Home >> Best of >> 1997 >> Chalk2 >> Week Four

Search form

Home > "Best Of" Series > 1997 > Chalk Talk Challenge II > Player Feedback Week Four

W E E K     F O U R

 

TEXTBOOK-FREE

wmiller wrote:
It would certainly be possible to do a good job of teaching most subjects without a textbookbut I have seen too many students come out of school without a clue as to how to learn from books. A good textbook (1) gives every student ready access to a book which covers the subject, so it is realistic to give regular reading/comprehension/exploration assignments, and (2) gives bored students the opportunity to read ahead or cover parts of the subject which the whole class skips or doesn't get to.

Most of our schools do not have the resources to have 30 copies of every book I would want to use for a resource in lieu of a textbook; and making copies of the pertinent sections robs the students of the book experience.

Of course, no teacher should be enslaved by textbooks.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of textbooks out there that could be discarded with no detriment to education. But that is because they are bad textbooks, not because they are textbooks.

ccook1 wrote:
The discussion on the need for textbooks is actually a discussion of communication at the basic level of education and essentially, of time. Notably, there will be a few subjects that would not require annual updating of publications. There are several subjects, however, that are best presented with current information and current events. If teachers have adequate guidelines and time to develop the coursework, then current information seems the ultimate. If however, time is not available, then we lose any means of structure and make available the loss of direction and certain standards that good textbooks provide. This challenge is also directly related to skills, creativity, and knowledge of the teacher and the availability of adequate funding and planning.

Are we to the point of saying that a bit of knowledge slightly outdated is better than no knowledge or exposure?

raptor wrote:
My answer to question 1 is really a combination of choice 1 and 3. I believe that textbooks are not necessary, and that most teachers would be more effective without them. However, teachers would need to be adequately prepared and provided with the planning time that would be necessary to provide good instruction without the textbook, not to mention the materials that would be needed. This should not be considered a temporary measure or an experiment.

kathleen wrote:
I teach one subject with textbooks and one without (there isn't a textbook available for the other class).

I find that the students need something to carry around besides their notes to study for tests, and be prepared for class.

tait7 wrote:
Textbooks are a tool. Textbooks are usually sequential and developmental which is a plus. One minus is the inaccurate information believed to be factual, because it is stated in a textbook.

Some textbooks are written by textbook writers who write the text but have little expertise on the subject matter.

jshaas2 wrote:
I am a Senior fixing to graduate with honors with a Bachelor. The question of if textbooks should be put away is quite confusing. If you would have specified an age maybe it would have narrowed it down some more. There is no way younger kids, probably 10th grade and down and probably all of high school could excel without textbooks. Whereas in the college setting, even though you buy textbooks, most learning is rote learning and done through lecture and notes. So really my answer is textbooks are critical for the younger ages, and maybe less important for college age students. Even though the textbooks provide a great resource in the future.

lovettes wrote:
Textbooks are an essential part of the education system for the long haul. When these young students become college students, they will need the ability of self-research. Digging for the answers themselves. Starting early with textbooks teaches them where and how to find the necessary information. I do not, however, feel that the use of textbooks should be so stringent that the teachers can not use all of the exceptional learning methods available to them.

 

EARLY EDUCATION

janbry wrote:
I think that the public is helping to promote the push-down education. Each grade level wants the grade before theirs to be able to do everything in the new gradesuch as 1st grade teachers and parents want the children to learn to read in Kindergarten. I feel that no child before the age of 5 should go to school. The day care centers can supply the children with learning toys for the children to play with. Children learn by playing. It is no wonder we have so much teen pregnancy or suicide because we are not letting our children be children. They have plenty of time in their life for formal learning. Let's quit pushing our children to grow up. Let's let them be children with children's thoughts. We are doing a disservice to our children by giving them a formal education when they are 2 or 3.

rhoyt wrote:
Just wanted to add that while I don't object to preschool, I don't think it is a necessity. What is a necessity is involved parents who do more than plop their child in front of the TV set or send him/her to the neighbor's house. None of my three children attended preschool. They are now in 10th, 7th, and 5th grades and all three are at the top of their respective class.

lovettes wrote:
I do not believe that all school districts will be able to support the need for pre-school education in the same manner that many low cost private schools do. Children prior to six do not need to attend school everyday of the week, as if they were in K - 12. They still need to be with their mothers or substitute mothers (daycare). Play is an important part of their learning experience, by no means do we need to take that from them.

