|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
u******k
发帖数: 355 | | c*****w
发帖数: 112 | 2 Hoover 是公立的lottery学校，Challenger是私立的。不好比吧。 | u******k
发帖数: 355 | 3 Hoover 的分数巨高, 想知道教学水平是不是和Challenger差不多?
【在 c*****w 的大作中提到】
: Hoover 是公立的lottery学校，Challenger是私立的。不好比吧。
| L*******8
发帖数: 404 | 4 多年前我家孩子准备上K时比较过这两个学校，学术上Challenger比Hoover快一个年级
都不止。再说H校校长自己都说我们是公校不能和隔壁学校比。
【在 u******k 的大作中提到】
: Hoover 的分数巨高, 想知道教学水平是不是和Challenger差不多?
| u******k
发帖数: 355 | 5 是这样啊,多谢.
近一千分的公立都没法跟私立比, sigh.
【在 L*******8 的大作中提到】
: 多年前我家孩子准备上K时比较过这两个学校，学术上Challenger比Hoover快一个年级
: 都不止。再说H校校长自己都说我们是公校不能和隔壁学校比。
| h**********8
发帖数: 76 | 6 公立与私立在大小网讨论很多次了.
【在 u******k 的大作中提到】
: 是这样啊,多谢.
: 近一千分的公立都没法跟私立比, sigh.
| i***1
发帖数: 2534 | 7 私立要交钱的，
我们CEO两个孩子都上harker,
我也想上，上不起。。。
穷人只好拿api自我安慰了
【在 u******k 的大作中提到】
: 是这样啊,多谢.
: 近一千分的公立都没法跟私立比, sigh.
| h*******s
发帖数: 3932 | 8 你们ceo老印？
【在 i***1 的大作中提到】
: 私立要交钱的，
: 我们CEO两个孩子都上harker,
: 我也想上，上不起。。。
: 穷人只好拿api自我安慰了
| m********5
发帖数: 285 | 9 认识很多公立学校的老师都把孩子往私立送。。。。。。。。 | p***e
发帖数: 1318 | 10 根本没法比。好公校和坏公校之间的差别主要是学生，家长的差别。老师是普遍的不负
责任。课程要求松到不能再松。私校大型facility比如运动场什么的可能还不如公校。
但教室设备比较好。最主要的是老师的责任程度比公校老师强太多太多了。不说那些
很贵的私校， 普通的私校也比公立强得多了。 要想小孩子养成好习惯，自己没有太多
时间，私校比较省心。
不少父母把小孩先送私校，再送好学区公校，受不了落差太大，又再送回私校。
【在 u******k 的大作中提到】
: 和隔壁Challenger比怎样?
| | | s********o
发帖数: 3783 | 11 按照这个说法，还是回国比较好
国内老师绝对是把孩子管教的服服帖帖。3点下课这种事不会有。5点半能回家就不错了
【在 p***e 的大作中提到】
: 根本没法比。好公校和坏公校之间的差别主要是学生，家长的差别。老师是普遍的不负
: 责任。课程要求松到不能再松。私校大型facility比如运动场什么的可能还不如公校。
: 但教室设备比较好。最主要的是老师的责任程度比公校老师强太多太多了。不说那些
: 很贵的私校， 普通的私校也比公立强得多了。 要想小孩子养成好习惯，自己没有太多
: 时间，私校比较省心。
: 不少父母把小孩先送私校，再送好学区公校，受不了落差太大，又再送回私校。
| L*******8
发帖数: 404 | 12 认识几个Gunn High的老师，她们的孩子都在私立学校。听她们8卦连副校长的孩子也在
私立小学。
【在 m********5 的大作中提到】
: 认识很多公立学校的老师都把孩子往私立送。。。。。。。。
| p***e
发帖数: 1318 | 13 这个不是管教得服帖不服帖的问题。公立的老师基本不管你孩子学会不学会。不改作业，
不及时通报问题，基本手段就是学期开始，压低分数，学期结束，抬高分数。课程进度非
常的慢，说比私立慢一年是低估了。有的老师甚至在执行进度上都很不严谨，曾经见过错
误百出的老师。再加上公立学校假期奇多，除了假期之外，还经常由代课老师上课。免费
教育质量差是很明显的。
