One System Does Not Fit All
            

            Dear Ann,

            As I see it, there are three separate issues--what topics are being taught,
how much homework kids get, and what approach is used for teaching. With that
in mind, let me continue for a minute on the question of what topics are being
taught.

            The debate between covering-a-smaller-number-of-topics-in-depth versus
getting-all-the-facts-into-kid-heads has raged, is raging, and will rage as
long as there are children to teach. Bennett wants to believe that you can
teach in depth and in breadth at the same time. But when I read him, I can't
help thinking that the former secretary of education has never actually been a
grade-school classroom teacher, at least not for long. I know that many schools
with the Core Curriculum, whose emphasis is breadth, are doing a good job. I'm
willing to bet, though, that the best teachers in those schools prune the lists
in order to spend more time on specific topics--diminish the breadth for the
sake of depth. (This is usually the secret of first-rate education: No matter
how radical a new curriculum may be, the best teachers have always quietly
moderated it.)

            My worry about Bennett's lack of teaching experience struck me especially
while reading the math section in The Educated Child . Bennett presents a
perfectly reasonable sequence of math skills. But he also launches into a
rather startling anti-math rap. Math is hard work, he says. Math is not fun.
You shouldn't expect it to be fun. You must practice, practice, practice. He
assumes that kids will not like learning math and that parents will not have
the foggiest idea about what is going on. He even provides parents with the
solutions to second-grade math problems. I suppose this is necessary, in his
mind, since he makes a math error or two himself. In his list of basic math
facts, he can't seem to get product and quotient straight when it comes to
multiplying and dividing integers.

            I'd like to suggest he spend a few minutes polling first-graders about their
favorite academic subject. Math, he will soon discover, is far and away the
favorite of a large number of kids--boys in particular, but that's another
discussion. Just as there are children who have a seemingly natural affinity
for reading and others who have an amazing ability to imagine historical
events, there are those youngsters who just get numbers.

            Now to homework. You suggest that public schools assign more than private
schools. But in my experience, there are private schools that assign a lot and
private schools that assign a little, and likewise with the public schools. In
New York, some of the more traditional private schools load on homework. I
tutor fifth-graders who are at it three, four, and sometimes five hours a
night. Literally. Not wise, from my point of view. The load is lighter in
private progressive schools, but there, too, by fourth grade, knapsacks usually
bulge. In some of the public schools, kids get a rigorous curriculum--with
homework to match. But Bennett is right about many of the other schools. They
don't demand enough from students. I work next to a public high school and the
kids go to and from with sunken backpacks--when they have backpacks at all. The
new testing requirements for high-school graduation may change that, but I
haven't seen it in the backpacks yet.

            Leaving homework aside, though, which method is superior, progressive or
traditional? Bennett clearly sides with a traditional methodology that employs
some aspects of progressive thinking. That can work. I also think that for the
right student and with the right teacher, an old-fashioned traditional
classroom can be a great place to learn. Personally, I prefer teaching in a
progressive style. But some students require something more traditional. I
remember one child who needed help in math. I tried hard to give him insight
into the concepts that underlie addition and subtraction. I used blocks. I used
money. I used graph paper--progressive methods all. Finally the child said to
me, "Just show me how to do it, and I'll figure out why I'm doing it later." It
was a light-bulb moment for me. Although most children I work with learn best
when they go from the concept to the rote process, this student learned best
when I reversed my usual system.

            I have another student, an exceptionally bright child, who was enrolled in
one of the most prestigious traditional schools in the city. A real
drill-the-skill kind of place. He was floundering. This year he moved to a
progressive school, and he is sailing along without problems.

            Children and teachers are individuals. One system cannot fit all. And so,
although I can see standardizing the curriculum, at least to a degree, I worry
about standardizing the approach to teaching. What does this mean about school
choice?--not that we can discuss everything.

            Peggy