Florida's rejection of math textbooks "due" to CRT

[Anon1787]

Once upon a time one didn't have to go to Law School to be a lawyer. There was an apprenticeship. Abe Lincoln and such. We could still have Bar Exams if we wanted.

In a sense, Education Schools can be far more dangerous than Medical Schools! ::-)

At least you admit that giving consumers more choice is not enough. One cannot ignore influence of those in charge of accreditation and certification even in a mostly deregulated system.

Right. Because "education wonks" are the ones behind all the Don't Say Gay, Anti-CRT, Anti-Ethnic Studies and similar legislation. Those are really good for kids' self-esteem and learning. /eyeroll.

It was ironic when several months ago one of my colleagues sent out a message urging faculty to attend a meeting to defend the introduction of the new theology (CRT-inspired materials) in the school system from attacks against it that were going to be made by a Christian group.

[dismalist]

At least you admit that giving consumers more choice is not enough. One cannot ignore influence of those in charge of accreditation and certification even in a mostly deregulated system.

I admit no such thing!

Any accreditation and certification is up to us, and if we didn't do it through government policy, it would happen by individual choice.

But I'm not looking for the holy grail here, either.

[nebo113]

Honestly, I'm tired of "choice."  Chicken:  cutlets big and small; breasts boned and deboned; ground 97% fat and 83% fat; fryers; broilers; bakers; breaded and unbreaded...... Canned tomatoes:  diced; whole; low sodium; with peppers; with spices.  And let's not even get into cereals.  Cell phone plans.  Internet plans.  To stream or not to stream. 

Dismalist, I'm not trying to make fun of you, but sometimes 'choice' is overdone, an excuse to sell us something new or confuse it.

And I so remember the original days of and was the beneficiary of "Freedom of Choice" in schools.  Four choices:  white segregated; black segregated, segregation academies, or close the public schools completely as in Prince Edward County, Virginia, in 1959.

[dismalist]

Honestly, I'm tired of "choice."  Chicken:  cutlets big and small; breasts boned and deboned; ground 97% fat and 83% fat; fryers; broilers; bakers; breaded and unbreaded...... Canned tomatoes:  diced; whole; low sodium; with peppers; with spices.  And let's not even get into cereals.  Cell phone plans.  Internet plans.  To stream or not to stream. 

Dismalist, I'm not trying to make fun of you, but sometimes 'choice' is overdone, an excuse to sell us something new or confuse it.

And I so remember the original days of and was the beneficiary of "Freedom of Choice" in schools.  Four choices:  white segregated; black segregated, segregation academies, or close the public schools completely as in Prince Edward County, Virginia, in 1959.

That was county policy, aided and abetted by the State of Virginia, not individual choice. Government did that.

'Twas different up north. There, the instrument of segregation was the restrictive covenant. These were competed away privately long before they were declared unenforceable and that indirectly led to more integrated schools.

My educated guess is that school choice would make for less segregated neighborhoods than we have today. Surely not all schools would be integrated, but more than we have now.

[ciao_yall]

"School choice" is a myth. 99% of people want the school that is most convenient to their home, and want it to be as good as possible. They really don't want to schlep kids all over town, research schools, or have dollars spent on marketing that could have been spent on educating their children.

[dismalist]

"School choice" is a myth. 99% of people want the school that is most convenient to their home, and want it to be as good as possible. They really don't want to schlep kids all over town, research schools, or have dollars spent on marketing that could have been spent on educating their children.

So now one has to move to that school!

Anyway, one can't tell how many would choose, because it's too damned expensive to choose. The tyranny of the status quo.

Hell, we can now choose our genders, but not our schools.

[marshwiggle]

"School choice" is a myth. 99% of people want the school that is most convenient to their home, and want it to be as good as possible. They really don't want to schlep kids all over town, research schools, or have dollars spent on marketing that could have been spent on educating their children.

How Ethical Is It To Move to A Neighborhood for Its School Rating?

Picking a "good" school is very different than scrolling for five-star reviews when online shopping. And it turns out the decisions we're making are perpetuating segregation in many communities. Here's what you need to know when choosing a school for your child.

Picking a school for your children to attend has become a very big decision for some families. Plenty of parents look to test scores, real estate databases, and casual chats with friends when house-hunting to make sure they buy in a neighborhood with the best public schools. Many childless couples even consider the school rankings listed on real estate apps like Zillow when considering a neighborhood where they will raise their future children.

Given that the author indicates in the first paragraph a concern about the effects of people choosing "better schools", it's unlikely that the subsequent paragraph about how common it is is exaggerated.

