« Brooklyn Sales: Under a Million Inside Third & Bond: Week 92 »

July 16, 2009

New Middle School Coming to Fort Greene

According to The Local, Fort Greene will get a new 300-seat middle school starting in the Fall of 2010. The Fort Greene Preparatory Academy, as it will be called, will be located at 100 Clermont Avenue where PS 46 currently is. The academics will be structured around Socratic seminars and the arts. “The goal of the school is to be driven by student inquiry,” said Paula Lettiere, the intended principal. “We’re seeking to move away from traditional curriculum.” This sounds like a pretty conscious effort to provide an alternative to the PS 20 approach that has turned off so many of the families that have moved to the neighborhood in recent years.
New Middle School Coming in 2010 [Local/NYT]
Photo by silk cut

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/10621

Comments

some advice to new schools opening up.

PLEASE EDUCATE THE STUDENTS HEAVILY IN MATH AND THE SCIENCES. enough with the BS of feelings and crap.

the united states has a serious lack of people highly educated in math and science.

yeah it's nice that kids can sit around all day and paint their feelings on murals, but please put more focus on math and science. do you see how stupid people are when they graduate from nyc high schools, if they even do graduate. most are on the 5 year plan it seems.

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at July 16, 2009 11:19 AM

As an educator, I say, Thank you Pitbull.

Posted by: dylanfan at July 16, 2009 11:22 AM

"The academics will be structured around Socratic seminars"

Socratic seminars for 7 year olds?
Sounds like a good teaching method for 11th graders maybe but as Rob implied, not much use until they know the basics.
Also don't think any elementary school should specialize in particular areas of study - save it for high school and focus on giving a good general education in elementary school.

Posted by: etson at July 16, 2009 11:30 AM

HELLO!!! IT'S A MIDDLE SCHOOL!!!

Grades 6-8, ages 11-ish to 14-ish. Standardized tests every year.

Posted by: rf at July 16, 2009 11:33 AM

Sorry, I read the first sentence of the posting rather than the local headline.

11-14 is still too young to be specializing and learning in that way in my opinion.

Posted by: etson at July 16, 2009 11:36 AM

The headline says it's a middle school and Brownstoner's write-up says it's an elementary school...which is it? The Local says it's a middle school (6th-8th grades).

Schools like this can either be amazingly good or amazingly awful. It depends on the quality of teachers and administrators they recruit. If they are using "Socratic seminars" (a rather grand term for middle school education!) they'd need kids who are very smart, very disciplined, or both.

Count me as a skeptic.

Posted by: sixyearsandcounting at July 16, 2009 11:38 AM

It is a middle school that will be housed inside an elementary school.

Posted by: rf at July 16, 2009 11:40 AM

Count me in as a skeptic too, sixyears.

Posted by: dylanfan at July 16, 2009 11:45 AM

also, i understood the problem with ps 20 to be with the authoritarian/disciplinarian environment, not with the curriculum per se.

Posted by: i disagree at July 16, 2009 11:47 AM

I agree, sixyears, that the principal and teachers will make the school. But District 13 definitely needs a less structured option. The only full-size middle school in FG/CH is 113, which has had great success with its students but which is traditional and very structured.

Posted by: rf at July 16, 2009 11:50 AM

Maybe 113 has had "great success with its students" because its curriculum is traditional and very structured?

Posted by: dylanfan at July 16, 2009 11:52 AM

The problem is that programs like this often neglect the basics - grammar, spelling, math, science, basic logical thinking - in favor of exploring whatever. I'm all in favor of inquiry learning *if* a student has the basics down, OR if it's used as a tool to teach the basics. Most teachers (and I am one) don't have the time, ability, and/or inclination to combine inquiry learning and the basics. Inquiry learning is suited to gifted students in small classes with master teachers at that age, but that environment is almost impossible to replicate on a large scale.

Posted by: sixyearsandcounting at July 16, 2009 11:54 AM

"Maybe 113 has had "great success with its students" because its curriculum is traditional and very structured?"

