In response to btilly:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1854/Debate:_Board_Championship_and_Global_Ranking

So as not to hijack the other thread, while I generally agree with you I feel your opening statement (just like some of Kohn's assertions) is a bit of an over reach. 

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar07/vol64/num06/The-Case-For-and-Against-Homework.aspx

Not to say he isn't right with many of his recommendations.

And, while we're on it the number one statistical indicator of student success is not class size (which is under debate despite it's popularity), but the mother's education level.  With the evidence pointing to the fact that mothers with education are more likely to value and support their child's education with higher involvement, addressing barriers to their child's success, and coincidentally more likely to make sure their kid is doing and understanding their homework. 

Of course mom's education level also tends to break down around socio-economic  lines. 

The real problem is the number of parents who voluntarily or involuntarily do not support there child's learning at home, but we as a society are unwilling to pay for more schooling.   The U. S. is one of the last in the developed world for academic time on task. I teach at a private school in Mexico. We are on a U. S. day, but the Mexican calender (Over 200 days instead of 180). As a result by the time my students get to high school they've had the equivalent of an extra year of instruction and it shows. 

mostly cause It's gonna chap some butts out there:

They made it so that students in the public schools here can no longer receive the grade zero.  Your also not allowed to fail a whole year anymore either. 

It sounds like I might be exception to the rule, but I just got my ass kicked at home all the time, so I consequently never went there, or when I was there, I sure as hell wasn't doing my homework.   But I did quite well in school - it was a safe place for me.  Their response to my boredom there was to let me do other things - music, student council drama, these crazy self guided credits - and I rarely, if ever did my homework, or attended class.  But you know what I learned?  How to jump through hoops.  And I went to university and I honed the art of "give the instructor what they want", and I did well there.  Now, in my jobs, I do the hoop jumping that is expected of me, and all goes well with me there too. 

The point is - and what I think you guys are missing - is that school is definitely intended to inculturate or "normalize" the population. You go to school to learn how to function in your society. Where the schools fall down, and where they failed people like me, and berickf and to some degree btilly's kid, is in sheltering us from a truly realistic picture of the world.  Your gonna fail sometimes, and your gonna succeed sometimes, and it's always gonna require a certain amount of hoop jumping, and it's not always going to be in your control. 

By weighting homework, it doesn't matter if it helps you or not to do it, you learned to do what you had to do. When I go to work, I don't always do stuff because it accomplished my job, or makes it easier or more efficient.  I sometimes do stuff because I have to, and that's it. School taught me how to do that. 

This is an interesting conversation, and I'm just going to give a quick plug for the reddit community I run on parenting:

http://reddit.com/r/raisingKids

If any of you want to check it out, we can always use more intelligent and reasonable participants.

Well, I was repeating the claim from the book, and trusted that he had correctly summarized the research.  But I'm not surprised that there would be contradictory research on a topic like this.

But I was a person who was ill-served by homework, and I'm frustrated to watch my son being forced to suffer through it when he has extra challenges which have nothing to do with his ability.

To ratsy, as a software developer I've found that my ability to be productive and well-paid is pretty much inversely proportional to how many hoops I'm forced to jump through.  I agree with you (and the history is clear on this) that school tries to prepare people for what most jobs are like.  But smart, curious people have lots of better job options without the hoop jumping.  And I don't think that school does a good job with them.

And not just think because that was unpleasant.  Did you know that children whose IQ is in the top 1% drop out of school at a higher rate than kids with a median IQ?  One of the things that makes good organizations become great is that they recognize that investing in their top performers gives bigger rewards than investing in their median to poor performers.  But we as a society are demonstrably doing the opposite.  And the result is a terrible waste of human potential.

The modern public school setting came into being in the wake of the industrial revolution.  So, the goal was to create workers for factories.  The US education system is a long way from preparing students for today's needs.

Btilly, I agree with your original statement from the other thread...but how would you solve the issue? It can't simply be 'no homework' for all. I must say, for me personally, I generally despised doing homework, but I'm a better mathematician and writer for having done so.

As you state, the main determinant is internal family status. My feeling is that in the last 45 years, the middle and lower middle classes have been asked to bear way too much of the burden in sustaining the economy, war machine and general welfare of the country. With wages that have essentially flattened out (in relation to cost of living rises), this means parents are working more hours, they're generally more stressed, and they have less time and mental energy to invest in their children.

I think the solution lies in turning away from the leadership that has taken us down this avenue and a return to the policies and ideals of JFK and FDR, who felt that the whole society should prosper from this great country and contribute to sustaining and improving it for coming generations.

