I am really passionate about homeschooling, but I understand that it is not the only good way to educate children and that there are many parents who don't even have the option of homeschooling or feel it's not best for their family.
I know that public school isn't bad and I was formed (in a great way!) by many of my public school teachers and friends. There were many aspects of public school that I enjoyed and that served me well. There were just also parts of the system itself that were faulty.
Here are some things I would change about the public school system if I were in charge.
-I would make the school day shorter. I would probably do a half day for all grades, including high school. The opportunity cost of time is my biggest gripe with public school. Kids don't need to be sitting for 8 hours a day with a couple breaks that are twenty minutes. They need to spend most of their time up and moving. They need to spend time in free play, time reading, time being read to (which often happens in elementary school, but almost never happens in middle and high school despite the fact that the benefits are still very real to teenagers), and time pursuing their own interests.
For younger grades, I'm thinking probably third grade and under, I would limit it to two or three hours.
They could come to school, learn, have an activity in the middle of the day to break up sitting down (we try to do this in our own homeschool), then have lunch. For those who can, they can then go home. For those who can't (because I know many parents work), the school could offer a free period for the rest of the time. This would be a time for the kids to pursue their own interests. They could do things like build forts outside, make things out of blocks or Perler beads, play with toys, or even play Minecraft (there is a lot of educational value in certain video games like Minecraft). Or maybe just read (that's what I would have been doing!).
-I would eliminate 90% of worksheets and 100% of testing. Worksheets are often not the best way for kids to learn and can make kids who don't enjoy worksheets believe that they don't love learning. Worksheets are not bad and even in our homeschool, sometimes we use worksheets (or something similar). Sometimes kids even like them! But I would make it less a part of a daily school day.
I would eliminate testing for several reasons. First, kids are then learning to a test instead of learning about what interests them, which is never as effective or as long lasting (do YOU remember the things you learned for tests?). It also puts a lot of pressure on teachers to teach to the test instead of teaching in the ways that they have found to work.
But how would we know which kids were behind??
First, I take issue with that view of education in general. Kids learn different things at different times. Often, it's a question of their brain physically maturing enough to understand the concept. The focus should not be on what they are learning, but rather on the learning itself. As we focus on helping them learn at their own pace and in the way that is best for them, the child not only enjoys learning (and is therefore more self motivated to learn, but also wants to continue learning in the future when someone isn't right there trying to get them to learn), but they also learn how they individually learn best.
Second, I see no reason why teacher evaluation of their progress (not a set place of where they are, but a trajectory of where they are headed and the good things they did that year) shouldn't be better than testing. Not only is this a way to help children make progress and keep learning without the pressure of needing to keep up with everyone, but it also teaches them to have a growth mindset and to set goals that better themselves (rather than trying to be "better" than others).
This also helps kids who are talented in areas that public school currently doesn't value. Kids who are great at art but not as naturally talented at math don't have to feel stupid or hate math. They can work on math a little bit everyday and be proud of the progress they make there (without being compared to the math-inclined kids), AND they get to focus on their art and feel proud of their progress there.
-I would eliminate homework for every grade and every subject, with the possible exception of high school math. High school math is the only grade where homework might make a difference for grades or knowledge.
Homework has very little value for students. Studies have found that homework does not affect grades (when teachers don't assign grades) or long term retention of knowledge. Certain studies have found that homework can raise standardized testing scores slightly (which I would do away with anyway).
Plus, homework has many drawbacks! Any parent who has had to help with homework knows that it can be a fight. Kids have just spent a bunch of time doing schoolwork at home, now they have to spend hours doing more schoolwork. This cuts into their time to relax and to focus on what they actually want to do. I got mostly good grades in school, because I was "good" at the public school things. BUT the bad grades I did get, I got because instead of doing homework, I was reading. I was punished for reading instead of doing more schoolwork after being in school for eight hours. Plus, studies have found that students NOT assigned homework show up at school each day more motivated and focused for the school day.
There is also the drawback for students who come from families of lower socioeconomic status (who public school is supposed to benefit the most). Because they don't have family there (because of work or neglect or whatever it is) to help with homework, they often don't do it or don't do it right. Then their grades are lower, they are trying to catch up in class, and they feel "stupid" for not being at the same level as their classmates who have parents home to help with their homework.
I honestly don't understand why public schools still assign homework. We have 130 years of studies on homework that literally all say the same thing--homework has almost no benefit (and arguably none), and many drawbacks.
-I would change the way the budgets work. The budgets and the way money is handled with public school is a joke. Money is wasted and teachers get paid pennies. Part of the problem is that when money is allotted in a certain area, it is impossible to move that money somewhere else. So, if they have $50,000 for desks but their desks are fine, they can't just pay their teachers more with that money. It HAS to go to desks. So what happens is they buy new desks they didn't really need and the old desks are literally thrown away (I've seen it, and so has my brother, as custodians).
There are other problems, but waste is a huge one.
I am not an accountant. I also don't know the specifics of how the budget works. But I know that there are problems there and that changing it could really help teachers, and therefore the students, if we could streamline it. And there are people out there with the knowledge to do so.
-I would lower the amount of students in public school. Yes, lower the amount of students, not increase the number of teachers. Increasing the number of teachers not only means we need to be putting aside money for more teachers, it also means we need place to spread out the classes and would require even more money.
But if we had less students in public school, but the budget for schools was the same, imagine what we could do!
Because all of these changes sound good, but one underlying problem that keeps teachers from being able to do all of this is the student to teacher ratio. Teachers can't know each child's individual interests. They can't understand what each child is facing at home and the kind of support they need from the teacher (if the student has involved parents at home, the teacher is simply a support; if the child doesn't, they are going to need a lot more from the teacher).
As teachers have less students (I think the max should be ten), they can know their students in a personal way. Students then have an adult who cares about them, showing up for them everyday no matter what their home life is for. They have someone cheering them on and helping them learn in a way that actually matters to them. How many dropouts would we have if students actually felt like they were learning things that they cared about?
This would be a hard change to implement, because it would mean that families who didn't need public school would need to do something else (in many cases, that would mean homeschooling, as I know how expensive private schools can be). But imagine if the families that could were homeschooling and the amount of teachers stayed the same. The kids who really needed a safe place, an adult who cared, a hot meal, could get so much more benefit (and the kids who were homeschooled would get more benefit too).
I know right now the way the system is set up, this wouldn't work. The school gets money based off of how many students they have. But I would change that. If I could, I would make it so that there was a teacher and classroom for every ten students enrolled in a school, and have only the students who really needed it attend.
So those are the main changes I would make to the public school system. I think changes like that (not necessarily those ones, but moving in that direction) could make a big difference for the kids attending public school.
What do you think of these changes? What changes would you make?