再举一个例子吧，就看小学生的书法和作文，去随便一个私立，和一个公立学校看看，就
知道区别了，公立基本不管handwriting. 私立challenger, straford老师在低年级的
时候
都专们陪养handwriting. 这个不是说老师让学生每天抄写一百遍就解决问题了的。是从
小就给孩子一个neatness的榜样， 老师有这种要求，习惯自然成。
【在 s********o 的大作中提到】
: 按照这个说法，还是回国比较好
: 国内老师绝对是把孩子管教的服服帖帖。3点下课这种事不会有。5点半能回家就不错了
| L*******8
发帖数: 404 | 14 exactly. 最主要的是私校老师的责任程度比公校老师强太多太多了。公校的老师是普
遍的不负责任，课程要求松到不能再松,meet basic Californai's standard就好。我
们中文学校就有家长把孩子从Hoover转到Challenger，发现很多东西都没学过，孩子跟
得非常辛苦。Hoover的K班不少孩子还不会reading,在看Hat, Cat之类每页1句的
picture book; Challenger的K班孩子都在读chapter book,很多在读Charlotte's Web
之类的书.公立学校几乎不教英语语法，challenger的语法教的挺深的;challenger从一
年级就学logo编程，公校没有这些. 其他数学，阅读，写作，地理，科学，演讲，难度
都比Hoover学校高一个年级吧。
【在 p***e 的大作中提到】
: 根本没法比。好公校和坏公校之间的差别主要是学生，家长的差别。老师是普遍的不负
: 责任。课程要求松到不能再松。私校大型facility比如运动场什么的可能还不如公校。
: 但教室设备比较好。最主要的是老师的责任程度比公校老师强太多太多了。不说那些
: 很贵的私校， 普通的私校也比公立强得多了。 要想小孩子养成好习惯，自己没有太多
: 时间，私校比较省心。
: 不少父母把小孩先送私校，再送好学区公校，受不了落差太大，又再送回私校。
| h*****s
发帖数: 821 | 15 靠！刚买了$600/sq-ft小黑屋，白花钱了？我看我大部分老中同事的小孩都是上公立学
校，不少还上藤校了。 | w********9
发帖数: 8613 | 16 我去Challenger看过。校长也提起内容比公立高一年或以上。户外活动场地太小。我不
是很喜欢教室里的成套读物。总体来说，私立管教应该更严、更规矩。Challenger是管
教最严的一个。我本人在大学前对学校的依赖性不是特别强，觉得Challenger可能会对
我的小孩过严，让她失去一些天性。很喜欢学习的小孩，可以在公立轻松地读（很多内
容是复读或复习），而在课下（家长和小孩）自由选择学些东西。 | w********9
发帖数: 8613 | 17 我们地球村的另一边（国内）比这边的私立学的东西更深。 | p***e
发帖数: 1318 | 18 这个不是学得深不深的问题。是给小孩一个decent, discplined的环境的问题。老师是
小孩成长过程中的很重要的一部份。对小孩的影响有时候比家长还大。替小孩选好老师
也是家长的责任。当然如果父母自己有足够的时间和精力，小孩足够成熟，也是不一定
要依赖老师和学校的。
这个公立私立的区别孩子两边都上过的话，高下立判， 不用争。也不用和国内的教育
体系瞎比。
私立是要钱的，要是不如公立，它岂不是该倒贴钱？归根到底是一个值不值得问题。
如果有钱，谁不把孩子送私立？除了steve jobs这样的, 钱多得几辈子花不完，上不上
学都无所谓的。
【在 w********9 的大作中提到】
: 我们地球村的另一边（国内）比这边的私立学的东西更深。
| g**y
发帖数: 53 | 19 This is an interesting article about two different studies that looked at
how children learn and the effects of teaching on children's learning
abilities : http://www.slate.com/id/2288402/
Why Preschool Shouldn't Be Like School
New research shows that teaching kids more and more, at ever-younger ages,
may backfire.
