Comments about ‘No Child Left Behind based on false goal’

I'm not too bright but can someone taught by this approach design an airplane that will fly or a bridge that won't collapse? Will they be able to understand that they, and all of us, will be better off when we are all personally responsible for ourselves? We've spend enough time, energy and money teaching kids to feel good, and entitled, without actually knowing anything. We don't need another round of the same result.

Let's focus on spending, not reform and not performance.

Excellent article.

Talk to ANY teacher and they will tell you that NCLB has ruined the good things they used to be able to do in a classroom. Now all we do is teach to the end of level test.

No exploration. No student guided inquiry. Just facts and memorization that the kids can find in two seconds on the internet. They are losing interest quick.

NCLB is spawning that disinterest.

There's a third reason NCLB is a shame that wasn't mentioned and that is Education is a state responsibility not a Federal one. States have then given the responsibility to local school districts who then set their own standards and curriculum. Communities have always had schools to educate their children to become productive adults in their own community. A strong nation is built with strong communities. NCLB glosses over or ignores communities in an effort to build a national education system. I see that as a huge flaw in the law. We need strong local schools accountable to their own communities. These communities want as much or more for their children then anyone in Washington DC.

I know the author must mean something different from the apparent meaning, because the apparent meaning is that we shouldn't set goals for our children actually learning the material. After all, what is important is that schools teach children how to be good people, and to function in socity. That can't be right. In the past, parents taught their children what it meant to be good people, and how they should act in society, and School was for giving children the skills they needed to do whatever they wanted in society and the world. Are educators now telling us that parents' job has passed to the schools? If so, who is going to teach our children math, science, and reading while the teachers are 'training' the children to play their role in society.

Like I said, the author must mean something other than that, but I don't know what. I'm not sure I want my child to be trained to fit in with society; I want them to break out and do extraordinary things that will transform society for the better.

That's what I want. I don't think that's what the author wants, and that's the problem.

I'm a teacher. The Social Constructivist Pedagogy or "Learner Centered Teaching" suggested by Ms. Stoddard is an educational fad that is causing serious problems in education today. It is time parents do some research on the foundations of this philosophy, which is dumbing down our children.

Students learn best from good mentors who model correct principles and guide the child along the educational path.

Do we want to be operated on by a surgeon who has never graduated from a qualified medical school and never participated in a rigorous internship, or taken post-graduate seminars in the latest techniques?

Do we want our children to be taught math by a teacher who had little understanding of math?

Is spelling important to success? Do we want spelling tests and drills taken out of our schools?

Do we want our children to be taught math by teachers who understand pedagogy but not math? (Study the teaching curriculum at our colleges and universities.)

Can a child who graduates from High School who does not know how to read well, write well and calculate math be anything BUT a burden on society?

Who do we want Social Constructivist teachers and administrators setting our social standards.

Wonderful! For the very reasons outlined here I chose to home school my children: they now learn at the pace best for them and their developmental stages, and succeed more quickly than they did in public school.
But the HUGE question is, how can such an approach to teaching be accomplished in a system that tries to reach the most amount of children for the least amount of money? Much smaller class sizes--no more than 10 kids per class--would be a great, if highly expensive, start.

There is an element of truth in what this author is saying about our education system and the need for character-based reform. However, the approach to make learning inquiry based, also known as constructivism, is a false theology espoused by churches (schools) of education that have created untold problems in our public education system. It has been common for younger teachers (initiates) to repeat various mantras such as kids dont need to learn the times tables anymore because theyll always have a calculator.

The reason for the outcry against public education is precisely because those that call themselves educators have gone far astray from teaching the basic knowledge a young mind needs. They are trying to give children college level experiences (self-imposed inquiry) at elementary levels when their minds are wholly incapable of it.

Utahns deserve better. Standards in Utah for education should be as high as anywhere in the world. Without solid foundation work for our children, they will never learn higher order thinking skills necessary to compete in a global market.

Oak Norton

Great points, I would hate my children to receive direct instruction in such things as addition, subtraction, multiplication, etc. I would much prefer my children simply to discover on their own the basics of education, as this will make them happier and more productive.

My issue with public education today is we are more interested in making people feel good then teaching people how to be productive. When my children don't get the correct answer they should know it and be shown (directly) how to fix it.

My issue with this is the fundamental flaw of comparing our school system with learning how to walk. Please..... There is a right and wrong in math, kids must be directly taught.

I truly appreicate those teachers that take into account what is best for the child in the future and teach them and hold them accountable. I don't want my children to learn math on their own, I want direct education. FYI - math may acutally require that.

Lynn, This is pure garbage. Do you let all the children just discover what is right and let them flounder. NO. Direct Instruction is the only way to teach. Thes 7 'I's are stupid. You can't teach tools of inquiry unless they actually understand the fundamentals and basics of any field of study. Smart crooks are in jail because they are lazy and dishonest, not because they are any more clever than the rest of society - jails are also full of people who can't read and write and the only way to get what they want is through crime. Get a clue, this is such trash. It is the parent's responsibility to make sure their children become productive members of society. The schools are first and foremost to teach them to speak, compute, analyze, read, write, etc, anything after this is great but the primary position of teachers is to teach and direct instruction has been found to be far more effective than letting a student guess and flounder and figure it our for themselves.

Amen, Lynn...nice job.

