I think the major dissonance comes from understanding what the program really is.

Many who support it think it is a school that uses a garden to illustrate academic lessons taught in a classroom. The Edible Schoolyard does not put academic learning first.

For other supporters, this is fine too. They see planting a garden and cooking its yield as effective ways to teach academic lessons. You can learn fractions and basic math skills by cooking and planting a garden.

But ESY is a Middle School program. Fractions, times-tables, the basics of physics and biology are all things that are taught in elementary school. Education is supposed to get progressively more challenging, not less. As one commenter suggested “a teacher can dig up a seedling to show the stages of a plants growth”(paraphrased but fair), yes, that’s what they do in 2nd grade. In Middle School they should be quantifying genetic deviance and citing Mendel.

Another supportive element suggests that not all students learn the same way, so programs like this are needed. That would be fair if the students learned the SAME material in a DIFFERENT way. But it’s not fair to teach them LESS material or SIMPLER material because they have a problem learning in a traditional manner.

Others suggest that it does kids good to learn the roots of this country or to get out and get some fresh air. That’s fine, but school is supposed to prepare children for adulthood and the agrarian job sector has been absorbed by about 100 superfarms and these kids have a better chance of landing a NBA contract.

Still others oppose the focus on academics as a whole. And yes you can make good money as a plumber (my brother does) without an education. Lots of drop-outs get a GED and a phlebotomy certificate and do just fine. So teach them plumbing and bloodwork if you’ve given up on them becoming doctors and lawyers.

So for the earth-lovers (I’m quite fond of my home planet) like Sierra I have to suggest this. The kind of real work that is going to save the planet is going to be done by scientists, programmers, inventors, politicians, lawyers, doctors, educators, and even entertainers. Why would you support your kids being pulled off of that track?

The comments on the Strollerderby piece are a fascinating look at how parents of school age kids are reacting to Ms. Flanigan’s ideas.

As you might suppose, I’m a fan of school gardening projects and many other alterntive teaching methods that get kids out of their classrooms and into experiential learning.

I do see Flanigan’s point though: growing up I was in absolutely no danger of not mastering basic academic skills. But I was in serious danger of spending so much time with my nose in a book that I never learned any practical skills.

Leaving cuba aside for just a moment. We have S.Korea with about a third the GDP/capita (by your numbers) and Slovenia at half. I would call this a difference in “Significant” as defined by the two of us. My idea of a significant wealth difference is one that affects the quality of life. And maybe GDP is not the best indicator.

I don’ know anything personally about Slovenia, but I spent some time in S. Korea. Unemployment is very low. Most people consider themselves middle class. the OECD factbook has S. Korea rated at (or near) the highest in access to the internet. And average wages (by industry) are not significantly less (factory worker wages are about 85% of average USA factory worker wages) than in the States. Their business culture spreads the GDP much wider across the population than that of the USA. And Education is a paragon virtue. S. Korea is not a poor country.

I can’t accept criticism based on Cuba stats. The reporting agencies play down their GDP to show the awefull effects of the embargo, and play up their educational accomplishments to show the world how a workers paradise can exists. I won’t say that they aren’t poor or that they don’t have good schools (they have a great corps of doctors) but the lack of transparency makes it suspect.

To be a bit nit-picking on the wealth / literacy, I haven’t got the 2009 data, but in 2008 there was a significant difference between Slovenias $25K per capita, South Korea $16k Cuba at $5k and the USA’s $46k. These may not now be above the US, but I bet they are pretty close with much lower resources. But again, point taken that the top countries tend to have pretty high GDP / capita.

When I said the evidence was not that strong, I meant the evidence we have from the article. I do not know how strong the evidence for or against gardens is. What I was pointing out is that assumptions were made that the standards were lower, when the only evidence we have is that standards got higher.

I agree entirely that this sort of program should not be rolled out without study to asses thier value. Nor should they be dismissed as useless because they don’t fit in with some pre-conceived ideas about classroom learning.