For some, no doubt. I'm skeptical of one size fits all solutions to any educational problem. Clearly some students need traditional education. Others (a minority) succeed with inquiry learning. Some do well in elementary school but not in high school. Others blossom in college or later in life because they don't fit into DOE bureaucrats' little boxes.

Posted by: sixyearsandcounting at July 16, 2009 11:57 AM

Rob, I couldn't agree with you more.

I'd also add that teaching the writing and speaking of standard English should also be stressed, and no feel good, but ultimately patronizing, nonsense about Ebonics, most bilingual ed, and meeting the kids where they are should be allowed in the building. When you apply to college, when you apply and interview for a job, hell, when you are stopped by cops in the street, it's bad enough people already have preconceived notions are who and what you are, so knock their socks off by being able to speak decently, and write well in standard English. Education is the key to life success. That doesn't mean everyone needs to be a PhD, but it does mean being able to get a job with chances of advancement, and not being steered and pigeonholed into a life of poverty.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 16, 2009 11:57 AM

schools like these are terrific for the elites who disdain standarized tests and whose children can get into the best schools in the country because grandpa donated a library to Brown and uncle kiff donated a gym to Williams. Alas for the children of poor parents who must show, through test after test after test that they measure up, these school curriculums can do a huge diservice. A good example of this is PS8 in Brooklyn Heights where the principal, a St. Ann's alum, is trying to use very progressive methods. The results are mixed. The kids from affluent Heights families do OK but the kids from poor Farragut Houses families don't know how to read. That is why the School received a "D" two years ago and an "F" last year. You cannot broach this problem with Heights parents who will chew your ear off about how "unfair" the test is (didn't everyone have to take the same test?) and how ridiculous to use peer groups from places like Chinatown, where the little kids study like little demons and are really really smart. Fortunately for the country all those little immigrant childred will hopefully keep us from falling too far behind in science and technology.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at July 16, 2009 12:04 PM

Well, I do agree with what you added to my remark @11:57, sixyears, but I also agree even more with what you said @11:54 and with what Montrose says above.

Posted by: dylanfan at July 16, 2009 12:04 PM

Sorry for the blank.

I am the mother of an upcoming 8th grader. We toured 113 and liked it, although my daughter was wary of being the only Chinese kid in the school. Because she went to an elementary school in District 2, we had other choices and she is going to middle school in Manhattan.

I think there is room for a range of schools as long as the principal and staff keep their eye on the prize, which is of course education. My daughter's school is less structured than 113 and has had great success educating the wide range of students there (Lower East Side project kids, kids from wealthy Battery Park City/Tribeca families, kids from recent immigrant families from China).

I agree with sixyears that you definitely need a great principal and staff to succeed with a less structured format. Although I think the Dept. of Ed. has gone way overboard in relying on test scores, they do separate the wheat from the chaff and catch the schools where education is not taking place.

Posted by: rf at July 16, 2009 12:07 PM

Again, this will be a Dept. of Education middle school and there will be published test scores for every grade. And a measure of the success of the school will be how well it succeeds in getting its kids into good high schools.

Posted by: rf at July 16, 2009 12:10 PM

Minard, your post is ridiculous. Leave your ranting to architecture.

Posted by: NorthHeights at July 16, 2009 12:12 PM

Minard, while socioeconomic status ("Uncle Kiff donated a gym to Williams" - ha!) certainly has something to do with this debate, it isn't the only determinant. There are lots of different learning styles, but if you don't have the basics down, nothing matters.

Those DOE report cards, by the way, are a crock of s**t. My high school was evaluated a few years ago by an elementary school principal from England, who looked at reams of numerical data and test scores and never once left the principal's office.

Posted by: sixyearsandcounting at July 16, 2009 12:14 PM

You see what I mean about the Heights parents?
They become incensed.
My post was not ridiculous, you're ridiculous.
And arrogant.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at July 16, 2009 12:16 PM

sixyears,

what high school? write to me at robyf@aol.com

Thanks!

Posted by: rf at July 16, 2009 12:17 PM

"they do separate the wheat from the chaff and catch the schools where education is not taking place."

