Full Version: Education in America
The most recent UNICEF report of education in the various developed countries was published recently and with some surprising results. The top performing countries (performance is based on how well 15 yr. old students perform on a test measuring math, reading, and science) were S. Korea and Japan while the bottom was Italy, Greece, and Portugal. Of the 24 countries measured, the US came in 18th place, which is a drop from being closer to the middle of the pack in 2003.
The interesting thing about all this is that the US spends the same percentage of GDP on it's students as S. Korea does (as of 2003), if not more now.
In UNICEF Ranking, U.S. Teens Come in 18th
International Scorecard for U.S. Education: Big Spending, So-So Results
Questions:
Why is the US underachieving?
Are the education programs to blame, should they be changed?
Should we adopt an educational style like that of Finland, Canada, Japan, or S. Korea or would this not work either?
(spelling, arg)
The interesting thing about all this is that the US spends the same percentage of GDP on it's students as S. Korea does (as of 2003), if not more now.
In UNICEF Ranking, U.S. Teens Come in 18th
International Scorecard for U.S. Education: Big Spending, So-So Results
Questions:
Why is the US underachieving?
Are the education programs to blame, should they be changed?
Should we adopt an educational style like that of Finland, Canada, Japan, or S. Korea or would this not work either?
(spelling, arg)
This is a HUGE topic!
Why is the US underachieving?
I see a variety of reasons why we are underachieving:
1.) Districts, like corporations, are extremely top-heavy. Much of the decision making in terms of what is to be taught in the classroom and how it is to be taught is decided by people who either have never been in the classroom as a teacher OR who haven't been in a long time.
2.) Curricula in the U.S. are massive and unweildy. The list of learning expectations for one year is simply too much. Most countries focus on a few core ideas each year and teach HOW those ideas work. In the U.S. the curriculum for one year is an exhaustive list of general concepts where the focus is usually on WHAT the kids should know.
3.) No Child Left Behind is a monstrosity. While most teachers will tell you that there is a lot of good in concept in NCLB it is poorly funded (most of the funding goes to test makers and publishers...and who happen to be Friends of Bush). Teachers aren't afraid of being held accountable but NCLB simple doesn't do that. In essence, our education reform at the federal level lately seems to be more about making a buck for big business. (Computer in every classroom? Yeah right, one computer, 30 students and now the school has to pay for an IT person...5 years after it pays for the computers) (No Child Left Behind? Right again, if they like being forced to learn in bigger groups because the school can't pay for the testing AND enough teachers)
4.) Parents, for a variety of reasons, have come to expect more out of a school than simple education. More and more parents expect schools to nurture their children as well as teach them. Yet when their child does something that might be embarrassing to them they suddenly want the school to leave them alone and just teach. A few months later and you are in PPT meeting with the same parent being asked to "see to their emotional needs" again. Teachers, councelors and administrators simply don't even know their role anymore. Sadly, most major education organizations have had to take on the mantra that, "Parents aren't doing enough to raise their children anymore, so it is up to us to do it."
I think that's a good start. There are more problems however.
Are the education programs to blame, should they be changed?
The federal money laundering programs should be erased entirely and perhaps educators, parents and universities should be made a larger part of the process. Lawyers, lobbyists and politicians should be on the sidelines.
As far as teaching programs go; we should simply support new teachers more effectively to give them a chance to learn "best practice" and to develop their own style. Combined with good, research-based lesson planning, (positive)parental involvement and effective use of dollars and we will go far.
Should we adopt an educational style like that of Finlan, Canada, Japan, or S. Korea or would this not work either?
One of the things we DON'T do is to teach to the variety of people out there. If a kid is a gifted mechanic in most U.S. high schools he or she is still a failure if they don't get Shakespeare. In many other developed countries they have a system to track and place kids in appropriate schools according to desire and ability. When they enter the working world there is also a more structured hierarchy such as a guild system of union system to ensure that professionals are able, licensed and educated properly in their field. It would be nice for all the kids taking shop class three times a day to not be considered rejects.
Why is the US underachieving?
I see a variety of reasons why we are underachieving:
1.) Districts, like corporations, are extremely top-heavy. Much of the decision making in terms of what is to be taught in the classroom and how it is to be taught is decided by people who either have never been in the classroom as a teacher OR who haven't been in a long time.
2.) Curricula in the U.S. are massive and unweildy. The list of learning expectations for one year is simply too much. Most countries focus on a few core ideas each year and teach HOW those ideas work. In the U.S. the curriculum for one year is an exhaustive list of general concepts where the focus is usually on WHAT the kids should know.
3.) No Child Left Behind is a monstrosity. While most teachers will tell you that there is a lot of good in concept in NCLB it is poorly funded (most of the funding goes to test makers and publishers...and who happen to be Friends of Bush). Teachers aren't afraid of being held accountable but NCLB simple doesn't do that. In essence, our education reform at the federal level lately seems to be more about making a buck for big business. (Computer in every classroom? Yeah right, one computer, 30 students and now the school has to pay for an IT person...5 years after it pays for the computers) (No Child Left Behind? Right again, if they like being forced to learn in bigger groups because the school can't pay for the testing AND enough teachers)
4.) Parents, for a variety of reasons, have come to expect more out of a school than simple education. More and more parents expect schools to nurture their children as well as teach them. Yet when their child does something that might be embarrassing to them they suddenly want the school to leave them alone and just teach. A few months later and you are in PPT meeting with the same parent being asked to "see to their emotional needs" again. Teachers, councelors and administrators simply don't even know their role anymore. Sadly, most major education organizations have had to take on the mantra that, "Parents aren't doing enough to raise their children anymore, so it is up to us to do it."
I think that's a good start. There are more problems however.
Are the education programs to blame, should they be changed?
The federal money laundering programs should be erased entirely and perhaps educators, parents and universities should be made a larger part of the process. Lawyers, lobbyists and politicians should be on the sidelines.
As far as teaching programs go; we should simply support new teachers more effectively to give them a chance to learn "best practice" and to develop their own style. Combined with good, research-based lesson planning, (positive)parental involvement and effective use of dollars and we will go far.
Should we adopt an educational style like that of Finlan, Canada, Japan, or S. Korea or would this not work either?
One of the things we DON'T do is to teach to the variety of people out there. If a kid is a gifted mechanic in most U.S. high schools he or she is still a failure if they don't get Shakespeare. In many other developed countries they have a system to track and place kids in appropriate schools according to desire and ability. When they enter the working world there is also a more structured hierarchy such as a guild system of union system to ensure that professionals are able, licensed and educated properly in their field. It would be nice for all the kids taking shop class three times a day to not be considered rejects.
Your data is a bit dated, DA.
Although UNICEF has not updated its report (it only issued one report, in 2003, which recorded 2002 education levels), the data it used was from TIMMS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study).
In the newest TIMMS survey, the US is improving: U.S. Students Show Slight Improvement in Math, Science Achievement
Despite this data, I believe the US is underachieving.
Why is the US underachieving?
I believe the answer is more cultural than educational. The US spends more money per capita on education than almost any other nation (it is fifth in primary school government spending per pupil link). The US is second in per pupil spending for secondary education link.
This is an interesting tidbit: the percentage of 20 year olds who are still in secondary education (i.e. high school): link. In Denmark, which spends the most on secondary education, 34% of 20 year-olds are still in high school. Perhaps this is a definition problem, I don't know. But in almost every Northern European country, upwards of 20% of the 20 year olds are still in the secondary education system.
In a similar vein, a look at tertiary education (i.e. college) is interesting. 41% of American 19-year olds are in college (tertiary education). That ranks third in the world, behind only Greece and Belgium. link
There may definitely be some differences in the definitions used for these statistics. They are interesting, however.
There remains a culture problem in the US, however. I was speaking with a buddy of mine about the freedom of choices that today's students have. College graduates are coming out of college with degrees in Interior Design and Photography degrees in larger and larger numbers. Maybe it's just me, but I don't feel that these types of "degrees" lead to much progress for the nation. In other countries, there is an emphasis on education because they are either forced into it (Korea, Singapore, increasingly China) or because there is real need for a technical degree to get anywhere. I highly doubt a graduate in Korea is going to get ahead with a degree in Interior Design.
The freedoms we have here are actually stifling progress. Since we have so much wealth, wealth is no longer striven for. Instead, it is taken for granted. You can earn a living through Interior Design not because of an inherent need for such individuals, but simply because people have money to pay such an individual and will do so to "one up" the Joneses.
With the accumulation of wealth in the United States, people can afford more luxuries, which includes doing jobs which are not "essential" to a less well-off country.
The same attitude shows itself in sports and other activities that kids participate in here in the US. Sports are now a structured baby-sitting regimen instead of something kids love to do. They do them because their parents make them. The parents' motives, however, are more and more self-serving rather than sacrificial. Parents want more free time and so they send their kids to activities.
The bottom line is that things are easy in the United States, which makes it easy to "skate by". Be that a non-technical degree such as Art History (how many Art historians do we really need, anyway?), or the choice to slide by in school, it has become easy to avoid hard work and still live a decent life. In other countries, education is a necessity of life, in the United States, it has become a luxury.
The second reason is what I hinted at earlier: parents. Parents are showing an increasingly disturbing lack-of-interest in their kids' education. I know that in the private (Catholic) school my kids attend, the single reason that they outperform other schools (even other private schools) is parental involvement. Parents who don't care about education raise children who don't care about education. It is becoming way too common.
Are the education programs to blame, should they be changed?
Education programs have been adapted to meet the expectations of the parents. If the parents are happy with the schools, then everything is peachy keen. Unfortunately, even good schools are falling behind globally because of the lack of expectations. Low expectations lead to low results. It's funny, but you usually hit what you aim for.
Should we adopt an educational style like that of Finland, Canada, Japan, or S. Korea or would this not work either?
I am not familiar with the systems in these countries. I did read that University students in Finland often spend 7-8 years there, all on the public dime. It is a different paradigm which is probably not widely exportable, but who knows?
The bigger hurdle, in my eyes, is the cultural one.
Although UNICEF has not updated its report (it only issued one report, in 2003, which recorded 2002 education levels), the data it used was from TIMMS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study).
In the newest TIMMS survey, the US is improving: U.S. Students Show Slight Improvement in Math, Science Achievement
QUOTE
In December 2004, the TIMSS released results from its 2003 assessments. Of the 46 countries that participated in the eighth-grade tests, U.S. students ranked ninth in science achievement and 15th in mathematics achievement. On the fourth-grade tests, in which 25 countries took part, U.S. students ranked sixth in science and 12th in math.
Despite this data, I believe the US is underachieving.
Why is the US underachieving?
I believe the answer is more cultural than educational. The US spends more money per capita on education than almost any other nation (it is fifth in primary school government spending per pupil link). The US is second in per pupil spending for secondary education link.
This is an interesting tidbit: the percentage of 20 year olds who are still in secondary education (i.e. high school): link. In Denmark, which spends the most on secondary education, 34% of 20 year-olds are still in high school. Perhaps this is a definition problem, I don't know. But in almost every Northern European country, upwards of 20% of the 20 year olds are still in the secondary education system.
In a similar vein, a look at tertiary education (i.e. college) is interesting. 41% of American 19-year olds are in college (tertiary education). That ranks third in the world, behind only Greece and Belgium. link
There may definitely be some differences in the definitions used for these statistics. They are interesting, however.
There remains a culture problem in the US, however. I was speaking with a buddy of mine about the freedom of choices that today's students have. College graduates are coming out of college with degrees in Interior Design and Photography degrees in larger and larger numbers. Maybe it's just me, but I don't feel that these types of "degrees" lead to much progress for the nation. In other countries, there is an emphasis on education because they are either forced into it (Korea, Singapore, increasingly China) or because there is real need for a technical degree to get anywhere. I highly doubt a graduate in Korea is going to get ahead with a degree in Interior Design.
