4 ms·
I like a lot of their ideas. They promote teachers on merit, they don't emphasize political correctness, failing students don't advance to the next grade, and s
by smanek 17y ago
I like a lot of their ideas. They promote teachers on merit, they don't emphasize political correctness, failing students don't advance to the next grade, and so on.
But, it seems like their teachers don't know how to teach science:
"Zika switches to science. With no lab equipment and an emphasis on textbook learning, it is hard to imagine that American Indian will turn out the next Darwin or Edison. The students have brought in paper towel tubes and, after a discussion of the American space program, Zika leads the class outside, where they have about five minutes for a rare experiment: making rockets. It doesn't go well. With so little time, the experiment more or less fizzles, and then it's lunch."
The most important thing about science is learning how to design and run an experiment to prove something.
And they severely punished a student who stayed home, with his parents' permission, to watch Obama's inauguration. I've got to say that's a kind of short sighted stance. In two decades, what do you think will be more important to the kid - what he learned at school that day or watching the inauguration with his extended family?
- cwan 17y agoI think a counter point (which I don't agree with) might be a question of slippery slopes - and a problem of many rules based systems. They deliberately avoid allowing for exceptions in an attempt at sending a message to everyone / meeting the needs of the aggregate thinking that it's a true trade off in allowing for individualized approaches/exceptions. I don't know what the environment is like in Oakland - never been, don't have any reason to think I will, but let's say that it's a very difficult environment, while some of their measures may seem extreme, it's sort of like the broken windows/fences approach to teaching. The thinking would be that by clamping down on the small offences, no one even thinks to commit to the big ones. Personally however, I don't think that that should have been considered an infraction or that it should be considered a broken window.
- smanek 17y agoI don't think it's a school's place to decide what constitutes a legitimate reason to miss school - it should be the parent's prerogative. If the parent says it's alright for a kid to miss a day of school - I really don't think the school should be questioning it.
- jonsen 17y agoI don't think it's a parent's place to decide what constitutes a legitimate reason to attend school - it should be the school's prerogative. If the school says it's imperative for a kid not to miss a day of school - I really don't think the parents should be questioning it.
- smanek 17y agoHeh, I see what you did there. I don't think that holds because society (and the law) hold the parents to be responsible for a child's well being - not the school. With that responsibility also comes the right to make decisions affecting the child's well being. That's why the state (which a public school is an instrument of) doesn't question how a parent raises their child (unless the parent's conduct rises level of abuse, of course).
- jonsen 17y ago;-) Neither point holds. Of course parents are ultimate responsible. But the school parent relationship is better off building on mutual professional respect and a certain division of power. Edit: and a sound amount of questioning from both sides of course.