Government needs to get out of the business of 'do everything, be everything'.
I am a Utah Republican too, and I think throwing money at black holes is much much more than unwise. "The system" should not be saved. Children need education, not schooling.
Let the parents have their money and control. When should my vote have the right to force my opinions on your children or even you. I shouldn't have the power to force my opinion of how your children should be educated on you. That is wrong. But the government schools feel like they have the power and the right to do it to you and your children. They believe they know best. So much so that they use police power and government statute to enforce their beliefs on you. This is wrong.
Children need education...At the rate that their parents can decide and help arrange. An educated society is much better prepared to care for its own. But morals and values should be the parents call, not a government agency. Gov should do as the law dictates, not as some 'department of' dictates.
Freedom is always better.
America was built on it.
Choice, not force.

This is very misguided. Not all children thrive in a 'just let them pick it up themselves' atmosphere. That only works well for bright children. My autistic son learns well in a traditional learning environment in our regular schools, but flounders dreadfully in this fuzzy type of learning. I pulled my children from our neighborhood school and put them in a charter school for precisely this problem. Our public school was using a fuzzy math system, and was concentrating more on teach political correctness than on teaching basic skills. They are getting a far superior education now and enjoy it more and we no longer have frustrated kids who can't figure out their homework.
I expect a school to teach my children the basics. That is best done with instruction, not by osmosis. Leave your agendas and your fuzzy instruction methods and your political idealogies at the door please and teach my children the reading, writing, science, and math skills they will need to know to be successful in life.

My first comment has to be, thank goodness Lynn Stoddard is retired, that gives some peace me. My second comment is, doesn't it just make sense that Lynn is now an administrator? That's right, take the worst and put them higher up the ladder where they can do even more damage. Laughable article, like the following statment;

"Direct instruction is complicated by the fact that a few children start school already knowing how to read. They learned how to read the way everyone learns how to read they teach themselves the same way they learned how to talk and walk."

Everyone? Lynn I have what is probably sad news for you, my children did not learn to read by themselves, nor talk, nor walk, they entered school with knowledge aided "directly" from my wife and me, we were very direct in teaching them important things, and they are both 'A' students. I suppose we'll here from you in another article or "directly" from your mouth and you will also tell us how sad it is that parents are not more involved in their childrens education... right?? Cant' have it both ways Lynn.

How about this: parents who embrace Lynn's position should be able to send their children to a school which wholeheartedly embraces "Developmentally Apropriate Practice" and "constructivist" pedagogy. This would include virtually all the traditional public schools in Utah.

On the other hand, parents who believe the research demonstrating that explicit, direct instruction in all areas of the curriculum will result in increased achievement for their children should also be able to send there children to schools implementing these models. (This would include the most successful private schools and many charter schools in Utah.)

I strongly suspect, and reasearch certainly implies, that children from the latter group would emerge with much stronger academic skills than those from the former.

The author is right. No Child Left Behind should be No Adult Left Behind. I just went to parent teacher conference and dealt with many worn out, underpaid teachers, tired of dealing with students unprepared to learn, parents using school as glorified day care, students dealing with lives full of broken homes, no parental guidance, no restraints.

On the other hand, the author is wrong. As a parent, my job is to teach my child in my home the seven dimensions of human greatness: inquiry, interaction, imagination, initiative, intuition and integrity. For centuries, the family has been the most successful institution for developing a full range of human potential. I send my child to school to be taught the intricacies of biology, taught by an adult trained in biology. I send my child to school to be taught the English language, taught by an adult trained in the English language. I send my child to school to be taught pre-calculus, taught by an adult trained in precalculus. Direct instruction is absolutely the job of government public school. Or how about we set up two school systems and give parents a choice: Direct Instruction School or Solicited Indirect Instruction School.

What is this person talking about? Run--don't walk--away from the public schools!! I send my kids to school for an education in reading, writing, and arithmetic. It is MY job to teach them how to become productive citizens--not the schools!
The comments from Hangman, Oak, and Jeremy all hit this right on the head.

Common sense has failed in univeristies that teach teachers. The educational institution in America as represented by this man is symbolized by Neville Chamberlain's response to Adolf Hitler at the beginning of World War II--a naive and foolish path that led to devastation. In the case of public education, the devastation of our nation's potential-- its youth.
We are at a crisis, but 80% of the parents don't yet realize it. We waste billions of dollars on failed educational philosophies. What we need most in public education is a total change in the administration of schools and the educational philosophy that guides our public school system.

This retired teacher is why we need reform in the first place. Her methodology allows her to artificially inflate student grades while simultaneously cutting her work load. After all if the student is busy discovering there are far fewer papers to grade.
In my early years I was not educated in America. The work load of the Japanese student would crush a teacher as lazy as this lady. My daughter has had two teachers that have no knowledge of mathematics and physics. When I tried to help her by pointing out the glaring errors of the teachers examples it just frustrated her, she only wanted to get the approval of the ignorant teacher not master the curriculum. If we are going to require us to pay more the teachers must master the subject or not be allowed to teach it.

Folks, Lynn's piece is a clumsy expose on the educational philosophy of "constructivism" which has devastated American education, and especially Utah public education. Kids are doing excessive "self-discovery" which should be reserved for college level when they're ready for it, at the expense of being taught their core subjects.

Why did Utah schools recently score at rock-bottom when compared to states with similar demographics? Look to the root of the tree. It is the education programs at our universities which focus excessively on pedagogy techniques, without demanding teachers gain expertise in their specific subject. Our young teachers coming out of Utah's teaching universities like BYU and UVU are being indoctrinated in the virtues of self-directed learning versus direct instruction.

The idea that children can basically "teach themselves" is so far-fetched I actually thought Lynn was using sarcasm and hyperbole to make her point, until I realized she was simply spewing constructivist pedagogy philosophy. My children could read by the time they started kindergarten because I spent hours teaching them phonics.

State Senators John Valentine and Margaret Dayton are aware of the dangers of consructivism and I support their education reform efforts. Heaven help Utah's schools.