The freedoms we have here are actually stifling progress. Since we have so much wealth, wealth is no longer striven for. Instead, it is taken for granted. You can earn a living through Interior Design not because of an inherent need for such individuals, but simply because people have money to pay such an individual and will do so to "one up" the Joneses.
With the accumulation of wealth in the United States, people can afford more luxuries, which includes doing jobs which are not "essential" to a less well-off country.
The same attitude shows itself in sports and other activities that kids participate in here in the US. Sports are now a structured baby-sitting regimen instead of something kids love to do. They do them because their parents make them. The parents' motives, however, are more and more self-serving rather than sacrificial. Parents want more free time and so they send their kids to activities.
The bottom line is that things are easy in the United States, which makes it easy to "skate by". Be that a non-technical degree such as Art History (how many Art historians do we really need, anyway?), or the choice to slide by in school, it has become easy to avoid hard work and still live a decent life. In other countries, education is a necessity of life, in the United States, it has become a luxury.
The second reason is what I hinted at earlier: parents. Parents are showing an increasingly disturbing lack-of-interest in their kids' education. I know that in the private (Catholic) school my kids attend, the single reason that they outperform other schools (even other private schools) is parental involvement. Parents who don't care about education raise children who don't care about education. It is becoming way too common.
Are the education programs to blame, should they be changed?
Education programs have been adapted to meet the expectations of the parents. If the parents are happy with the schools, then everything is peachy keen. Unfortunately, even good schools are falling behind globally because of the lack of expectations. Low expectations lead to low results. It's funny, but you usually hit what you aim for.
Should we adopt an educational style like that of Finland, Canada, Japan, or S. Korea or would this not work either?
I am not familiar with the systems in these countries. I did read that University students in Finland often spend 7-8 years there, all on the public dime. It is a different paradigm which is probably not widely exportable, but who knows?
The bigger hurdle, in my eyes, is the cultural one.
QUOTE(Amlord)
Your data is a bit dated, DA.
Sorry, I didn't realize. I just read it in the local paper and assumed a new study had come out, I suppose it was just a slow news day.
Regardless though, there does seem to be a problem here with the amount spent on education versus the amount our students actually learn.
QUOTE(Amlord)
The freedoms we have here are actually stifling progress.
I had never even thought of the problem in this light, but I suppose it has some face validity. The fact that people can get degrees in a number of non-technical or science related areas can be a problem, but as I've witnessed from my friends (who are just now graduating from college) these degrees still get you pretty much no where. My friend with a psychology and english degree is just barely scraping by (and this is arguably more useful than art history). I feel though that science and technical degrees still yield higher pay (granted the odd interior design major or photography major ends up making great money). The point is though, that if we want people to contribute to society on a more international level then we should encourage kids to go into fields such as research, engineering, health care, ect. I do not think we should take these fields away as long as there are people who want to go into them (another person I know got a philosophy degree and sells cars now, go figure).
Why is the US underachieving?
I think we're underachieve because of the complacency and arrogant nature of us Americans. We think we're the best and always will be the best and therefore whatever we do is the best. I feel like I see high schoolers being told "you live in the greatest nation today" and them thinking that if they just do their standard level of input and get by they'll keep up the greatness of our nation. I see it as sort of a perception problem, which is due to culture as a part.
Are the education programs to blame, should they be changed?
I don't know of many programs but I feel that what we are spending on them we are not getting out. So maybe they need to be reevaluated and changed, maybe not completely chucked.
Should we adopt an educational style like that of Finland, Canada, Japan, or S. Korea or would this not work either?
I think we should consider how these other countries education systems work and possibly incorporate some aspects to make a newer design, though I do not think this will happen.
Oh I know I might get scolded for offering such tainted anecdotal information to the debate..but one of my brothers sponsored a South Korean student for four years. His family who is wealthy in South Korean terms desired for their son to attend an American university and the best and most cost effective way of doing this (as he can earn a scholarship) is by attending American high school first. This child spent all of is high school years living with my brother's family thousands of miles away from home and his own family and he now attends college in California and spends many holiday breaks with my brother too. He wishes to find an American girl to marry so he never has to return to South Korea as he says he feels American now..not Korean.
Recently his older brother failed his last opportunity to gain entry into the higher levels of the school system in S. Korea and as a result he committed suicide.
I think that some of the nations we may be using in this comparison have an unhealthy view of education and educational success that I personally would not like to see practiced here in the US.
Recently his older brother failed his last opportunity to gain entry into the higher levels of the school system in S. Korea and as a result he committed suicide.
I think that some of the nations we may be using in this comparison have an unhealthy view of education and educational success that I personally would not like to see practiced here in the US.
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge @ Oct 26 2005, 01:41 AM)
1.) Districts, like corporations, are extremely top-heavy. Much of the decision making in terms of what is to be taught in the classroom and how it is to be taught is decided by people who either have never been in the classroom as a teacher OR who haven't been in a long time.
Agreed entirely. At my daughter's school, there are many more administrators than there are teachers. Heck, there are probably as many people sitting in the office on any given day as there are teachers in classrooms. This kind of thing has to stop, but it's gotten to the point where the teacher's unions are forcing this to be the case. These administrators are making an obscene amount of money too, many times what the teachers are making, so what do they expect? The principal drives a brand new Mercedes, most teachers drive 15-year old Toyotas.
QUOTE
2.) Curricula in the U.S. are massive and unweildy. The list of learning expectations for one year is simply too much. Most countries focus on a few core ideas each year and teach HOW those ideas work. In the U.S. the curriculum for one year is an exhaustive list of general concepts where the focus is usually on WHAT the kids should know.
I think it's more a matter that there is too much variation in the curricula than anything else. You can go to ten schools in ten school districts and find ten entirely different ideas of what should be taught. There are no standards and that hurts students who try to attend high schools or colleges in different areas. They may be completely unprepared for what they are expected to have learned.
QUOTE
3.) No Child Left Behind is a monstrosity. While most teachers will tell you that there is a lot of good in concept in NCLB it is poorly funded (most of the funding goes to test makers and publishers...and who happen to be Friends of Bush). Teachers aren't afraid of being held accountable but NCLB simple doesn't do that. In essence, our education reform at the federal level lately seems to be more about making a buck for big business. (Computer in every classroom? Yeah right, one computer, 30 students and now the school has to pay for an IT person...5 years after it pays for the computers) (No Child Left Behind? Right again, if they like being forced to learn in bigger groups because the school can't pay for the testing AND enough teachers)
NCLB is a boondoggle and always has been. Now we're finding out that an estimated 20% of all students are not going to pass the tests and get out of high school. It only points out the failures in education to begin with. Most of these tests are badly administered, badly graded, etc. Heck, we've had an ongoing feud with my daugher's school because the grading computer will skip a question, then grade every question thereafter wrong because it's off by one. We keep sending back test after test that she's really gotten right but is marked wrong and they have to manually go back and fix it. This has been going on for two years now and they haven't fixed the problem. This is utterly ridiculous.
QUOTE
4.) Parents, for a variety of reasons, have come to expect more out of a school than simple education. More and more parents expect schools to nurture their children as well as teach them. Yet when their child does something that might be embarrassing to them they suddenly want the school to leave them alone and just teach. A few months later and you are in PPT meeting with the same parent being asked to "see to their emotional needs" again. Teachers, councelors and administrators simply don't even know their role anymore. Sadly, most major education organizations have had to take on the mantra that, "Parents aren't doing enough to raise their children anymore, so it is up to us to do it."
I don't think that's accurate. Most parents don't care about their children's education, they're too busy with work and their lives to be bothered with their kids. They look to education to train their children in even the most basic aspects of life from basic skills to socialization. That's not the job of the school, that's the job of the parents.
Then you get those few loud-mouthed parents who want to be able to tell the school what to teach and how to teach and if they don't do it exactly right, they're going to sue. Usually these are the religious folks who not only want their kids to receive religiously-approved educations, but they want to push that agenda on everyone.
Seriously, I think we need to set standards that the parents have absolutely no input on. Schools are there to teach, not socialize or indoctrinate, and any child who has no social skills needs to be directed back to the parents to correct the problem.
QUOTE(Cephus @ Oct 27 2005, 03:54 PM)
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge @ Oct 26 2005, 01:41 AM)
1.) 4.) Parents, for a variety of reasons, have come to expect more out of a school than simple education. More and more parents expect schools to nurture their children as well as teach them. Yet when their child does something that might be embarrassing to them they suddenly want the school to leave them alone and just teach. A few months later and you are in PPT meeting with the same parent being asked to "see to their emotional needs" again. Teachers, councelors and administrators simply don't even know their role anymore. Sadly, most major education organizations have had to take on the mantra that, "Parents aren't doing enough to raise their children anymore, so it is up to us to do it."
I don't think that's accurate. Most parents don't care about their children's education, they're too busy with work and their lives to be bothered with their kids. They look to education to train their children in even the most basic aspects of life from basic skills to socialization. That's not the job of the school, that's the job of the parents.
Then you get those few loud-mouthed parents who want to be able to tell the school what to teach and how to teach and if they don't do it exactly right, they're going to sue. Usually these are the religious folks who not only want their kids to receive religiously-approved educations, but they want to push that agenda on everyone.
Seriously, I think we need to set standards that the parents have absolutely no input on. Schools are there to teach, not socialize or indoctrinate, and any child who has no social skills needs to be directed back to the parents to correct the problem.
We actually agree totally. My point was not that parents are too invlovled in their child's schooling. I was saying that they are relying even more upon the schools to teach their kids things that should be done at home. An example that happened last week: Mother and child at motor vehicle department (yeah!) and the child was going nuts; runnign around, pulling on people's coats, yelling, etc... The woman sitting next to the mother turned to her and said, "Wow, he's a rambunctious one!" To that the mother replied, a bit defensively, "Yeah, I sometimes have a hard time handling him, but I figure they will teach him how to behave in school."
Parents are burned out and are, more and more, expecting burned out teachers (who are also burned out parents) to socialize their children.
About those demanding parents....
They are taking advantage of the system in ways other parents hardly understand.
In the end, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Combined with the reality that education is a political process in every town and you have chaos. Parents make noise because administrators abhor the public eye. Boads of Ed. and superintendents rely on political prestige to keep their positions. If someone is loud, has a lawyer or is well connected they will egt what they want for their kid. Sadly, these parents often get exactly what they want even when everyone else KNOWS it is the worst thing possible for the poor kid. Special education is the worst place for this type of behavior and "shotgun" special ed services forced by parents costs this country hundreds of millions every year.
I think its the students to be honest. I'm a student and I know that I can be lazy, but I try my best at my work. However, not everyone is alike and I noticed that its a lot of the time because students want to fool around in class. Some want to learn, but don't know when to ask for help because they are so frustrated. The teachers I have, teach me just fine and sometimes a certain teacher does not get through to me. Maybe its just because america is becoming more lazy? Or just doesn't know how to ask for help.
Just an opinion.
Just an opinion.
Lovinlynn,
Students have been lazy since Socrates sat with the youth in the town center of Athens. Very few people are true "go getters" all the time for all occassions. Most students go with their passions. Kids daydreamed and avoided homework the same way 30 years ago, though perhaps they felt a bit more pressure (from society in general) to make good. The one, major difference with modern students is that they have demonstrably shorter attention spans (sometimes correlated to approximate television commercial cycles).
Students have been lazy since Socrates sat with the youth in the town center of Athens. Very few people are true "go getters" all the time for all occassions. Most students go with their passions. Kids daydreamed and avoided homework the same way 30 years ago, though perhaps they felt a bit more pressure (from society in general) to make good. The one, major difference with modern students is that they have demonstrably shorter attention spans (sometimes correlated to approximate television commercial cycles).
