whether I mean to or not. So how do we compare public education with homeschooling? I don't understand how to do a comparison that makes sense. There are advantages and disadvantages, like namely giving up money to stay home.


----------



## DTO

nikoled said:


> Me too. I resent the amount of time my child spends on school. She is there for 7 hours and then has 3-6 hours of homework a night. Really? we need 10-13 hours of school/schoolwork a day?? That is crazy to me. She is burned out. I am burned out. She is a straight A student in honors classes. No learning disabilities. Every teacher feels the need to assign homework every night- even the elective classes. Often it is "busy work" coloring, etc (And this is high school). I want to be supportive and encourage education, but am having a hard time this year.


The straight-A student in honors/AP classes is exactly why that is happening. Before the first day of school, my family was flat-out told I would be expected to spend substantially more time doing homework.

I am doubtful about the benefit as well. Mainly, it ignores the fact that the smarter kids can do more / more advanced work in the same time. It seems like a way to show how rigorous a program is without demonstrating much benefit. On the other hand, those classes usually carry some extra prestige when applying for college, and recognition usually requires superior accomplishment at some level.

So, the demands aren't going to change. She will work just as hard in college. My advice would be to understand why she is taking such a heavy course load. If she doesn't like it, and you don't perceive a benefit (such as getting into a better college or earning AP credits) peraps you can consider taking less demanding courses (enough to keep her challenged, but not so much as to be overly burdensome).

In my H.S. days there were five levels of classes in many disciplines - from basic, through "standard", up to honors AP. There is plenty of choice to hit that sweet spot for a given student.


----------



## DTO

married tech said:


> My mother was a special needs worker as well and my dad does schools financial budgets so yea believe me I have heard everything in detail about how who gets treated and at what ultimate expense it is to the majority.
> 
> Both were of very strong opinions that if how much money, work and resources went into the minority of the students at the expense of the majority getting people pay school taxes would be impossible or at least how schools are required to spend their money and how much on who would be substantially changed.
> 
> It might not seem fair to the special needs kids and their parents but it would be putting the needs of the many over the needs of the few by simply bringing the per student expenditures down to a level and more equal playing field.
> 
> It's not that the special needs kids would get left behind as so much as they would be taken out of public school and placed in dedicated schooling systems where 100% of their budget faculty and facilities are set up to work properly with those kids.


Hmmm - I thought it had long been established that "separate but equal" wasn't equal at all.


----------



## DTO

married tech said:


> Not to be the bad guy here but you have to consider that every public school system has one huge monster of a financial drain that no one ever talks about.
> 
> Special needs kids. If a kid needs an adult assistant or worse to be able to make it through the days due to ADD, ADHD, Aspergers, Autism, Mental Retardation, Emotional Disorders or what ever consider that that one kid alone is draining about $90,000 on average from the school system.
> 
> BTW on average most school systems have a budget of around $9000 - $10,000 per student which means that if you have 20 kids in a classroom and two are special needs they are placing as much on the school s financial budget as the other 18 kids combined are.
> 
> Thats why your teachers don't get paid as well, trained as well, and you have to cough up cash for school supplies and extra curricular activities to no end.
> 
> As I said not trying to be the bad guy here but just letting everyone know there is a reason why schools don't have money to spend on your normal kid. One child costs as much as nearly ten regular students.


That $90k figure seems like a bunch of bull. Those assistants (if you can find them) make around $12 per hour last I heard, and work just the school day. So, even if you round up to $100 per day, that is $18k per year (not including the pooled costs of course) - not inconsiderable but not nearly what you quoted.

The point is that we live in a society, and (I believe, anyways) we have a responsibility to our more vulnerable members to provide a good quality of life, not just provide the minimum because they won't pay it back as productive adults.

The idea of having separate facilities for special needs kids is a crock, because their needs are very disparate. A deaf kid might need a sign language interpreter. A developmentally disabled child might need special instruction appropriate to his cognitive ability. A child (like mine) with cancer will need someone to make sure that he doesn't get jostled or sneezed-on at school. How is dealing with them separately going to reduce cost?

Your tune probably would change pretty drastically if you found one of your kids (or another one close to you) needing that special attention.


----------



## DTO

papa5280 said:


> So, who learned more, the kids who got the simplified assignment or your daughter? Isn't learning the objective?


This.

Another poing is the sense of accomplishment that your child gets from turning in a quality project with which he or she is pleased and proud.

Example. My child's teacher assigned the usual (for here) diorama project for state history. But, instead of making it a Spanish mission (I live in CA) it was any landmark.

She did a kick-a$$ project that she really liked (and I still have it). She learned how to bear down and do something with a tangible output. I helped her organize her thoughts and get a reasonable scope, took her shopping, and helped with cutting stuff and other dangerous tasks, while she did the hard stuff.

Given all that, sometimes I just don't get why spending a few bucks a couple of times per year seems so burdensome.


----------



## Happyfamily

Well that kind of busy work is what a lot of my own family objects to about public schools. This is a diorama free zone. 

The SAT has critical reading, mathematics, and writing. ACT has English, Math, Reading, and science. These projects are time and resource intensive without producing anywhere near the benefits that research and writing about the subject will provide. And you will never build another diorama again, but all through college and beyond you will research and write.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

I disagree. Dioramas (and other non "SAT/ACT" oriented projects) encourage creative thinking, problem solving, dexterity, time management/prioritization, observation, resourcefulness and a number of other skills. They may not test for those but life does. We are still "teaching to the test" which is only effective for a few.

I don't see it as busy work any more than I see a kid playing with rocks in a stream as a waste of time.

OP's daughter learned more than just about science. She learned a lot about human nature. She learned about injustice, effort/reward, self respect, leadership, personal standards/pride in workmanship, and peer review.

Learning is about building synapses. That requires all types of stimuli as well as the chance to process it all. Daydreaming, "what if" and other wandering thought exercises are wonderful for the brain's development.


----------



## john117

In 11th grade my daughter helped build a house. They designed it in 10th grade using autocad and built it in 11th. About 1200 sq ft, built indoors in a hangar. From c block foundation to roofing shingles including electrical and mech.

She was the one that always did the exorbitant $50 in materials dioramas from 1st grade on.... Eiffel Tower using pretzel sticks and hot glue in 2nd grade...

Some kids actually love the stuff.


----------



## TikiKeen

DTO, thank you. I was following along, ready to ask HSing questions, ready to reminisce about having 4-5 hours of nightly homework in honors classes in high school....and then the "less than but we 'have' to treat them as equal" bunk came along.

Here's the deal: human children must be educated. FAPE exists to keep kids who misbehave from being labeled as "special needs" and thrown between the cracks, just as much as it does to make sure SN kids are educated at their level. Frankly, I have a kid who is late grade school, but cognitively is 2, and I wonder why he's in school. Edited to add..."why he's in school when he's treated like an infant by lousy teachers." Why (added) is he there? Because using the brain prevents atrophy, he still socializes at his chronological age, and because he is as deserving of an education as any other kid. It's simple.

The "less than's are a drain argument is as useless to me as child-free people and retirees whining about having to pay property taxes. 

Now about that home-schooling, DTO...My H is convinced I'm not disciplined enough to HS our middle kid, who would benefit from it. (A lack of differentiation in instruction here in the States contributes, I'm sure. Other countries think we're strange for not teaching that way.) Would you be willing to talk about how you prepared to do it, planning etc.? I'm interested.


