someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Just a couple ideas to toss around. I just think that the usual suspects of classroom size and tenure only scratch at the surface of the real problems.
I just finished reading all that now. Has anyone ever told you that you write too much?
Why no. You're the first!
Quote:
On a serious note, I'll throw in my hat with the "1st 5 years" crowd. The idea that they're the most crucial to a child's development and ability to learn. By a kid gets to school age (think like 6 or 7, or whenever it's required) they're pretty much on track for life. You can teach them things, skills, math, or whatever other things that school teach but you can't really do anything that's going to drastically change their ability to "get smarter" at that point. You want smarter better educated kids? Then focus on improving their environment prior to school age. I'd postulate that changes at that point are a lot cheaper and easier than all the professors, special programs, tutors, etc.
I agree in principle. I think that there's a night and day difference between how well kids do in school and how they absorb information based on how much this was encouraged at an early age. This is most stark between households where kids are encouraged to read and count at an early age by involved parents, and those who are not. Those early programs (like Head Start) are designed to impart that encouragement and direction even for kids whose parents might not do so themselves. And that's a great idea.
The problem is that in those households, you're really still just masking the problem and it comes back once the program is finished. Head Start kids show statistical advantages through grade school. But by high school, there's no statistical difference between kids who went through the program when they were younger and those who didn't. That's a problem since we presumably care most about the result at grade 12. I'm not sure how we can implement something that can retain that kind of success all the way through, but I do agree that it's something worth looking into. Certainly, while those early programs are very important, they don't appear to make enough difference all the way through by themselves.
I'll also point out that this is where I re-inject the idea that if you introduce some method of real competition into the school system, then you will maximize the odds that schools will come up with ways to engage kids in ways our current model doesn't (and likely at a much lower cost than simply extending a Head Start type program all the way through 12th grade). We see this in magnet and charter schools right now. I find it very interesting, in fact, that the most successes with improving education quality in schools has come from removing many of the stringent rules that tend to constrict our public schools. That alone should give us a hint as to a direction to go. Instead of starting at some high bureaucratic level and deciding what they think is best and then applying that down to all the schools in a one-size-fits-all way, how about giving the schools the freedom to tailor their own education programs and let them figure out what works best?