Well, if that's the case, they would have shut down 80% of the system by now and called it a day! :) Giuliani did get one thing right: blow up 110 Livingston St. and start over.

"I think there is room for a range of schools as long as the principal and staff keep their eye on the prize, which is of course education."

True - but that's the challenge - how can you hire and retain excellent teachers who actually want to, and know how to *educate* as opposed to *train* students? It's almost impossible in a system with bad working conditions, huge classes, and clueless DOE bureaucrats shoving standardized tests down your throats. In my department (I teach high school social studies) we used to have about 15-20 elective courses each year. Now we have two or three if we're lucky. Almost all the money goes to remedial courses for kids who failed. The teachers who put their hearts and souls into developing those electives - where motivated students and teachers alike could explore their intellectual interests - are mostly gone or disillusioned.

Posted by: sixyearsandcounting at July 16, 2009 12:23 PM

Anyone can go to the Dept. of Education website, look up any school, and see the test results, broken down by grade, race, poverty, gender, etc., etc. Here's the detailed report for 113:
https://www.nystart.gov/publicweb-rc/2008/e4/AOR-2008-331300010113.pdf

Note that the report is very long and the breakdowns start on page 15.

Posted by: rf at July 16, 2009 12:24 PM

If the grown ups (despite all evidence to the contrary) can stop yelling at each other for a moment, we might join in a group cheer that children in Fort Greene will have another educational option. And that there are people out there willing to work hard to provide it. Yay. Okay you can go back to bickering now.

Posted by: marlowe at July 16, 2009 12:30 PM

The white parents in Brooklyn Heights don't give a flying f-- if the little Black kids from the project don't learn a thing in their precious PS8. They rail agaisnt the citywide tests as if that's the problem. Deluded, arrogant, self-absorbed.....now I'm really ranting, so I will stop. But there is a problem there and the whole neighborhood needs an intervention.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at July 16, 2009 12:34 PM

i sorta kinda agree with minard on some of his points though.

im so glad i was educated in jersey. the public schools in the ghettos in new jersey are actually much better than most of the "good" schools in nyc.

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at July 16, 2009 12:40 PM

Rob,

What do you know about the "good" schools in NYC?

I went to school in a working class Long Island community in the 60s. I am sure my daughter is getting a better education at "good" (not the "best" super-duper gifted programs) public schools in NYC.

Posted by: rf at July 16, 2009 1:02 PM

“We’re seeking to move away from traditional curriculum.”

Translation: We're dumbing down the curriculum even further.

Posted by: bridges at July 16, 2009 1:10 PM

thank you minard, altho it's tough to tar a whole nabe. I suspect this 'Socratic' slash arts academy is a bone to some of the white parents, no?

Posted by: denton at July 16, 2009 1:14 PM

As a teacher I'll say that curriculum is but one necessary item needed for a successful school. Quality teachers and involved parents who value education are equally as important.

If a parent does not instill a value of education in a child the curriculum makes no difference. The best curriculum in the world is worthless without quality educators to implement it.

I'm a fan of rigor and traditional education with a focus on core disciplines, but regardless of your educational philosophical beliefs I maintain involved parents who instill a value of education in their children and quality educators are the key. The curriculum is almost secondary at that point.

Posted by: christopher at July 16, 2009 1:16 PM

"we might join in a group cheer that children in Fort Greene will have another educational option. And that there are people out there willing to work hard to provide it."

Marlowe, it's not the end, or even the beginning of the end, but only the end of the beginning. Now the *real* work begins, and it will be 5000 times as difficult.

Posted by: sixyearsandcounting at July 16, 2009 1:47 PM

Minard, please look at the "NY State School Report Card" for P.S. 8 at the nystart.gov website that RF linked to, and compare it to the "NYC Progress Report" available at schools.nyc.gov. Honestly, I don't know how to reconcile them - please explain it to me.

Since you started off by refusing to entertain debate ("You cannot broach this problem with Heights parents who will chew your ear off..."), I won't bother trying to argue with you on substance, but I do think your self-described rant is off the mark:

"The white parents in Brooklyn Heights don't give a flying f-- if the little Black kids from the project don't learn a thing in their precious PS8."