----------



## Happyfamily

john117 said:


> They designed it in 10th grade using autocad and built it in 11th.


That's just what I mean. Here's our four year old typing out something and then I will show him how to do " submit reply": 



hello my name is Donny. I am four years old. I can use paint, word, excel, google earth, email, and chess.

Middle c is the dividing line between bass and treble clef. bye.


----------



## Happyfamily

This was his spelling/science lesson today. It is our second day with the Periodic Table of Elements:



> The sun is burning hydrogen.
> But there is also a little bit of helium.
> The helium is burning too.
> Periodic table of elements.
> Hydrogen is number 1.
> Helium is number 2.
> Use google to find the periodic table.
> Hydrogen has atomic number 1.
> Helium has atomic number 2.
> Hydrogen symbol is H.
> Helium symbol is He.
> The periodic table starts with the lightest and ends with the heaviest elements.



I am so thrilled to be doing this! He just soaks everything up we put in front of him. My husband is teaching him to read sheet music on the piano. So we don't get it, really. We do not think he is exceptional. Smart, sure - but if we weren't teaching him he would be just like his four year old cohorts. 


We see that there is an enormous advantage in all of his teachers and administrators being one and the same. In school, he would have six teachers, another six administrators, a school board, etc. Each teacher has 30 students per class and multiple classes so the individual time they have for your child is nil. All these different people are not talking much to begin with, let alone talking about your child specifically. So how can it deliver to him maximally? 

The science teacher, math teacher, history, reading and arts teachers cannot co-ordinate the delivery like a single person can who knows where the student is at all points in these curricula. If you know exactly where he is then you can augment, expand, continue on, or whatever very efficiently. In the tub, the car, shopping, you know how to continue on with his studies in a fun way. Make it relevant to your daily lives. 

With public schools you have one or two hours of preparation and transportation time to and from school. Less if you live across the street from school, but right there is on the order of one more hour of sleep per day if you want. Homeschooling. I can empathize with the harried honors/advanced placement parents. If you have one less hour of sleep a day and are in this inefficient delivery system then it is extra hours of work at the same time you have one less hour of sleep.


----------



## SunnyT

Happy, you are doing home school as it should be done. There are many parents who SAY they are doing home school, but they aren't really doing anything. Remember that you can still utilize your public schools for extra-curricular opportunities as well as testing situations. Your kid sounds gifted.... it might be good to know. Then you could research how to teach gifted kids...how to challenge them. Although you are doing that anyway.

As a parent of 5 (in a row) school costs ticked me off. I learned (figured out) how to figure out what the bottom line was on a project, then did it the cheapest way possible. Including mandatory science experiments. 

As a teacher.... I assign projects. It's Social Studies.... lots of interesting topics and I really want them to retain some of it! Not just the bright kids....they GET it. It's the others...the C students. Dragging up their background knowledge so we can connect it to the current topic can be sooooooooooooooooooo frustrating. So if I assign them to build a model of the Alamo, it's because I want them to "Remember the Alamo". See, there is a purpose. I do make it very open, they can build it out of any material as long as they can carry it and it fits through the door (yes, you have to say that for the over-acheivers' parents' sake!). 

Home school would be my first choice, when it's feasible. Montessori school would be my second choice. And public school is more than adequate if the parents stay involved. 

And... what do teachers do all day in a class with 25 children? Well, there are usually a handful who are independent and can/will learn under any conditions. Then there are all those middle students, who will learn as long as the teacher is constantly leading and facillitating (fair enough).... and there are a large number of low students who require a huge amount of planning, attention, more planning, etc.... and then there are a surprizing number of children with behavior problems. I'm sure that half of those could be handled with "hands-on" parents. Most of them aren't. We have to know who is medicated, and when they are off their meds. Who has problems at home that we should be extra sensitive about, who has been diagnosed with the infamous ADHD and who is just a kid who needs a spanking...... and the list goes on. 

This is not a poor-me deal. Just like in a marriage.... you embrace it, try to change it, work within it, or sit around griping.... it takes all kinds. 

I love my job tho!


----------



## MyHappyPlace

We just pulled our (newly) 6 year old daughter out of public school and enrolled her in K-12. It's a "public school" but online based and home taught. They send us all of the material she will need, including a computer (though she already has her own), and pay for our internet service if we require assistance. I teach her said material at our own pace and submit samples of her work. She takes all of the state mandated testing online or at the local library, and they sponsor various field trips throughout the year. 

We chose to go this route for a number of reasons. 
One being that despite her being a straight "A" subject student, she could never be on the honor roll because she couldn't get above a "B" in P.E. She couldn't do that because as a Kindergartner, she weighs 28 lbs, is 3'3" and it is physically impossible for her to run a mile in under 15 minutes. Her itty bitty body just doesn't move that far, that fast! 

2. She's BORED! Other students are still learning letter sounds, she's reading chapter books. They are working on counting to 100, she's adding and subtracting multiple digit numbers. Home schooling gives her the chance to learn at her own pace and move on when she's ready, not leave her waiting for everyone else to catch up.

3. The school district really pi$$ed me off. We found that the administration and teachers think nothing of lying to gain information and then taking that information out of context and calling the police and CPS on families. I don't care to help fund people who think trickery and lying is okay.


----------



## john117

As kids get older and focus on this or that subject it's impossible for parents to DIY subjects or duplicate equipment needed...

My biology loving girl had labs rivaling those of smaller colleges... An endless list of AP and IB courses... Some really good teachers...

My art and design loving girl had most classes offered by PLTW, awesome labs, and patient teachers to help her learn how to build a house... 

We supplemented the public school with Kumon math , extra art classes, and so on. No complains now that they're in college...


----------



## NobodySpecial

MyHappyPlace said:


> We just pulled our (newly) 6 year old daughter out of public school and enrolled her in K-12. It's a "public school" but online based and home taught. They send us all of the material she will need, including a computer (though she already has her own), and pay for our internet service if we require assistance. I teach her said material at our own pace and submit samples of her work. She takes all of the state mandated testing online or at the local library, and they sponsor various field trips throughout the year.
> 
> We chose to go this route for a number of reasons.
> One being that despite her being a straight "A" subject student, she could never be on the honor roll because she couldn't get above a "B" in P.E. She couldn't do that because as a Kindergartner, she weighs 28 lbs, is 3'3" and it is physically impossible for her to run a mile in under 15 minutes. Her itty bitty body just doesn't move that far, that fast!
> 
> 2. She's BORED! Other students are still learning letter sounds, she's reading chapter books. They are working on counting to 100, she's adding and subtracting multiple digit numbers. Home schooling gives her the chance to learn at her own pace and move on when she's ready, not leave her waiting for everyone else to catch up.
> 
> 3. The school district really pi$$ed me off. We found that the administration and teachers think nothing of lying to gain information and then taking that information out of context and calling the police and CPS on families. I don't care to help fund people who think trickery and lying is okay.


I wish k12 was available for free in our state when we were homeschooling. To buy as an individual family is REALLY expensive!


