3 ms·

> It would be more helpful to ditch the 'myth' that age-segregated classrooms are an improvement over the one-room school house. Modern schooling forces childre

> It would be more helpful to ditch the 'myth' that age-segregated classrooms are an improvement over the one-room school house. Modern schooling forces children to learn on the teacher's schedule. I have two kids in a public school. The teachers thus far have been extremely child-focused to the extent possible while still adhering to the common-core standards. The school has a number of mixed grade classes, e.g K-1, 1-2, 2-3, and the mix changes each year based on the needs of the kids. So my experience does not support your generalization of modern schooling. Nor does it support the ideas in Gatto's main thesis. Perhaps in the 90's his thesis was true, but these teachers are up to date on recent research and know how to build non-provisional self esteem, for example. They encourage the expression and self-management of emotions. Curricula are often built around a central unifying topic, for example unifying math, reading, and writing around a core event. Rote memorization plays a minimal role - often built in to the daily activities in a why that the students may not realize. I have also observed, during my weekly parent-volunteer hours, that the teachers are highly specialized and well trained. There is so much more to it than just 'learning styles' and such. They truly excel at managing behaviors and emotions, and creating engaging and multi-subject curricula. Most students do not show up ready to learn on any given day - and getting through to them requires extreme patience and tremendous creativity. Perhaps Gatto had unengaged and indifferent teachers - it seems that these would 'dumb down' students. Fortunately this has not been my experience.

spraak 9y ago
Your experience with two children vs Gatto's experience with hundreds (thousands?) as a public school teacher for years.
- b_emery 9y ago
  My experience is with several classes and teachers, so a combined total of probably 100 kids in different classes over several years - but you make a valid point. It's quite possible that in the decades since his work that his criticisms have caused change to occur.
madhadron 9y ago
You have found an extremely unusual and remarkable public school.
- hosh 9y ago
  Common core is a pretty interesting curriculum. There is something similar for science (I don't remember the name). Arizona teaches Common Core math but not the science version of it. It links things together across subjects at a higher density ... stuff that, when I was a kid, I did on my own time. I think I would have enjoyed Common Core a lot as a kid. Finland has an education program that goes along the same lines that cuts across all of the subject matters. The downside is that common core is great for neurotypical kids ... and not a kid on the Autism spectrum. Common core is also weak on drills and practice. It's great for learning but not for mastery. That's me being raised in a first-generation Taiwanese family and my martial arts experience in my 20s talking. Without the drilling that happens after learning, the kid never develops sufficient grit and discipline. There is a tendency to short-circuit. You think you can stop when you "learned" it, and never dive deeper. You fool yourself into thinking you know the material, but you don't. (Personal experience). Basic skills are not practiced to the point of effortlessness, so building advanced skills on top of basic skills is fraught.
  - vonmoltke 9y ago
    > Common core is a pretty interesting curriculum. Common Core is a set of standards that curricula need to meet, not a curriculum. It may seem nitpicky, but it's an important distinction considering the amount of hate lumped on to Common Core because of shitty curricula that implement it. I think the standards are great, and well-designed curricula (as it sounds like Arizona has), are fantastic.
    - analog31 9y ago
      When my kids were starting school, I looked up Common Core. At the time, some of the states had published their standards. My impression was that the standards seemed remarkably "normal" if I may use that word. It was pretty much the same subject matter that I learned in school as a kid.
analog31 9y ago
My kids had a similar experience at their public school. One possible variable to consider is that the school is in a neighborhood with a high percentage of educated parents, who are pretty vocal in their demands. A lot of kids get bumped up by a grade, or put in mixed grade classes -- often in response to discipline problems in the classroom.

spraak 9y ago

Your experience with two children vs Gatto's experience with hundreds (thousands?) as a public school teacher for years.

b_emery 9y ago
My experience is with several classes and teachers, so a combined total of probably 100 kids in different classes over several years - but you make a valid point. It's quite possible that in the decades since his work that his criticisms have caused change to occur.

madhadron 9y ago

You have found an extremely unusual and remarkable public school.

hosh 9y ago
Common core is a pretty interesting curriculum. There is something similar for science (I don't remember the name). Arizona teaches Common Core math but not the science version of it. It links things together across subjects at a higher density ... stuff that, when I was a kid, I did on my own time. I think I would have enjoyed Common Core a lot as a kid. Finland has an education program that goes along the same lines that cuts across all of the subject matters. The downside is that common core is great for neurotypical kids ... and not a kid on the Autism spectrum. Common core is also weak on drills and practice. It's great for learning but not for mastery. That's me being raised in a first-generation Taiwanese family and my martial arts experience in my 20s talking. Without the drilling that happens after learning, the kid never develops sufficient grit and discipline. There is a tendency to short-circuit. You think you can stop when you "learned" it, and never dive deeper. You fool yourself into thinking you know the material, but you don't. (Personal experience). Basic skills are not practiced to the point of effortlessness, so building advanced skills on top of basic skills is fraught.
- vonmoltke 9y ago
  > Common core is a pretty interesting curriculum. Common Core is a set of standards that curricula need to meet, not a curriculum. It may seem nitpicky, but it's an important distinction considering the amount of hate lumped on to Common Core because of shitty curricula that implement it. I think the standards are great, and well-designed curricula (as it sounds like Arizona has), are fantastic.
  - analog31 9y ago
    When my kids were starting school, I looked up Common Core. At the time, some of the states had published their standards. My impression was that the standards seemed remarkably "normal" if I may use that word. It was pretty much the same subject matter that I learned in school as a kid.

analog31 9y ago

My kids had a similar experience at their public school. One possible variable to consider is that the school is in a neighborhood with a high percentage of educated parents, who are pretty vocal in their demands. A lot of kids get bumped up by a grade, or put in mixed grade classes -- often in response to discipline problems in the classroom.