I can't speak for the non-P.S. 8 parents but this is simply not true for the P.S. 8 parents, and it doesn't even make sense. Who, anywhere, sends their kids to a school where they desire and expect their own kids to excel at the expense of their classmates? Most people who feel that way would send their kid to a private school or move.

Are you a parent?

Posted by: NorthHeights at July 16, 2009 1:52 PM

As a parent in this district, I have to make a serious, but possibly incendiary proposal.

In the past, public schools were divided based on academic achievement, and there were trade schools for those who did not do well in traditional learning environments. This was eliminated in the 60/70s under the theory that every kid can go to college.

However, kids from different backgrounds learn better in customized environments. While this will mostly (and unfortunately) break down along racial/class lines, this rule is not applicable to every kid.

I grew up in NYC in the 70s and went to one of the most progressive schools here (still around - not naming names). There were plenty of rich kids (not me - I was on scholarship) some worked hard, some slacked off, but there were also many kids from less affluent families who busted their butts and are currently making more money then their rich classmates.

My point is that I think merit should be the guiding principle. People from all backgrounds can work hard and do well if they are ready to try. The slacking rich kids should have been tossed out, (but their rich parents paid for the rest of us to get a decent education, so its a tough call).

Nevertheless, when it comes to public schools, most disadvantaged kids don't see the need to learn algebra or Shakespeare, and they are right to feel that way. If we taught kids according to their own goals, perhaps everyone would benefit since the kids would pay more attention, rather than having the teachers fight with the troublemakers (who are mostly just bored).

My point is that I think we need to reconsider implementing trade schools that teach 21st century skills.

And my question is: Are any of you other posters old enough to remember those trade school days? I'm really curious since most of my understanding of this issue is based on 2nd and 3rd party info.

Posted by: Knickerbocker at July 16, 2009 2:14 PM

Aren't there still a coupla 'trade' schools around? Aviation? Transit?

Posted by: denton at July 16, 2009 2:17 PM

Denton: Yes, there are still a few, but they are rare.

I am suggesting a return to a full trade school system.

I admit I don't fully understand the entire picture as to why the old system was eliminated, so please understand that my proposal is an attempt to open a debate and educate, not draw lines or start another 'class warfare' discussion.

Posted by: Knickerbocker at July 16, 2009 2:21 PM

quote:
Nevertheless, when it comes to public schools, most disadvantaged kids don't see the need to learn algebra or Shakespeare, and they are right to feel that way.

okay, i agree with the shakespeare stuff. hated reading that garbage as a student. but not learning algebra? that's just crazy talk. give any 8th grader the option of not having to learn algebra and 99% will say awesome! then what? we have a country where even more people are math and science illiterate? you know, the two fields that inarguably create the most innovation and sustainability.

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at July 16, 2009 2:24 PM

Denton, not sure about Aviation - when I started it was one of the worst schools in the entire system. Transit Tech is (by reputation - I've never met anyone connected to it) excellent in both academic and vocational education.

Unfortunately such options will be eliminated by precisely the type of people Knickerbocker mentioned, who believe that every single human being must take exactly the same path in life. That path means getting certain scores on certain tests from elementary school on through high school graduation, and then going to college. No other path to success is permitted!

Posted by: sixyearsandcounting at July 16, 2009 2:37 PM

*rob* - if a kid want to learn algebra, and does the work, then he should be able to take algebra and/or go to college. There would be some testing at first, but kids should not be locked into the trade system if they show they are prepared to try (which I understand was the biggest problem with the trade schools in the 50s and 60s).

But those that do not want to try, will never learn because they do not want to learn. Sitting in advanced classes makes them feel stupid, so they get angry and disrupt the class. Eventually they end up in 'special ed' of some kind, which merely pushes them further out of the system.

If we taught those kids to fix HVAC systems, auto repair, retail management, simple book keeping, home finance and even basic computer maintenance, my theory is that they would tend to try harder since there is something 'in it' for them.