QUOTE
We actually agree totally. My point was not that parents are too invlovled in their child's schooling. I was saying that they are relying even more upon the schools to teach their kids things that should be done at home. An example that happened last week: Mother and child at motor vehicle department (yeah!) and the child was going nuts; runnign around, pulling on people's coats, yelling, etc... The woman sitting next to the mother turned to her and said, "Wow, he's a rambunctious one!" To that the mother replied, a bit defensively, "Yeah, I sometimes have a hard time handling him, but I figure they will teach him how to behave in school."
Parents are burned out and are, more and more, expecting burned out teachers (who are also burned out parents) to socialize their children.
Parents are burned out and are, more and more, expecting burned out teachers (who are also burned out parents) to socialize their children.
So what is the difference from my home (s) country(ies) ?
I have seen no such problems in either Iceland, nor Sweden. The children are well behaved, well educated, and respect is on both the parents side to the kids, and the kids to the parents. So whats the difference in United States that give you these problems you are referring too?
QUOTE
About those demanding parents....
They are taking advantage of the system in ways other parents hardly understand.
In the end, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Combined with the reality that education is a political process in every town and you have chaos. Parents make noise because administrators abhor the public eye. Boads of Ed. and superintendents rely on political prestige to keep their positions. If someone is loud, has a lawyer or is well connected they will egt what they want for their kid. Sadly, these parents often get exactly what they want even when everyone else KNOWS it is the worst thing possible for the poor kid. Special education is the worst place for this type of behavior and "shotgun" special ed services forced by parents costs this country hundreds of millions every year.
They are taking advantage of the system in ways other parents hardly understand.
In the end, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Combined with the reality that education is a political process in every town and you have chaos. Parents make noise because administrators abhor the public eye. Boads of Ed. and superintendents rely on political prestige to keep their positions. If someone is loud, has a lawyer or is well connected they will egt what they want for their kid. Sadly, these parents often get exactly what they want even when everyone else KNOWS it is the worst thing possible for the poor kid. Special education is the worst place for this type of behavior and "shotgun" special ed services forced by parents costs this country hundreds of millions every year.
As stated earlier, this problem i do not know about either. I never heard about it. Perhaps Moif can give example in Denmark or a Scandinavian country, but to me, its none existent. So whats the differece?
Of course, home schooling, which is quite normal in the U.S is hardly existing in the Scandinavian countries. I do not even think its legal, such as Creationism indoctrination and other religious "teachings" instead of actual schooling. But perhaps there is some exceptions there to. Everyone has the right to public schooling here, and its also mandatory until what you would call late high school (i guess).
Ugh is it wasn’t for all those pesky parents and/or family conditions in the equation everything would be just great.
I think conditions of the family and the many many variants that such a variety proposes is just part of the package..we have to deal with it and I really have no objections to us accepting this role and performing it.
I have far more concern for society’s role and needed influence in a child’s life when they actually do come from an uncaring family not just a lack or lazy approach to reprimand then I do with the idea of some kind of separation of powers. I think this is where we actually can make a difference in one of our citizen’s lives that is without question to our own benefit. I think we fail horribly most often in regards to this piece of the picture, most because of this preconceived view that everyone has the same ability or opportunity and that laziness, lack of concern or just preoccupation is the only hinderance that could willfully and easily be solved and is not "our" problem to deal with. Well eventually it will become our problem in one form or another.
I think sometimes state conditioning, socializing and “indoctrinating’ is important because some kids are not getting it at home or worse they are getting very poor dangerous and corrupt forms of it. My mother who worked a few years in a very poor county of Maryland has some of the saddest stories of parental neglect that the school did have to intervene on. Like bathing a child or washing their clothes. The schools are often the ONLY source some kids have for a hot meal or stable relationships. I don’t personally understand the perspective that schools are not a form of shared culture and societal conditioning and that this is not a much needed element or perspective for having a progressive society. In fact this is where I would argue America lacks most in comparison to other nations. We often skirt or social duties in the public arena for fear of having too much influence or control over the individual. I think it is a very fine line that we still have not properly defined or accepted...the importance of the individual and the collective.
I also feel most Americans are terribly hypocritical on this issue..you hear the complaints that schools are not there to mother or teach social skills.(you take a child at 5 yrs of age for 6-7 hours a day you MOST definitely better be doing some form of nurturing and passing on of needed social skills!) Yet on the other hand you hear the same complaints towards those who choose to homeschool that their children are missing out on and not getting the much need interactions and social skills necessary for adult life. Which is it?
On a whole from what I have seen volunteering in school and the many many stories my mum shares with me...most parents DO care about their child’s education. I think the claims otherwise, that this is the exception not the norm, are not only inaccurate but a bit offensive. Not caring about your child’s educational experience is akin to not caring about your child’s future which basically is saying you don’t care about your child. If that is what you both believe the majority of Americans feel about their kids opposed to what others around the world feel and that is why our marked achievements in education rank so low then I would have to say I am in strong disagreement with this view.
As for the parents too involved taking advantage of the system and gobbling up all the resources. I complained for a year and a half that my eldest child’s class (KG and !st) had too many students each year they were at 28. It was a constant theme to me and no one cared because I was one parent. Parents so often get ignored or their concerns overlooked in a system that is so vast and often too political, so again I disagree. If only I had had the opportunity to “take advantage” instead we moved to a state that is a little more concerned about their public schools in a area that has a very strong parental involvement. It is most often not the lone complaint that makes a difference it is the group demands that do.
I think conditions of the family and the many many variants that such a variety proposes is just part of the package..we have to deal with it and I really have no objections to us accepting this role and performing it.
I have far more concern for society’s role and needed influence in a child’s life when they actually do come from an uncaring family not just a lack or lazy approach to reprimand then I do with the idea of some kind of separation of powers. I think this is where we actually can make a difference in one of our citizen’s lives that is without question to our own benefit. I think we fail horribly most often in regards to this piece of the picture, most because of this preconceived view that everyone has the same ability or opportunity and that laziness, lack of concern or just preoccupation is the only hinderance that could willfully and easily be solved and is not "our" problem to deal with. Well eventually it will become our problem in one form or another.
I think sometimes state conditioning, socializing and “indoctrinating’ is important because some kids are not getting it at home or worse they are getting very poor dangerous and corrupt forms of it. My mother who worked a few years in a very poor county of Maryland has some of the saddest stories of parental neglect that the school did have to intervene on. Like bathing a child or washing their clothes. The schools are often the ONLY source some kids have for a hot meal or stable relationships. I don’t personally understand the perspective that schools are not a form of shared culture and societal conditioning and that this is not a much needed element or perspective for having a progressive society. In fact this is where I would argue America lacks most in comparison to other nations. We often skirt or social duties in the public arena for fear of having too much influence or control over the individual. I think it is a very fine line that we still have not properly defined or accepted...the importance of the individual and the collective.
I also feel most Americans are terribly hypocritical on this issue..you hear the complaints that schools are not there to mother or teach social skills.(you take a child at 5 yrs of age for 6-7 hours a day you MOST definitely better be doing some form of nurturing and passing on of needed social skills!) Yet on the other hand you hear the same complaints towards those who choose to homeschool that their children are missing out on and not getting the much need interactions and social skills necessary for adult life. Which is it?
On a whole from what I have seen volunteering in school and the many many stories my mum shares with me...most parents DO care about their child’s education. I think the claims otherwise, that this is the exception not the norm, are not only inaccurate but a bit offensive. Not caring about your child’s educational experience is akin to not caring about your child’s future which basically is saying you don’t care about your child. If that is what you both believe the majority of Americans feel about their kids opposed to what others around the world feel and that is why our marked achievements in education rank so low then I would have to say I am in strong disagreement with this view.
As for the parents too involved taking advantage of the system and gobbling up all the resources. I complained for a year and a half that my eldest child’s class (KG and !st) had too many students each year they were at 28. It was a constant theme to me and no one cared because I was one parent. Parents so often get ignored or their concerns overlooked in a system that is so vast and often too political, so again I disagree. If only I had had the opportunity to “take advantage” instead we moved to a state that is a little more concerned about their public schools in a area that has a very strong parental involvement. It is most often not the lone complaint that makes a difference it is the group demands that do.
Why is the US underachieving?
I agree with many of the sentiments given here. In some countries, you have to achieve educationally if you have any hope of living a decent life. In the U.S.A. you can have a high school degree and still live pretty good. Whether that is bad or good I guess can be debated. This could explain why the U.S. lags in the pack. I had an English teacher in college who for years delivered pizzas with his masters degree in English. It wasn't until he was hired on to propagate english at this college that he really had a 'career'.
Are the education programs to blame, should they be changed?
No doubt the programs could be better (vouchers anyone?). But too many parents completely outsource their children's education to the government. If you can show me a parent who cares about their child's education, then I can show you a child who will excel much further than they would otherwise.
I agree with many of the sentiments given here. In some countries, you have to achieve educationally if you have any hope of living a decent life. In the U.S.A. you can have a high school degree and still live pretty good. Whether that is bad or good I guess can be debated. This could explain why the U.S. lags in the pack. I had an English teacher in college who for years delivered pizzas with his masters degree in English. It wasn't until he was hired on to propagate english at this college that he really had a 'career'.
Are the education programs to blame, should they be changed?
No doubt the programs could be better (vouchers anyone?). But too many parents completely outsource their children's education to the government. If you can show me a parent who cares about their child's education, then I can show you a child who will excel much further than they would otherwise.
Why is the US underachieving?
I think there are large disparities throughout the US academically. There are some areas in which I would never send my children to public school. I taught in such an area once. The children who are raised in those types of areas suffer academically and I think that has an impact on the overall US score. I can tell you that my son is doing more as a second grader than I did as a third grader. Children are reading earlier and expected to do more these days than they were two decades ago. It's a very good (public) school and I think he will be competitive if I am able to find the same quality as we move.
Should we adopt an educational style like that of Finland, Canada, Japan, or S. Korea or would this not work either?
I can only speak from some experience teaching in S Korea. As Bucket mentioned, the atmosphere is unbelievably competitive. If I remember correctly, the average family spends about a third or more of their income on their children's education. Virtually all of the children attend classes at institutes after school. So, their days are full from sun up to well after sun down with school. They might have high marks on paper, but that type of an atmosphere stiffles independence of thought and creativity. Talk about task saturation. I prefer our system to that.
I think there are large disparities throughout the US academically. There are some areas in which I would never send my children to public school. I taught in such an area once. The children who are raised in those types of areas suffer academically and I think that has an impact on the overall US score. I can tell you that my son is doing more as a second grader than I did as a third grader. Children are reading earlier and expected to do more these days than they were two decades ago. It's a very good (public) school and I think he will be competitive if I am able to find the same quality as we move.
Should we adopt an educational style like that of Finland, Canada, Japan, or S. Korea or would this not work either?
I can only speak from some experience teaching in S Korea. As Bucket mentioned, the atmosphere is unbelievably competitive. If I remember correctly, the average family spends about a third or more of their income on their children's education. Virtually all of the children attend classes at institutes after school. So, their days are full from sun up to well after sun down with school. They might have high marks on paper, but that type of an atmosphere stiffles independence of thought and creativity. Talk about task saturation. I prefer our system to that.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen)
I can only speak from some experience teaching in S Korea. As Bucket mentioned, the atmosphere is unbelievably competitive. If I remember correctly, the average family spends about a third of their income on their children's education. Pretty much all of the children attend classes at rather expensive institutes after school. So, their days are full from sun up to well after sun down with school. They might have high marks on paper, but that type of an atmosphere stiffles independence of thought and creativity. Talk about task saturation. I prefer our system to that.
Absolutely agree. Right now, I'm teaching at an ESL hagwon and I feel a little bit sad for the kids who have to go to hagwons after school and on weekends. In fact, most Koreans have never been outside Korea (It is called the "Hermit Kingdom"). Spending too much time in hagwons and PC rooms harms children's social skills. The elementary kids are very talkative while the majority of the middle school kids are very quiet.
