posted
The first day of class, tell each student that they have a week to write a brief doctrine of literary criticism.
This came to my mind as I am in the position of having to explain briefly all of literature before discussing any given piece in order to make any kind of sense. This is enormously frustrating, not least because six thousand years of literature is not easy to explain briefly, but far more frustrating is trying to discuss a piece in class.
The improvements in any class would be substantial, as students began to seriously think about how a piece should be analyzed.
As it is, I have no idea how others in my class are approaching a piece.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First you'd need to explain to them what a "brief doctrine" is, and how one goes about writing one. For the average 9th grade secondary english student, this may be difficult.
Second, you'd need to explain to them what "literary criticism" means, and how one goes about writing about it. For the average 9th grade secondary english student, criticism means writing: "I think that literature is very important to high school students because it is very important that we read it in order to be able to understand literature."
Pel, you're an above average student. You're an above average writer. When you think about global changes to secondary curriculum, try to think about the below average students and the below average writers.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"When you think about global changes to secondary curriculum, try to think about the below average students and the below average writers."
I think that this has already been done by others. In fact, finding anyone who thinks about anything or anyone else is difficult. Teachers do, of course, but only unofficially.
We have become a country so obsessed with no child being left behind that we have see to it that no child gets ahead.
Anyway, explaining "literary criticism" and "brief doctrine" seems to me and imperative goal of education, for all students. Even students who end up collecting garbage are going to join unions whose existence is due to a few brief doctrines, doctrines which they must understand.
I am neither a Communist nor a Socialist, but I applaud the efforts, the successful efforts, of those parties in creating an environment in which coal miners and steel workers debated Marxist philosophy, as was the case in antebellum Britain.
Indeed, I admire Marx for writing philosophy in such an accessible manner. Nietzsche and Marx are so influential because they can be understood by anybody, whereas many other philosophers remain nearly incomprehensible even to fellow philosophers.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Indeed, I admire Marx for writing philosophy in such an accessible manner. Nietzsche and Marx are so influential because they can be understood by anybody
If you admire that, then you should take the advice of FlyingCow.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We have become a country so obsessed with no child being left behind that we have see to it that no child gets ahead.
First off, you will not find a more strong opponent to No Child Left Behind than myself.
However, if you set a standard curriculum far above the level of the below average and average student, they you teach no one.
If you teach all students at a level more advanced than most are able (or willing) to understand, then you are doing no one a service.
If you wish to have an advanced education for those students willing to work towards it, then by all means propose a segregated educational system that helps that portion of society get ahead.
quote:In fact, finding anyone who thinks about anything or anyone else is difficult. Teachers do, of course, but only unofficially.
Not sure exactly what you mean by this. Please explain.
quote:nyway, explaining "literary criticism" and "brief doctrine" seems to me and imperative goal of education, for all students.
That may be true. But it's the "when" that's important. Your argument is to make this lesson the first day. While some students will be able to grasp what you want and produce the work you request at that point, the majority will not have those skills at the start of secondary english.
It's easy to say all students should know something. That's what standardized tests do. That's what NCLB does. The trick is when.
For instance, all students should learn algebra, in my opinion. Some are ready for that in fifth grade, while others aren't ready for it until 10th grade. Mandating that all students take it in 8th grade (as some schools do) is silly - too late for some, and too early for others.
Any time you start making sweeping statements about "all students" or "every student" you are ignoring the simple fact that people learn at different speeds and are not all going to be ready at the same exact moment.
You're falling into one of the essential problems with NCLB - that *all* students must learn certain topics to a certain level within a certain timeframe. Education is not so linear.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The when is answered, if vaguely. In secondary school. Maybe not immediately, but at least at the beginning of Junior year.
"You're falling into one of the essential problems with NCLB - that *all* students must learn certain topics to a certain level within a certain timeframe."
All students must learn a minimum amount within a certain time frame. No Child Left Behind makes other mistakes, but that is not one of them (they way it measures learning is.)