I could be wrong - I'm not an expert. It still seems logical to me.

Posted by: Knickerbocker at July 16, 2009 2:41 PM

why does everyone have some a bug up their butt about structure? we're not talking about a military school, folks.but solid 3 r's(which goodness knows students need) calling teachers by mr/ms. (i'm sorry but as crazy socialist as i am- developing respect or at least be aware that somebody is in charge isnt a bad thing. everyone seems to forget that much of what is being taught is dictated by no child and city wide rules- hello joel klein. obviously diff strokes for diff folks. 113 has become a very solid school with a strong emphasis on the arts..oh right. it's mainly black and hispanic and also title 1. is that possibly a problem ? over the years it feels as though traditional/structure is often an un intentioned code word for race/class; you know because those kids need so much more discipline..i could be wrong but that's often how it comes off. it will be interesting to see what all of the parents who wanted principal keaton out will do with little olive and harry if indeed he was the issue. LOL

side bar. my son and 2 of his friends transfered out of ps 20 in the 90's when the school had a solid staff. the reason , at least in my case, for the transfer had little to do with 20. the kids all ended up at an alternative school in district 2. both of my son's teachers told me that without an question all of the students who'd come from 20 had a stronger grapse of math, english, etc than the kids who'd gone to the more trendy,"looser" district 2 schools. they were also more socialized . again diff strokes but structure and traditional can be a good thing.

Posted by: ramona at July 16, 2009 2:55 PM

Please don't characterize PS 8 parents unless you know them and are one of them. Of course we want all the kids to do well -- there are our children's classmates AND friends. If you are using the Dock Street fracas as a basis for your insults, you are responding to the Walentas' lobbying campaign and not to reality. The school succeeds when the children succeed.

I was at the Fort Greene Prep presentation and had some reservations, but have a few years before I must make a decision. Many parents were quite interested. To those who would characterize PS 8 parents -- were you at the presentation? What is your knowledge of PS 8, or the new middle school under discussion?

My daughter's class last year was over 50% minority children -- this is her 5th year at the school and we aren't changing schools until she graduates from 5th grade. Somehow I think parents and students must care about more than 50% of our community. I can speak only a little for all PS 8 parents, and certainly can't speak for all the white Brooklyn Heights Parents, or for all the parents of other races at PS 8 or elsewhere...

And Seth is a Brooklyn Friends School alum, not St. Ann's.

Posted by: bklyn20 at July 16, 2009 3:08 PM

Knickerbocker, I'm old enough to remember trade schools. I was educated in public school way upstate where trade school meant automotive repair, farm equipment and agro tech stuff, and secretarial skills. The kids who went to this special school called BOCES,(I forget what the acronym means)were bussed there in the morning from the main school. There was some social stigma attached, but since most of the kids who went there were the popular kids anyway, they weren't too marginalized as "dumb". Economically, they covered the gamut, and race really wasn't an issue as the area was 95% white.

Theoretically speaking, I have no problem with vocational schools. Not everyone has the potential or wants to be a rocket scientist. Being trained in a valuable skill like computer tech is a smart move for anyone. The problem with the whole idea, and probably a major reason for it being scrapped, is that minority kids were being steered there, both passively and actively, just as they are now steered into special ed far too often.

My Dad, who is the product of the NYC school system back in the pre-war days, (the 30's) remembers that teachers would look at you and send you to wherever they thought you belonged. Lo and behold, black girls ended up learning housekeeping skills, or better, secretarial skills, and black boys ended up in labor intensive skills or building maintainence. He fought hard to be in a college track, and succeeded, partly through smarts and hard work, and admittedly, also because he looked racially ambiguous.

