4 ms·

The article seems to be more interested in mocking other people's social/political ideas than talking about the actual problem, viz., ineffective schooling. Smu

The article seems to be more interested in mocking other people's social/political ideas than talking about the actual problem, viz., ineffective schooling. Smugly telling someone that what they're doing is a bad idea doesn't really accomplish much, even (perhaps especially!) when it's true. Why not talk about how to make things better? I tend to suspect the answer to that is "because the author is more interested in political cheap shots than in problem solving", but I admit to being reflexively cynical about such things.

gojomo 17y ago
She does mention that other charter schools that skip the gardens get better results. And what she's proposing is clear, too: replace gardening time with more instruction in traditional subjects. If there were some evidence gardens help achievement, or if it was just replacing other necessary 'rec' time, they'd be fine. But she reports there's never been any evidence -- beyond the supporters' anecdotal warm fuzzies -- that gardens fix educational gaps, and strongly implies garden time is trading off against more beneficial instruction. So I appreciated the strong point of view and ironic opening scenario -- given her beliefs it's appropriate to be a bit caustic.
- bootload 17y ago
  "... If there were some evidence gardens help achievement... she reports there's never been any evidence -- beyond the supporters' anecdotal warm fuzzies ..." Yet there is ample evidence that obesity in school age students is on the rise. It's in the UK where a dyslexic chef decided to do something about it, "Feed me Better" ~ http://www.jamieoliver.com/school-dinners/my-manifesto http://www.jamieoliver.com/school-dinners/my-manifesto It doesn't matter if its removing "junk food" from school menus and revising them with healthier alternatives or creating gardens outside to show how food is grown. "... What evidence do we have that participation in one of these programs—so enthusiastically supported, so uncritically championed—improves a child’s chances of doing well on the state tests that will determine his or her future ..." To not see the link between better understanding food, nutrition, health and learning shows a fixed and narrow mindset.
  - gcheong 17y ago
    To not be willing to let a theory stand or fall according to empirically gathered evidence shows a fixed and narrow mindset.
  - gojomo 17y ago
    I can see a plausible link between garden-food-awareness and learning or health. But what weight should that link be assigned, compared to everything else? That is, would students with weak reading and math skills be better served by an hour in garden-education or an hour of other classroom work? Does garden-education reduce childhood obesity? Answering those questions requires evidence, not just an attractive theory (or appeal to a 'broad mindset'). The author reports there is no hard evidence proving gardens benefit students, and provides some testimony that schools without gardens do more for their students.

gojomo 17y ago

She does mention that other charter schools that skip the gardens get better results. And what she's proposing is clear, too: replace gardening time with more instruction in traditional subjects. If there were some evidence gardens help achievement, or if it was just replacing other necessary 'rec' time, they'd be fine. But she reports there's never been any evidence -- beyond the supporters' anecdotal warm fuzzies -- that gardens fix educational gaps, and strongly implies garden time is trading off against more beneficial instruction. So I appreciated the strong point of view and ironic opening scenario -- given her beliefs it's appropriate to be a bit caustic.

bootload 17y ago
"... If there were some evidence gardens help achievement... she reports there's never been any evidence -- beyond the supporters' anecdotal warm fuzzies ..." Yet there is ample evidence that obesity in school age students is on the rise. It's in the UK where a dyslexic chef decided to do something about it, "Feed me Better" ~ http://www.jamieoliver.com/school-dinners/my-manifesto http://www.jamieoliver.com/school-dinners/my-manifesto It doesn't matter if its removing "junk food" from school menus and revising them with healthier alternatives or creating gardens outside to show how food is grown. "... What evidence do we have that participation in one of these programs—so enthusiastically supported, so uncritically championed—improves a child’s chances of doing well on the state tests that will determine his or her future ..." To not see the link between better understanding food, nutrition, health and learning shows a fixed and narrow mindset.
- gcheong 17y ago
  To not be willing to let a theory stand or fall according to empirically gathered evidence shows a fixed and narrow mindset.
- gojomo 17y ago
  I can see a plausible link between garden-food-awareness and learning or health. But what weight should that link be assigned, compared to everything else? That is, would students with weak reading and math skills be better served by an hour in garden-education or an hour of other classroom work? Does garden-education reduce childhood obesity? Answering those questions requires evidence, not just an attractive theory (or appeal to a 'broad mindset'). The author reports there is no hard evidence proving gardens benefit students, and provides some testimony that schools without gardens do more for their students.