I hate homework!

On Apr 5, 2:25*pm, (Beth Kevles) wrote:
Hi, again --

I just did a search on the keywords "homework" and "elementary" athttp://www.eric.ed.gov/, and got 1603 results back. *(ERIC is the
Education Information Resources Clearinghouse sponsored by the US
government.) *Participants in this thread may find some of the abstracts
and papers there instructive.

On another note ... with regards to homework, the real question concerns
whether the consequences of homework are what we expect (improved
ability to work independently, improved academic performance) or are there
unintended consequences that negate the intended consequences? *Some
unintended consequence that I've read about:

-- Increases the academic divide between those students who get support
* *at home and those who don't. (Something like, the rich get richer and
* *the poor get poorer.)

That's a silly argument. Suppose that assigning homework improves the
performance of students from "good" homes and has no effect, positive
or negative, on students from "bad" homes". It thus increases the gap
but does not hurt any student's performance on an absolute basis. Do
you really think that is a good argument against homework? Academic
achievement is not a zero sum game!

A recent paper, discussed below, found that decreasing class size
increased the achievement gap between high and low SES students,
although it did help everyone. If the findings are true, is that a
reason to oppose smaller class sizes? (I doubt that smaller class
sizes are the most effective use of resources, but that is a different
issue.)

************************************************** ************************************************** **************************************
http://giftedexchange.blogspot.com/2...-increase.html
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Reducing Class Size May Increase Learning Gap
Ever since the first battle over passing No Child Left Behind, there's
been a lot of discussion about closing the achievement gap between
children of higher and lower socioeconomic status in schools. It
appears quite possible that Congress will not reauthorize the bill.
While this won't be the end of frequent testing and accountability as
a way to close the achievement gap, people will definitely be throwing
out other new ideas as well.

One popular one is the idea of reducing class sizes in the early
grades. The oft-cited Tennessee STAR study, which randomly assigned
thousands of young children to smaller or larger classes, found that
children in general achieved better test scores when they were
assigned to smaller classes. Other studies have cast some doubt on
this finding, but for purposes of argument, let's say it's true.

Here's the thinking: children of lower socioeconomic status often
arrive at school without a lot of the school preparation middle class
families take for granted. Kids and parents may not necessarily read
together. Kids might not know letters and numbers. Intuitively, it
seems like giving the less-prepared kids more time and attention from
teachers -- in smaller classes -- might help them catch up.

But this turns out not to be the case. According to a new look at the
STAR study by Northwestern professor Spyros Konstantopoulos in March's
Elementary School Journal, smaller classes do boost all students'
achievement levels, but they also increase the achievement gap. It
turns out that smaller class sizes benefit high achievers more than
lower achievers. So while all students do better, high achievers do
much better, and lower achievers do a little better.

It's not clear why this would be, but it complicates the "small class
size" argument. Since we know that reducing class size and tracking by
ability increases test scores more than simply reducing class size
alone (see the Kenyan study from a few weeks ago) it's possible that
ability grouping could help close the achievement gap. But perhaps not
-- one would have to test all these variables at the same time.

Personally, I think it's more important that everyone do better than
that you close the achievement gap, but not everyone thinks that way.
For instance, many politicians and others lament the "growing gap
between the rich and poor" at every opportunity, even though almost
everyone in the US is better off materially than they were 50 years
ago. Sometimes people view relative position as more important than
absolute position, and so we will see how the education community
interprets these latest results. Anyway, it's food for thought.

Donna Metler wrote:
This thread shows exactly the problems that teachers face. For every parent
who doesn't want their child doing homework, or feels the amount is
unreasonable, there's probably one who sees academics as the most important
thing, and, if anything, wants MORE homework or harder homework. For every
parent who thinks writing assignments are a good thing, there's another one
who wants models.

And when you start assigning different assignments or various choices, you
get parents complaining that child X's assignment isn't equal to child Y's
effort.

Fair doesn't mean equal. If one patient comes in with a stomach ache and
diarrhea, and another comes in with an ear infection, a doctor is going
to treat them differently based on their needs. Likewise, different kids
have different needs. Giving them different assignments is fair.

