The Printable KISS Workbooks Open Letters -- ToC

Homeschool Advantages
(An Open Letter to the National Education Association)
by Dr. Ed Vavra at KISSGrammar.org


Dear Members of the NEA,

     I have been a member of the NEA for more than twenty years, but I was very disappointed to learn that NEA supports the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Are you suicidal? Do you know that public schools are under attack -- and losing students both to charter schools and homeschooling. And here you are supporting a nonsensical set of standards? Why can't the NEA itself propose a clearer, less boring, and more meaningful set of standards? If you want to save the public schools, I strongly suggest that you do so. 
     Having taught college Freshman Composition for more than thirty-five years, I have long been a supporter of public education. Over the last twenty-five years, I've spent thousands of hours developing a better (KISS) approach to teaching grammar. My objective was to improve public education. For a reason discussed below, however, public schools can't use it. (KISS is available -- for free -- on the internet at KISSGrammar.org.) 
     I long looked at homeschooling with some distaste. Over the last decade, however, I have become much more sympathetic as more and more of my best students have been homeschooled. Lately, I've heard of more people sending their children to charter schools -- because the students are given more homework. This is, I know, a complicated problem, but you are losing the battle. It is definitely true that homeschooling has many disadvantages, but consider three homeschool advantages. Currently, they are all arguments against public schooling. (I cannot keep track of the developments with charter schools.)

Advantage # One -- Personalized Instruction and Time on Task

      Parents who homeschool not only can know exactly what their students need to study next, but they also spend all their time in one-on-one relationship with their children. There are no distractions, and they can begin a year exactly where they started. This is certainly not the case in public schools. Not only do public school teachers see different students almost every year, they often work with several sections of twenty or more students. Some of those students want to learn; many do not. At the college level, it usually takes me five weeks (of fifteen) before I get a personal sense of most students.
     This is particularly important because a seventh-grade teacher, for example, may have several students who are reading at a fourth-grade level, and several students who are reading at a tenth-grade level. How is a seventh-grade teacher supposed to meet the needs of such a wide range of students, especially when the students' attitudes toward education are so different? From the parents' point of view, of course, this means that if their child is in seventh grade and is reading at a seventh-grade level, only one-third of class instruction will be directed to the needs of their child. And it is worse than that. As one of my better students pointed out, when so much of a class period is devoted to repetition or to materials that are already mastered (or too far advanced), it is very easy to daydream. That means that when relevant material is presented, the student may well miss it.
     One of the major causes of this problem is, of course, social promotion. School systems do not like to talk about this, but they better start -- they are losing public confidence. I've heard of one school system in which a parent whose student has failed will be passed if the parent simply comes in and demands it. How reliable my source is, I'm not sure, but I have heard numerous stories (from sources that I do trust.) about how teachers have to literally fight to give a student an "F."
     Such social promotion hurts not only the individual student, but all the students who will be in the next year's classroom. The "Common Core" is not going to do anything about this. In fact, the "Common Core" is not even a set of "standards." Like too many educators, the writers of the "Common Core" abuse words. "Standards" imply measureable assessment, but as the "FAQ" on the Common Core site notes, the implementation and assessment questions are all left to the individual states.
     NEA, of course, cannot do much to offset the one-on-one advantage of the homeschoolers, but it could develop and support standards that would greatly decrease social promotion. A seventh-grade teachers would then not have to devote so much of her or his time to trying to figure out what to do about students who cannot read at at least a sixth grade level. Clearer, more readable standards would also be more intelligible to the public. We, as advocates of public education, could then much more clearly explain the advantages of public schools.

Advantage # Two -- Multi-year Sequential Instruction

     I always knew that this was a problem, but I didn't really think about it in detail until I developed KISS Grammar and put it on the web. As noted above, my intention was to improve instruction in public schools. Some public school teachers commented favorably about it, but they noted that they cannot use it because it is a multi-year instructional sequence. As a result, it is mainly homeschoolers who are using it, and they seem to love it.
     The KISS Approach it different in that instead of focusing on individual grammatical constructions, it focuses on teaching students how to analyzye real sentences, including their own writing. In the first year, students master the ability to identify subjects, (finite) verbs, complements, adjectives, adverbs, coordinating conjunctions, and simple prepositional phrases. The second year can be devoted to learning how to explain constructions that are not usually treated in grammar textbooks. For example, a sentence such as "They were looking at the doggie in the window," some grammarians consider "were looking" as the verb, whereas others view "were looking at" as the verb. If we want students to discuss the structure of their own sentences intelligently, we need to address such questions.
     This second level of KISS also enables students to distinguish finite verbs from verbals. Verbals are verbs that function as nouns, adjectives, or adverbs. Finite verbs are the verbs that form clauses. In the following sentence from Washington Irving's Rip Van Winkle, the verbals are in bold: 

