Showing posts with label Parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parenting. Show all posts

Friday, October 12, 2012

Parents Want Kids That Are Clean, Not Smart


A recent survey conducted through the Intel Corporation found that parents are more comfortable talking with their kids about drugs than about science and math.

Of course this may be due more to their own ignorance or fear of science and math than to a desire to keep their kids ignorant. Indeed, the data suggest this is part of the problem. According to the survey, 53% of parents admit that they have trouble helping their children with math and science homework. 23% said their lack of knowledge of these subjects was a barrier to helping their children and 26% said they would be more involved if there was a clearing house or similar resource for refreshing their memory on the subjects.

Yet parents are often ignorant and scared of drugs and that does not keep them from talking to their kids about this subject, sometimes with disastrous results. According to Wired Magazine, which covered the story, parents find it easier to talk about drugs because it is “vague” and you can get the message across quickly with a few choice examples of burn outs and bums who’ve ruined their lives with drugs.

In reality, parents who talk to their kids about drugs like this are simply attempting to beat them into submission with scare tactics, much like the federal government has done with the war on terror. (e.g., If you don’t do drugs, you won’t end up living under the freeway, and if you let us monitor your internet activity you won’t end up bombed by Al Qaida).

To really understand the risks involved with drugs and alcohol, it is helpful to know a little about how drugs act pharmacologically, which requires at least a basic level of secondary school science. Telling kids to “Just Say No” is as vapid and useless as telling them to remain chaste because it’s God’s will. It also obscures the fact that there are many drugs out there with legitimate uses and others that are legal, but that still have abuse potential. Indeed, the number one and two preventable causes of death are tobacco and alcohol, both of which are legal drugs for those of the appropriate age. And while caffeine has a much lower risk of injury or death associated with it, it is still a drug and one that can lead to social or physical problems if abused.

Parents and children do not need to have a degree in biochemistry to understand enough of the chemistry and pharmacology to make informed decisions and engage in intelligent discussions. It is something I teach my high school students as a “hook” for learning about the nervous system and molecular biology. It is something that parents can pick up by reading their children’s textbooks or by going to the library or even from the internet, if they are savvy enough to bypass the moralistic fear mongering that is out there.

The same is true of science and math, in general. If their teenagers are old enough to read the text books, and if they themselves learned it once before, then what is so hard about looking over their children’s textbooks and relearning it? This is the one-stop clearinghouse for refreshing parents’ knowledge of science and math.

Wired correctly identifies a more challenging problem for parents who wish to help their children in math and science: they often do not know how to relate what they do understand in a way their children can understand. This should not be surprising considering that few of them have been trained as teachers. They do not know the content standards. They do not know how to develop lesson plans or how to sequence a unit. They do not have the benefit of having seen hundreds of kids make the same mistake or get caught up in the same misunderstanding of a concept. They do not necessarily know what prerequisite knowledge is required to understand the material or how to deliver it in a way their children can grasp.

Yet there are many other ways parents can help their children. For example, when a child is struggling with a math problem, a parent can read the appropriate section of the text with the child, both to gain an understanding for himself and to help his child understand it better. They can do some of the problems together and the parent can watch to make sure the child is following the necessary steps to do the problem correctly.

Even without helping children directly with math and science problems, parents can do much to support their children, like ensuring there is a quiet place to study and a regular routine and time period for doing homework. They can help their children organize their binders and backpacks and update and maintain daily planners or smart phone calendars. As a teacher, I find that the majority of my students who do not do well in my classes also have disorganized binders and backpacks. This makes it harder for them to find assignments when it is time to turn them in, resulting in unnecessary zeros. It also makes it harder to study, as they cannot find lecture notes, handouts or worksheets that could help them prepare for an exam.

Unfortunately, one of the biggest challenges parents face is lack of time. The survey’s finding that they needed a one-stop shopping center for updating their math and science skills could be interpreted as a desire for an easy, quick route to competency, something that cannot be achieved for an entire subject area. Providing more resources to parents still requires that they read, think and take time out of their busy schedules. This may be the real reason why they are more comfortable talking about drugs than science. With drugs, they can simply preach “don’t do them, they’re bad for you,” whereas with science and math they must actually think and help their children understand.

Ultimately, support from Intel will do little to make parents better able to relate to their teens or give them the time necessary to read and understand the content their children are expected to learn. But it might encourage them to buy more software “solutions” for their struggling students.

Friday, December 23, 2011

Do 50% of Teachers Really Quit Within 5 Years?


Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons
I felt compelled to share the following analysis of the commonly quoted statistic that close to 50% of all teachers leave the profession within five years since I am guilty of using this quote without having checked the references myself. Matthew Di Carlo does a pretty good job with his analysis and does say many of the same things I have said in previous blog posts, but adds some interesting analyses and speculations about the true extent and significance of the problem. For example, even if the numbers really are close to 50%, is this dramatically different than other professions (some studies suggest it is not). He also draws attention to the fact that the majority of teachers are women and the likelihood that many are quitting to raise families. (I would counter, however, with the fact that many women professionals, like lawyers, doctors and scientists, postpone pregnancies, subcontract out childrearing to nannies, or choose not to have families, and that when weighing whether or when to have a family, working conditions and job satisfaction are important considerations).