By Alison Gopnik Posted Wednesday, March 16, 2011, at 2:15 PM ET
Ours is an age of pedagogy. Anxious parents instruct their children more and
more, at younger and younger ages, until they're reading books to babies in
the womb. They pressure teachers to make kindergartens and nurseries more
like schools. So does the law—the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act explicitly
urged more direct instruction in federally funded preschools.
There are skeptics, of course, including some parents, many preschool
teachers, and even a few policy-makers. Shouldn't very young children be
allowed to explore, inquire, play, and discover, they ask? Perhaps direct
instruction can help children learn specific facts and skills, but what
about curiosity and creativity—abilities that are even more important for
learning in the long run? Two forthcoming studies in the journal Cognition—
one from a lab at MIT and one from my lab at UC-Berkeley—suggest that the
doubters are on to something. While learning from a teacher may help
children get to a specific answer more quickly, it also makes them less
likely to discover new information about a problem and to create a new and
unexpected solution.
What do we already know about how teaching affects learning? Not as much as
we would like, unfortunately, because it is a very difficult thing to study.
You might try to compare different kinds of schools. But the children and
the teachers at a Marin County preschool that encourages exploration will be
very different from the children and teachers in a direct instruction
program in South Side Chicago. And almost any new program with enthusiastic
teachers will have good effects, at least to begin with, regardless of
content. So comparisons are difficult. Besides, how do you measure learning,
anyway? Almost by definition, directed teaching will make children do
better on standardized tests, which the government uses to evaluate school
performance. Curiosity and creativity are harder to measure.
Developmental scientists like me explore the basic science of learning by
designing controlled experiments. We might start by saying: Suppose we gave
a group of 4-year-olds exactly the same problems and only varied on whether
we taught them directly or encouraged them to figure it out for themselves?
Would they learn different things and develop different solutions? The two
new studies in Cognition are the first to systematically show that they
would.
In the first study, MIT professor Laura Schulz, her graduate student
Elizabeth Bonawitz, and their colleagues looked at how 4-year-olds learned
about a new toy with four tubes. Each tube could do something interesting:
If you pulled on one tube it squeaked, if you looked inside another tube you
found a hidden mirror, and so on. For one group of children, the
experimenter said: "I just found this toy!" As she brought out the toy, she
pulled the first tube, as if by accident, and it squeaked. She acted
surprised ("Huh! Did you see that? Let me try to do that!") and pulled the
tube again to make it squeak a second time. With the other children, the
experimenter acted more like a teacher. She said, "I'm going to show you how
my toy works. Watch this!" and deliberately made the tube squeak. Then she
left both groups of children alone to play with the toy.
All of the children pulled the first tube to make it squeak. The question
was whether they would also learn about the other things the toy could do.
The children from the first group played with the toy longer and discovered
more of its "hidden" features than those in the second group. In other words
, direct instruction made the children less curious and less likely to
discover new information.
Does direct teaching also make children less likely to draw new conclusions
—or, put another way, does it make them less creative? To answer this
question, Daphna Buchsbaum, Tom Griffiths, Patrick Shafto, and I gave
another group of 4-year-old children a new toy.* This time, though, we
demonstrated sequences of three actions on the toy, some of which caused the
toy to play music, some of which did not. For example, Daphna might start
by squishing the toy, then pressing a pad on its top, then pulling a ring on
its side, at which point the toy would play music. Then she might try a
different series of three actions, and it would play music again. Not every
sequence she demonstrated worked, however: Only the ones that ended with the
same two actions made the music play. After showing the children five
successful sequences interspersed with four unsuccessful ones, she gave them
the toy and told them to "make it go."
Daphna ran through the same nine sequences with all the children, but with
one group, she acted as if she were clueless about the toy. ("Wow, look at
this toy. I wonder how it works? Let's try this," she said.) With the other
group, she acted like a teacher. ("Here's how my toy works.") When she acted
clueless, many of the children figured out the most intelligent way of
getting the toy to play music (performing just the two key actions,
something Daphna had not demonstrated). But when Daphna acted like a teacher
, the children imitated her exactly, rather than discovering the more
intelligent and more novel two-action solution.