Of course, the worst thing about NCLB is that it has come to dominate all discussion of education.
"Not sure exactly what you mean by this. Please explain."
Simple, government policy is not concerned with any thing other than the minimum, hence standardized tests etc. Teachers are all but officially encouraged to ignore all but their lowest-performing students. Most teachers do not do this, but that is how the government would wish to to act.
A startling fact: only 27% of U.S. citizens and residents have any college degree, including those with an AA. Clearly, the vast majority of students are being left behind. The bar is being set far too low and we are so focused on reaching a bar that, once reached, will mean nothing.
Education needs to be handled in a four fold way:
1. A comprehensive system to make sure that the majority of Americans attend at least a Community College, implemented in both Secondary Schools and Community Colleges. Such education should be more heavily subsidized.
2. Better education for intellectual the intellectual élite, more advanced courses in Secondary school and more scholarships to universities. No one should have to attend a Community College for want of money.
3. Giving complete control of the public education systems to the Department of Education, eliminating State control of schools, which has proven disastrous as evidence by Kansas's multiple fiascos. At the same time, increase educational spending, especially in providing higher pay to teachers. Pay should be based on experience and education, but not on standardized test scores. Special teachers for AP classes, whose pay would partially be based on the (non-standardized) AP scores.
4. The institution an American Baccalaureate, required to graduate from secondary school with honors (for those planning on attending university) and a school-leaving certificate, required to graduate without honors (for those planning on attending community college.)
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A startling fact: only 27% of U.S. citizens and residents have any college degree, including those with an AA. Clearly, the vast majority of students are being left behind.
I think you vastly overestimate the value of a college degree. There are many, many jobs in our society that don't require college degrees and people can be enormously successful and happy without ever earning one.
I actually think we put too much emphasis on college degrees and wish we would re-institute trade schools again. The world needs finish carpenters, and plumbers, and electricians, and the other trades and it doesn't have enough of them. My husband's part-time income as a plumber exceeds his full-time income as a firefighter/paramedic and I would guess exceeds the starting salaries of many jobs that require degrees. College doesn't need to be the end-all be-all for everyone.
quote:2. Better education for intellectual the intellectual élite, more advanced courses in Secondary school and more scholarships to universities. No one should have to attend a Community College for want of money.
Firstly, did you mean to delete one of the "intellectuals" in that sentence? Because it doesn't make sense. Secondly, community colleges fill a valued niche in our society and I don't think they should be looked upon as less than optimal. Not everyone needs to attend an ivy league school, and not everyone that attends community colleges does so solely because of cost issues. There is also the fact that many of them provide smaller classes and more flexible scheduling. Plus there are two year certificate programs for many careers and the community college structure fits these perfectly.
quote:Giving complete control of the public education systems to the Department of Education, eliminating State control of schools, which has proven disastrous as evidence by Kansas's multiple fiascos. At the same time, increase educational spending, especially in providing higher pay to teachers. Pay should be based on experience and education, but not on standardized test scores. Special teachers for AP classes, whose pay would partially be based on the (non-standardized) AP scores.
I laugh. Seriously, you think education will get better if you get rid of local control? It's involved communities that make good schools, and taking control away from the local communities and giving it over to the federal government is not going to improve things.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering we're in the top two for adults 35-64 holding college degrees (39%, behind only Canada at 41%) and in the top ten for adults 25-34 holding college degrees (also 39%, but behind Canada, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Belgium), we seem to be doing pretty darn well at not leaving people behind, at least compared to the rest of the world.
Notably, we're ahead of every single major western european economy in both categories. Far ahead in terms of older adults with degrees. I suspect that's partially because there's a significant tradition of returning to school at an older age in the US that's not as prevalent in more tracked societies.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In ninth grade i wrote "crime and punishment" THATS RIGHT, I AM FYODOR MIKHAILOVITCH DOESTOEVSKY.. Bow down in awe of my tragic life...that parallels the tragedy of my epic novels. And my english is really shaping up as of late.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I wrote "An Everlasting Quest" based on the mmorpg Everquest.