Long story short, if a kid wants to go to trade school, he/she should be able to. We should not be like some totalitarian or caste based systems that force you to be what you are not.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 16, 2009 3:30 PM

I'm a PS 8 parent, heard the presentation from the new middle school, and think it's the best good news we've had about middle school since, well, ever. The principal still has a ways to go with articulating her vision, but at least so far, she's on the right track. At the presentation, we heard about solid, rigorous, and, yes, fairly traditional academics. Among the points mentioned were extra classes devoted to laboratory science, math that's geared for kids who are able to handle more than the--incredibly undemanding--city curriculum, Spanish, and Latin. Oh, and they say class size will be smaller than the city norm. They also say the curriculum will be rigorous, definitely aimed to prepare those kids who can handle it for the specialized high schools.

I think MS 113 is doing solid work, but it's not the right school for my kid. Ditto Arts and Letters. Honestly, it's either this new school or the citywide G&T or we move out of district. Those are the only choices.

My child has been at PS 8 for a few years now, and I have never seen any discrimination against children of any skin color or class. Yes, the educational model is somewhat progressive, which is one of the reasons we chose it rather than PS 20, for which we're zoned. Test scores have risen steadily; this year, one in 3 third graders scored at the highest level for the ELA exam. It's a terrific school, not perfect, but improving steadily. The newer teachers are mostly wonderful, and the school community of families is great.

Posted by: since 2000 at July 16, 2009 3:43 PM

Dock Street Fracas? That sounds interesting... I'll have to Bing that :-)

"
If we taught those kids to fix HVAC systems, auto repair, retail management, simple book keeping, home finance and even basic computer maintenance, my theory is that they would tend to try harder since there is something 'in it' for them.

I could be wrong - I'm not an expert. It still seems logical to me.
"

Knickerbocker, you are way too logical. Refrigeration and auto repair is what they push parolees into. Seriously. Go hang out in front of Abex on 6th Ave and 16th Street in Chelsea. And you forgot truck driving :-)

There were a lot more trade schools when I was a kid. I recall there was a marine-oriented school that came to do a presentation in my JHS, and it sounded great. My parents shut that down right away.

Anyway you have two sets of people working against you. The first is the middle and upper classes who want their kids to go to college and become knowledge workers. They ain't gonna send their kids to no stinking trade school!

Then you have the parents of poorer kids, often minorities, who see trade schools as a plot to keep them down while the white and well off kids take the college track. Could you argue with them?

You could really do a race and class war on the subject of trade schools. Do you want to tell your friends that your kid works at the Asshat Hedge Fund, or the Asshat FlatFix shop?

Then there's the question of the quality of public trade schools were they to exist. Arguably, it's harder to teach auto mechanics well than 'teaching to the test'.

There's only one country in the world that does it well, that's Germany. They've managed to make trade schools a desirable and respectable place to be. That's why they make the best damn products in the world, are still the largest exporter in the world, yet still maintain a standard of living higher than ours (higher avg salary).

That's because they see manufacturing as a respectable profession, and here it's just effin sh*t. I don't know how long our country can keep going this way, frankly.

Posted by: denton at July 16, 2009 3:44 PM

I don't know what the educators are planning for their Socratic seminars, but if they mean teaching Socratically -- that is, by asking questions that lead the students to find their own conclusions -- middle school is certainly not too young. I tutor elementary and middle school students, and I take the same approach with them as I do my law students (at a different level of sophistication, of course). I ask them questions to get them thinking about a problem and how to solve it for themselves.

Posted by: ProfRobert at July 16, 2009 3:54 PM

"Then you have the parents of poorer kids, often minorities, who see trade schools as a plot to keep them down while the white and well off kids take the college track. Could you argue with them? "

Yep, I'm white, as is my brother. I have a PhD and JD, he is a car mechanic, went to automotive school. Different people, even with much the same genetic backgrounds, flourish in different environments as everyome has been saying. Don't you lot get tired of dragging race into everything?

Posted by: dittoburg at July 16, 2009 4:11 PM

ProfRobert, of course when you tutor students the Socratic method works. There's one student, or maybe a few! Would it work with 34 kids in a class?

Posted by: sixyearsandcounting at July 16, 2009 4:27 PM

I totally agree that theory vs. implementation of a good idea is never easy. However, (as I said) the current system tends to push the non-college kids into the pre-institutionalizing 'special ed' system. I know 4-5 people who work for DOE (some in in special ed), and they all tend to agree with my return to trade school theory is a better option. Is that scientific proof - no, but it is a good start.