So most of them are learning a great deal of material they aren't going to use. There is too much focus on quantity rather than quality. America for its part should also focus on quality and increase the amount of education each student gets. For example, American school districts and the colleges should shorten the summer vacations by one month. 3 months of summer vacation is too much vacation time. Shortening summer vacation would improve the amount of education without forcing American students down the hagwon path.
As far as the quality goes, American school districts need to teach skills that can land a student a job right after graduation. There are things that can be taught at the High school level. For example, school districts could work to make students highly fluent in a foreign language. High schools can make students experts in computer skills. High schools can teach students how to do woodworking or fix cars. What I'm saying is that every student needs to learn job skills at the High School level. Right now, a high school diploma can only land a student a McDonald's job in most areas, and that HAS to change.
Ericstanze,
The major difference between America and your contries is economic diversity, massive ethnic diversity and the social hierarchy that is a natural? outcome of it all.
Simply put, there is ZERO comparison between your stated countries and the U.S. We have more Puerto Ricans in this country than Puerto Rico. Possibly more Jamaicans as well. We have an immensely diverse population and very low distribution of wealth. Thereofre, we have many poor, minorities who do not yet share equal access to the society for a variety of reasons. (this is a seperate argument)
Let me just tell you that it is much more difficult to teach a class of children from broadly variant cultures, often not native speakers of our language, than it is to teach a bunch of kids with the same basic background and the same culture. You guys have it easy and the fact that American schools are even keeping up is a credit to us.
If you haven't been here, particularly to a city, then I suggest you educate yourself on our challenges before commenting more on the subject.
Bucket,
I teach in one of the most struggling, inner city school systems in the country.
Every single one of the kids I teach comes from a state of deprivation. By this I mean that they are not endowed with certain skills and mores that one would expect of kids their age. They speak a pigeon form of language called Spanglish (most of them) and are usually illiterate in both languages will into elementary school.
A vast majority of them have issues requiring a social worker or at least an intervention specialist. Sometimes something as simple as bumping into someone's backpack can result in a fight between 10-20 kids if the situation goes unrecognized by the teacher. Why? Because the kids live in an environment where, out of school, if they back down or show weakness they will be eaten alive. No matter how badly they want to do well in school they will refuse to "be no one's punk" for fear of suffering when they leave the safety of the classroom. These are sentiments that are, all too often, supported and repeated by the parents.
Because of this environment, the tendency for parents to be VERY young and the rampant ignorance about child-rearing our kids usually show up for school in kindergarten: unable to read one letter or recite the alphabet, unaware of the difference (conceptually) of up and down, sometimes unable to sit and eat at a table, sometimes unable to use silverware, and occasionally non-verbal. This is the short list.
I understand that the school must do its part to try to prepare these children for society but THAT IS TOO MUCH TO ASK! These kids aren't even ready for the academic part of school until 3rd or 4th grade. My peers pour their souls on the floor every day trying to instill ideas and basic morality into these kids. It would be nice if they were more prepared at home so that we could spend more time on academic education and less on character education (which is mandatory curriculum in my district)
And yes, I do have a suggestion for a fix: A child tax credit predicated upon the cokmpletion of parenting coursework. It would be nice if poor families could derive a healthy tax benefit by educating themselves and making a better future for their kids. All other child tax credits should be tossed. Lifespan development and developmental psychology for everyone!
The major difference between America and your contries is economic diversity, massive ethnic diversity and the social hierarchy that is a natural? outcome of it all.
Simply put, there is ZERO comparison between your stated countries and the U.S. We have more Puerto Ricans in this country than Puerto Rico. Possibly more Jamaicans as well. We have an immensely diverse population and very low distribution of wealth. Thereofre, we have many poor, minorities who do not yet share equal access to the society for a variety of reasons. (this is a seperate argument)
Let me just tell you that it is much more difficult to teach a class of children from broadly variant cultures, often not native speakers of our language, than it is to teach a bunch of kids with the same basic background and the same culture. You guys have it easy and the fact that American schools are even keeping up is a credit to us.
If you haven't been here, particularly to a city, then I suggest you educate yourself on our challenges before commenting more on the subject.
Bucket,
I teach in one of the most struggling, inner city school systems in the country.
Every single one of the kids I teach comes from a state of deprivation. By this I mean that they are not endowed with certain skills and mores that one would expect of kids their age. They speak a pigeon form of language called Spanglish (most of them) and are usually illiterate in both languages will into elementary school.
A vast majority of them have issues requiring a social worker or at least an intervention specialist. Sometimes something as simple as bumping into someone's backpack can result in a fight between 10-20 kids if the situation goes unrecognized by the teacher. Why? Because the kids live in an environment where, out of school, if they back down or show weakness they will be eaten alive. No matter how badly they want to do well in school they will refuse to "be no one's punk" for fear of suffering when they leave the safety of the classroom. These are sentiments that are, all too often, supported and repeated by the parents.
Because of this environment, the tendency for parents to be VERY young and the rampant ignorance about child-rearing our kids usually show up for school in kindergarten: unable to read one letter or recite the alphabet, unaware of the difference (conceptually) of up and down, sometimes unable to sit and eat at a table, sometimes unable to use silverware, and occasionally non-verbal. This is the short list.
I understand that the school must do its part to try to prepare these children for society but THAT IS TOO MUCH TO ASK! These kids aren't even ready for the academic part of school until 3rd or 4th grade. My peers pour their souls on the floor every day trying to instill ideas and basic morality into these kids. It would be nice if they were more prepared at home so that we could spend more time on academic education and less on character education (which is mandatory curriculum in my district)
And yes, I do have a suggestion for a fix: A child tax credit predicated upon the cokmpletion of parenting coursework. It would be nice if poor families could derive a healthy tax benefit by educating themselves and making a better future for their kids. All other child tax credits should be tossed. Lifespan development and developmental psychology for everyone!
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge)
And yes, I do have a suggestion for a fix: A child tax credit predicated upon the cokmpletion of parenting coursework. It would be nice if poor families could derive a healthy tax benefit by educating themselves and making a better future for their kids. All other child tax credits should be tossed. Lifespan development and developmental psychology for everyone!
This seems like a great idea. Some of the problems, at least inner city wise, start from a very young age with parents who are irresponsible, neglectful, ignorant, or all of the above. I think that most of these parents do care for their kids, but they are not in a position to take care of a kid and themselves at the same time. If they were offered a way to reduce their taxes and learn about helping their kids I would think they would take the offer.
But I don't think that the inner city population is the only one brining our test scores down. I know that in my high school (which was a great public school and when I got to college I thought high school had been harder) there was a lot of apatheticness and laziness. As La Herring Rouge said, students have been lazy since teachers have tried to teach, but I feel there is a certain complacency that has set in which makes students feel like they don't need to try to achieve per se. That they'll just "do alright," maybe it was because I lived in a wealthy area with lots of trust-fund babies, I'm not entirely sure.
Is US underachieving?
Not simply. At the university level, we still excel versus other nations. Foreigners want to come here to study. Our weakness is in high school education. We are not preparing enough kids for college, for technical schools, or even basic life knowledge.
Should we adopt foreign programs?
There are certainly lessons to be learned from other programs, and not all positive. I agree with the poster who said asian education programs are too competitive and too time consuming. Part of America's strength is the freedom kids have to explore hobbies, sports, and interests... which may lead directly into their future career, and which certainly provide valuable experience in leadership, teamwork, management, creativity, and other skills that are not easily taught in a classroom. There is something to be said for reducing summer vacation time, in a post-agrarian culture. Certainly a lot of knowledge is lost in those three months. A possible compromise would be running summer terms, like most colleges, with courses that fill in gaps like foreign languages, music, or other subjects that are more intensive.
Are education systems to blame?
What else would be? Certainly, there are many factors affecting education which exacerbate the problem. Largest of these is distribution of education quality.
The current education system suffers because it is locally funded, meaning parents effectively choose the quality of their school by the housing the can afford. This affects the fairness of distribution, and some means must be found to convince wealthy districts it is in their interest to allocate some of their revenue to poor districts... you know, so their kids will be able to find qualified employees.
Some additional thoughts.
In contrast to the criticisms about adminstrators being paid too much: I was watching a CSPAN interview with the CEO of Edison schools, a private charter school company which specializes in inner city schools. He said administrator pay has to be more, in order to attract and keep good managers, who otherwise will take their skills to other industries. In contrast to public schools, however, the overall number of administrators should be reduced. He had many other interesting things to add, but I won't try to recall them all here.
I think school choice would greatly help the situation. If parents had the freedom to send their kids to where they thought they would be best served, and could move their kids out of schools that aren't serving them well. It would provide variety of service, for those busy parents who want more all-around care, those who want a 3Rs style, or those who want a technical or arts program. Certainly, though, funding must be public, in order to provide closer equality of opportunity.
As for poor kids, well, they have so much stacked against them, where to begin? My mom is an elementary teacher. She taught public school for a while. She recalls asking kids what they wanted to be when they grew up, and getting blank stares. The concept of being something wasn't in their vocabulary. She switched back to private school because after a while she burned out on kids with so many discipline problems, and administration who didn't support her, and parents who didn't care.
According to Edison CEO, they have made great strides in imporving inner city education in Philadelphia, with a combination of good teacher mentoring programs (teacher to teacher), a standardized reading program, good adminstration. One thing I took away was his emphasis on setting up new teachers with experienced teachers to develop their skills and provide a resource for support.
Not simply. At the university level, we still excel versus other nations. Foreigners want to come here to study. Our weakness is in high school education. We are not preparing enough kids for college, for technical schools, or even basic life knowledge.
Should we adopt foreign programs?
There are certainly lessons to be learned from other programs, and not all positive. I agree with the poster who said asian education programs are too competitive and too time consuming. Part of America's strength is the freedom kids have to explore hobbies, sports, and interests... which may lead directly into their future career, and which certainly provide valuable experience in leadership, teamwork, management, creativity, and other skills that are not easily taught in a classroom. There is something to be said for reducing summer vacation time, in a post-agrarian culture. Certainly a lot of knowledge is lost in those three months. A possible compromise would be running summer terms, like most colleges, with courses that fill in gaps like foreign languages, music, or other subjects that are more intensive.
Are education systems to blame?
What else would be? Certainly, there are many factors affecting education which exacerbate the problem. Largest of these is distribution of education quality.
The current education system suffers because it is locally funded, meaning parents effectively choose the quality of their school by the housing the can afford. This affects the fairness of distribution, and some means must be found to convince wealthy districts it is in their interest to allocate some of their revenue to poor districts... you know, so their kids will be able to find qualified employees.
Some additional thoughts.
In contrast to the criticisms about adminstrators being paid too much: I was watching a CSPAN interview with the CEO of Edison schools, a private charter school company which specializes in inner city schools. He said administrator pay has to be more, in order to attract and keep good managers, who otherwise will take their skills to other industries. In contrast to public schools, however, the overall number of administrators should be reduced. He had many other interesting things to add, but I won't try to recall them all here.
I think school choice would greatly help the situation. If parents had the freedom to send their kids to where they thought they would be best served, and could move their kids out of schools that aren't serving them well. It would provide variety of service, for those busy parents who want more all-around care, those who want a 3Rs style, or those who want a technical or arts program. Certainly, though, funding must be public, in order to provide closer equality of opportunity.
As for poor kids, well, they have so much stacked against them, where to begin? My mom is an elementary teacher. She taught public school for a while. She recalls asking kids what they wanted to be when they grew up, and getting blank stares. The concept of being something wasn't in their vocabulary. She switched back to private school because after a while she burned out on kids with so many discipline problems, and administration who didn't support her, and parents who didn't care.
According to Edison CEO, they have made great strides in imporving inner city education in Philadelphia, with a combination of good teacher mentoring programs (teacher to teacher), a standardized reading program, good adminstration. One thing I took away was his emphasis on setting up new teachers with experienced teachers to develop their skills and provide a resource for support.
