Readings for October 23

The reading this week focused on a variety of topics, many of which are implemented at the school district level and therefore effects all students within the district.

Myth 18
Retaining children in grade 'flunking' them helps struggling students catch up and promotes better classroom instruction for all.
This myth, on the surface, makes sense. You allow the child to go through the school work again, relearn the material and allow them to master if before moving on. This article, however, pointed out that this is not the case. The strategy is not effective and student's do not necessarily master the material, they just get better at it because it is the second time they are going over the same stuff. Retaining students essentially creates negative outcomes in terms of social and emotional well being for the child, and they also develop a negative attitude toward school, because by holding them back, you are telling them that they aren't 'good' at school. Parent's attitudes toward their children also change-they expect less from their child, which is not a good vibe to send the child. If schools really wanted to help struggling students, they would hire extra tutors, implement summer programs and ensure everyone had a good foundation by having great preschools available for everyone. Holding children back in school is really just a waste of money and negatively changes that child's attitude toward themselves and school.

Myth 27
If a program works well in one school or district, it should be imported and expected to work well elsewhere
This idea would make sense, if the world was perfect and all school districts were exactly the same. But that is not the case, and I have seen when new superintendents of school districts try to do this and it fails. We went through three different superintendents while I was in school, and all of them had a great 'new plan' to try. It was rare that the results were ever as expected. Trying to implement new programs in different districts will almost never get the same results because the teachers, students, relationships and community support is not the same from district to district. The context of each district is too complicated to ensure a one plan fits all type deal. The sad part is, when the programs fail, the teachers are often blamed for not implementing it correctly, which is not a fair assessment at all.

Myth 30
Character education will save America's youth and strengthen the nation's moral fiber.
This myth made the amusing observation that all older generations think that the younger generations are losing respect, work ethic and cultural  competency. So of course they would want to implement programs to build student's characters and create good citizens. That is the point of public education correct? To create good citizens? But social and character development programs do not work for the simple reason that things like character cannot be taught (confusingly enough, they are learned however). Plus, students spend most of their time and build most of their character outside of school, in their neighborhood and at home. So while trying to create better citizens by building character of children in school sounds like a good plan, it doesn't work. And I really wonder if it is the job of the schools anyway? Or if the responsibility lies with community that child lives in as a whole?

Myth 33
Mayoral control of city schools has paid off in terms of student achievement.
This article makes the good point that it really depends on location of the school district and who is in charge for this myth to be 'true' or 'false.' In general however, mayoral control has not lead to any academic achievement gains from students and if anything, as increased the achievement gap. Mayoral control also reduces the democratic process present in many schools, and leaves one person with all the power, which historically, is not a good decision.  By putting rich people in charge of school districts and allowing them to choose more rich people for the school board, you are creating a large disconnect between the board and the population served. When there is such a disconnect, it is easy to understand why there hasn't been much improvement. The board doesn't understand what the school and population needs or wants. Mayoral control also can lead to high teacher turnover and many school closures, both of which do not benefit the students.