Supposing the figure to be some one of the neighborhood in need of his assistance, he hastened down to yield it. 
Most KISS exercises are based either on the writing of students at specific grade levels, or on sentences (or short passages) from real literary texts. The point here, however, is that most grammar textbooks do not even address this question -- and neither does the Common Core. But if we want students to be able to identify clauses in what they read and write, we need to enable them to distinguish the verbs that we want them to underline twice (finite) from those that they should not underline (verbals).
     Interestingly, in a search of the Common Core "standards" for "verbal," the word first appears on page 52, where we learn that eighth graders are expected to be able to "[e]xplain the function of verbals." Just to the left of that, we learn that seventh graders are expected to "[e]xplain the function of phrases and clauses in general and their function in specific sentences." How are seventh graders supposed to do this if they cannot distinguish finite verbs from verbals? (The Common Core never states that students should be able to identify either clauses or verbals in their own writing.) Year Two also addresses the "to," "too," "two" and "there" and "their" problems. (See below.) This second year of KISS, however, depends on the students' having mastered the first year materials.
     The third year of KISS focuses on basic clauses. A clause is a subject / finite verb / complement pattern. Students who can identify these patterns can learn to identify clauses fairly easily. Clauses are th most important grammatical construction that students need to master. Clauses entail many stylistic and logical options, but many of the most serious punctuation errors (comma-splices, run-ons, and fragments) involve clause boundaries.
     My reasons for the preceding description were twofold. First, I wanted to suggest that some subjects (and, like math, sentence structure is one of them) require several years to master. Students can master them if instruction is designed such that later material builds on what was previously learned. Second, the approach is clear and easily assessable--even on those fill in the bubble tests. If the standard is that students should be able to identify  verbals, give them a sentence with a verbal in it and ask them to bubble the choice that identifies the verbal.      

Advantage # Three -- Ignoring State Standards

     Although NEA claims that teachers support Common Core, the responses to an NEA article about it were interesting. As I understand the web site, readers cannot rate the article, "Here Come the Common Core Standards," by Cindy Long, but they can rate the comments about it. For my point, the most interesting comment is by Tyson, who says in part:

So now we’ll have 0 kids knowing their facts by high school because some “expert” thinks the best way to get better is to scrimmage all practice, every practice, instead of actually doing some skill drills. The skill drills work when kids take responsibility for their learning and parents are supportive. Then their would actually be time for a scrimmage. But oops, there I go again…asking people to be responsible instead of just blaming teachers and public schools.
As of the time I read it, twenty-seven people liked the comment; one did not. What I have heard from teachers is all negative. One of the things I have heard was echoed in Mrs. E's response to the article:
I have no problem with the standards for my subject; they seem to be well written, and I like the depth students will go into to explore topics. The big problem I have is that Common Core will require everyone to test every quarter. This means that everyone has to be “on the same page.” I also saw a sample question for first grade, and it was totally inappropriate for a developing reader. It makes me sick to think that a first grader would be tested in this manner.
Thirty-six people liked this comment; three did not. Obviously I disagree with MRs. E's belief that the standards are "well written," but what interested me was the "on the same page" comment.
     I have been told that in some school districts, every teacher in every grade literally has to be "on the same page" of the assigned textbook. In large part, the reason for this was that no one in the school district could understand either the Common Core or the state's standards. Adminstrators therefore decided to take this approach. Why, under these circumstances, are teaachers being rated in large part by how many students do well in their courses? 
 
 

     I'm planning a longer "open letter" on a more detailed critique of the Common Core Standards, but just for an example of their silliness, consider the following standards for "Grade 4 students" under "Conventions of Standard English" (page 28):

1. Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English grammar and usage when writing or speaking.
a. Use relative pronouns (who, whose, whom, which, that) and relative adverbs (where, when, why).
b. Form and use the progressive (e.g., I was walking; I am walking; I will be walking) verb tenses.
c. Use modal auxiliaries (e.g., can, may, must) to convey various conditions.
d. Order adjectives within sentences according to conventional patterns (e.g., a small red bag rather than a red small bag).
e. Form and use prepositional phrases.
f. Produce complete sentences, recognizing and correcting inappropriate fragments and run-ons.*
g. Correctly use frequently confused words (e.g., to, too, two; there, their).*