QUOTE
The major difference between America and your contries is economic diversity, massive ethnic diversity and the social hierarchy that is a natural? outcome of it all.
economic diversity: You mean the huge difference in income between Blacks and Whites? Woman and Male? Thats your choice. You decided that you wanted to give McDonalds worker a very bad pay. Its YOUR choice, its not an excuse.
massive ethnic diversity: Sweden lets in more (per Capita) immigrants then the U.S. I do not have the figures right now, but if you want to, i can supply them later if its important for you. Sweden is not a homogenous country anymore. So sorry. Once again an excuse.
social hierarchy: I guess this is the same as "economic diversity", so look upon that answer.
QUOTE
Simply put, there is ZERO comparison between your stated countries and the U.S. We have more Puerto Ricans in this country than Puerto Rico. Possibly more Jamaicans as well. We have an immensely diverse population and very low distribution of wealth. Thereofre, we have many poor, minorities who do not yet share equal access to the society for a variety of reasons. (this is a seperate argument)
As my previous answer stated, it is Very much a good comparison.
QUOTE
Let me just tell you that it is much more difficult to teach a class of children from broadly variant cultures, often not native speakers of our language, than it is to teach a bunch of kids with the same basic background and the same culture. You guys have it easy and the fact that American schools are even keeping up is a credit to us.
And try to teach an Iraqi Kid to learn Swedish, english AND its homelanguage. Jepp, thats what WE do. And they manage. (Like i said earlier, we have hume amount of immigrants).
QUOTE
If you haven't been here, particularly to a city, then I suggest you educate yourself on our challenges before commenting more on the subject.
Oh, i have been there. You seem to point to yourchoice of having poverty as an excuse. Whiles the Scandinavian countries removed it. Your failures are not excuses, its a reason to change.
QUOTE(EricStanze @ Oct 28 2005, 03:06 AM)
QUOTE
Let me just tell you that it is much more difficult to teach a class of children from broadly variant cultures, often not native speakers of our language, than it is to teach a bunch of kids with the same basic background and the same culture. You guys have it easy and the fact that American schools are even keeping up is a credit to us.
And try to teach an Iraqi Kid to learn Swedish, english AND its homelanguage. Jepp, thats what WE do. And they manage. (Like i said earlier, we have hume amount of immigrants).
QUOTE
If you haven't been here, particularly to a city, then I suggest you educate yourself on our challenges before commenting more on the subject.
Oh, i have been there. You seem to point to yourchoice of having poverty as an excuse. Whiles the Scandinavian countries removed it. Your failures are not excuses, its a reason to change.
Perhaps instead of gratuitously ranting about the American education system and America in general you might give us an idea of why the school systems are better in Sweden? I thought this article was interesting, and touches on what some posters have said above.
QUOTE
Sweden's school choice system was introduced in 1992. It is based on a virtual "voucher" which is equivalent in value to the average cost of educating a child in the local state school.
Parents can use this "voucher" to "buy" a place at the school of their choice. The idea is that funding follows the pupil and, in this way, the state supports the schools that are most popular with parents.
Parents can use this "voucher" to "buy" a place at the school of their choice. The idea is that funding follows the pupil and, in this way, the state supports the schools that are most popular with parents.
But then, Canada is number four on the list, WAY above Sweden (9th) or Iceland (14th), so maybe they could offer some pointers as well. For that matter, I was surprised to see Germany ranks below the USA on the chart. What does that tell us?
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge)
I teach in one of the most struggling, inner city school systems in the country.
Every single one of the kids I teach comes from a state of deprivation. By this I mean that they are not endowed with certain skills and mores that one would expect of kids their age. They speak a pigeon form of language called Spanglish (most of them) and are usually illiterate in both languages will into elementary school.
A vast majority of them have issues requiring a social worker or at least an intervention specialist. Sometimes something as simple as bumping into someone's backpack can result in a fight between 10-20 kids if the situation goes unrecognized by the teacher. Why? Because the kids live in an environment where, out of school, if they back down or show weakness they will be eaten alive. No matter how badly they want to do well in school they will refuse to "be no one's punk" for fear of suffering when they leave the safety of the classroom. These are sentiments that are, all too often, supported and repeated by the parents.
Every single one of the kids I teach comes from a state of deprivation. By this I mean that they are not endowed with certain skills and mores that one would expect of kids their age. They speak a pigeon form of language called Spanglish (most of them) and are usually illiterate in both languages will into elementary school.
A vast majority of them have issues requiring a social worker or at least an intervention specialist. Sometimes something as simple as bumping into someone's backpack can result in a fight between 10-20 kids if the situation goes unrecognized by the teacher. Why? Because the kids live in an environment where, out of school, if they back down or show weakness they will be eaten alive. No matter how badly they want to do well in school they will refuse to "be no one's punk" for fear of suffering when they leave the safety of the classroom. These are sentiments that are, all too often, supported and repeated by the parents.
Not to disregard your own experiences but I am really not lacking insight on this subject. I live with a man who was a orphan and had the unfortunate circumstance of being raised by the state of New York. He spent most of his childhood in some form of incarceration with murderers and rapists all because of the simple fact he had really bad parents who chose to abandon him. So yes often society is asked to pick up where the parents have failed. I am more than aware of the states of deprivation children face and that is all the more reason and need for us to better intervene and attempt to lessen these . Honestly I do not know how any of us could claim otherwise...children are societies most vulnerable who not only physically and emotional depend on us..but we have legally demanded this of them too. I think in return we have absolute responsibility to care for their needs...food, clothing, and yes education and that includes social and academic.
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge)
Because of this environment, the tendency for parents to be VERY young and the rampant ignorance about child-rearing our kids usually show up for school in kindergarten: unable to read one letter or recite the alphabet, unaware of the difference (conceptually) of up and down, sometimes unable to sit and eat at a table, sometimes unable to use silverware, and occasionally non-verbal. This is the short list.
Are you telling me that in such a deprived area there are no Head Start programs available? The government usually attempts it’s first intervention into the lives of the deprived children in this country at in utero. Any expectant mother who enters the social system will be asked to fill out all sorts of forms..some of which gage the future child’s home life and rate or flag their need for state assistance. A lack of money is not the only factor the state often scans for when assessing a child’s needs. Parent’s education, marital status, history of abuse in the home, or illness, native language, drug or alcohol abuse by the mother. Our society does recognize the role we need to play in some children’s lives early early on and does try to address these concerns with education and socializing programs. Head start is born from this philosophy. We collect that data, we recognize the needs but we often fail to fully implement solutions.
And I would doubt there is a school in America that does not have to deal with children who in some degree or another have special needs or require more instruction, time and resources.
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge)
understand that the school must do its part to try to prepare these children for society but THAT IS TOO MUCH TO ASK!
I am sorry but I must strongly disagree with you. It is not too much to ask..it is our role as society and we must perform it and we must admit that we often do not do enough and fail some children terribly.
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge)
These kids aren't even ready for the academic part of school until 3rd or 4th grade. My peers pour their souls on the floor every day trying to instill ideas and basic morality into these kids. It would be nice if they were more prepared at home so that we could spend more time on academic education and less on character education (which is mandatory curriculum in my district)
Yeah it would be nice...but it isn’t the reality. So either we can prepare ourselves and design our system to handle the real situation or we can just address all those things that are in fact nice. Which do you feel will in the long run be a better payout for our nation’s future?
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge)
And yes, I do have a suggestion for a fix: A child tax credit predicated upon the cokmpletion of parenting coursework. It would be nice if poor families could derive a healthy tax benefit by educating themselves and making a better future for their kids. All other child tax credits should be tossed. Lifespan development and developmental psychology for everyone!
But again it is not just a lack of money that holds many of these families back. It is physical or mental abuse, drug addiction or alcohol abuse. My brother has adopted a girl she is 11 yrs old and has some major learning and socializing issues because not only was her mum poor she was a meth addict and used the drugs while she carried this child. She has had all of her children removed from her and I believe currently lives in prison. You think she would have taken the initiative and tax advantages of your proposed program? Personally I don’t. It is not money these kids need..it is nurturing, concern, socializing and education and we have to accept and be prepared to handle the fact some will not get this at home.
QUOTE(bucket @ Oct 28 2005, 10:30 AM)
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge)
understand that the school must do its part to try to prepare these children for society but THAT IS TOO MUCH TO ASK!
I am sorry but I must strongly disagree with you. It is not too much to ask..it is our role as society and we must perform it and we must admit that we often do not do enough and fail some children terribly.
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge)
And yes, I do have a suggestion for a fix: A child tax credit predicated upon the completion of parenting coursework. It would be nice if poor families could derive a healthy tax benefit by educating themselves and making a better future for their kids. All other child tax credits should be tossed. Lifespan development and developmental psychology for everyone!
But again it is not just a lack of money that holds many of these families back. It is physical or mental abuse, drug addiction or alcohol abuse. My brother has adopted a girl she is 11 yrs old and has some major learning and socializing issues because not only was her mum poor she was a meth addict and used the drugs while she carried this child. She has had all of her children removed from her and I believe currently lives in prison. You think she would have taken the initiative and tax advantages of your proposed program? Personally I don’t. It is not money these kids need..it is nurturing, concern, socializing and education and we have to accept and be prepared to handle the fact some will not get this at home.
If I'm reading the gist of LHR's "complaint" correctly he's saying teachers get an education in teaching to... well, teach. Not nurture (more than academically), not socialize (past kindergarten and perhaps 1st grade), not play psychiatrist, etc. I don't think he’s being flippant by pointing out that parents are neglecting their responsibilities to their children and by stating as such, shifting the focus and the burden back where it belongs. A continued onus on schools is an incentive for parents to continue ignoring the physical, financial, and emotional needs of their children.
I was one of those Spanglish speaking students with minimal math and reading skills. At first I fell behind other students and was placed in remedial/special ed classrooms. However, it wasn’t, and it shouldn’t be, up to the school to “correct” or “deal with” conditions impeding my learning besides a language handicap; the poverty we lived in, my father’s alcohol abuse, and the everyday drama that comes along with prostitutes and drug abusers a stone’s throw away. We should pay for specialized schools or hire teachers that tailor their learning/experience for children like the girl your brother adopted and offer special classes for them in existing schools, not drop her off in the middle of a regular class and ask the teacher to work as a part-time rehabilitating government social worker.
Should we adopt an educational style like that of Finland, Canada, Japan, or S. Korea or would this not work either?
I’m not opposed to changing our education to be more like theirs… to a point. Our big melting pot presents problems a mirror image approach of mostly homogeneous countries can’t begin to address.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Oct 28 2005, 03:39 PM)
If I'm reading the gist of LHR's "complaint" correctly he's saying teachers get an education in teaching to... well, teach. Not nurture (more than academically), not socialize (past kindergarten and perhaps 1st grade), not play psychiatrist, etc. I don't think he’s being flippant by pointing out that parents are neglecting their responsibilities to their children and by stating as such, shifting the focus and the burden back where it belongs. A continued onus on schools is an incentive for parents to continue ignoring the physical, financial, and emotional needs of their children.
I really think we need to go back to requiring parents to provide a minimum level of care for their children whether they like it or not. If you can't take care of 'em, don't have 'em to begin with. The whole idea that breeding like rabbits is somehow a right is ludicrous. Even more unfortunate is the fact that it's the lower classes that not only have the least ability to care for a large family that seem to have the most children. That has to be stopped.
Whether people like it or not, it is not the job of the schools to teach people's kids how to act human, how to behave and how to treat others. Schools are there to educate, nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is the job of the parents and the parents need to be held responsible for doing it.
QUOTE
Whether people like it or not, it is not the job of the schools to teach people's kids how to act human, how to behave and how to treat others. Schools are there to educate, nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is the job of the parents and the parents need to be held responsible for doing it.
Out of curiousity. Whaty do you call the education given by parents?
