Curtis Suda wrote on 10/01/09 5:33 AM

I really couldn't agree more with this observation. More parents these days seem more concerned about making ends meet and expecting the best from their children that they forget that sometimes children need time to play and interact with their friends. Too much of the burden of parenting is being shifted to the schools, and today schools barely have the resources to provide even paper and pencils. I believe that schools need to stop empowering parents to continue this trend, and that parents need to embrace and promote their children's learning experience simply by spending quality time with them.

Brandon Fisher wrote on 10/01/09 7:28 PM

I agree with Mr. Orfalea's comments in that schools should become more specialized. As we have heard in lecture before, in school they expect students to be good at all things. However, in the workplace, one usually must only be great at a couple of things. For this reason, I believe the education system should become more specialized and focus on students strengths, rather than force them to struggle in areas not of interest.

Denise Bono wrote on 10/01/09 7:59 PM

I definately think the school system would be better off focusing on the core learning objectives rather than being a "jack of all trades". There is a push for schools to show above average standardized test scores so the United States can prove their intelligence to other countries. But this kind of intelligence seems pointless when it doesn't lead to real skills. Schools have to teach at a rapid pace just to keep up with all the subject requirements imposed by the administration. Skimming over hundreds of topics causes everything we learn to go in one ear and out the other. More time in school is not the solution because there needs to be a better quality of learning to produce real intelligence. Teaching useful skills is a much better solution than trying to cram as much information as possible into a lesson plan. The irony of the situation is that demands on schools keep increasing, while funds are decreasing. I think the government needs to make education a higher priority so it can become more effective and relevant in a changing society.

Vanessa Valdivia wrote on 10/01/09 9:45 PM

I believe that education is key to developing a successful society, and I agree with the points made in this article that requiring more from educators and less from parents is really taking a toll on the educational system. Parents have to step up and play their role in their children's education. By being more proactive and requiring more from the parent's end, it would allow for more to be accompished. I also feel that education needs to be a priority for the government and really needs structural changes.

Lizzie Devcich wrote on 10/02/09 8:54 PM

This information was extremely insightful as I've always assumed these additions were for the better. Teaching too many courses indeed stretches our schools too thin. But as you've said before, childhood is for being good at many things. The reality is one child will be a linguist, at the expense of all others who have the hardest time learning Spanish. There will be a child who goes on to work for Planned Parenthood their sex ed course was inspiring. Furthermore, in our BMI crisis, at the expense of our waistbands we cannot afford to cut physical education. So what would be the first to go in down sizing? What changes can we make to re-structure our public education system? And does California currently have the money to do so?

Yun Ah Rha wrote on 10/05/09 5:33 AM

I believe that the education today is not up to par with current events. Things are changing and that resonates in the kinds of things children are involved with and are exposed to today, as well. There is a lack of valuable information available to each generation of children. Reading, writing and math skills will not help a middle school student decide whether the peer pressure of his friends of smoking weed is a good or bad idea. Sure, he may have heard to say no, but why? With each generation, I feel like we get more curious and need better reasons of why this or that is wrong. This is not a bad thing. But society, as well, needs to be aware of this change and do something about it.

Erin Currie wrote on 10/05/09 6:03 AM

I agree that reading, writing and arithmetic skills are the fundamentals of an education, however I think that other subjects offered in school are also highly useful and important. In elementary school, children begin to master these fundamentals and expand their knowledge to different subject areas in middle school. By that time, most people have their subject preferences. Maybe a high school system similar to that in Italy would suit more students.
In Italy, there are several different types of high school, based on what the student would like to specialize in. The Classico high school students study Classical Greek, Latin and the usual subjects, the Scientifico students study mainly science, the Artistico students study art and go directly to a fine arts academy or school or architecture after graduation, the Linguistico students study a variety of foreign languages, the Magistrale students study to become teachers and Tecnico and Professionale students study to become professionals.
While some may say this limits students to their choices after high school graduation, anyone can choose to go to University. Perhaps a specialized high school education (however unrealistic it may be) would lead to an increase of student interest and productivity.

Laura Judd wrote on 10/05/09 7:10 AM

I think that there is a lot of merit to the idea of "refocusing" public education. However, if we were going to specialize our schools to focus on 3 or 4 things, I would ask what 3 or 4 things we would choose to keep. We have music programs, drama classes, and sex ed classes because at some point it became clear that not every child had the opportunities to learn about these things at home. If we reduce the public school curriculum to a very basic education, what are we losing? And, perhaps more importantly, who are we losing, in the children who would have been inspired by music, drama, or other programs that could be called non-essential?

Robert Boggs wrote on 10/05/09 7:42 AM

I agree with Vollmer that schools have been given a large number of responsibilities. It did devolve to the point in which at school we are taught a large number of classes to learn facts rather than to think. However, I do not think this was solely a case in which parents decided to lay the burden on schools and take time off . Before the twentieth century, the country was mainly agrarian and needed children to work on the farm rather than focus on much studying. As the industrial revolution progressed, our society needed more skilled workers and therefore more education and classes. Some of these classes are indeed important for an information based society.

Devon Mailhot wrote on 10/06/09 12:38 AM

I agree that the educational system has been spreading itself too thin with the addition of all these programs over the years. However, I do not think that schools should return all the way back to their roots of just teaching basic reading, writing, and math. All of the added programs have added some value to people’s lives. For example, would any of us feel ready to enter the job market, and would anyone want to hire us, if we had never had a class that taught us how to type and use computers? I think the answer is that we need to find some sort of balance between the old system and the new. Maybe it would help if elementary schools taught a broad range of topics and then different schools specialized in specific subjects so that students get a deeper knowledge in a specific area, gearing them for the real world when they only have to be good at a few things to make a living.

Darcy Pollock wrote on 10/06/09 4:49 AM

I enjoy the concept of a "To-Not-Do List." Coincidentally, this topic was discussed today in my BUS 387, organizational behavior class, as well. One of the most productive and stress reducing things we can do is identify areas in our lives and tasks that are non-essential and then eliminate them. I believe if schools took a step back to evaluate the current curriculum, they would realize how many areas are basically just a waste of time and money.

Melissa Mallett wrote on 10/06/09 5:45 AM

While adding more class options in the public school system takes time away from other subjects, it also creates more opportunity for learning about new things. I think that schools should have clear objectives about what they want to achieve and should then consider which courses are truly beneficial to the students. Arguments for and against a majority of classes offered can be made, but there comes a certain point where a decision has to be made so that students can acquire a stronger knowledge about a few things instead of weak knowledge of many things. Is there a way to restructure the school system so as to maintain strong focus in core subjects, while also offering some specialized classes without losing track of the objectives of the school?

Kami Tolar wrote on 10/06/09 6:02 AM

I definitely agree that the expectations for schools have increased to an almost unreachable level. Both of my parents were teachers for a significant portion of their careers, so I grew up hearing about schools and budgets, and the problem of not being able to meet every expectation with a small budget was a common topic of discussion. It seems that we have more students slipping through the cracks in the classroom because the teachers and administrators have their plates overflowing with extra responsibilities. I don't think I know the answer to this situation, but I am glad that some people have taken notice of it.

Lauren Wagner wrote on 10/06/09 7:44 AM

I actually think most of those additions to schools are important. If the schools limit what they teach, how are they supposed to decide which subjects to choose? What if they choose mathematics, reading, and physical education--and a student wants to learn about music? Sure, you have to take a lot of subjects in high school (and middle/elementary school), but this is an opportunity for students to discover what they are interested in. Students can specialize in a particular subject when they get to college. The problem, however, is that the school system expects students to be great at everything in order to be considered "successful." So while I don't see a problem with offering multiple subjects, I do think the school system needs to reevaluate its grading and testing policies.

Lindsey Franz wrote on 10/06/09 7:00 PM

At what point do we stop and feel satisfied with our public school system? When our children are true Renaissance men and women and are great at everything? I agree that we do expect a lot from the public school, and sometimes students are stretched too thin while trying to excel at too many studies. However, my question lies within the idea of WHAT we should tell the schools to stop doing? Where do we decide what is important for children to learn? Do we separate schools into different vocational areas to teach them an individual trade? And if we do that, how do we know where each individual child belongs and the area in which they will thrive? There needs to be some basis where students explore a broad range of studies so they can decide where they fit best. I think a smart idea would be to have this "jack-of-all-trades" teaching style up until 7th or 8th grade, and then once it becomes clear what each individual child is good at, they should then go on to a school that specializes in their talent.

Mrinal Bedi wrote on 10/06/09 7:40 PM

Mr. Orfalea---

From the eyes of a college student, it seems that the model "ideal student" is one who is "diversified". As you point out that people may be over-diversifying in school today, but do we not need people like that in a global economy. With the business world shifting and becoming more of a people business, one where the interaction and service is what creates a competitive advantage, isn't it required that we "over-diversify". "Over-diversifying" should not be done in order to create a meaning-less check list and brag about accomplishments. Instead, it adds to ones experience and allows there to be a higher level of relatability with whomever one is dealing with whether it may be management or customer service.

I agree over-diversifying is an issue today but only when those individuals are diversifying for status or to brag about on a checklist rather than for the opportunity to enrich their lives and relate better with others.

Jacki Iwanski wrote on 10/25/09 10:13 PM

Parents struggle at letting their kids make their own decisions. Although they want what's best for their children, the often do too much. The best way to learn is through experience and many children do not get any experience in dealing with tricky situations until they attend college. College is vital for acquiring valuable skills like time management, taking initiative, and building relationships. If parents used more hands-off parenting, kids would use their instincts to gain life experiences earlier in life. Consequently, the children would learn more about themselves, even if they make mistakes along the way.

Robin Miller wrote on 10/26/09 5:45 AM

I agree with what you say about our school being over-burdened and trying to achieve too much. According to you though, what should schools be cutting out? And if schools do cut out programs, where should families go to get these services? Certainly services such as immunizations, sex education, nutrition, advanced education, and much, much more are extremely important in producing a well-educated populace. What if public education is the only way a family can have access to these services? Do you suggest cutting these programs completely, or publicly providing these services by some other means?

Lauren Esterle wrote on 04/06/10 11:57 AM

While I understand that making schools more specialized would be much more practical in the long run, I think that the "jack of all trades" approach allows students to not only learn crucial information (such as nutrition and sex-ed) but also explore different topics of study. If schools become too specialized, how will students get to try out different subjects and find what they are interested in? I also believe that creativity is crucial not only during adolescence but for all of life. In my opinion, schools must continue to foster creativity through drama and art classes. Though I see the practicality of a specialized school, I feel it places future job prospects above the actual learning process, which I feel is the most important part of school.