So to the earlier point, a lot of people choose their home to be near the school they want.

[dismalist]

"School choice" is a myth. 99% of people want the school that is most convenient to their home, and want it to be as good as possible. They really don't want to schlep kids all over town, research schools, or have dollars spent on marketing that could have been spent on educating their children.

How Ethical Is It To Move to A Neighborhood for Its School Rating?

Picking a "good" school is very different than scrolling for five-star reviews when online shopping. And it turns out the decisions we're making are perpetuating segregation in many communities. Here's what you need to know when choosing a school for your child.

Picking a school for your children to attend has become a very big decision for some families. Plenty of parents look to test scores, real estate databases, and casual chats with friends when house-hunting to make sure they buy in a neighborhood with the best public schools. Many childless couples even consider the school rankings listed on real estate apps like Zillow when considering a neighborhood where they will raise their future children.

Given that the author indicates in the first paragraph a concern about the effects of people choosing "better schools", it's unlikely that the subsequent paragraph about how common it is is exaggerated.

So to the earlier point, a lot of people choose their home to be near the school they want.

[/b]
Yes, and one can see it in real estate prices.

The well off already have school choice -- by picking their neighborhood. The poorly off do not.

[Anon1787]

"School choice" is a myth. 99% of people want the school that is most convenient to their home, and want it to be as good as possible. They really don't want to schlep kids all over town, research schools, or have dollars spent on marketing that could have been spent on educating their children.

I don't want have to research which car to buy, college to attend, or political candidate to vote for, but only in the land of childish fantasy or tyrannies are people relieved of the task of making these choices. And most people aren't that lazy given how many consider the quality of schools when buying a house or select charter or private schools if they have that option.

[marshwiggle]

Admit that you simply lapsed into a stereotypical rant from the rightwing peanut gallery.

From that organ of the rightwing peanut gallery, Wikipedia:
Mainstreaming (education)

Mainstreaming, in the context of education, is the practice of placing students with special education needs in a general education classroom during specific time periods based on their skills. To clarify, this means students who are a part of the special education classroom will join the regular education classroom at certain times which are fitting for the special education student.

Proponents of both the philosophy of educational inclusion assert that educating children with disabilities alongside their non-disabled peers fosters understanding and tolerance, better preparing students of all abilities to function in the world beyond school. Children with special needs may face social stigma as a result of being mainstreamed, but also may help them socially develop.

Note that proponents support it for reasons of social inclusion, rather than for any pedagogical reasons.

Explicitly:

Dr. Kenneth Shore comments on the least restrictive environment by claiming, "Determining what is the least restrictive environment for a particular student requires balancing the need for the child to learn to integrate socially with his non-disabled peers with the need for the child to receive instruction appropriate to his abilities."

Again, even the proponents realize that the child's education will be better in a specialized environment, while the mainstreaming is for social integration.

(And of course, teachers and their unions are always pushing for smaller class sizes, because of the range of students in their classes and the individual needs they have.) Even if social integration is an important goal, it is in conflict with best practices pedagogically.

[mamselle]

Fiddle-de-dee.

I've taught in elementary schools as a sub where students moved in and out of their anchoring class, either more often--for those with needs for more intervention--or less so, for those whose needs involved less assistance.

If run well--and I worked in a system with nine schools, including a separate special-needs preschool/kindergarten, 6 elementary schools, a middle-school, and a high school--it's fine.

Kids without special needs learn to get along with and behave well towards those with needs for intervention, and in some cases were assigned as special helpers for the day to encourage 360-degree socialization (remember, it's not only those needing interventions who need help with socialization). The special-needs kids got the help they needed (and I subbed in most of those classrooms as well, and with only two exceptions--both of whose lead teachers were not rehired and replaced the next year) saw excellent remedial programs). And the stronger students also had program challenges to keep them moving ahead.

Obviously, not all systems could do what this one did. But I've also seen it from the other side: three of the kids I have as private music students are in this system and I see how it's helped them to function. Each has had external help for more serious needs (one needed OT interventions until his neural system caught up to his age/growth level; another is seriously stuck on the autism scale but makes what progress he can; a third has learned to manage most of his needs himself, even after moving to a different school system.

So, n= 3, but it's a solid 3 by observation on those level; over the course of the 2 years i subbed, I probably saw or worked with c. 70 or so kids, and that's not inconsequential,  either.

It's also not hypothetical.

M.

[ciao_yall]

"School choice" is a myth. 99% of people want the school that is most convenient to their home, and want it to be as good as possible. They really don't want to schlep kids all over town, research schools, or have dollars spent on marketing that could have been spent on educating their children.