----------



## EnjoliWoman

One thing I think we can all see is one size does not fit all in education. Nor all all public schools or teachers equal. Good or bad, I'm in a huge public school system and that means the kids are grouped by ability so my daughter isn't held back in one subject while waiting for other kids to "get it", yet in subjects that aren't her forte, she is with a class that might require more detailed explanation or multiple approaches. She isn't enough of a self-starter/curious learner to succeed in a Montessori environment like her cousins and she isn't dedicated enough to qualify for a magnet program. But I don't define success by her academics although they are a very important foundation. Highly successful people come from a wide variety of educational backgrounds so I also feel it's the dioramas, field trips, free time, interpersonal skills, group and individual activities that all give a young person ways to develop that make the most of their individual gifts. 

I wish our education system understood that and could change the system to accommodate all of them. But I know it's harder and more expensive in rural environments. Vocational training should be included in all school curriculum and Associate Degrees should be free to every student in every state should they want to attend, IMO.


----------



## married tech

> That $90k figure seems like a bunch of bull. Those assistants (if you can find them) make around $12 per hour last I heard, and work just the school day. So, even if you round up to $100 per day, that is $18k per year (not including the pooled costs of course) - not inconsiderable but not nearly what you quoted.


Actually there is a pile of more costs that go with each special needs student other than what happens just in their classroom.

Here is an article that is just one example of a school systems sharing its costs with the public. Depending on what level of help a kid needs they can cost a school district anywhere from around $20K per student to over $100K per student above and beyond the normal average depending on what level of extra assistance or accommodations need to be made. 

Goal for local schools: Keep special-needs students within districts - Sentinel & Enterprise

A costs report on why the system needs changing for everyones benefit. http://www.napsec.org/MAAPS Cost Study.pdf

If you don't believe me just stop by your local public school and ask them for a basic breakdown of what a typical special needs kid cost them a year and why and how. It's public info.

You probably won't like what you hear unless your kid is one of them and you have the general public footing the bill for you at their kids expense.


----------



## Happyfamily

SunnyT said:


> And... what do teachers do all day in a class with 25 children? Well, there are usually a handful who are independent and can/will learn under any conditions. Then there are all those middle students, who will learn as long as the teacher is constantly leading and facillitating (fair enough).... and there are a large number of low students who require a huge amount of planning, attention, more planning, etc.... and then there are a surprizing number of children with behavior problems. I'm sure that half of those could be handled with "hands-on" parents. Most of them aren't.


I have never had a class in teaching and now that I am thinking about it for the first time, this is what stands out to me. With one student, no problem. Two means I juggle between them and they are radically different students. Twenty five? The best teacher in the world can't change the impossibility programmed into such a thing. 1/25th the time per student individually. The math is invincible for just one class, one subject. But consider that the science teacher can't talk to the spelling and history teachers about where each of the 25 students is in each of six subjects.

I see it from an engineering perspective, that you have this thing you want to impart knowledge to, but you only have 1/25th the direct points of contact with. 

PE and sports... I don't know what to say about it. I just don't know. Obviously with music, by the time these guys are 8 or 9 they will surpass my husband's ability to teach them. What is so important about sports? I have reservations about it even though my husband is teaching them martial arts. OK, the self-defense thing is a good idea but beyond that I am not going to be a bleacher butt mom driving every week end and screaming at referees. Forgive me, I don't want to insult any self-sacrificing moms who do that for their kids. I just feel there is something wrong with it for us. Basketball, stupid. Football, stupid. Hockey, stupid. Cars driving around in circles. Only a man could think of such riveting and intellectually stimulating things to do with humanity. Ugh.


----------



## Happyfamily

MyHappyPlace said:


> 2. She's BORED! Other students are still learning letter sounds, she's reading chapter books. They are working on counting to 100, she's adding and subtracting multiple digit numbers. Home schooling gives her the chance to learn at her own pace and move on when she's ready, not leave her waiting for everyone else to catch up.
> 
> 3. The school district really pi$$ed me off. We found that the administration and teachers think nothing of lying to gain information and then taking that information out of context and calling the police and CPS on families. I don't care to help fund people who think trickery and lying is okay.


#2 is our main concern. We have two academic years before the first one hits kindergarten and he'll be reading above 5th grade level. We are happy to pay taxes to fund the public schools, but it can't work for us. 

#3 is something we never thought about but sure I can see that. We have been thinking more about the little gangsters, drugs, all the cliques and bad social interaction. Oh, Billy is so cool because he smokes in the bathroom and tells his teachers to fu** off. You lose control of who your kids model their behavior after.


----------



## coffee4me

EnjoliWoman said:


> But I don't define success by her academics although they are a very important foundation. Highly successful people come from a wide variety of educational backgrounds so I also feel it's the dioramas, field trips, free time, interpersonal skills, group and individual activities that all give a young person ways to develop that make the most of their individual gifts. .


I'm with you on this EW. I had to realize by Jr High that if I forced my son into some academic box I dictated - it would squash every personality trait he has that will drive his future success.


----------



## TikiKeen

married tech said:


> Actually there is a pile of more costs that go with each special needs student other than what happens just in their classroom.
> 
> Here is an article that is just one example of a school systems sharing its costs with the public. Depending on what level of help a kid needs they can cost a school district anywhere from around $20K per student to over $100K per student above and beyond the normal average depending on what level of extra assistance or accommodations need to be made.
> 
> Goal for local schools: Keep special-needs students within districts - Sentinel & Enterprise
> 
> A costs report on why the system needs changing for everyones benefit. http://www.napsec.org/MAAPS Cost Study.pdf
> 
> If you don't believe me just stop by your local public school and ask them for a basic breakdown of what a typical special needs kid cost them a year and why and how. It's public info.
> 
> You probably won't like what you hear unless your kid is one of them and you have the general public footing the bill for you at their kids expense.


It's plainly obvious that you have no problem providing "studies" and links from NAPSEC, which is a group of private centers who bank when they convince parents that the LED just can't possibly provide FAPE. Their job is to lobby to discourage FAPE, which means that only rich disabled kids get help, unless the taxpayer pays.

Here's an idea: Local districts do their job, reduce top-heavy admins who have no clue what really happens in their classrooms, and reduce costs that way. To hear people b**ching while athletics receive twice as much funding (on average, nationwide) is a joke.

You're right: my kids IS "one of them", and people like you have no business educating them. I'm grateful to not live in your state. Have you contemplated another career, because your resentment, I'm sure, is palpable to parents and advocates alike.

It's the schools' jobs to educate my kid. They are failing. It's not solely because of funding, but is a complex issue. Part of that issue is educators with preconceived notions. Don't like it? Get FAPE abolished and watch state schools fill back up, or get a job in a different line of work. The kids didn't choose to be disabled, their parents didn't choose it either. You, on the other hand, chose your profession.


----------



## john117

No need to dictate anything. Nudge and keep nudging. When I saw my 7 year old draw correct 3d perspectives of buildings it was a no brainer to decide to nurture her artistic and design side. I kept nudging her into that side of the spectrum, and helped her develop the monumental patience needed. 

My younger one was tougher as she is a well rounded scholar type and left to her own devices she would have done history or humanities then law. But law jobs disappeared and she decided - with ample nudging - to pursue med school and possibly focus on law related specialties like pathology or forensic psychiatry... 

She did anatomy in high school which included human wet work  at a nearby training facility... 

Use school as a venue for your kids to discover and decide... Then nudge to more practical areas as needed.


----------



## Happyfamily

EnjoliWoman said:


> We are still "teaching to the test" which is only effective for a few.


Whatever that means. I don't even care because we are in charge of two pupils, both of whom started piano and Tae Kwon Do at three. Those aren't on the SAT, nor is a lot of other stuff we do. 

