by Windmills » Sun 01 May 2011, 21:00:43
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('evilgenius', 'T')he single biggest influence of children in schools is other children. Parents are not that big of an influence. If kids grow up in a culture where there is at least a buried goal to succeed it will come out. If they grow up in a culture where they know how to concentrate and deliberate, even if that is not acknowledged on the surface, they will do so when the time comes. Conversely, if the goal is to join a bad idea, they will. If the idea is to waste themselves, they will. Conveyance of expectation within the relevant group is the dominant paradigm.
Interesting theory. If only it were backed up by educational research, but it's not. As I said before, research indicates that the strongest influence on the academic outcomes of a child is parental involvement in that child's academic life. Other children have influence across certain social dimensions, but you'd be surprised how superficial and transient that is for other areas. Once again, parents have the longest lasting and strongest influence in nearly all the important areas. This assertion runs against the grain and intuition of most people, including me, so I was suprised to read it in one of my teaching textbooks.
As far as I recall, most, if not all, of the school systems that are whooping our butts are socialized and in socialist countries. It's not the funding system that's the problem, it's what you said:
"If they grow up in a culture where they know how to concentrate and deliberate, even if that is not acknowledged on the surface, they will do so when the time comes." The fundamental units of culture arise in the home.
If we're going to imagine things, let's imagine something actually supported by research. Imagine the world's high schoolers are all on soccer teams that compete with each other every year. While the other students practice all week, the Ameircan kids check their look in the mirror. They do their hair and talk about each other's clothes. They go shopping. The rest of the world keeps practicing. The American students bring their PSPs and Gameboys to the field to play video games while other teams practice soccer. Some of the American kids don't even show up for practice because they have jobs instead. In place of practicing passing, kicking, and running plays, the Americans sit around in their stylish soccer uniforms and send text messages to each other. The rest of the world practicies soccer. On Fridays, the American kids finally decide to put in an hour of practice. At the end of the season, we come in somewhere around 20th place and people put the blame for the poor performance on our socialist socccer system, even though everyone that beat us also has a socialist soccer system.
That's the analogy. Here's the research.
"American adolescents spend far more time on leisure, and far less time in productive activities, than their counterparts in other countries. American students' use of their time out of school for school-related activities is especially low. For instance, the average American high school student spends fewer than five hours per week on homework; in Asian countries, such as India, Taiwan, and Japan, the average is between four and five horus per
day (Larson & Verma, 1999). And European and Asian adolescents spend almost three times more hours each week reading for pleasure than American adolescents (Larson & Verma, 1999). In contrast, American teenagers spend relatively more time playing sports, socializing with friends, caring for their physical appearance, and working after-school jobs (Alaskar & Flammar, 1999; Flammer, Alaskar, & Noacck, 1999; Larson & Verma, 1999)." (Steinberg, 2002)
An underlying culture can screw up a school system in the same way it screws up its kids. It doesn't mean the kids or the schools are inherently wrong.