Posted on 06/17/2002 6:34:23 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Ever wonder why the name of the program continues to change but the program itself never does? Outcome Based Education was seen as a failure. They changed the name to Goals 2000 and to Education Reform. Darn! Busted again, twice more!
Now it's "Testing Education."
Parents aren't stupid ( well, not all of them). The parents are loosing their Orwells puppies to this "new society " indoctrination, and they know it!
It's not the individual schools, It's the entire NEA program.
The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, by Charlotte Taylor Iserbyt.
My sister-in-law works in a large, fast-growing school district in Colorado and she understands why we homeschool, and readily admits there are problems in the public school system, but she feels that they don't have that many problems in her distrcit. It seems like the old "we're ok, but they have some problems" syndrome.
What I am seeing is that this is rapidly dissipating. Most kids I meet these days are envious of home schoolers. The acceptance among parents is growing VERY rapidly. This isn't just a few pebbles, it's the first few bolders of an avalanche.
No, we didn't use anything like that. From the time the girls were very small we made The Big Night Out be to go to Barnes and Nobles and everybody got a new book. Then we all went home and read (or were read to).
Wow. How exactly does that work? (I am so interested in this because I was very dissatisfied with my public school math education and am determined that when the time comes my children will have exactly the opposite.) Got any links about it? Also be sure to expose them to analytic subjects outside straight "math" such as symbolic logic, computer programming, etc., and when they do calculus make sure they are learning what it means and what it is for, not just how to solve the problems. But you probably don't need to be told that.
I invented the method. We use algebraic operators for all arithmetic problems to break down the problem into easier sub-problems. Engineers use these methods in their heads. We use Saxon only as a source of problems and for drill work. It's archaic.
In our system, all equations for word problems have units, set operations, what we call "truth statements" (such as 1 dozen oranges = 12 oranges), and calculated identities (1 dozen oranges/12 oranges = 1). "We can always multiply any number by one." No hand waving allowed. This rigorous method makes word problems a snap. There is no "borrowing" in subtraction operations. We add another equation that equals zero to adjust the subtrahend. "We can always add zero, can't we?" Any time they apply a principle, axiom, or theorem they are to cite it as if the problem was a proof.
Rigor. It's that simple. Rigorous simple problems makes complex problems easier to do later. This is the necessary preparation that will make chemistry and physics far simpler to learn.
Also be sure to expose them to analytic subjects outside straight "math" such as symbolic logic, computer programming, etc., and when they do calculus make sure they are learning what it means and what it is for, not just how to solve the problems.
Symbolic logic will be taught after the first exposure to calculus (so that we can teach physics) and after an extended period of diagramming sentences. My hope is to teach them to convert sentence structure to mathematics. My goal is that they could do legal analysis with symbolic logic. (That is a skill that would make them truly dangerous.)
I am an engineer. I won't expose them to computer programming until they routinely see science in the world and have mastered paper else paper may too easily bore them. For now, the computer is a word processor. I do not want them thinking that the computer is the world.
You may be right and Carry's kids may be geniuses. On the other hand, they may just be rising to meet the higher expectations placed upon them. In other countries Calculus is taught much younger than here in the U.S. and kids don't seem to have a problem with it on average.
In our schools we spend a lot of time talking about what the kids can't be expected to do, while in other schools (and home schools) they spend their time doing it.
Shalom.
I agree, but my husband builds networks for a living and he is insistent that our children will learn at his knee, which will be difficult to avoid since he works from home a lot, and studies constantly. I want my children to be able to interact with intellectual resources from any source or medium. He shares your interest in creating "dangerous" children, hehehe, and he does make good points to the effect that for them to truly be such in the coming era they will need to understand the fundamentals of computing and not be end users only. My dad is a programmer, and one thing I have been really surprised to learn from my husband is that the kind of network/systems/hardware stuff he does is actually more fundamental than (most) programming. When his programmer friends are hanging out here, it is obvious that they know much less than he does about what makes the machines tick. What kind of engineering do you do?
I have to admit that I'm not quite comprehending your method, I think I would need to see a full example laid out. I mean I think I get the basic idea, but I'm not quite sure how it would work on a kid who didn't already know arithmetic. You should really publish this, even if only on the web. There are a lot of people out here who want to teach our kids to really understand math, not just by rote, from the start, but are at a loss for methods. I looked at a Saxon book once, it looked just like my high school math books, only more systematic. But not deeper.
Textbooks? I like Copi's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.