What I had suggested does not mean this at all. Traditional education has a proven track record of efficacy. When the Edible Schoolyard’s efficacy has been proven by an objective review to be as good, or even nearly as good (not a high bar to set) then it can be offered. In the mean time it should remain an experiment.

What you are suggesting is akin to saying that if we require testing of any new heart attack medicine that no heart medicine can be prescribed.

You said- “Greater wealth is not translating into greater literacy, or the USA would be No.1.”

The USA is currently in the 13th rank of the UN Education Index worldwide. None of the more educated nations have a significantly lower GDP/capita

And, “But the artcicle clearly stated that the kids are taught to write, using the garden as a subject, and possibly inspiration”? This is highschool and they’re making it sound like leading horses with handfuls of sugar cubes.

All I’m saying is that if the evidence is not that strong, as you point out, then don’t risk a kids future on it.

The article and comments bemoan the lack of research to back the gardens, and then go on to assume, with no evidence, that the outcomes are worse than without gardens.

“Neil, when you promise a kid that they will be getting a useful education and instead of learning how to write a resume and calculate interest on a CD, all they have to do is successfully plant some peas” But the artcicle clearly stated that the kids are taught to write, using the garden as a subject, and possibly inspiration. It also said the grades went up – this is the only evidence we have on this school, and it shows that the programme
is working in this case. Now, the evidence is not all that strong, as we don’t know enough about how it was collected, but it is all we have, and there is no reason to assume that the exact opposite of the evidence is correct. Nowhere does it say that the only requirement is to succesfully plant some peas.

” I just want a full and independent accounting of the efficacy of any educational program (public or private) be conducted before it can be offered” Does that include the current one? That means no teaching until the studies have compared all possible methods and programs. We have to accept that education will be evolving, and programs will be tried at a local level, and if succesful will be taken up more widely. It is this point that the studies should be done – if the Government is to support a program, then it should have some evidence it works. It can also find out which aspects are useful. I suspect in the garden case, a garden is a good asset and useful educational tool if used wisely. I suspect there are aspects of the way this particular version of school gardens is implimented that are not useful, and smack of ideology. So lets get the evidence, take to good bits and get rid of the bad.

In a case of perfect competition, producers would be competing for sales, but too often it is consumers competing for scarce product. Finding a place to live in NYC for example. Or finding a decent school at all in rural America. Not enough people to fund the public system can mean not enough potential customers to warrant an entry into the market by a private offering.

I don’t even want the government setting minimum standards, I just want a full and independent accounting of the efficacy of any educational program (public or private) be conducted before it can be offered. I think the stakes are higher when risking a bad education even compared to an NYC Hotdog Cart.

With respect to market goods, I stake my personal safety on the desire of companies to make a profit through good reputation (and to avoid expensive law suits), rather than government regulation. However, as a practical matter, I would not strongly object to the Federal government setting de minimis standards, with local governments allowed to set more stringent standards.

I suppose consistency requires that I also accept a Federal role in setting de minimis standards for local education. Maybe, but first I would prefer to see local governments implement a voucher system to allow greater competition in providing education. It would be interesting to see whether the sorts of social engineering experiments described in this article could exist with a voucher system.

I don’t think any educational program should be implemented until significant research by independent sources document its efficacy. Maybe if a parent reading a report that says this new magnet school has a 10% literacy success rate and a 5% matriculation rate still wants his kid to go, I in principle, would support his right. If independent analysis shows the school to have a higher success rate than other options then I would support it without reserve.

But at the same time I would equate it to a parent, knowing full well the likely results, feeding her newborn sugar water instead of formula of milk.

To make a free society work, you need to delegate responsibility to the appropriate authority. In my opinion, the best authority for kids’ education is the parents of the kids, who have the greatest interest in the outcome. If they choose public schooling, they have ample avenues to express their wishes–PTA, school board and local elections, and failing all else voting with their feet. As long as these sorts of decisions are made locally, I can live with stuff like this. In a diverse society with liberty, perhaps it is to be expected. What remedies do you propose?