If schools are only to educate, and everything else is the job of parents... Tell me, what do you call the thing parents do? °
Educatyion would mean teach, instructing or distribute information if you want. I find it very strange that you want to limit the educational point of view for the schools to "you are only allowed to teach this"... Very strange.
As a second point, what do you want the schools to only be allowed to teach? And on what ground do you consider the parents to be qualified to educate the children in all the other fields thats left?
QUOTE(EricStanze @ Oct 28 2005, 03:36 PM)
QUOTE
Whether people like it or not, it is not the job of the schools to teach people's kids how to act human, how to behave and how to treat others. Schools are there to educate, nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is the job of the parents and the parents need to be held responsible for doing it.
Out of curiousity. Whaty do you call the education given by parents?
If schools are only to educate, and everything else is the job of parents... Tell me, what do you call the thing parents do? °
Educatyion would mean teach, instructing or distribute information if you want. I find it very strange that you want to limit the educational point of view for the schools to "you are only allowed to teach this"... Very strange.
As a second point, what do you want the schools to only be allowed to teach? And on what ground do you consider the parents to be qualified to educate the children in all the other fields thats left?
I think Cephus was referring to how it is the parents' duty and responsibility to instill "values" in their children as well as teach them the civility/manners appropriate in various social settings. In addition, the whole issue of "instilling values" in children can become somewhat contentious as some parents may disagree with what they perceive to be the message conveyed to their children at school.
QUOTE(Lesly)
If I'm reading the gist of LHR's "complaint" correctly he's saying teachers get an education in teaching to... well, teach. Not nurture (more than academically), not socialize (past kindergarten and perhaps 1st grade), not play psychiatrist, etc. I don't think he’s being flippant by pointing out that parents are neglecting their responsibilities to their children and by stating as such, shifting the focus and the burden back where it belongs. A continued onus on schools is an incentive for parents to continue ignoring the physical, financial, and emotional needs of their children.
I would not allow any institution that took the above approach to "teaching" children have my kids for 6 hours a day. At our school they have a school psychiatrist or counselor, the have a school nurse, they have a music teacher, an art teacher, computer teacher and physical education teacher. The principle of our school knows every kid by name and stands at the front main door greeting them each morning. They can enroll in orchestra and an after school play program or science club. They have monthly social events like dances, movie night or sundae socials. We celebrate holidays together ..gearing up for our Halloween Parade and classroom party! They have recess, lunch, snack time. They go to the library and borrow books they have special weekly events where a student is featured and they share personal information about themselves or they bring something for show and tell. And the focus of socializing only increases with age.
I am just amazed...especially if any of you actually have kids enrolled in school, so many feel this way. You really believe your school and your child's experiences there are void of emotion or are sterile exchanges of information. Or even think of your own experiences as a child...did not school and the events you experienced there define a good portion of your life?
Our elementary school is one of the main hearts of our community (the locally owned grocers and the playing fields are too ) many teachers live in our neighborhood, most kids walk to school and you know at least casually every parent in your kid's class. The school is important to the community and truly defines it. I feel many are proposing a view that it is a matter or one or the other...why not both? That is the obvious ideal that the parents, the school and the community are working towards the same goal ..not independently or separately.
I personally believe as a collective we do in fact have shared morals or values that we feel are important and I see no reason why we can't share them at school.
QUOTE(Cephus)
Whether people like it or not, it is not the job of the schools to teach people's kids how to act human, how to behave and how to treat others. Schools are there to educate, nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is the job of the parents and the parents need to be held responsible for doing it.
Well I don't like it. I don't want my money taken by the government and used for a mandatory program for all children unless they are actually going to try and socialize and educate these kids so they can all in one for or another act human and be productive citizens. If that is not the purpose of public education then what is?
And how are you going to hold the parents responsible...? Aren't we already trying to do just that? At some point and time it becomes society's responsibility. Or do you feel we should just be there to dispose of the rotting corpses.
We are a progressive nation..I personally will not tolerate such backwards, small minded, inactive ideals being pursued for my children's future and education..or any other child's.
QUOTE(bucket @ Oct 28 2005, 06:59 PM)
I am just amazed...especially if any of you actually have kids enrolled in school, so many feel this way. You really believe your school and your child's experiences there are void of emotion or are sterile exchanges of information. Or even think of your own experiences as a child...did not school and the events you experienced there define a good portion of your life?
I think you are wildly over-dramatizing the issue here. Just because people think that one of the school's main focuses should not be the socialization of students does not imply they insist a school should be sterile and devoid of human emotion and interaction. Look at the gray parts in the middle. That's where I am. I happen to make powerful and enriching connections with my students and the athletes I coach. I bond wonderfully with some of my most difficult and troubled kids. I maintain some of my connections long after graduation in fact. I still wish EVERY DAY that they did not come to me in such a state of dysfunction. The kids I work with are hungry for affection and nurturing guidance. I, however, am unable to meet those needs for all of them. In the end most slip by before you can truly connect with them and they often come to no good later on in life. So yes, it would have been nice if their parents knew more about how to prepare their kids so there wasn't such a tide coming at me every day.
QUOTE(bucket @ Oct 28 2005, 06:59 PM)
And how are you going to hold the parents responsible...? Aren't we already trying to do just that? At some point and time it becomes society's responsibility. Or do you feel we should just be there to dispose of the rotting corpses.
You might think you are being flip with that comment but, in my district there ARE corpses...no matter how hard we try.
QUOTE(bucket @ Oct 28 2005, 06:59 PM)
We are a progressive nation..I personally will not tolerate such backwards, small minded, inactive ideals being pursued for my children's future and education..or any other child's.
Not fair. Once again I think you are being too dramatic. It is clear that your child's school is not a "failing school" according to NCLB. It is clearly not in an area of depressed poverty and, therefore, it is likely not the possible cause for the achievement gap in American education. I suggest you read any old book by Jonathan Kozol before your opinion becomes so cemented. Perhaps a perusal of Savage Inequalities, the classic, would be useful.
Let me illustrate one of the classic misconceptions by showing how you suffered from it in an earlier post:
the misconception is this... that poor/minority people can and will avail themselves of the state and federal services just like everyone else does.
In an earlier post you said,
QUOTE
Are you telling me that in such a deprived area there are no Head Start programs available? The government usually attempts it’s first intervention into the lives of the deprived children in this country at in utero. Any expectant mother who enters the social system will be asked to fill out all sorts of forms..some of which gage the future child’s home life and rate or flag their need for state assistance.
Sure..we do have a head start program in my school. (it is pre-K to 8)
But later you pointed out your own mistake when you said,
QUOTE
But again it is not just a lack of money that holds many of these families back. It is physical or mental abuse, drug addiction or alcohol abuse. My brother has adopted a girl she is 11 yrs old and has some major learning and socializing issues because not only was her mum poor she was a meth addict and used the drugs while she carried this child. She has had all of her children removed from her and I believe currently lives in prison. You think she would have taken the initiative and tax advantages of your proposed program? Personally I don’t. It is not money these kids need..it is nurturing, concern, socializing and education and we have to accept and be prepared to handle the fact some will not get this at home.
emphasis mine...
Exactly!!!! Poor families in the city usually don't take part in any program unless it has a monetary or food value directly attached to it. Everything else is taking too large a risk for them. Often there are drugs and alcohol involved. If they supplement income by dealing in either they are less likely to want to involve the state in their daily lives. They generally distrust the system anyway. So Head Start, while critically important, is not used nearly as much as it should be in troubled districts. I guess that people in crisis aren't so good at helping themselves.
So yes, the school DOES take up the burden....but at the cost of educational success for those students. I have been talking about educational success this entire time. Were we talking about students' social well-being I would have approached the entire thread differently. I really don't feel that I am at all "backwards" in my views. In fact, it is ironic that my typing of this response was just interrupted by a phone call from an ex-student-athlete who is in college. The emotionless tyrant I must be!
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge)
I think you are wildly over-dramatizing the issue here. Just because people think that one of the school's main focuses should not be the socialization of students does not imply they insist a school should be sterile and devoid of human emotion and interaction.
I am not being dramatic..I am one of those oddities you claim exists..I am a parent who cares about my children’s educations. I am also the wife of a man who had to totally rely on the ability of the state to not only educate him but raise him. Believe me we can do better and we ought to feel a little bit of shame and remorse for our current failures. Not demands for further disassociation...which were in fact made. I know I feel shame and unhappiness for what happened to my husband and I think there are more parties at fault then just his parents.
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge)
Not fair. Once again I think you are being too dramatic.
It is fair..it is my assessment and direct response to someone’s callous and disconnected view of what our society owes our children. It was not directed at you or any comments you made. I find it disingenuous you have any true concern for fairness in the debate after you essentially claimed most parents in America don’t care about their children..based on some random comments made by some random woman in passing. I have not made any such broad generalizations based on such disassociated evidence of teachers or any other party as again I directed my comments to others in the debate based on their own shared arguments.
As for Head Start programs they are available from birth to 5 yrs of age. Of course they are not mandatory neither is public school actually. Yet I feel these sort of programs aimed towards the children themselves are of more importance and value because I believe we need to have interaction and influence on the children without the dependence of the parent to implement it. Because sometimes the parents are not dependable and I don’t wish for the child to always have to be reliant on their parents capabilities. Your proposition gears itself to the parent and only the parent in hopes that it will have some effect on the child’s life indirectly. It is not enough. There are already gobs of financial incentives to educating yourself in this country....will one more make that big of a difference..I don’t believe so.
When it comes to children and their educations we need to view them and approach them as individuals too , not just the products of their parents. I feel this is the best means to try and alleviate any negatives they may have at home.
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge)
I really don't feel that I am at all "backwards" in my views. In fact, it is ironic that my typing of this response was just interrupted by a phone call from an ex-student-athlete who is in college. The emotionless tyrant I must be!
Again those comments were directly made and attributed to another poster's views. But if you like dressing up in them. Also if you read over my argument again you will see that I happen to believe schools and teachers are not void of emotion and in fact deal with a lot more than just academia. That is the main thesis of my argument..that the reality is not as sterile or impersonal as many here seem to advocate for and that any attempts to gear it more in this direction will only result in further failure.
QUOTE(bucket @ Oct 30 2005, 11:21 PM)
I find it disingenuous you have any true concern for fairness in the debate after you essentially claimed most parents in America don’t care about their children..based on some random comments made by some random woman in passing. I have not made any such broad generalizations based on such disassociated evidence of teachers or any other party as again I directed my comments to others in the debate based on their own shared arguments.
..except the generalizations about my statements. I'll not bother quoting myself but I'll point out that I did refer to the plight of parents and the increasing difficulty of raising kids. If I did not previously point out that the "two working parents" family model has eroded our family culture a bit then let me do that now. Done.
That pointed out, my second statement about parents looking to the school to help them with the raising of their children was taken from my experience AND from modern educational literature.
1.) My Experience: Parent "A" demands social work for their child who is having trouble making friends. Child is spoiled and self-centered and other kids don't like the way she treats them. Parents can't deal with her at home. The school won't give free social work unless the kids problems are impacting educational development, which they are not. Parents flex their legal muscle and force a PPT to try to get services for their kid. It doesn't work of course but they have the meeting and express the problem. "We can't figure out how to help her at home and want the social worker here to try it." Should we give free services to every kid because the parents can't figure out what went wrong with Suzy?
Either way, this is a true story from last week. It is so common for parents to force a PPT for family issues that the teachers I know have stopped letting parents know they have a legal right to call a PPT at any time they want. hint hint people..
Educational programs: I know of the anger management/violence prevention program called "Second Step" that was designed BECAUSE the researchers perceived a problem coming from home into the schools. The second step is what happens at school....the first step is at home. The program uses "informational meetings" at which food is provided and all parents are invited. In the guise of telling parents "what the students will be learning" the program directors actually use the opportunity to teach basic parenting skills and share the devices that will be used at school. I Googled for educational programs and the first one that popped up (in PDF) also had a huge component of parent involvement AND education. Clearly someone perceives the need to involve parents more directly...namely teachers, administrators and educational researchers. Go figure.