Logically it does not follow that high SAT means low performance on non-SAT skills. Instead, teaching efficiency becomes critical when you want to achieve high success in all things but your time is limited. 

By elementary logic you have to eliminate teaching tactics that are time intensive and produce little gain in skills. It is not a question of whether a diorama has non-zero teaching potential. It is a question of whether dioramas are better than alternative uses of time. 

So in that respect I empathize with the guy who started this discussion. A lot of this busy work schools make kids do is really inefficient use of time. Plus they take up the parent's time and money dealing with it. 

.


----------



## married tech

> It's plainly obvious that you have no problem providing "studies" and links from NAPSEC, which is a group of private centers who bank when they convince parents that the LED just can't possibly provide FAPE. Their job is to lobby to discourage FAPE, which means that only rich disabled kids get help, unless the taxpayer pays.


I see. Apparently since I do not screen the sites and articles I link to first to see who or what they are associated with and whether they match my particular political agendas I am wrong. 



> You're right: my kids IS "one of them", and people like you have no business educating them. I'm grateful to not live in your state.


So I want my normal kid and 5 - 10 others who represent that majority of taxpayers and students to get a fair public education by not having to give up half of our the school taxes we pay to fund your "one of them" minority kids is a bad thing?:scratchhead:

I am not ashamed to admit that I find the logic of funding the educations of the majority of those who will go on to contribute positive gains to society for the duration of their adult lives over funding the few who will likely never leave home let alone contribute to the gains of society a bad thing. 

Right now as is we have a severe problem in our country due to grossly inadequate funding in public schools nationwide. As far as I am concerned if 1/2 the public educational systems money is getting burned up in an attempt to educate the lower 10% who are for the most part near uneducable I have no problem with the concept of cutting them loose. 

You didn't ask to have child who was born that way just as I did not ask let alone agree to that my child will get less than the best possible education because I have to fund yours for you. 



> Have you contemplated another career, because your resentment, I'm sure, is palpable to parents and advocates alike.


Okay and my present career is what and I have resentment towards whom exactly and why? Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, survival of the fittest, best person wins, those who can should do, play the hand life dealt you, etc etc... are now bad things?


----------



## john117

I'm not sure where the figure comes from. The link below has the numbers. There's basically around 80,000 students placed at public expense to private schools and the rest dealt with at regular school.

http://educationnext.org/debunking-a-special-education-myth/

There are costs associated with special needs children, granted. But not huge expenses in the overall budget. What is alarming is the rose in who is "special needs". Heck, if I was 40 years younger I could claim ADHD would make me one. Pass the Ritalin 

The federal and state budgets also provide some money. Overall it does cost money but we are all better for it. 

My younger girl did several years of speech therapy that was covered 95% by our insurance. She would have been eligible to do it at school but "graduated" and had no further need. But, if we did not have the insurance to cover it early on - she did from age 2.5 to 5 - and waited till she was in K or 1st it may have been too late. Now all that's left is a barely noticeable accent which gets worse with time as she speaks more French 

The school tested her and found she was fine and did not require any services. Other kids do use those services tho. It costs money but it's for the better good.


----------



## married tech

BOth of my parents spent most of their working lives in the public school systems and yes to be honest there are a good deal of special needs kids who do benefit from some degree of extra help and I am fine with that. 

I grew up with a girl (close high school friend in fact) who spent most of her school life on crutches or in a wheelchair due to a birth defect. No big deal but the school didn't lift a finger to help her out.

We also had two developmentally slow kids as well. No big deal with them either. Slow to learn but no real extra help was given them either. 

Then there was a handful of emotionally odd monkeys I can recall. Peer pressure and a few playground beatings straightened their emotional problems right out and once again no real help from the school either. 

Now by todays standards everyone of them would have had a full time assistant assigned to them. 
That is what my moms job was. She was a special needs kids assistant. Paid better than most think and as she put it every single person who did her job as well felt that about 90% of the special needs kids did not need anyone. What they needed was for them and their entitled parents to get a swift kick in the ass about once a week to keep their minds focused on reality. 

Some kids do need some help but when I went to school we never ever had anyone with an assistant assigned to them. 

The slow kids spent an extra year or two or three getting through school or dropped out when they turned 18. The handicapped didn't do PhyEd. 

The emotionally undeveloped got their asses handed to them by the students who had little tolerance or patience for their tantrums, antics and the like until they developed thick enough skin to handle daily life on their own.

BTW to this day I think my brother was one of those emotionally off kids. Unless someone beat his ass and hard nothing ever seemed to sink in about what was or was not acceptable social behavior. 

So do I think that some kids need some extra help in school? Well yes but sadly not the way and how it's being handled now. Too many are sacrificing too much for the wrong reasons and it clearly shows in our society and work ethics today.


----------



## john117

In the long term inclusion is good. I have a few friends that have special needs kids and believe me, these kids deserve it. They're fighters and an inspiration to all of us.


----------



## Happyfamily

married tech said:


> That is what my moms job was. She was a special needs kids assistant. Paid better than most think and as she put it every single person who did her job as well felt that about 90% of the special needs kids did not need anyone. What they needed was for them and their entitled parents to get a swift kick in the ass about once a week to keep their minds focused on reality.


These kinds of problems are enormous tasks to do anything about once a system is in place. I feel for parents who exhaust themselves at school board meetings, lobbying the administration, PTA, public advocacy or even starting their own Charter Schools to try controlling delivery to their kids. 

Realistically, there isn't anything we (hubby and me) can do to change anything about the system. We looked up the law and it says we can do whatever we want with our kids! No registration, no testing, _nothing_. Really? :scratchhead: Okay! :smthumbup:

I'm ecstatic! I can hardly believe it. How liberating it feels to chart our own course.


----------



## MyHappyPlace

Get into monetary figures as much as you want, so much of the spenditure is based on the individual districts themselves. My sister and I live 3.5 miles apart, our children attend different districts. The districts are roughly the same size/number of students, but regardless of any differences, they receive the same amount of funding per student. Though we pay higher property taxes that go to the school so I'm not sure if that goes directly to the school or is taken in and split evenly among districts. So best case, the schools still take in the same amount per capital, worst case, our district makes more.

In our district, we pay for meals, field trips, sports, extra academic classes (summer school, art classes) etc. We have roughly 25-30 students per class. The school is constantly asking for "donations" of money, supplies, and time. I myself was teaching language arts there for 8 hours a week as a volunteer.

Now keep in mind, these districts receive the same amount of funding per student...

Her district all meals are free to all students. They even send everyone home with a "goodie bag" every Friday that contains snacks and drinks for kids on the weekends. All of their field trips are free. Last year my niece went to Disneyland (we are in Southern Arizona) for 3 days and all we "paid" was to give her money to buy souvenirs. This year she spent 4 days in the Catalina Islands, again, with nothing expected out of pocket. All of their sports programs are free to the students, the only requirement is that they keep their grades at a minimum "C". Summer school is free of charge and they run a daycamp for younger siblings to keep them busy during the off months. Their classes have roughly 20 or fewer students because they employ more teachers.

On a side note, their principal literally rides a bicycle to school daily, rain or shine, and mans the crosswalk in front so he can say hello to all of the students and families. Our principal is rarely seen and drives a Lexus SUV to work everyday...