I more and more believe that the solution is a lot of different, niche
schools, and to have policies on things like homework out and published so
parents can choose what fits their child and their lifestyle the best-but
unless you're in a large urban area, that's probably not feasible just due
to population density, and with programs like NCLB in place, it's hard to
individualize schools (we HAD one public Montessori school in my former
district, and even pre-NCLB, it was struggling to maintain it's identity.
Post NCLB, when the district was labeled as failing, it pretty much ceased
being "Montessori" past Kindergarten-and really is only marginally so even
in K now.) If all the kids in school X don't have homework, and parents know
that going in so that if they want homework they can go to school Y, maybe
that would make both groups a little happier.

In NYC, there are many different schools opening. There are so many
social problems in the neighborhoods where kids are doing poorly, the
parents rarely hear about these new programs. And when they do, they may
not be able to get their kids into the schools because there are so few
slots.

There is an organization called Harlem Children's Zone where the
organization gets the kids when they are really young, well before
kindergarten. They have their own charter school. But, there is room for
only so many kids. You really need to get the kids and their families
into the system when the kids are real young.

Please do tell me something: How are parents going to know how much
homework is beneficial for their kids when their kids aren't even in
school yet?

Jeff

On Apr 5, 2:46*pm, "Donna Metler" wrote:
This thread shows exactly the problems that teachers face. For every parent
who doesn't want their child doing homework, or feels the amount is
unreasonable, there's probably one who sees academics as the most important
thing, and, if anything, wants MORE homework or harder homework. For every
parent who thinks writing assignments are a good thing, there's another one
who wants models.

And when you start assigning different assignments or various choices, you
get parents complaining that child X's assignment isn't equal to child Y's
effort.

I more and more believe that the solution is a lot of different, niche
schools

That's what we would get if we abolished the public school monopoly
and instituted a voucher system. Of course, public school teachers,
through their unions, lobby furiously against changes that would
diminish their privileged positions.

That's what we would get if we abolished the public school monopoly
and instituted a voucher system. Of course, public school teachers,
through their unions, lobby furiously against changes that would
diminish their privileged positions.

Good lord! If you think teachers have "priviliged" positions, you're
really out of touch. While there are certainly problems with public
education, the sources are far more complex than you appreciate, and
scapegoating teachers, while perhaps emotionally satisfying, isn't
actually practical.

--Beth Kevles
-THE-COM-HERE
http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic
Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical
advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner.

NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the GMAIL one if you would
like me to reply.

Beliavsky wrote:
On Apr 5, 9:33 am, Banty wrote:
In article ,
Beliavsky says...



On Apr 4, 10:21=A0pm, Jeff wrote:
Homework doesn't work well for kids who live in shelters or don't have a p=
lace to
do it. Or with kids who are too busy going to soccer, karote and dance.
Maybe the soccer, karate, or dance should go, not the homework.
Lets see - six hours a day of scholastic activities, a few hours after that at
home.

Note the "or". I did not say that *all* the activities should go but
that the child should not have *so many* that he or she does not have
enough time to do homework. I don't think homework for elementary
school children is necessarily bad, but it should not be more than say
1 hour per night, which can be done between dinner and bed time. Extra-
curriculars can be scheduled before dinner.

I can see that you're not currently at the point you're
dealing with this stuff. Scheduled before dinner? Surely you
jest. Occasionally you get lucky, but for the most part,
activities are going to be scheduled after working parents get
home, which means that most start during or after dinner and
barely get your kid home in time for a decent bedtime.
Furthermore, many children have completely lost their
concentration that late in the evening. If they don't get their
homework done much sooner, it takes them twice as long because
they can't keep their focus. Of course, Murphy's Law says that
if you have one of these kids, the only activities he or she is
interested in will only be available immediately after school.
From the time my elementary aged kids get home from school
until their bedtime is 4-4.5 hours. Any activity will likely knock
out at least 1.5 hours (a one hour activity plus 15 minutes travel
time each way--which is far from generous). You'll likely need
a half hour transition time after arriving home from school to
get a snack and sort out the daily pile of papers and so forth.
Then you've got a minimum of a half hour for a decent family
dinner (assuming you eat at home--much more if you eat out).
Then add in a half hour for bath/brush teeth/get ready for bed/
stories. At this point, you're down to 1.5-2 hours, *IF* the
stars align just right and you don't have longer activities,
travel time, or what have you. You may well get that time in
a few separate chunks rather than all together, and some of those
chunks may be after the child is too tired to do homework
effectively. And, of course, we haven't added in any family
time except for dinner. Taking a half hour out of that time
to do homework may not be too bad, but in homework heavy schools,
you'll find that the homework easily exceeds that half hour and
can easily take up all of the remaining time, putting you in
crunch mode every day there is *any* after school activity. At
that point, the only way to manage is to have *no* after school
activities, or only weekend activities. Some activities are not
available on the weekends (often the case for private music lessons),
and some require both weekend and weekday activities (i.e., most
sports beyond the primary years). And unless the teachers assign
the homework more than a day in advance of its due date (many
don't), you don't have the option to juggle the homework load
so that you can absorb a day or two with after school activities.