This is not to say that ALL parents are louts. Some are just too darn busy trying to survive. Some are TOO focused on their kids and become constrictive and some just don't realize that there is more they can do.
QUOTE(bucket @ Oct 30 2005, 11:21 PM)
When it comes to children and their educations we need to view them and approach them as individuals too , not just the products of their parents. I feel this is the best means to try and alleviate any negatives they may have at home.
This is idealistic at best. It's tantamount to saying, "I know that the vegetables in my garden won't grow if the soil is depleted and infertile but, if I spend enough time putting water on them and tying each one up just right, they should grow anyway.
Anyone who works with kids each day knows that they bring with them a massive set of baggage (good and bad) from home. They can walk in happy or morose. They can burst out in anger for seemingly no reason or can say something really nice to a kid they don't know. Invariably it is an emotion experienced at home (or from a relationship with older kids) and extending into the school. Trying to seperate the child from the family is impossible. They cannot be separated. If the parent is not working with you the child suffers. Period. If you get lucky and have a once-in-a-career connection with a kid and save them from their family then bravo. But what about the rest of them?
QUOTE(bucket @ Oct 30 2005, 11:21 PM)
Again those comments were directly made and attributed to another poster's views. But if you like dressing up in them. Also if you read over my argument again you will see that I happen to believe schools and teachers are not void of emotion and in fact deal with a lot more than just academia. That is the main thesis of my argument..that the reality is not as sterile or impersonal as many here seem to advocate for and that any attempts to gear it more in this direction will only result in further failure.
My point was that I think it is hyperbole to insist that, because a teacher wants more accountability on parents so that they can teach mrole an socialize less, they necessarily desire a sterile classroom environment. Having a curriculum devoted mostly to education and much less to socialization is not a cold or calculated desire. That and a warm and supportive environment are not mutually exclusive events. I find it odd that people push so much for teacher involvement in all aspects of developing a child when their only real training and their job description is for academics. We don't become apoplectic when the mailman doesn't also bring us the newspaper or when the surgeon doesn't also provide physical therapy...because there are other people who are trained, other services provided...
But teachers...MAN do we want the teachers to do everything that we haven't yet done..and some we have..just in case. Is it so bad for teachers to just want to teach a little?
QUOTE(bucket @ Oct 28 2005, 06:59 PM)
QUOTE(Lesly)
If I'm reading the gist of LHR's "complaint" correctly he's saying teachers get an education in teaching to... well, teach. Not nurture (more than academically), not socialize (past kindergarten and perhaps 1st grade), not play psychiatrist, etc. I don't think he’s being flippant by pointing out that parents are neglecting their responsibilities to their children and by stating as such, shifting the focus and the burden back where it belongs. A continued onus on schools is an incentive for parents to continue ignoring the physical, financial, and emotional needs of their children.
I would not allow any institution that took the above approach to "teaching" children have my kids for 6 hours a day. At our school they have a school psychiatrist or counselor, the have a school nurse, they have a music teacher, an art teacher, computer teacher and physical education teacher. The principle of our school knows every kid by name and stands at the front main door greeting them each morning. They can enroll in orchestra and an after school play program or science club. They have monthly social events like dances, movie night or sundae socials. We celebrate holidays together ..gearing up for our Halloween Parade and classroom party! They have recess, lunch, snack time. They go to the library and borrow books they have special weekly events where a student is featured and they share personal information about themselves or they bring something for show and tell. And the focus of socializing only increases with age.
I am just amazed... especially if any of you actually have kids enrolled in school, so many feel this way. You really believe your school and your child's experiences there are void of emotion or are sterile exchanges of information. Or even think of your own experiences as a child...did not school and the events you experienced there define a good portion of your life?
It sounds like you luckily have an ideal situation, bucket. In my senior year the student-teacher ratio was approaching 40:1. The summer before my senior year I took geometry. The teacher was old school, very strict with a sense of humor. I loved the class. There were 17 of us and he had the time to answer our questions. I got a B+. Then in my senior year we had 40 kids taking algebra II. I passed with a D-. The teacher couldn’t answer our questions and eventually I skipped that period to... uh... frolic.
I didn’t expect the teachers to know us on a first-name basis and if I was in my mother’s shoes I wouldn’t let my kids walk to school. The items you point out, a teacher for computers, art, music, plays, dances, etc. were offered, but the staff was also talking about giving “superfluous” electives like the piano class I signed up for the ax to make ends meet, not to mention, and you keep skimming LHR’s point here, my parents didn’t take advantage of after school activity. They had more pressing matters to look after, like affording the rent.
I suppose, on behalf of parents that would take advantage of these programs, I could blame the local population for refusing property tax increases. I could blame Florida at large for allowing the situation my first generation immigrant parents found themselves in raising three kids. Point is, I’m not sure what you’re proposing. I reread the debate questions and your responses. Aside from anecdotal stories about student sponsorship, your husband, and general statements like “we have to pick up the slack” you don’t say how we should go about it except to suggest we get past the responsibilities of parenting. LHR’s child tax credit may motivate parents to sign up, which attempts to tackle haphazard parenting instead of dodging it with general pleas we could agree on for those kids falling through the cracks. Problem is, when the kids falling through the cracks increasingly make up more of the student body you will have to address the source and stop working around it to stay afloat of expectations. This situation extrapolates much more than a desire to do well by our children and may require a two-, three-, or four-pronged approach to meaningfully meet their needs.
QUOTE(EricStanze @ Oct 28 2005, 08:36 PM)
Out of curiousity. Whaty do you call the education given by parents?
It's called parenting. Parents are responsible for teaching their kids how to behave, what they want them to believe, etc. Schools exist to teach kids the facts and prepare them to be intelligent, rational members of society who can contribute and not be a drain. It is a partnership between parents and schools that produce the best adults in the next generation.
Okay, being a high school student, I think I may have an inside view on this topic. In my opinion it is because teachers have no control over their students, so the students like me that actually want to learn get their learning time cut down drastically by the students that don't really care. Then their are the students whose parents don't care what their grades are as long as they are passing. Of course those students are going to do the least amount of work possible, they don't care, they won't get grounded. Then we have the different programs we place the students in. So when all of the students take the tests to gage the schools GPA, of course its going to be lower because not all students know the same things. So really, it all goes back to the adults in charge. If teachers get a better hold on the students sooner in the year, and parents actually care then maybe students will learn better. But today learning and school is viewed as just another chore to many teens. It eventually becomes so routine, you don't even notice it go by. Personally, being in a public high school right now, I fear for our countries future. Before long the people wishing to be elected politicians will probably be cussing left and right, the F-bomb, well, its a regular part of vocabulary, and you know why? Teachers don't pay attention, why else would so many kids get away with what they do. At my school EVERYONE right down to us freshman know where the drugs are sold. The senior parking lot. Guess what? Its still in business, because I don't think the adults really care, and if they do they don't do anything to stop it. So it really just goes back to the adults. Although, the chances of that working are slim. So start roping the kids in young, and getting them to listen to the teachers, but also make school fun so that kids will actually want to go. Who knows anymore though? Do people even care?
Personally I find it pathetic how low our schools have become. I prefer a structured environment, where learning is learning, with fun as a side dish. The social scene is on Sunday Nights with me, the rest of the time, well, thats spent getting ready for my Saturday debate tournaments. I also find it pathetic how dumb our nation has become. I remember the first thing we did in debate class was a free-will speech on education. I had trouble staying under the time limit, the class? getting to it. BUT IT was on our education and how low it has now sunk. Its pathetic. Maybe if we actually learned to pay attention, we would have 1/2 a chance against the rest of the world.
AS IF THAT will ever happen. OH AND these video games, thats all kids care about besides the person they are dating. So get rid of electronics, and bf/gf then your good. Maybe then we will be 1/2 way there....
Although, my opinion could be biassed since I am in High School...
Personally I find it pathetic how low our schools have become. I prefer a structured environment, where learning is learning, with fun as a side dish. The social scene is on Sunday Nights with me, the rest of the time, well, thats spent getting ready for my Saturday debate tournaments. I also find it pathetic how dumb our nation has become. I remember the first thing we did in debate class was a free-will speech on education. I had trouble staying under the time limit, the class? getting to it. BUT IT was on our education and how low it has now sunk. Its pathetic. Maybe if we actually learned to pay attention, we would have 1/2 a chance against the rest of the world.
AS IF THAT will ever happen. OH AND these video games, thats all kids care about besides the person they are dating. So get rid of electronics, and bf/gf then your good. Maybe then we will be 1/2 way there.... Although, my opinion could be biassed since I am in High School...
I am a high school senior myself (not for long though - I just received my college acceptance letter!) 
Anyway, I can undoubtedly say that the education system definitely holds a lot of the blame. Our advancing society is also responsible however. It is becoming more and more necessary to go to college to have a successful career, and college admissions is becoming ever more competitive.
Students today care nothing of what they're are learning or of whether or not they truly understand it. They only care about the grades that they get on their report cards. So, when those aptitude tests come along, they draw a blank because they have really learned so little.
The reason that kids are managing good grades without actually learning anything is simple: CHEATING. Nine out of ten of my classmates cheat in some form. Seven out of ten cheat on many of their tests. No joke. I go to a good, private school, and the kids that I'm speaking of include the sraight A, honor roll kids. The result is that the cheater gets good grades for that college transcript, but in reality learns very little. I believe this is one of the main reasons that the high school system is doing poorly. As for younger kids, I'm not sure.
I am drawing from my own experience here, though I must add that I got my grades the good old fashioned way: countless hours of studying.
Anyway, I can undoubtedly say that the education system definitely holds a lot of the blame. Our advancing society is also responsible however. It is becoming more and more necessary to go to college to have a successful career, and college admissions is becoming ever more competitive.
Students today care nothing of what they're are learning or of whether or not they truly understand it. They only care about the grades that they get on their report cards. So, when those aptitude tests come along, they draw a blank because they have really learned so little.
The reason that kids are managing good grades without actually learning anything is simple: CHEATING. Nine out of ten of my classmates cheat in some form. Seven out of ten cheat on many of their tests. No joke. I go to a good, private school, and the kids that I'm speaking of include the sraight A, honor roll kids. The result is that the cheater gets good grades for that college transcript, but in reality learns very little. I believe this is one of the main reasons that the high school system is doing poorly. As for younger kids, I'm not sure.
I am drawing from my own experience here, though I must add that I got my grades the good old fashioned way: countless hours of studying.
QUOTE(smileystar333 @ Dec 19 2005, 10:10 AM)
I am a high school senior myself (not for long though - I just received my college acceptance letter!)
Anyway, I can undoubtedly say that the education system definitely holds a lot of the blame. Our advancing society is also responsible however. It is becoming more and more necessary to go to college to have a successful career, and college admissions is becoming ever more competitive.
Students today care nothing of what they're are learning or of whether or not they truly understand it. They only care about the grades that they get on their report cards. So, when those aptitude tests come along, they draw a blank because they have really learned so little.
The reason that kids are managing good grades without actually learning anything is simple: CHEATING. Nine out of ten of my classmates cheat in some form. Seven out of ten cheat on many of their tests. No joke. I go to a good, private school, and the kids that I'm speaking of include the sraight A, honor roll kids. The result is that the cheater gets good grades for that college transcript, but in reality learns very little. I believe this is one of the main reasons that the high school system is doing poorly. As for younger kids, I'm not sure.
I am drawing from my own experience here, though I must add that I got my grades the good old fashioned way: countless hours of studying.
Anyway, I can undoubtedly say that the education system definitely holds a lot of the blame. Our advancing society is also responsible however. It is becoming more and more necessary to go to college to have a successful career, and college admissions is becoming ever more competitive.
Students today care nothing of what they're are learning or of whether or not they truly understand it. They only care about the grades that they get on their report cards. So, when those aptitude tests come along, they draw a blank because they have really learned so little.