As so often happens in science, two studies from different labs, using
different techniques, have simultaneously produced strikingly similar
results. They provide scientific support for the intuitions many teachers
have had all along: Direct instruction really can limit young children's
learning. Teaching is a very effective way to get children to learn
something specific—this tube squeaks, say, or a squish then a press then a
pull causes the music to play. But it also makes children less likely to
discover unexpected information and to draw unexpected conclusions.
Why might children behave this way? Adults often assume that most learning
is the result of teaching and that exploratory, spontaneous learning is
unusual. But actually, spontaneous learning is more fundamental. It's this
kind of learning, in fact, that allows kids to learn from teachers in the
first place. Patrick Shafto, a machine-learning specialist at the University
of Louisville and a co-author of both these studies; Noah Goodman at
Stanford; and their colleagues have explored how we could design computers
that learn about the world as effectively as young children do. It's this
work that inspired these experiments.
These experts in machine learning argue that learning from teachers first
requires you to learn about teachers. For example, if you know how teachers
work, you tend to assume that they are trying to be informative. When the
teacher in the tube-toy experiment doesn't go looking for hidden features
inside the tubes, the learner unconsciously thinks: "She's a teacher. If
there were something interesting in there, she would have showed it to me."
These assumptions lead children to narrow in, and to consider just the
specific information a teacher provides. Without a teacher present, children
look for a much wider range of information and consider a greater range of
options.
Knowing what to expect from a teacher is a really good thing, of course: It
lets you get the right answers more quickly than you would otherwise. Indeed
, these studies show that 4-year-olds understand how teaching works and can
learn from teachers. But there is an intrinsic trade-off between that kind
of learning and the more wide-ranging learning that is so natural for young
children. Knowing this, it's more important than ever to give children's
remarkable, spontaneous learning abilities free rein. That means a rich,
stable, and safe world, with affectionate and supportive grown-ups, and lots
of opportunities for exploration and play. Not school for babies. | g**y
发帖数: 53 | 20 personally I don't like challenger, and stratford.
quality is not necessarily reflected by price.
It's about your opinion on learning style. | w********9
发帖数: 8613 | 21
私立有好处，公立也有好处。喜好而已。过去，我自己不是那种喜欢被老师管得很紧的
学生，喜欢自己有很多的选择。我前面提过，喜欢学习的小孩可以自己自由选择多读一
些东西。家长并不需要花多少时间。（特别好的学生基本都有强的自修能力。如果会中
文，数学方面的资料会多很多。）读公立的一个大好处是：有更多的邻居小孩在同一个
学校，和社区关系近。
对很多父母，钱不是问题。读私立可以不考虑公立学区，住房开销可以减小，我两年前
算过，多出的开销可以控制在$5，000以内。
听人说，Challenger的风格比较接近亚洲的风格。印度老师和印度小孩占的比例很大。
我们家认识喜欢challenger的家长。争议有不少。
http://www.greatschools.org/california/palo-alto/13073-Challeng
http://siliconvalley.citysearch.com/profile/922798/palo_alto_ca
在某些方面，我会和国内的学校比，而不会和这边的任何学校比。我们毕竟是生活在地
球村。
【在 p***e 的大作中提到】
: 这个不是学得深不深的问题。是给小孩一个decent, discplined的环境的问题。老师是
: 小孩成长过程中的很重要的一部份。对小孩的影响有时候比家长还大。替小孩选好老师
: 也是家长的责任。当然如果父母自己有足够的时间和精力，小孩足够成熟，也是不一定
: 要依赖老师和学校的。
: 这个公立私立的区别孩子两边都上过的话，高下立判， 不用争。也不用和国内的教育
: 体系瞎比。
: 私立是要钱的，要是不如公立，它岂不是该倒贴钱？归根到底是一个值不值得问题。
: 如果有钱，谁不把孩子送私立？除了steve jobs这样的, 钱多得几辈子花不完，上不上
: 学都无所谓的。
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