Lol, I want to +1 all of you guys for different reasons. 

@ ratsy hoop jumping is a VERY important skill, but there is hoop jumping for necessity and hoop jumping just to jump hoops, which I think happens way too much, which arguably has a greater negative than positive impact.

@ btilly I think your problems are less with idea of homework and more experiences with bad or unsupported homework. I personally hate the word homework, except when required by policy I don't even use the word.  But, the fact is there is too much teachers are supposed to teach and students are supposed to learn to fit it all in during class.  Now, I always give work that could be generally finished during class or after school tutoring if students/parents choose for it to be done at home that's up to them, and it should always be skills the kids "should" have.  But, if you're in an AP class that's usually not possible.  Just because the volume is even more.  But, those classes are optional.

@ Amidon you left out "agrarian model" of industrial preparation, but along with public libraries gave us one of the first true middle classes in history and a literacy rate/technological capabilities that won wars and economically dominated the globe.  So we should give some credit for a job well done. But, you underfund and abuse something long enough for economic or political gain and see what happens.

That said, institutions change slowly.  In addition to the economic issues Thingol brought up the agrarian portion is the worst part.  You know poor/at risk kids actually out gain the average and high performing kids during the year?  The problem is breaks and summer where educated parents keep their kids doing learning/reading/projects etc. so they keep gaining slowly, but the poor kids backslide because their parents either because of mindset or are absent from working two jobs don't pressure their kids to keep learning.

Which, brings us to Thingol who is DEAD ON THE MONEY!

In the 1950's, the economy was good, capital gains was at 50% (not 13 or 15), not too mention corporate taxes. Income vs cost of living was also nothing to sneeze at.  It's not that wages have flattened it's that they've gone through the floor.  Parents spend less time with their children than at anytime in American history.  Income inequality is the worst it's been since the Great Depression (good times) and growing.  We're at 41st in the world for GINI and heading for the top.

If you look at pure wealth inequality and the trends over the last 30 years it's even bleaker.  Not too mention a lot of that tax money USED to go to education.

So now parents are voluntarily and involuntarily less involved.  The costs of education have skyrocketed while the funding vs cost of providing education is at the lowest it's been since the great depression.  Throw in a bunch of unfunded mandates and panic cutting of state budgets (almost always education and services for poor kids) when manufactured crises appear. 

As an example, when the last economic crisis hit the state of Washington laid off 3000 teachers and the University of Washington in 3 years went from 75% publicly funded to 25% publicly funded. 

AND!  I think that's enough rant for now...  =)

Nice post tumor -

As a side note to the "institutions change slowly".  My daughter is entering high school next year and wants to take the photography class.  We looked it up yesterday and to do so she needs to have a 35mm camera and would learn how to work in a dark room.  Her enthusiasm was immediately stifled - that is not what she is interested in.   I'm all for keeping old arts/skills alive, but you need to change with the times -

http://www.wired.com/business/2013/10/free-thinkers/

Amidon37 wrote:

Nice post tumor -

As a side note to the "institutions change slowly".  My daughter is entering high school next year and wants to take the photography class.  We looked it up yesterday and to do so she needs to have a 35mm camera and would learn how to work in a dark room.  Her enthusiasm was immediately stifled - that is not what she is interested in.   I'm all for keeping old arts/skills alive, but you need to change with the times -

Wow... I bought an disposable under water camera for a vacation last year and still haven't developed it because I don't even know where to go.  At least it looks like cursive might be finally going away.  That was a waste of hours of education that could have been better spent.

Thingol wrote: Btilly, I agree with your original statement from the other thread...but how would you solve the issue? It can't simply be 'no homework' for all. I must say, for me personally, I generally despised doing homework, but I'm a better mathematician and writer for having done so.

As you state, the main determinant is internal family status. My feeling is that in the last 45 years, the middle and lower middle classes have been asked to bear way too much of the burden in sustaining the economy, war machine and general welfare of the country. With wages that have essentially flattened out (in relation to cost of living rises), this means parents are working more hours, they're generally more stressed, and they have less time and mental energy to invest in their children.

I think the solution lies in turning away from the leadership that has taken us down this avenue and a return to the policies and ideals of JFK and FDR, who felt that the whole society should prosper from this great country and contribute to sustaining and improving it for coming generations.

One factor left out here - public schooling in the U.S. is paid for mostly with property taxes.  Wealthier neighborhood, better school (and better school, higher home prices - it's a self-perpetuating feedback loop).  As a kid, I moved around a bit (four different public schools) and the differences were incredible.  