How Ethical Is It To Move to A Neighborhood for Its School Rating?

Picking a "good" school is very different than scrolling for five-star reviews when online shopping. And it turns out the decisions we're making are perpetuating segregation in many communities. Here's what you need to know when choosing a school for your child.

Picking a school for your children to attend has become a very big decision for some families. Plenty of parents look to test scores, real estate databases, and casual chats with friends when house-hunting to make sure they buy in a neighborhood with the best public schools. Many childless couples even consider the school rankings listed on real estate apps like Zillow when considering a neighborhood where they will raise their future children.

Given that the author indicates in the first paragraph a concern about the effects of people choosing "better schools", it's unlikely that the subsequent paragraph about how common it is is exaggerated.

So to the earlier point, a lot of people choose their home to be near the school they want.

Well, not that micro. They narrow their choices down to neighborhoods with good schools. Then they choose a home in those neighbhorhoods. At that point, they are focused on the local schools and putting their energy elsewhere.

[marshwiggle]

Fiddle-de-dee.

I've taught in elementary schools as a sub where students moved in and out of their anchoring class, either more often--for those with needs for more intervention--or less so, for those whose needs involved less assistance.

Just to clarify; the context for bringing up mainstreaming was this:

The "culture war crap" is there in the first place because the "educators" threw in all kinds of stuff with no pedagogical value for the sake of ideology. (If you can show me research that math attached to random factoids from some area that has nothing to do with math enhances learning, then go ahead.)

(emphasis added)

If what was best pedagogically, based on solid research, was the basis for decisions about what is taught and how, then much of this debate wouldn't be happening. The debate is almost entirely about what (if any) goals should be pursued in addition to learning, (such as social inclusion), and how much those pedagogical best practices can be compromised or set aside in pursuit of those other goals.

(In principle most people would probably agree that social inclusion is a worthwhile goal; the disagreement is going to come down to what has to be sacrificed in learning while trying to promote it.)

[ciao_yall]

(In principle most people would probably agree that social inclusion is a worthwhile goal; the disagreement is going to come down to what has to be sacrificed in learning while trying to promote it.)

It's not an either/or. Kids learn at different paces, and different kids learn different things at different times. The strong reader might have trouble with math, and the strong math student may have trouble with spelling.

Kids learn from each other. They learn to ask for help, and give help. They learn to explain and understand things different ways. They learn to listen to people who, hey, might surprise them.

A hiking buddy of mind was lamenting that, as the senior engineer at is company, he has nobody to go to when he get stuck with a problem. I said he is surrounded by people who may have less education, and/or less experience in his area. Still, nothing like walking through a problem with someone else who might have different education and/or experience.

In one of my recent jobs I used to have to troubleshoot our Salesforce application. When I would get stuck, I would ask my assistant, who was a high school graduate and spent her entire 20 year career sitting at the one desk, to sit with me as we walked through the steps. Inevitably she would say "Oh, did you remember to connect that one thing?" Ding, that was it. 

In other news, at our college we have an equity gap in that Black and Latino students complete college-level and advanced math at much lower rates than White and Asian students. We recently hired several Black and Latino math teachers. There was a raging debate over where these faculty should teach. Should they be in the classes with mostly Black and Latino students, so the remedial classes? Or, wasn't it good for these students to see those faculty teaching the advanced classes? And shouldn't the White and Asian students in the advanced classes get used to learing from, and seeing Black and Latino faculty as experts?

I said "just let them teach where they want to teach and let it all work out..."

[marshwiggle]

(In principle most people would probably agree that social inclusion is a worthwhile goal; the disagreement is going to come down to what has to be sacrificed in learning while trying to promote it.)

It's not an either/or. Kids learn at different paces, and different kids learn different things at different times. The strong reader might have trouble with math, and the strong math student may have trouble with spelling.

Kids learn from each other. They learn to ask for help, and give help. They learn to explain and understand things different ways. They learn to listen to people who, hey, might surprise them.

Even if the students helping others improve their own learning in the process, it would be a wild *coincidence (aka magical) if the amount of time they spent helping always resulted in their learning more that the same amount of time devoted to their own learning of new topics or deeper study of familiar topics.

*Especially since how much time they spend helping is probably determined by things like how busy the teacher is, rather than by any evidence-based study of what is optimal. (And since teachers are always claiming to be overworked, the amount of time students are helping each other doesn't seem in anyway "optimal" by the teacher's standards.)

So while pursuing these different goals at the same time may seem like a good idea, there's no basis for any claim that the whole setup in some way optimizes student learning, or even the entire "student experience", however that might be defined.