The two system stigma still exists, but now its called special ed instead of trade school (or shop). Is that really progress? From what I have been told (from the aforementioned teachers), (disciplinary) special ed is mostly temporary a way point before these kids end up in jail, and each day the most of teacher's job is to play cop and prevent the kids from fighting. Again, not scientific or systematic proof of anything, but this is how theories are formed.

Teachers are forced to teach to the 'back of the class' which holds back the ones who might excel. Funny thing is that this issue was upside down in the extremely progressive private school I went to in the 70s where the trust fund kids disrupted class, while the less affluent students worked overtime to make the most of the opportunity.

So based on my personal experience and observation my opinion is that the 'one size fits all' education system is a failure. Everyone deserves an opportunity to try to make it to the top, but if you can't, then why hold back the ones who want to try harder? Capitalism does not work if everyone gets to be a doctor or lawyer. Someone has to fix things when they breaks and someone else has to work the cash register, etc.

Do we really want to bring down the education level of entire country just to avoid a sensitive race/class issue? You still teach basic math in auto shop school, just not pre-calculus, etc.

The hard part is finding a less arbitrary way to 'sort out' the kids. I think there would need to be some time of 'in-between' school for the ones with low test results, but high motivation. If they want to try - then let them try. The ones who can make it out of the (hypothetical) middle group might be the greatest success stories - since they were able to make it on their own merit and sweat. I believe that is also called 'The American Way'.

Posted by: Knickerbocker at July 16, 2009 4:51 PM

Not too long agao someone sent me an email with standard questions from an 1898 English school quiz. Suffice it to say I could not answer a single question. that's how hard it was- the overall level of education today is both more advanced and less detailed than it was then. That said, I love creative thinking and approaches but kids cannot get decent educations without discipline and structure. Both my niece and nephew went to a very well regarded magnet school in Manhattan where creative thinking went overboard. Creative teaching is not taking your class to the movies every week to "teach " them about life. Yet that's what happened. kids in the school had trouble with their exams and my nephew had to take basic english and math courses to be able to catch up to his grade level. Because they didn't get structure and discipline in their curriculum.

Teaching has got to be one of the hardest and most important careers anyone can do (kudos to you teachers). But by trying to make education more "fun" and exciting, we seem to have lost sight of one thing parents know from the getgo- kids need structure and discipline. Real life begins in school- and not that it has to be boring and awful. It shouldn't. But we aren't doing kids a favor by play into our fantasies of what school should be as opposed to what tools for life kids need to make good lives for themselves.

I'm with denton re trade schools. But unlike Knickerbocker, I wonldn't let it go at learnig to grease axles- that's all you need. Reading Shakespeare, learning quantum physics, staring at a Van Gogh- these are a miniscule few of the influences that make up our world. Whether or not a kid likes it, or ever uses it, all that stuff will expand his horizons. When he decides to be an auto mechanic, it should be because he really wants to, not because that's all he knows how to do.

Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2009 5:01 PM

Sixyears, that's what I meant about not knowing what the administrators of the new school have planned -- "seminar" to me means a small class size. But I also don't know that the Socratic method wouldn't work with 34 middle schoolers in a room. It does with law students, obviously. The teacher would have to make a point of making sure each student regularly was put on the "hot seat" for a Socratic dialogue, and you would need students who would respond and not be bored. My overall reaction is that options are good, but I don't live in that district, and my son is a decade away from middle school, so in true Socratic fashion, I have a bunch of questions, but no answers to provide.

Posted by: ProfRobert at July 16, 2009 5:07 PM

"Do we really want to bring down the education level of entire country just to avoid a sensitive race/class issue? You still teach basic math in auto shop school, just not pre-calculus, etc."

