If I had any reason to take my child out of school in late April or May (maybe a trip to Disneyworld), I would not be the least concerned that he would be missing out on his “schooling.”

You are misrepresenting my arguments completely and falsely in a feeble attempt to disguise your own failings in this matter. If this is an example of your reasoning ability, then you have been vastly overrated.

The fact that the NEA website was one of several I visited and cited is only significant because YOU wish it to be so. The sites I visited also didn’t make claims about “work grinding to a halt” and “play time” like you did. Instead, they suggested ways of making this time more productive and better. Plus, many were doing this well before you came forth with your oversimplified suggestion that more formal instruction should be the solution.

I may be a snippy old man now and then (especially when my wife wants the computer back to check on our son’s flight to Munich), but I don’t stoop to logical fallacies, misdirected arguments, or making snide “pitchfork” remarks.

For all you have said, nothing disguises the fact that you made two claims that any teacher would find extraordinary: teaching grinds to a halt after standardized exams and it is just play time after that. Nothing can hide the fact that you haven’t taken the time to truly answer any of my conjectures or concerns.

All you’ve done is fire cream pies in the hopes that some humor will hide how seriously flawed your reasoning and suggestions are.

I’ve certainly lost a lot of respect for the Manhattan Institute from observations of your replies, lack of facts and awareness, and poor debating skills. At least I took the time to do a little extra research and further open my eyes to the situation. You’re still stuck on the first page of my arguments and yet to provide anything remotely like a rebuttal.

Maybe someday someone will take the time to write a book and include a chapter on the Myth of Work Grinding to a Halt and Followed Only By Play Time. Or the Myth of Formal Instruction as the Only Solution to Educational Woes.

BTW, the Summerfluenza stuff came from a link through one of the sites you linked us to earlier.

Finally, you cannot escape the rigors demanded by the argument you proposed (no work, just play): in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Face it, Greene. You just tossed this off with little or no research and got caught making some statements that went overboard. If this had been something serious, you would’ve had some serious material to present to us. And done some serious work to check it out.

You didn’t do that, however.

This is quite a change from his earlier, angry demands: “It strikes me as odd that people who place so much value on hard data to support their claims will turn around and make a claim with no data to back it up, especially when it flies in the face of experience and reality from those in the field and not in ivory towers.”

What produced the switch? It wasn’t any systematic evidence. He visited the NEA web site and they suggested that “summerfluenza” is a problem and warned teachers away from the (apparently common) lure of slowing down before the end of the year. Somehow, their authority is sufficient proof for him, while from me he demands an empirical study.

http://www.nea.org/lessons/2004/tt040607.html

The author, Gary Hopkins, wrote:
“The school year winds down. End-of-year testing is complete. The days grow warmer. The kids are tired and restless. What’s a teacher to do? Do you give up and concentrate on fun and games for the rest of the year? Do you attempt to accomplish some teaching right up to the last bell? Whichever approach you prefer, Education World can suggest some activities you might want to try during the last days of school.”

I took the time to research about “learning during the last few weeks of school” and came up with a host of suggestions for keeping the children involved and many programs done by schools or districts to help cure the “Summerfluenza” as one commentator described it.

Teachers.net also had an article on making the end of the year more positive:

http://teachers.net/gazette/MAY02/gruber.html

So, it’s not all play or movies at the end of the year. It’s not mean ol’ teacher unions promoting a slow down in work. It’s not vast numbers of teachers throwing their hands up in despair. It’s not a horde of students failing to be challenged. It’s not endless hours of parties going on throughout schools across the land.

To what extent does work really and truly slack off at the end of the year? No one probably knows because no one that we’re aware of has measured it. The term traditional instruction is a bit misleading since it implies the best way to teach, no matter the situation or student.

Here is an excerpt from a piece on instructional methods that might be of assistance:

“Many books and research articles have documented the different ways people
learn. People learn new material through the processing of information that was captured by visual, auditory or kinetic means. Traditional instructional methods require students to learn by listening to lectures and reading material. Usually, kinetic learning methods involve laboratory exercises, homework assignments, and design projects.
Active and collaborative instructional methods for improving the learning process of students have been published. Students exposed to active instructional methods developed improved problem solving skills when compared to students learning in traditional learning environments.”

So, it is rather difficult to understand why the call from Dr. Greene is only for formal instruction as if this is the only proven method of practice acceptable. It seems that teachers are ahead of Dr. Greene on this subject and have been for quite some time. Also, they are using proven methods of instruction, especially in a variety of ways that has been documented as being more effective for a broad range of learners.

No one is denying that there is some type of malaise at the end of a school year that students and teachers must overcome. What is being contested is the allegation that nothing is being done about it and the extent of the problem. Furthermore, the suggested solution of increased formal instruction is itself questionable and already has been shown through studies on instructional methods to have limitations.

Definition: Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true.
Examples:
1) Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist.
2) Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably won’t.

Rather than engage in further debate (we seemed to have covered all the ground we can cover on this topic until some solid facts surface), I will await answers to my inquiries and see what develops.

Like I said, I’m calling your bluff. You still haven’t shown us anything to credibly back your claims about the drop off of formal instruction or the amount of play that replaces it.

As to the architect story, considering I heard it from a retired architect who designed some of the major business buildings in the state, I think he did nothing more than point out a fact about a small number of his profession who thought they knew better than others how to do their job. To find an insult from this is quite a stretch. I’m sure you can recall some beginning researchers who made mistakes early on in their career.

At best I can only disagree with your claim. It is overly simplistic, is based on scant and very limited anecdotal evidence, and has consistently ignored key points that rebut its nature (semester exams, curriculuum guides, counter-experiences, etc.).

In your own words: it is not “proven.”

It is unreasonable to expect that every claim in every argument (especially on a blog) has to be backed by systematic evidence. For example, should we demand that you prove the claim that novice architects often develop great plans on paper that don’t work in practice? I could add the righteous indignation that my brother is an architect and we are inuslted that you would disparage the architectual profession in this way. I could mobilize a group of architects to post angry comments, etc…

Of course, this would be silly, but it is preceisely what you are doing. If claims are shown to be false, they should be retracted. I would be happy to be proven wrong and to see systematic evidence that formal instruction continues unabated to the end of the school year (with a healthy sprinkling of other activities, such as field trips and award ceremonies, throughout the entire year). But the key part of that sentence is “proven.”

Interesting quote coming from a man who wrote an entire book in which he attempted to debunk a long list of commonly held “educational myths.” One man’s common sense is another man’s myth, I guess. It’s the point you kept trying to make in your book.

And I’m sorry that you see pitchfork wielding crowds. Dr. Frankenstein had the same problem. No one is out to lynch you folks for holding onto these myths. So, you can rest easy in your castle tonight, sir. Meanwhile, I’ll start a subscription to the New York Times so I can keep up with the latest education research news.