I think Banty's exactly right when it comes to the early
elementary years. School has my kids for almost 7 hours a day.
They have a very limited amount of time left over each day to
do *everything else* that is important for their growth as
human beings, including learning to participate in the work of
the home, contributing to their community, staying physically
fit and active, pursuing spiritual growth, learning non-classroom
social skills, reading for pleasure, strengthening family bonds,
and so on and so forth. These are critical years to lay the
groundwork in all these areas, and that takes time. Given that
a huge chunk of their waking hours is already devoted to academics
during these years, I think outside of school, the priority should
be on all of the other important areas.

We will introduce our children to musical instruments, and I have
asked earlier in this group about the right age to start. In a thread
Stephanie started on outdoor activities, I mentioned that age 7-8 may
be a good time to introduce a child to a sport. I don't play chess
with my son because I think it will help him academically.

Been there, done that. If all your child does outside
of school in the way of extracurriculars is music lessons, a
sport, and chess club, you will have plenty of opportunities to
experience significant schedule crunches if elementary homework
starts taking the sort of time bemoaned in this thread. When
I discussed the time issues above, add in a half hour a day
(which is hardly generous) for music practice, and now you're down
to 1-1.5 hours per day for homework/family/everything else on a
day when you have any sort of activity.

All that aside, it's a red herring to discuss this
as a matter of academics vs. extracurriculars. The *proper*
question is whether having a hour or more of homework in
elementary school is *necessary* for academic achievement.
If it's not necessary (as a general rule--of course it may
be necessary for some individuals), then what's the point
of having it given the obvious downsides? The bottom line
is that children can achieve very well academically *without*
boatloads of homework in elementary school, so there's no
need to set academics and extracurriculars in opposition to
each other.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Beth Kevles wrote:
That's what we would get if we abolished the public school monopoly
and instituted a voucher system. Of course, public school teachers,
through their unions, lobby furiously against changes that would
diminish their privileged positions.

Good lord! If you think teachers have "priviliged" positions, you're
really out of touch. While there are certainly problems with public
education, the sources are far more complex than you appreciate, and
scapegoating teachers, while perhaps emotionally satisfying, isn't
actually practical.

I tend to agree that unions are part of the problem. The administrators
do definitely bare part of the problem, too.

A large part of the problem is that a lot of parents are not nearly
involved in their children's education as they should be, as well.
Unfortunately, schools in commmunities where the parents don't speak up
tend to go downhill, especially in big cities.

Jeff


--Beth Kevles
-THE-COM-HERE
http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic
Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical
advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner.

NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the GMAIL one if you would
like me to reply.

Jeff wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Jeff wrote:
...

So learning good study habits isn't learning? If assigned properly,
it appears homework can be very helpful to increasing achievement in
elementary students. That means that different kids get different
homework assignments.

And this happens....where? If this is a precondition for
the utility of early elementary homework, then it's a precondition
that is rarely met.

Learning good study habits is a goal of early elementary homework, not a
condition for it.

I meant the "different kids get different homework" part.
That is rarely the case. In the real world, these kids aren't
getting homework tailored to their individual needs, thus diminishing
the utility and increasing the negative effects of the homework
past the point of usefulness.

One of the interesting things is that homework as a research subject
seems to have stopped be explored in recent years.