Knickerbocker- you make some interesting points, but what kid has enough information at that point to know to make an informed decision for the rest of his life? I do think trade schools are a great asset- but not if they are going to be a dumping ground for those kids who you might find difficult. I've seen too many kids who were impossible in their teens grow up into wonderful, responsible and hard-working adults- because they were pushed. The level of education is not low because of the kids- its because we don't have a good way to educate them. So you think its better to just dump these hard cases somewhere so those with more advantages can get getting more advantages?

Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2009 5:08 PM

bxgirl, I'm not a fan of 'open education' either. There used to be a private school in Manhattan called Walden (which merged with New Lincoln) where the kids could attend whatever class they wanted. 6th graders could finger paint, 1st graders could sit in on biology. It was a disaster and the whole thing folded about 20 years ago.

Fun is not my criteria. First you need to sort (which I agree is the really hard part - see my last post), then you can teach the kids according a combination of their ability and desire. As long as you don't end up with kids getting trapped (which still happens today) then I believe everyone will get a chance to do better.

Otherwise - good point.

Posted by: Knickerbocker at July 16, 2009 5:11 PM

knickerbocker- I think creating a system where kids will not get trapped is probably the hardest part. I remember Walden and remember thinking it was a waste of school space. By the way- I did have a really good education though you wouldn't know if from the typing errors in my first post. :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2009 5:34 PM

There's an interesting discussion to be had about various teaching philosophies, but many posters here don't really understand at all the reality of how the NYC school system works.

This is a middle school. In many districts, middle schools are all by choice. Fifth grade students rank their middle school choices and match with ONE school, ideally their top 1 or 2 choice, just like medical students do with residencies. So, if this middle school intends to teach via socratic method, it very likely means that it will choose students who can easily learn via that method, and parents who want their kids to learn via that method. It will choose kids who have high test scores, and have already mastered the basics that so many posters bemoan aren't being taught. These students will, ideally, thrive with a more progressive curriculum because they are already at least above average students and if a school has a good enough reputation, far above average students. If the school does a crappy job of educating these students, believe me, no students will rank it anymore and it will fail. But the school will have an advantage because it will likely attract more students from middle class families who will do well academically regardless.

Minard Lafever, if you are going to criticize a school (PS 8) on its F "grade", you had better be prepared to rave about it next year if it suddenly gets an A or B. There's an excellent chance that will be the new grade at PS 8 because the DOE's rating system is based on IMPROVEMENT, and it is far easier to improve if more of your students had a down year the previous year. It's the schools that got an A last year that will likely go down -- whether a student misses one additional question or one less question on a standardized test makes no different statistically except in DOE report cards.

Posted by: CGfan at July 16, 2009 5:49 PM

"...but many posters here don't really understand at all the reality of how the NYC school system works...." - Posted by: CGfan at July 16, 2009 5:49 PM

Very true CGfan, very true.

I grew up going to NYC public schools and I've been an NYC public school teacher for 6 years, and it still amazes me how unique, complicated, convoluted, etc our system can be. When I explain stuff to people not familiar with the system I usually start with "I know this may sound nuts but..."

Posted by: christopher at July 16, 2009 7:26 PM

This is probably too late for anyone to read, but I defy you to find a trade that lets a person make a living wage without some basic computer skills, which necessitate some math and some English, to say nothing of science.

You might as well toss the kids who are tracked for the know-nothing schools, or at least make sure they know enough English to fill out welfare forms and enough math to be bookies.

As I wrote before about my daughter's middle school, there are plenty of project kids whose families are totally clueless and unsupportive and Chinese kids whose parents board their kids so the parents can work 6 days a week at Chinese restaurants within a 4-hour radius on a Chinatown bus. But most of them learn enough to have a chance to do well at a decent high school, despite class size in the low 30s. So yes, it can be done--not perfectly but satisfactorily, in a standard NYC Dept. of Education format.

Posted by: rf at July 16, 2009 8:50 PM

This is probably too late for anyone to read, but I defy you to find a trade that lets a person make a living wage without some basic computer skills,

Teaching!

Posted by: denton at July 16, 2009 9:24 PM

« Brooklyn Sales: Under a Million Inside Third & Bond: Week 92 »

July 16, 2009

New Middle School Coming to Fort Greene

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions