ShareThis Page
Living with Children: In education, the old standards worked better than the new |
More Lifestyles

Living with Children: In education, the old standards worked better than the new

John Rosemond

As with nearly every public policy topic these days, myths abound, but few mythologies rival that surrounding public education. Some examples:

Myth: Smaller classrooms promote better learning.

Fact: The teacher-pupil ratio has little to do with student achievement, as demonstrated in the 1950s when elementary classrooms were bursting at the seams (nearly three times as many students per teacher than now) and student achievement was significantly higher than it has been since. This canard is promoted by teachers unions, administrators, and politicians on both sides of the aisle who seek to curry favor with the unions and administrators. The unassailable fact is that student achievement has declined as classroom behavior problems have risen and teachers have been increasingly hamstrung — by unsupportive administrators, politicians and the courts — when it comes to discipline. It’s student behavior, folks not class size.

Myth: More money would improve student achievement.

Fact: As a category, Catholic schools have the best record when it comes to student achievement, including students who represent the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum. With rare exceptions, Catholic schools spend considerably less per student than do public schools. Classroom discipline in most Catholic schools is head-and-shoulders above the ever-deteriorating situation in most public schools, but equally important is that Catholic schools do not suffer administrative bloat. Unlike the case in most public school districts, one does not find multiple assistant superintendents of this and that in Catholic systems.

Myth: Encouraging parents to oversee and help with homework positively impacts student achievement.

Fact: Wrong again. A 2014 study found an inverse relationship between homework help from parents and school achievement, regardless of any demographic characteristic or even a child’s ability level. The fact is that homework enabling —— a much more accurate descriptor than “homework help” —— is like any other form of enabling. It has a decidedly negative impact on personal responsibility and, therefore, a negative impact on student achievement. Referencing the 1950s again (which drives my perennial detractors up the proverbial wall), it was the rare parent who rendered anything more than occasional help with homework. Thus, children had higher levels of personal responsibility, and student achievement was significantly higher.

Myth: Social science research has been a boon to public education.

Fact: Since the late 1960s, public school educators and policymakers have embraced the progressive notion that new ideas are better than old ideas. The new ideas in question have been supported by social science researchers (who will support just about anything one wants it to support), yet none of the new ideas —— open classrooms, outcome-based education, collaborative learning, to cite a few) —— have panned out. Today as yesterday, the most successful schools are those that adhere to a traditional model.

Myth: Teaching academics before first grade (encouraged by both public and private schools) boosts overall achievement.

Fact: A growing number of educators and researchers are convinced that teaching academics before first grade increases the per capita incidence of learning disabilities and lowers achievement in the long run. As did most of my peers, I came to first grade not knowing my ABCs. Lest I needlessly repeat myself, the reader is encouraged to reread myths 1 through 4 above.

Visit family psychologist John Rosemond’s website at; readers may send him email at; due to the volume of mail, not every
question will be answered.

Visit family psychologist John Rosemond’s website; readers may send him email; because of the volume of mail, not every question will be answered.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.