Perhaps because the body of research is fairly
consistent in pointing to some conclusions that are roundly
ignored in practice?

Considering that the way elementary education is done has changed a lot
in the last several years because of Bush's No Child Left Behind Act,
and, because a lot of kids were probably assigned more homework to
prepare them for the tests that they have to take, it seems rather bad
that few studies of elementary homework have been done.

I agree that it's too bad that there hasn't been as
much study as one would like of the positive and negative impacts
of this program.

My guess is that it has to do with funding of the studies and the time
available to do the studies.

I think that's a given for almost any area of research ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

Donna Metler wrote:
This thread shows exactly the problems that teachers face. For every parent
who doesn't want their child doing homework, or feels the amount is
unreasonable, there's probably one who sees academics as the most important
thing, and, if anything, wants MORE homework or harder homework. For every
parent who thinks writing assignments are a good thing, there's another one
who wants models.

Absolutely. That's why it would be nice if school systems
would develop sound practices based on good research rather than
swaying in the wind with the opinions of a bunch of parents without
a grounding in education. I have never understood why it seems
like so many professionals dealing with parents these days knuckle
under to pressure from parents on areas where the parents have
little expertise (and it's not limited to educators--seems to happen
in all sorts of areas).

Best wishes,
Ericka

Jeff wrote:
Beth Kevles wrote:
Hi, again --

I just did a search on the keywords "homework" and "elementary" at
http://www.eric.ed.gov/, and got 1603 results back. (ERIC is the
Education Information Resources Clearinghouse sponsored by the US
government.) Participants in this thread may find some of the abstracts
and papers there instructive.

On another note ... with regards to homework, the real question concerns
whether the consequences of homework are what we expect (improved
ability to work independently, improved academic performance) or are
there
unintended consequences that negate the intended consequences? Some
unintended consequence that I've read about:

-- Increases the academic divide between those students who get support
at home and those who don't. (Something like, the rich get richer and
the poor get poorer.)

So we should hold back the students who have involved parents so that
those who don't have involved parents can stay up? Wouldn't it make more
sense to help those students who don't have involved parents with after
school programs?

It's not about holding back the students with involved
parents. It's about the predilection of schools faced with
NCLB criteria shoving off much of the teaching responsibility
to parents, who have different levels of ability to become their
children's teacher in specific academic areas. The real answer
is that the schools should teach what needs to be taught. Certainly,
there is a role for after school support for at risk students, but
that doesn't solve the more fundamental issue. If you're sending
home assignments where you're essentially requiring the parents
to teach material, you sure can get the kids with able parents
moving faster, but it's an inappropriate strategy to begin with.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Beth Kevles wrote:
Hi, again --

I just did a search on the keywords "homework" and "elementary" at
http://www.eric.ed.gov/, and got 1603 results back. (ERIC is the
Education Information Resources Clearinghouse sponsored by the US
government.) Participants in this thread may find some of the abstracts
and papers there instructive.

On another note ... with regards to homework, the real question concerns
whether the consequences of homework are what we expect (improved
ability to work independently, improved academic performance) or are
there
unintended consequences that negate the intended consequences? Some
unintended consequence that I've read about:

-- Increases the academic divide between those students who get support
at home and those who don't. (Something like, the rich get richer and
the poor get poorer.)

So we should hold back the students who have involved parents so that
those who don't have involved parents can stay up? Wouldn't it make
more sense to help those students who don't have involved parents with
after school programs?

It's not about holding back the students with involved
parents. It's about the predilection of schools faced with
NCLB criteria shoving off much of the teaching responsibility
to parents, who have different levels of ability to become their
children's teacher in specific academic areas. The real answer
is that the schools should teach what needs to be taught. Certainly,
there is a role for after school support for at risk students, but
that doesn't solve the more fundamental issue. If you're sending
home assignments where you're essentially requiring the parents
to teach material, you sure can get the kids with able parents
moving faster, but it's an inappropriate strategy to begin with.

Requiring parents to teach the assignments is not homework! It's at home
schooling. I am talking about real homework, where students practice
what they are taught in school, and where students learn new material or
prepare for class (usually older kids).



Best wishes,
Ericka