----------



## DTO

married tech said:


> Actually there is a pile of more costs that go with each special needs student other than what happens just in their classroom.
> 
> Here is an article that is just one example of a school systems sharing its costs with the public. Depending on what level of help a kid needs they can cost a school district anywhere from around $20K per student to over $100K per student above and beyond the normal average depending on what level of extra assistance or accommodations need to be made.
> 
> Goal for local schools: Keep special-needs students within districts - Sentinel & Enterprise
> A costs report on why the system needs changing for everyones benefit. http://www.napsec.org/MAAPS Cost Study.pdf
> 
> If you don't believe me just stop by your local public school and ask them for a basic breakdown of what a typical special needs kid cost them a year and why and how. It's public info.
> 
> You probably won't like what you hear unless your kid is one of them and you have the general public footing the bill for you at their kids expense.


Well, from $20k to $100k+ is hugely different than the blanket $90k figure you quoted before. 

Then, I don't think the dollar amount spent per special needs child is really the point. As expensive at the sums above sound, it seems unlikely that operating a separate school for those kids would be any cheaper. You might have less one-on-one educational assistance, but you'll still have the costs of administering those special needs programs, and now you have to amortize the cost of building / operating a separate facility.

Besides, the main point is that school is more than just learning academically. It's about forming relationships and learning those necessary soft skills as well. Kids that can be happy in that environment deserve a chance to be there - period.

One last thing. I have always believed this. The number of kids needing such care is relatively small and the cost of providing an appropriate education is not likely to bankrupt anyone. Having my son develop cancer only solidified my stance. Now that he's gone, I still feel this way.


----------



## DTO

TikiKeen said:


> DTO, thank you. I was following along, ready to ask HSing questions, ready to reminisce about having 4-5 hours of nightly homework in honors classes in high school....and then the "less than but we 'have' to treat them as equal" bunk came along.
> 
> Here's the deal: human children must be educated. FAPE exists to keep kids who misbehave from being labeled as "special needs" and thrown between the cracks, just as much as it does to make sure SN kids are educated at their level. Frankly, I have a kid who is late grade school, but cognitively is 2, and I wonder why he's in school. Edited to add..."why he's in school when he's treated like an infant by lousy teachers." Why (added) is he there? Because using the brain prevents atrophy, he still socializes at his chronological age, and because he is as deserving of an education as any other kid. It's simple.
> 
> The "less than's are a drain argument is as useless to me as child-free people and retirees whining about having to pay property taxes.
> 
> Now about that home-schooling, DTO...My H is convinced I'm not disciplined enough to HS our middle kid, who would benefit from it. (A lack of differentiation in instruction here in the States contributes, I'm sure. Other countries think we're strange for not teaching that way.) Would you be willing to talk about how you prepared to do it, planning etc.? I'm interested.


Hi there,

We never home schooled my son in the strict sense of the word. When my son was diagnosed with leukemia, school was in session and his school teacher agreed to be his home instructor. He was extremely intelligent and did not need much one-on-one time to keep up with his class.

We kept him in school as much as possible, but finding an assistant for him was next to impossible (the pay is very low, esp. considering that federal law mandates a two-year degree). So we wound up having him on home instruction for most of the three years he battled cancer.

My personal feeling is that home-schooling kids throughout elementary school is doable for most parents. In middle school and high school, teachers specialize. Your child's math class is taught by someone with a math degree behind the teaching credential, for instance.

I think there is a reason for that. Could I teach math, science, literature, history, and foreign language as well as people holding degrees in those subjects? That would be tough, and I don't think most could provide the same quality of instruction. I could not offer the variety, and having a home-schooled student doesn't provide for the same level of social interaction.


----------



## MyHappyPlace

Also, consider all the "special needs" kids that aren't getting the specialized services they need. I have two children who are considered "special needs", actually 3, but only two are really applicable here. One has autism and really does NEED an assistant at school. But he doesn't receive one. Year after year, he has been placed in classrooms with the mainstream children with severe behavioral referrals because he is not getting the individual attention he needs. He has an IEP in place so the school IS getting the additional funding for having him in attendance, but it is not going to him at all! They keep refusing him an assitant because he manages to maintain good grades and his IEP only stipulates that he won't be kicked out of the school despite his behavioral issues. Talk about self-serving on the schools part! Sure they want him there, he gets them more money and all they have to do is put him in the library a few times a week to complete his work by himself. So he's losing instruction but is no longer a disruption to the other students. Yay for them! 

My other son has an IEP in place because he's been diagnosed with the whole freaking alphabet. PTSD, ADD, ODD, MD-NOS... Again, the school receives extra funding for him but absolutely nothing extra is spent on his educational needs within the school. His IEP allows him to wear his headphones in the classroom to help him focus and tune out other students. 

My third son has extreme ADHD but doesn't have an IEP in place. I gave up. He just struggles through and we pay for outside tutoring twice a week.

If I alone have two kids that are providing extra financial gain to the school without ever seeing any benefit, it makes me question how many other students are doing the same. In which case, since we still pay for all extra curriculars and then some (like their mandatory school monogramed gym clothes, or the mandatory school bought planner that I've never seen any student use!), where exactly is all that extra cash flow going??


----------



## EnjoliWoman

My best friend is a teacher who has worked in high needs urban schools, special ed classes as well as a "normal" class setting. She agrees some parents just want their kids defined as "disabled' to excuse bad behavior. Then there are parents who don't want their kids labeled and refuse testing which could result in IEPs that help the kids exponentially! 

When inclusion with differentiation is applied appropriately, high-needs children meld with mainstream kids without taking them away from their learning. But it takes a lot more work and initiative on the educators to come up with a lesson plan that has to be applied in 3 or more different ways.

I would rather put my tax dollars into correctly identifying kids who need help for a variety of reasons and help them success even at a lower level than their peers than support them as the deadbeats they may become without it. I think there is a lot more fraud in welfare, food stamps, social security and worker's comp that costs taxpayers than what we spend on special needs' kids.

On the other hand, let's not diminish the success of kids who earn it. I'm sorry if an otherwise healthy kid can't finish the mile in 15 minutes. Letting her be on the honor role when she didn't earn it is demotivating to the kids who excelled in ALL areas. Maybe the school could have an "academic" honor role that only included core classes, but there's no reason she can't just learn that she isn't going to excel in everything and be appreciated for the strengths she DOES have. Maybe she'll win the science fair.


----------



## john117

Some kids actually use IEP or other alphabet soup codes to help with testing, SAT, etcetera. Not because of actual health issues.


----------



## Happyfamily

DTO said:


> Your child's math class is taught by someone with a math degree behind the teaching credential, for instance.


Not in our district! The wrestling coach is the math teacher. The football coach is the history teacher. Neither has a degree in their subjects and they have booster clubs that raise money for equipment & travel. One email from the booster club president and a phone tsunami hits the district office. But there is no math booster club. The sports clubs are in the paper every day of the week: "Eighteen year old puts ball through hoop again". We know where the priorities are in this school district and it isn't math or science. It isn't any mystery why the USA is 28th in science or thereabouts. 

We agree that the kids are going to need a specialist in various things as they progress. But if you have a college degree yourself then you can handle just about any subject through high school. I had more math in engineering than the math teacher, and I do not have a degree in math.