The reason that kids are managing good grades without actually learning anything is simple: CHEATING. Nine out of ten of my classmates cheat in some form. Seven out of ten cheat on many of their tests. No joke. I go to a good, private school, and the kids that I'm speaking of include the sraight A, honor roll kids. The result is that the cheater gets good grades for that college transcript, but in reality learns very little. I believe this is one of the main reasons that the high school system is doing poorly. As for younger kids, I'm not sure.
I am drawing from my own experience here, though I must add that I got my grades the good old fashioned way: countless hours of studying.
That is exactly how it is in my public high school, thats why when I actually take tests I either hide my answers, or I start in a funky fashion, or even start a little later. I don't feel like allowing other students to skive a passing grade off of me, when I studied for ever, and actually learned from it. I am a freshman, and looking for college scholarships, different activities etc. Even the sophomores and juniors see no reason for me to be this uptight about my H.S. career, they say it doesn't really effect you in the long run, when actually it does. If I do bad in H.S., don't learn anything, and just get the grades for the here and now my college aptitude test are not going to be that good, and if they aren't that good then I won't get into the colleges I want to get into, therefore I might not get as good of an education as I want. And I remember elementary school RARELY did a teacher have control of the class, by middle school and high school students just don't care. There are actually some students that enjoy getting in trouble...
QUOTE
The reason that kids are managing good grades without actually learning anything is simple: CHEATING. Nine out of ten of my classmates cheat in some form
This is very scary if universally true in this country. We know many schools and their classrooms are badly managed but I fail to see how this could be happening without teachers knowing what is going on.
Are teachers aware of this and ignoring it? Are the questions all multiple choice? If not how can a teacher who is doing his/her job not pick up on this?
Are the education programs to blame, should they be changed?
One change, constantly floated, is adding days to the school calendar. I’m not opposed to this idea or in favor of it.
The school year is Texas is currently 187 days. The median teacher's salary in Fort Worth is $45,931.00. Fort Worth currently employs 4792 teachers. The median day pay rate is $245.60.*
If, for example, we added 30 days instruction to the school calendar, we would have to pay each teacher an average 30 days X 245.60 or $7368.00.
When we multiply $7368.00 X 4792 we get $35,307,456. That’s an added 35 million dollars to already tight budgets for just teacher salaries.
Teachers, by and large, are service oriented people, but no one should expect them to work 30 more days without 30 more days pay.
When I taught special education, the phrase “summer school” was dropped in favor of “extended year services.” In order for a student to qualify, we had to show that the student would regress significantly between late May and mid-August and have trouble recouping lolst ground. The decision was made by the ARDC (Admission/Review/Dismissal Committee). My personal opinion was that decisions were often made based on financial consideration rather than student need.
I talked to a woman in human resources in Fort Worth ISD this afternoon. She said that there were problems, other than the additional financial burden.
The district already offers summer school and other enrichment programs, She also said that adding days would be a problem because of the demographics of he system. Apparently many families visit Mexico in the summer, making it difficult keeping students attendance up for the current 187 days.
In addition, I think (as a retired teacher) students—not to mention teachers—are fatigued by the time school let’s out for the summer. The school year is already a marathon, do we want to make it a triathlon?
Despite all this, I am not totally opposed to extending the school year. If this is a change we will make in the future, then that change should be gradual. The gradual approach would allow time to adjusting budgets, avoid stressing students and teachers out and perhaps guard against blowing ADA (Average Daily Attendance) out the window.
I have a couple of ideas, but as former speaker of the Texas House Gib Lewis used to say, “my feet aren’t set in stone.”
One approach might be adding 5 days to the calendar every two or three years. Another idea is to add, say 30 days to first graders only. The next year 1st and 2nd and so on. Within 12 years we would have everyone attending more days, without the shock to students who are use to a shorter year.
In short, if a longer school year is the direction we want to go: (1) Be prepared to pay for it. (2) Recognize and allow time for dealing with the logistical problems I have mentioned.
*Figures obtained from Fort Worth ISD human resources.
One change, constantly floated, is adding days to the school calendar. I’m not opposed to this idea or in favor of it.
The school year is Texas is currently 187 days. The median teacher's salary in Fort Worth is $45,931.00. Fort Worth currently employs 4792 teachers. The median day pay rate is $245.60.*
If, for example, we added 30 days instruction to the school calendar, we would have to pay each teacher an average 30 days X 245.60 or $7368.00.
When we multiply $7368.00 X 4792 we get $35,307,456. That’s an added 35 million dollars to already tight budgets for just teacher salaries.
Teachers, by and large, are service oriented people, but no one should expect them to work 30 more days without 30 more days pay.
When I taught special education, the phrase “summer school” was dropped in favor of “extended year services.” In order for a student to qualify, we had to show that the student would regress significantly between late May and mid-August and have trouble recouping lolst ground. The decision was made by the ARDC (Admission/Review/Dismissal Committee). My personal opinion was that decisions were often made based on financial consideration rather than student need.
I talked to a woman in human resources in Fort Worth ISD this afternoon. She said that there were problems, other than the additional financial burden.
The district already offers summer school and other enrichment programs, She also said that adding days would be a problem because of the demographics of he system. Apparently many families visit Mexico in the summer, making it difficult keeping students attendance up for the current 187 days.
In addition, I think (as a retired teacher) students—not to mention teachers—are fatigued by the time school let’s out for the summer. The school year is already a marathon, do we want to make it a triathlon?
Despite all this, I am not totally opposed to extending the school year. If this is a change we will make in the future, then that change should be gradual. The gradual approach would allow time to adjusting budgets, avoid stressing students and teachers out and perhaps guard against blowing ADA (Average Daily Attendance) out the window.
I have a couple of ideas, but as former speaker of the Texas House Gib Lewis used to say, “my feet aren’t set in stone.”
One approach might be adding 5 days to the calendar every two or three years. Another idea is to add, say 30 days to first graders only. The next year 1st and 2nd and so on. Within 12 years we would have everyone attending more days, without the shock to students who are use to a shorter year.
In short, if a longer school year is the direction we want to go: (1) Be prepared to pay for it. (2) Recognize and allow time for dealing with the logistical problems I have mentioned.
*Figures obtained from Fort Worth ISD human resources.
I'm 13 and a student in the 7th grade, It is your jobs as adults to make us into promising citizens in America no not America, the planet Earth. It is not too much to ask!!!!! Just becuase your too lazy, doesn't mean it counts as eveyone else, just becuase its an inconvience 
.
R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y
. R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y
QUOTE(Mr.Gentleman @ Jan 23 2006, 09:15 PM)
I'm 13 and a student in the 7th grade, It is your jobs as adults to make us into promising citizens in America no not America, the planet Earth. It is not too much to ask!!!!! Just becuase your too lazy, doesn't mean it counts as eveyone else, just becuase its an inconvience .
R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y
. R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y
Welcome Mr. Gentleman,
I hope you realize that responsibility is a two or maybe three way street.
Parents/teachers/students share responsibility for educational quality.
I'm sure that in your 7th grade class there are students who do quite well at accepting their responsibility and others who do not.
I have long thought that with today's helicopter parents, many students no longer have the free time to learn responsibility through independent experience, or to put it another way, the school of hard knocks. There's an old saying that children need the proper balance of wings and roots when growing up.
QUOTE
BoF
One change, constantly floated, is adding days to the school calendar. I’m not opposed to this idea or in favor of it.
The school year is Texas is currently 187 days.
One change, constantly floated, is adding days to the school calendar. I’m not opposed to this idea or in favor of it.
The school year is Texas is currently 187 days.
This is an interesting line of thought. 3 years ago our school system was visited by a education expert from Motorola. He presented to the the parents and the teachers separately.
His presentation included some interesting statistics. One such related to school day. He maintained that in the 1950s and 60s we had perhaps the best school system in the industrial world – we also had the longest school day AND the longest school year.
Today we are ranked at 13th or lower and we now have the shortest school day AND the shortest school year of ll industrial nations. He then asked each group (separately) if they though this was a problem that should be addressed by considering a longer school day or year.
In the “parents” group over 85% thought this should be considered. In the “teachers” group the percentage was < 10%!
QUOTE(Ted @ Jan 23 2006, 12:28 PM)
QUOTE
The reason that kids are managing good grades without actually learning anything is simple: CHEATING. Nine out of ten of my classmates cheat in some form
This is very scary if universally true in this country. We know many schools and their classrooms are badly managed but I fail to see how this could be happening without teachers knowing what is going on.
Are teachers aware of this and ignoring it? Are the questions all multiple choice? If not how can a teacher who is doing his/her job not pick up on this?
LOL I love the shock. Teachers at my school just sit in front of their computers typing or are correcting other tests. Today, during finals, only one of my teachers actually used obvious preventative means (i.e. spreading seats apart), and one gives different copies of tests to adjacent rows.
Means include:
Written on a hand,
Cellphone text messages,
Asking others what is on the test (may or may not be cheating, I don't do it),
Further: if someone took a very short multiple choice quiz, I've seen kids give each other the ANSWERS beforehand,
Looking
Why these means work:
Some teachers give the same tests,
Teachers don't care enough because they aren't payed anything,
Trusting, because I'm only in Enriched classes, and kids do it there too.
Teachers should stop being naive.
QUOTE(blingice @ Jan 26 2006, 06:57 PM)
QUOTE(Ted @ Jan 23 2006, 12:28 PM)
QUOTE
The reason that kids are managing good grades without actually learning anything is simple: CHEATING. Nine out of ten of my classmates cheat in some form
This is very scary if universally true in this country. We know many schools and their classrooms are badly managed but I fail to see how this could be happening without teachers knowing what is going on.
Are teachers aware of this and ignoring it? Are the questions all multiple choice? If not how can a teacher who is doing his/her job not pick up on this?
LOL I love the shock. Teachers at my school just sit in front of their computers typing or are correcting other tests. Today, during finals, only one of my teachers actually used obvious preventative means (i.e. spreading seats apart), and one gives different copies of tests to adjacent rows.
Means include:
Written on a hand,
Cellphone text messages,
Asking others what is on the test (may or may not be cheating, I don't do it),
Further: if someone took a very short multiple choice quiz, I've seen kids give each other the ANSWERS beforehand,
Looking
Why these means work:
Some teachers give the same tests,
Teachers don't care enough because they aren't payed anything,
Trusting, because I'm only in Enriched classes, and kids do it there too.
Teachers should stop being naive.
Blingice,
I think you are missing something. As I said earlier, eduction is a shared partnership--parents/teachers and administrators/students.
Parents are usually the first role models for children. If parents cannot instill the roots of honesty in children before they enter school, then its hard for teachers to do so later.
According to the teacher appraisal system used in Texas, teachers are supposed to be on their feet, not their seats, monitoring students--not just at test time, but during instructional activities as well.
I understand how frustrating this is. I once had a biology teacher who would come in and tell us to open the book to such-and-such chapter, "answer all the questions, define all the terms and do all the drawings with labels." He then sat down behind his desk and read the paper. If someone needed help, they had to go to his desk instead of him coming to ours. Most of us hated him.
If teachers are doing this now, it is because administrators are not conducting a sufficient number of walk-through unscheduled evaluations.
The third element is students. Their responsibility is to come to class prepared to learn rather than raise hell and to come prepared with books, supplies and homework (something parents should monitor).
QUOTE
BoF
According to the teacher appraisal system used in Texas, teachers are supposed to be on their feet, not their seats, monitoring students--not just at test time, but during instructional activities as well.
I understand how frustrating this is. I once had a biology teacher who would come in and tell us to open the book to such-and-such chapter, &quo
According to the teacher appraisal system used in Texas, teachers are supposed to be on their feet, not their seats, monitoring students--not just at test time, but during instructional activities as well.
I understand how frustrating this is. I once had a biology teacher who would come in and tell us to open the book to such-and-such chapter, &quo