The following was written by Matthew Di Carlo, Shanker Blog
You’ll often hear the argument that half or almost half of all beginning U.S. public school teachers leave the profession within five years.
The implications of this statistic are, of course, that we are losing a huge proportion of our new teachers, creating a “revolving door” of sorts, with teachers constantly leaving the profession and having to be replaced. This is costly, both financially (it is expensive to recruit and train new teachers) and in terms of productivity (we are losing teachers before they reach their peak effectiveness). And this doesn’t even include teachers who stay in the profession but switch schools and/or districts (i.e., teacher mobility).*
Needless to say, some attrition is inevitable, and not all of it is necessarily harmful, Many new teachers, like all workers, leave (or are dismissed) because they are just aren’t good at it – and, indeed, there is test-based evidence that novice leavers are, on average, less effective. But there are many other excellent teachers who exit due to working conditions or other negative factors that might be improved (for reviews of the literature on attrition/retention, see here and here).
So, the “almost half of new teachers leave within five years” statistic might serve as a useful diagnosis of the extent of the problem. As is so often the case, however, it’s rarely accompanied by a citation. Let’s quickly see where it comes from, how it might be interpreted, and, finally, take a look at some other relevant evidence.
The primary source for the claim seems to be analyses by respected University of Pennsylvania professor Richard Ingersoll (presented, among other places, in this 2003 report). Ingersoll uses data from the 2001-02 Teacher Follow-Up Survey (TFS). The TFS is a supplement to the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), a highly regarded national survey of teachers conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

To read the full article, please click here

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Are Girls and Boys Really All That Different (Part I)?


In honor of the one-year anniversary of Modern School, I'm reposting some of my favorite articles from the past year. The following is a fun quiz that brings up some interesting questions about gender, sexuality and our assumptions and biases. Try the quiz and then read Are Girls and Boys Really All That Different (Part II), which I'll repost tomorrow.
 
Can You Tell The Difference Between Boys and Girls?

Chances are you can’t tell the difference between baby boys and baby girls, especially if they are wearing gender neutral or ambiguous clothing. My students take the following test at the beginning of our genetics and reproduction unit.It's a fun way to introduce the subject and tie it into bigger social issues.

Test your gender IQ. Take the Baby X Test below.

Directions
Get out some scratch paper and record the number of the image
Record your answer (male or female)
Answers are given at the end of the test

Baby #1 (Image by Sean Drelinger)
Baby#2 (Image by Peasap)
Baby #3 (Image by MiriamBJDolls)
Baby #4 (Image by Wesley Oostvogels)
Baby #5 (Image by massdistraction)
Baby #6 (Image by hexodus)
Baby #7 (Image by Bram and Vera)
Baby #8 (Image by Mehregan Javanmard)
Baby #9 (Image by Badruddeen)
Baby #10 (Image by almoko)



Scroll down to see the correct answers




Answers
Baby #1 = female; Baby #2 = female; Baby #3 = male; Baby #4 = male; Baby #5 = female; Baby #6 = male; Baby #7 = female; Baby #8 = male; Baby #9 = male; Baby #10 = female.


Analysis
Most people score somewhere near 50% on similar tests. The reason is that babies have not yet developed any secondary sexual characteristics (e.g., facial hair, breasts) and, without any gender-identifying cues (e.g., pink or blue clothing; bows or ribbons), a baby’s gender is not obvious (without taking of the diaper, of course). Yet babies start to pick up gender cues almost immediately. Adults often treat babies differently depending on their gender (e.g., tone of voice, types of play). The babies observe their surroundings, how other children and grown ups dress and behave, advertisements, television. Our assumptions and prejudices influence how our children develop their own gender identities, but so does their environment and society .

See Comments Thread at Democratic Underground
What are the implications of our assumptions and prejudices around gender?

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Are Girls and Boys Really All That Different (Part I)?

Can You Tell The Difference Between Boys and Girls?

Chances are you can’t tell the difference between baby boys and baby girls, especially if they are wearing gender neutral or ambiguous clothing. My students take the following test at the beginning of our genetics and reproduction unit.It's a fun way to introduce the subject and tie it into bigger social issues.

Test your gender IQ. Take the Baby X Test below.

Directions
  1. Get out some scratch paper and record the number of the image
  2. Record your answer (male or female)
  3. Answers are given at the end of the test
Baby #1 by Sean Drelinger, Flickr

Baby #2, by Peasap, Flickr

Baby #3, by MiriamBJDolls, Flickr

Baby #4, by Wesley Oostvogels, flickr
Baby #5, by massdistraction, flickr

Baby #6, by hexodus, flickr
Baby #7, by Bram & Vera, flickr

Baby #8, by Mehregan Javanmard, flickr



Baby #9, by Badruddeen, flickr

Baby #10, by almoko, flickr

 Scroll down to see the correct answers




Answers
Baby #1 = female; Baby #2 = female; Baby #3 = male; Baby #4 = male; Baby #5 = female; Baby #6 = male; Baby #7 = female; Baby #8 = male; Baby #9 = male; Baby #10 = female.


Analysis
Most people score somewhere near 50% on similar tests. The reason is that babies have not yet developed any secondary sexual characteristics (e.g., facial hair, breasts) and, without any gender-identifying cues (e.g., pink or blue clothing; bows or ribbons), a baby’s gender is not obvious (without taking of the diaper, of course). Yet babies start to pick up gender cues almost immediately. Adults often treat babies differently depending on their gender (e.g., tone of voice, types of play). The babies observe their surroundings, how other children and grown ups dress and behave, advertisements, television. Our assumptions and prejudices influence how our children develop their own gender identities, but so does their environment and society .

See Comments Thread at Democratic Underground

What are the implications of our assumptions and prejudices around gender?