----------



## MyHappyPlace

EnjoliWoman said:


> On the other hand, let's not diminish the success of kids who earn it. I'm sorry if an otherwise healthy kid can't finish the mile in 15 minutes. Letting her be on the honor role when she didn't earn it is demotivating to the kids who excelled in ALL areas. Maybe the school could have an "academic" honor role that only included core classes, but there's no reason she can't just learn that she isn't going to excel in everything and be appreciated for the strengths she DOES have. Maybe she'll win the science fair.


What part of a 6 year old that weighs less than 30 lbs and is at least 5 inches shorter than her peers sounds like an "otherwise healthy kid"? She has a specialized health plan within the district because her body is not at the same level as her peers, yet she is expected to meet the same standards. She literally wears a size 3T... would you really expect a 3 year old's body to meet the same physical standards as a 5 or 6 year old?

The point was, she attended school for adacdemics, not to run a mile. She excels in her studies, is far beyond any of her classmates yet gets to sit out and watch "standard" students get special lunches and parties because they can run faster than her body is physically capable. I'm not complaining that it's "unfair". I don't think everybody should get a trophy just for playing. I just think that there are circumstances in which extenuating factors need to be considered. 

They make those accomodations for the "behavior" kids. The normal classroom works on a point system in which kids are awarded points throughout the day for various good behaviors. At the end of the day, the child with the most points gets to pick a prize out of the box. However, there are at least a dozen students within the Kindergarten alone that have a special system in which they get a "smile" for every 20 minutes they don't cause a disruption. As long as they get 3 smiles a day, they automatically receive a prize. So the "good" students behave for 6 hrs 25 minutes and MIGHT get a reward, the pains in the a$$es behave for an hour and YIPPEE, they win.


----------



## john117

Knowing the subject and teaching it are quite different... I was a TA in grad school for all the good it did to my students.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

Happyfamily said:


> Whatever that means. I don't even care because we are in charge of two pupils, both of whom started piano and Tae Kwon Do at three. Those aren't on the SAT, nor is a lot of other stuff we do.
> 
> Logically it does not follow that high SAT means low performance on non-SAT skills. Instead, teaching efficiency becomes critical when you want to achieve high success in all things but your time is limited.
> 
> By elementary logic you have to eliminate teaching tactics that are time intensive and produce little gain in skills. It is not a question of whether a diorama has non-zero teaching potential. It is a question of whether dioramas are better than alternative uses of time.
> 
> So in that respect I empathize with the guy who started this discussion. A lot of this busy work schools make kids do is really inefficient use of time. Plus they take up the parent's time and money dealing with it.
> 
> .


Obviously you DO know what I mean by teaching to the test. 

But sometimes those very specific, small skills (vs. the big 3 Rs plus science) are the ones that separate all of the kids who are relatively equal on the big subjects. 

Two kids become surgeons but one has better manual dexterity. Two kids become architects but one has a better grasp on visual cohesiveness. Interpersonal skills, the ability to work in a group, the ability to have vision of the final product... it's the varying degrees of the secondary skills that really set people apart. 

I can think of a lot of my classmates and where they ended up that had very little to do with how they scored on the SAT because a lot of them didn't even take it yet there are a light of highly successful individuals both personally and professionally.


----------



## Happyfamily

EnjoliWoman said:


> Obviously you DO know what I mean by teaching to the test.


No, because I have thought about this carefully. To be literally true the teacher would need a math test in hand before the day of the test in order to show the students what the problems are. You would have to break into the SAT building or hack their computers for this to happen. So as a practical matter, this cannot be true with the exception of some serious crimes. 

That would be literally "teaching to the test". If you are teaching math because math is on the test, then we get into a non-literal and politically loaded phrase where a good thing (teaching math) is turned into a bad thing (teaching to the test).

We see the bad school districts saying the test is bad. It is biased against crack-head illiterates. These schools are teaching critical life skills like how to shoot the cops before the cops shoot them. And here you have these teachers who merely teach to the test by doing math in class, getting higher student test scores. A Harvard kid can't even tell you which end of a crack pipe to smoke out of. 

So I am being very careful with this loaded term to say "whatever that means". We have a four year old studying the periodic table of elements. Today he is three deep and learning what a proton is. I have a strong suspicion the periodic table will be on his SAT test in 13 years, but I am not showing it to him because of that. We have several goals that are mutually coincident. Learning science well and scoring high on the SAT in science are effectively the same thing for us.




> But sometimes those very specific, small skills (vs. the big 3 Rs plus science) are the ones that separate all of the kids who are relatively equal on the big subjects.
> 
> Two kids become surgeons but one has better manual dexterity. Two kids become architects but one has a better grasp on visual cohesiveness. Interpersonal skills, the ability to work in a group, the ability to have vision of the final product... it's the varying degrees of the secondary skills that really set people apart.
> 
> I can think of a lot of my classmates and where they ended up that had very little to do with how they scored on the SAT because a lot of them didn't even take it yet there are a light of highly successful individuals both personally and professionally.


I cannot follow this logic. You seem to have three points of attack against a goal of scoring well on the SAT. The first is the logical nonsequitor that doing well on the SAT means you are doing that awful thing of "teaching to the test". The second attack is that the SAT is stupid and scoring well doesn't matter in life. The third is that scoring high on the SAT means scoring low on non-SAT skills. 

I refer you to an article based on national data:

How Much Is A High SAT Worth? Up To $100K In Future Earnings - Forbes

The lesson there is that just jumping up one tier in college rank is worth roughly $100K on average. I can already hear you saying "money isn't everything" so I can pre-empt that with the obvious concession we agree to disagree. You have bad things to say about doing well on the SAT.

You've implicitly asserted that the only thing the SAT is good for is demonstrating failure at non-SAT skills, bad parents and bad teachers. When someone goes this far, you have to ask what it is they are so uber-defensive about.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

I was using the phrase in the common sense term, not literally. But teachers DO get a copy of the specific types of math problems, etc. that are going to be on the test and often they have to skip other things to make sure that the test subject matter is covered. 

In that instance, helping a child learn WHY they use a problem solving method is skipped in favor of merely memorizing a formula. So one child understands WHY that formula works; the other child merely applies the formula they have memorized. The first child has learned some critical thinking skills while the other child has not. They both pass the test but who has a better understanding? A test alone cannot determine that.

I am not saying (or implying) an SAT score is unimportant, or that it's only good for demonstrating non-SAT skills; it doesn't reflect non-SAT skills at ALL. I'm saying that there are many roads to success, both financial success and academic success and our school system is too focused on the collegiate route being the only one. 

I merely think there is a large group of students who have talents that are overlooked because their scores on a test are mediocre. My cousin barely passed highschool, was dyslexic, became a master plumber and earns 6 figures net. And I know many more examples of successful people who were not successful academically. Therefore I am pointing out there are many other skills that CAN BE (not are... can be) important to the future success of students in the workplace so we can't just say dioramas/projects of a non-SAT focused nature are unimportant. To some students they may be - but isn't part of school learning what they enjoy and excel in? I see these as opportunities for self-discovery for many students.

I think the high SAT achieving group is well served. I think there are other groups who slip through the cracks and aren't the best they can be. I think that's a shame.

We need hamburger flippers and housekeepers as much as doctors; probably more. And very often effort = reward; the top 5% do what the other 95% aren't willing or able to do. But there is a large group of young people who are being ignored because they don't fit a certain mold. I don't think it's the only measure of intelligence, ability, or future success. 