For example, I finished high school in a well-off Massachusetts school that let me take more Advanced Placement courses in my junior year than existed in the entire school system I attended for middle school in rural western Pennsylvania.  And there were still more left for senior year! 

When I first moved, it took me a while to realize the kids in both schools were about the same degree of smart - but the east-coast kids got quality educations, while the Pennsylvanians got mediocre ones.  All of this is to say that public education can work and does work - but it matters who and where you are.  The way we pay for the system assures that the richer you are, the better public services your kid is going to get.

Circling back to the homework discussion - I loved homework.  It gave me something to keep my mind occupied during crushingly boring classes!   Wasn't till high school (did I mention it was a better school?) that I had all that much actually left to do at home...

I read a study a while ago that was trying to correlate (what seemed like) all of the good things about a functional society with the quality of women's education, but I can't find it now... I wish I could and I'd post it for you.

The bottom line, quality education is one that is structured to teach the kids what their going to need to know to survive in their element.  Sometimes this requires some money, but not too often is it completely necessary.  

I agree that schools with more money tend to give better educations - especially in the states with the current system- but that's not the only determination of whether or not you'll get a quality education....

I am just going to dip my toes in this discussion...

I recall several studies in the sixties and seventies proving that increasing school spending did not increase the scores/learning/education at that facility.

However, I do agree there is a correlation between neighborhood income and the success of the children in the local school.

I think the important thing to remember is that "Correlation does not imply causation".  So, although more money is correlated to better learning, it does not mean that it is causing better learning.  For example, there is a correlation between ice cream sales and shark attacks, but ice cream sales do not cause shark attacks.  They are correlated because there is another variable involved.  In this example, hot weather causes both increased ice cream sales and increased volume of swimmers in the water.

So if more money does not cause better education, what does?  I think the other variable may be the community or family structure in the neighborhood.  Neighborhoods with higher income levels also benefit from elements of social stabilization that may lead to a better home environment for the children which results in better learning.  

From my personal experience the quality of the education is more based on the student's desire than the  money invested in materials.

SquintGnome wrote:

I am just going to dip my toes in this discussion...

I recall several studies in the sixties and seventies proving that increasing school spending did not increase the scores/learning/education at that facility.

However, I do agree there is a correlation between neighborhood income and the success of the children in the local school.

I think the important thing to remember is that "Correlation does not imply causation".  So, although more money is correlated to better learning, it does not mean that it is causing better learning.  For example, there is a correlation between ice cream sales and shark attacks, but ice cream sales do not cause shark attacks.  They are correlated because there is another variable involved.  In this example, hot weather causes both increased ice cream sales and increased volume of swimmers in the water.

So if more money does not cause better education, what does?  I think the other variable may be the community or family structure in the neighborhood.  Neighborhoods with higher income levels also benefit from elements of social stabilization that may lead to a better home environment for the children which results in better learning.  

From my personal experience the quality of the education is more based on the student's desire than the  money invested in materials.

 

Level of education of the mother.  Huge factor.  Guess which neighborhoods highly educated moms live in? 

'Tis definitely a multifaceted issue, and causality can be viewed on a micro and macro (global) level as well.  I found this recent NYT article fascinating. It suggests yet another consideration ..culture.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/what-drives-success.html?referrer=

SquintGnome wrote:

So if more money does not cause better education, what does?  I think the other variable may be the community or family structure in the neighborhood.  Neighborhoods with higher income levels also benefit from elements of social stabilization that may lead to a better home environment for the children which results in better learning.  

From my personal experience the quality of the education is more based on the student's desire than the  money invested in materials.

I do a lot of volunteering in the education world. In my experience it's completely these two issues: how much desire the student has coupled with how much support the student gets at home.

BTdubs brings up a really good point...and he's correct in the role property taxes play. However, if more funding is coming into the states in the form of block grants...and if the state makes education a priority, a lot of federal money can be used to supplement (reduce) the property tax factor and this can result in a general improvement of all schools in a given state.

Now, to attain this, a couple things would have to happen:
A) a shift in priorities from money towards the military to education
B) a small increase in the top tax bracket

Now, to attain this, a couple things would have to happen:
A) a shift in priorities from money towards the military to education
B) a small increase in the top tax bracket

How very Canadian of you.   

Indeed. Canadians are good people...atleast all the ones I've run across (excluding L.M. Bloomfield, of course).

And Ratsy......that piece of....oh.....Hi Ratsy!!   

Aha! I knew I earned that Not feeling the love badge.