 

YEAR ROUND SCHOOLS

fizzbin wrote:
As a special educator, the concept of year-round schools sounds like a good concept, in theory. But in reality, it seems that the nightmares of management would be horrendous, if the year-round school were conducted on a rotating basis, as some schools are. Schedules are impossible enough when all the students are there, much less when some are out at different times. I also worry about burnout with special educators. Many of us are already in the position of having these challenging students for 4 or 5 years in a row. Without a summer break to recoup with, I fear burnout will occur at a much faster rate. I really do not embrace the idea of year-round schools, for me, in my situation. Thanks for listening.

Clair70 wrote:
Summer should be the time to experiment with curriculum, new teachers, and administrators. It should be counted as a semester for the kids only if they are able to participate fully; it should be an option for those who could use the summer as an opportunity to travel or work.

These days, many kids have the same real problems as adults; trying to fit a lifetime into a few short years in high school. Many need the summer to augment their education rather than plow through courses that should not take as long as they do.

Therefore, a more open system posed as a twelve month school year could be a real benefit to those requiring career training or work for cash to survive the school year. Openings around the school could be offered to students wanting work study. Older students and pre college students might assist teachers or summer professionals with coursework and, at times, actually teach some of the coursework.

I see a lot of promise in this idea!

pth wrote:
I believe year-round school would be excellent for grades pre-school through grades 9 or 10. But when youth are old enough to work part time or during summer vacation, I believe they should have an option of year-round school or the present system to allow them to work when necessary or wanted.

gkcruey wrote:
I had to choose one of the answers you gave, but none of them actually expressed my opinion on the issue. WV is piloting year-round schools, but the school is in session for 9 weeks then off for so many (2 weeks I think). That seems like the best alternative to me. The grading period lasts 9 weeks and when students return, they go for the 9 week period. Breaks are scheduled during the periods that usually have the worst weather. I don't know what effect it has on student retention of information, but that is an interesting subject. Parents and students (and probably teachers too) will need to be persuaded that the benefits far outweigh the negatives and the loss of a 2 month summer vacation. However, if all or most schools adopt the same schedule, vacations and breaks would be easier planned.

tait7 wrote:
School should not be year-round. Schools are institutions. Children need a break from the system. They need to explore and be children. The finest European schools send their students on holidays. Institutes of higher learning such as Oxford expect their students to study and learn on their own.

valentine wrote:
Year-round school concept? Some days the idea has positive possibilities and other days...naw. Obviously it is not going to be a clear cut decision that gains majority approval. Nor should it be majority rule. As much as our society is the same, we are also as diverse and individualistic. That individualism is what has to be addressed, I feel, when it comes to determining a direction for the year-round concept. It is a good idea for some (by choicee.g., academic excellence); a good idea for a few due to academic, social skills, and behavioral limitations exhibited amongst their grade/age level peers during the normal 180 day school year; and, a "not necessary" choice for the remainder of the students. Let's focus on those that can benefit from the year-round concept. As is well documented, individuals do not learn at the same pace and families do not parent with the same nurturing abilities. If 5th grader Johnnie hasn't the skills to work at grade level and family wants him to be at that grade level, then Johnnie should have the option of year-round school. If Sarah comes from a less-than-nurturing environment and her social skills suffer because of that background, then perhaps Sarah should have the option of year 'round training. The day of grouping 20, 30, 40 kids and expecting them to learn and display similar response patterns is a goner. Even putting 15 children into one classroom and expecting them to be at the same ability level, academically and socially, is becoming an unacceptable expectation. Focus on the children and families that can truly benefit from year-round education.

lovettes wrote:
I am against year-round schools regardless of the school district, or for any argumentable reason. Children and their parents have a difficult time enough scheduling vacations, or participation in other activities without the public school system sticking their noses in. Childcare is another issue all together. The traditional school year also allowed teachers to be full-time parents as well as full-time employees by simply taking turns. The year-round school takes this away.