I will encourage my daughter to take it and I will encourage her to go to college. I am not minimizing it as a tool to gauge basic skills such as reading comprehension, vocabulary, mathematics, etc. I'm just saying there are kids who score so-so on that test but have abilities that are outliers to the test which shouldn't be ignored by admission committees.


----------



## TikiKeen

I know that in the three districts my kids are in, there is a world of difference in how they interpret "preparing for the testing" (Math is tomorrow for two of the kids, by the way.)

Two districts teach precisely only the skills the test is purported to cover, with no associated skills or information. For instance, if the English exam covers grammar, they teach only the grammar required. if diagramming sentences isn't required, it's not taught, even though its use is hugely beneficial two years from now when half the exams are limited-word-count essays. They won't know that brief diagramming can help them pare down a word count by being more concise.

That is "teaching the test" down here.

District #3 is amazing, and challenges my other child so much he's having to choose between AP and IB, or jumping in and going for both as he progresses through high school. (In addition to ROTC and orchestra, which are rapidly draining my bank account.)

HappyPlace, have you checked out the Wrightslaw web site regarding IEP's? If it's not adhered to, and if the goals (ALL the goals) aren't measurable, you have a lot of legal recourse.

Oddly, I took one of the kids to an AHD/anxiety checkup today (the kid who moved more in the womb than any human rightfully should, lol) and he's been prescribed AP classes, in addition to tweaking his meds a bit. Boredom for a 2E (twice-exceptional) kid is damaging.


----------



## Anonymous07

Has anyone seen/heard of Race to Nowhere?

I thought it was great and liked how it pointed out a lot of issues. i worked in the public school system for a wile, so I've seen a lot of problems first hand. 




john117 said:


> Knowing the subject and teaching it are quite different... I was a TA in grad school for all the good it did to my students.


:iagree: This is very true. A person can know a subject, but sometimes they can't always explain it well enough to teach it to others. I had a math professor who was a genius, but he sucked at teaching and I struggled a lot in that class. I, myself, enjoy teaching, but wouldn't choose to go into that profession(no jobs right now/get laid off each year).


----------



## Happyfamily

EnjoliWoman said:


> I was using the phrase in the common sense term, not literally. But teachers DO get a copy of the specific types of math problems, etc. that are going to be on the test and often they have to skip other things to make sure that the test subject matter is covered.


:scratchhead: You aren't making any sense. Yes of course copies of SAT tests are freely available, not to teachers but to anyone. The internet and book stores sell practice tests, study guides... "teaching to the test" is practice with addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, algebra etc. The SAT is specifically designed to defeat "teaching to the test" if what we mean by that is academic cheating. 

I challenge you to explain to me what other things besides addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and algebra are being "skipped" by evil teachers and parents "teaching to the test" for SAT math. 

Yes, you have heard the PC term "teaching to the test" and you have been indoctrinated to think so long as we can hurl that term at learning math, that learning math is a bad thing. 

I think you mean "common usage" of the term "teaching to the test", which is very different from _common sense_. Common sense tells us scoring high on the SAT's is a very good thing. I see this term used most commonly by people who just resent the fact you have to be skilled in math to score well on SAT math. 

If you actually knew math well enough then bring it on, don't wave your hands at it with vague statements. Look at the SAT math problems. You have a paragraph telling a story like two trains traveling at different speeds, starting at different times, and when are they going to collide if a switch isn't thrown. 

"Teaching to the test" is only possible by teaching how to translate real-world problems into formulas. My God, what further proof do you need for mastery of the skill? 

I can see that you cannot bring yourself to actually say something _positive_ about scoring high on the SAT math or whatever. And you told us why. Because someone important to you didn't even take the SAT. 

I'm a big advocate of trade schools as a matter of fact, but we aren't talking about trade schools here. You have a very different approach in that case, which is small engine mechanics, drafting and shop/carpentry starting in middle school. Electronics, blah blah.


----------



## Pepper123

My mom, brother, and SIL are all teachers... and I actually resent this posting as a result. For every hour you spend, multiply it by the number of students in the class.


----------



## john117

Public schools don't fail because they don't challenge the super smart kids - pfeh, my younger girl took the gifted test in elementary and didn't meet the cutoff by 1 point, she scored 125 and gifted was > 125 lolz. None of the gifted kids in her elementary panned out in middle or high school or college. 

Apparently learning to read on your own at 4 and reading Harry Potter at 7 was not gifted enough... 

The schools fail by not accommodating different learning styles. Some kids learn by doing, some by reading, talking about it, and so on.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

*sigh*

I took the SAT. So someone close to me DID. And I went to college.

My best friend is a teacher and we have lengthy conversations about what is right and wrong with our educational system.

No, by common sense I meant where you used the word "literal". I did not mean "teaching to the test" LITERALLY. As in, get a sample test and only teach that stuff. (Although that does happen.) 

I do work and therefore can't give lengthy examples of every scenario where a class was taught "to the test" but I did give a good math example of teaching memorization instead of thinking. 

Even the reading comprehension is taught not to absorb to UNDERSTAND, but rather how to pick out key phrases. On the test you can flip back to re-read the paragraph as many times as you need to. IMO that's the same as an open-book test. That isn't true reading comprehension - not for the purpose of understanding. 

If a kid does well on the SAT they have a solid understanding of basic subject matter. Noone disputes that. I know very many people who got good grades, did well on the SATs and have solid careers in a variety of typical middle-to-upper class jobs. I am one of them - I was always in the college-track classes. No one needs to argue that the SATs can pinpoint good students who understand the basics. I haven't argued that point because it's moot. That's like arguing water is wet.

I am trying to point out that there are kids who do NOT fit into our government's round hole and these square pegs are left out. For these kids those extra projects are likely not a waste of time (which was the original topic which I keep referencing). 

If we only focus on efficiency, which you prize, and pointed out those projects were inefficient for typically smart kids, then what we end up with is a very smart line of robots and a distinct have- vs. have-not society. Middle class is already in severe decline - we don't need the gap to widen. Your kids and likely my kid will do fine and be a round peg. But I'm thinking bigger than MY child. Because these kids in her generation will be running this country and making decisions that impact MY generation when we are senior citizens. So the OP, you, John117, me... our kids will succeed in the current environment.

But as a* citizen*, I am concerned about ALL STUDENTS and building a middle class back of farmers, plumbers and all sorts of blue-collar and semi-educated white-collar workers. And the SAT can't judge innate intelligence. It isn't an IQ test.

I get your point and I'm not arguing that good SAT scores don't indicate good students who typically do well in college. I KNOW statistics will show a good SAT score = admission to better colleges = better grades in college = better jobs and earning potential. But apparently I am not successfully communicating my point that standardized tests don't measure intelligence or aptitude and that standardized tests have resulted in teachers focusing on limited subject matter, memorization and other techniques to pass the test to save their jobs. The essay portion is probably the best indicator because, aside from teaching thought organization, there isn't much of a way to 'teach to the test' on that portion. 

My opinion is based on PSAT and SATs I took 30 years ago. But my knowledge of standardized testing and the current SATs comes directly from people in the education system. It's been fun reading different viewpoints and hearing about others' experiences (although some are unfortunately negative).


----------



## pb76no

If you don't like the cost & time spent now, just wait till they get to college!!!


----------



## Happyfamily

EnjoliWoman said:


> *sigh*
> 
> I took the SAT. So someone close to me DID. And I went to college.


Who said _nobody_ close to you took the SAT? You invent arguments that don't exist. 



> I do work and therefore can't give lengthy examples of every scenario where a class was taught "to the test" but I did give a good math example of teaching memorization instead of thinking.


You can't give ANY examples for the SAT because it is specifically designed to defeat teaching to the test. It isn't because you are working. 

I have ONLY talked about the SAT and ACT. You are talking about other tests, which you are not naming. We aren't communicating well. You'd find we agreed on a lot. 

But you cannot "teach to the test" with the SAT, in the sense you are claiming. 




> I am trying to point out that there are kids who do NOT fit into our government's round hole


That would be ours. Why would a home school parent need to be told this? I have been vocal all over the place here about how our kids don't fit into the public school model. 

SAT and ACT are not products of the government though. Everyone is free to take them whether home school, private school, or public school. They are accepted worldwide in fact, to the purpose we are using them: college admission standard. 

It's tedious dealing with straw man arguments, so we'll have to just part on this discussion. I see you have some beef with standardized tests, which is misguided insofar as discussion of the ACT or SAT is concerned. 

It is misguided, period. There are standardized plumber's assessment tests, plumber's certification tests, tests for different specialties - all standardized. Took me about 30 seconds to see that with google. 

Nice really, though to be discussing things with people.


----------



## john117

You can't "teach" the material for the SAT / ACT because it's generally simple stuff (*) that if you don't generally know you should not be going to college 

You can, however, teach test taking strategies on spotting wrong answers and the like.

(*) if you're not a native speaker there are plenty of ways to ace the essay of you can memorize many standard canned 5-paragraph essay styles. I found this American dude teaching it in Korea and was duly impressed by the technique.


----------



## Happyfamily

john117 said:


> You can't "teach" the material for the SAT / ACT because it's generally simple stuff (*) that if you don't generally know you should not be going to college


In a loose sense, sure You bomb the SAT and you are not college material. More precisely, the SAT is designed to produce a scale up to 800, the highest possible individual subject score. 

You need competence in algebra, geometry, trigonometry, elementary statistics, algebraic functions, and realistically introductory calculus. For the math SAT for example. So it is basic, sure like meaning basic trig or basic calculus but you have to be really_ good _at it to make a high score. 

A good engineering program will require a high math SAT to get into, but a community college women's studies program won't care. So it depends on the program you are looking at, right down to the individual subject score. 

The SAT has a whole set of optional subject area tests too like a bunch in languages, plus chemistry, science, and other subjects. These are not tests of basic "must have" skills for general college, but rather for people who want to enter Harvard's language program or Stanford's physics program or whatever. 

So being the bad parents we are, teaching to the test and all, we are looking at these subject area tests about a decade from now.


----------



## john117

The subject tests are sort of required for any decent college these days, my younger one took SAT II French, Psychology and Biology. 

But she completed the full IB program in high school - total of 3 years biology and 5 French  so it was no contest. 

To get a 600 is pretty easy, 700 you need to work rather hard, hitting anything over 750 is pretty difficult and as you approach 780 etc it's Mt. Everest....


----------



## Happyfamily

john117 said:


> The subject tests are sort of required for any decent college these days, my younger one took SAT II French, Psychology and Biology.
> 
> But she completed the full IB program in high school - total of 3 years biology and 5 French  so it was no contest.
> 
> To get a 600 is pretty easy, 700 you need to work rather hard, hitting anything over 750 is pretty difficult and as you approach 780 etc it's Mt. Everest....


Yeah, agreed on those points, and consequently you have the people who are really preparing taking SATs as a junior and then again as a senior. 

So people are taking numerous practice exams, a trial live exam, and then the final live exams. If there's anything open to a canard about "teaching to the test", then yeah the way people are coached to train for the SAT is it! Except SAT preparation really means the exact opposite of academic cheating insinuated by the invective "teaching to the test". 

SAT and ACT are tests measuring skills acquired over an entire academic career, many years of work. It isn't a setting where a teacher has a 6th grade math test in her drawer coming up on Friday and she is just having students memorize specific answers to known questions.


----------



## Anonymous07

Pepper123 said:


> My mom, brother, and SIL are all teachers... and I actually resent this posting as a result. For every hour you spend, multiply it by the number of students in the class.


My mom is a teacher, as are many of my friends, and I worked in the public school system for a while. 

Teachers have so much pressure to teach to the test, that they typically aren't really teaching kids life-long skills. The kids learn info and regurgitate it on the test, then forget it within a couple weeks. Have to make sure test scores are high enough for the school to be awarded the "distinguished school" award to be shown. Maybe some of the wealthy areas have schools that have the ability to really teach kids things they will learn, but most middle income or low income areas just can't get there. There is too much focus on the test to actually have kids learn things. 




pb76no said:


> If you don't like the cost & time spent now, just wait till they get to college!!!


The cost, yes, but not the help(time spent). The "kids" are on their own in college to do their own work.


----------



## jb02157

Welcome to life as a parent. What you are describing is a normal assignment in pretty much any school. $30?? My kids have had assignments that have cost over $100 and quite literally days of my time. If you don't want to help your daughter I wonder why you wanted to be a parent in the first place. Schools aren't like they were 20 years ago, parents are forced to be over involved in everything. If you don't like it, you're in for a bunch of hell until your youngest is out of high school. Wait until you get to SAT Tests...that really sucked. Any College is very hard to get into these days and while the tuition is ridiculous, your kids will go absolutely nowhere until they go and graduate.


----------



## jb02157

Anon Pink said:


> Parents unite against science fair projects!
> 
> My youngest is now in 8th grade and is totally independent on all homework and long term assignments. <--- and THAT is the ultimate goal of education. To create life long independent learners!


I definitely hear you. My son entered the High School Science Fair as a finalist. We spent over $500 and months building the ultimate project, a full blown tornado cabinet with automatic dry ice dispenser, fans and the whole shot. The same project won two or three state Science Fairs, only this cabinet was better. It turns out that he was disqualified because dry ice was considered "dangerous". At the town library, they have "story time" with pre-school children and they are allowed dry ice for these stories and the kids are allowed to walk through it! I can't remember being so pissed off!!!!


----------



## Happyfamily

This looks to me like people have heard a fad pejorative expression "teaching to the test", and they know it is a bad thing. But it isn't that simple. 

Here is an article out of Carnegie Perspectives on education: 



> But is teaching to the test all bad? Emphatically not. Consider the coach who drills young athletes on the very skills they will perform in competition, or the typing instructor who teaches students precisely the finger arrangements and keystrokes that will be used in typing. These practices are not seen as unethical or unsavory for the simple reason that in these two domains instruction and assessment merge into a single activity. Indeed,* instructing students on anything other than the actual test itself seems illogical*



TEACHING TO THE TEST

There are a number of things that necessitate rote memorization. Especially in the early years. Like the alphabet. Numbers. Math. Spelling. Etc.

To do a test on the alphabet you have to memorize the alphabet, which is by definition teaching to the test.

The clearest form of teaching to the test this article refers to is just what I said:



> dishonest practice of drilling students on the actual items that will appear on the tests.


Like I said, and it isn't just dishonest. In the case of SAT or ACT it would be a serious crime. I don't know what to call this social phenomenon where people take something like that, a crime, and use it to cast aspersions on people following best practices. Like knowing the alphabet. Oh hey, you may know all the letters of the alphabet at two years old but that's just because your mom was _teaching to the test_.


----------