ANd OMGOWNZORS R.A Salvatore also writes a book about a rogue in Everquest grr the damnation,
IP: Logged |
posted
There was a great scene once in Malcolm in the Middle- Lois can basically save Reese (the stupid one) if she is willing to screw Malcolm (the genius) and the teacher is like, there is no way you would sacrifice your brilliant son's future for Reese. And Lois replies in a heartbeat. And then explains that in the end, malcolm will find a way to succeed no matter what. Reese on the other hand, needs every opportunity he can get to just make it by, so in any choice between helping the two, she will choose Reese every time. I think sometimes this is the idea of the programs- the best will find a way. Also, why do we need or want more intellectual elites? As is, the job market for phds suck.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:All students must learn a minimum amount within a certain time frame. No Child Left Behind makes other mistakes, but that is not one of them (they way it measures learning is.)
That is the root of why NCLB is a problem. It insists on using that word "all" whenever it discusses education.
"All" students will never achieve a meaningful standard. You will always have students who either are not physically capable of reaching the standard (severe autism), not pyschologically capable of reaching the standard(severe emotional disturbance), or not willing to work toward reaching the standard.
No matter what you throw at students, there will be those that perform at, above, and below expectations.
quote:Teachers are all but officially encouraged to ignore all but their lowest-performing students.
From my years of teaching experience, this is not the case. Maybe in your years of teaching experience, it is the case. Or maybe you're just assuming from the perspective of an advanced student who has not been challenged enough.
quote:A startling fact: only 27% of U.S. citizens and residents have any college degree, including those with an AA. Clearly, the vast majority of students are being left behind.
You're making a common mistake of equating a degree with too much value.
Two extremes:
Thomas Edison dropped out of school long before college.
Some college football players have meaningless degrees granted from pushover programs designed to maintain their sports eligibility.
A degree doesn't mean much in and of itself. It's a piece of paper.
To your four points: 1. All people need not go to college. If college is mandated for all people, college becomes meaningless as a distinction. Those who wish distinction will need to attain higher degrees than a bachelors, which will in turn end up with the same worth as a high school diploma has now. [Edit: grammar/clarity]
2. I'm all for better education for the academic elite. I never liked the concept of heterogeneous grouping that forces advanced students to sit in classes with deficient students. Students learn at different rates, and those rates don't necessarily match up with age. To force advanced 12 year olds to learn with slower 12 year olds is silly... advanced 12 year olds should learn with average 13 year olds and slower 14 year olds (or with average 15 or 16 year olds).
Students should be taught to their ability, not to their age.
3. This one's complex. First, you don't want the Board of Education in total control, because odds are they're just elected officials and may not have any experience in the classroom whatsoever.
Second, I'm all for increased funding and teacher salaries, but where is the money coming from? School budgets come from taxes (normally property taxes) and are voted on by people who have to pay those taxes. I've toyed with the idea of taxing companies based on GNP rather than property owners, but this has its own set of complications.
4. I like this in theory, but not in practice. Students should not have to graduate high school with the expectations of being college bound - your "leaving certificate". However, they should be given an education more useful and in line with their longterm goals. Trade school options, or at least trade tracks within high schools, should be utilized to set the maximum number of people up for success in the maximum number of areas.
Allow those who are college-bound a more college-entrance themed education, preparing them for academic rigors in a variety of fields. This is more in line with your American Baccalaureate concept. However, allow those who are not college-bound to pursue less academic courses of study/training that would more adequately prepare them for a life outside university walls.
posted
in terms of the college education points: before you start using those numbers to prove our education system is insufficient, you absolutely must take into account the number of students who don't go to college because of financial reasons, because of lack of interest, because of other opportunities that get in the way etc...
if you tell me that x% can't get into college because they want to but aren't educated enough, THEN you may have a point (and probably do to a certain extent)
As for your general outlook on these goals Pel, let me tell you a story from my educational experiences:
I'm sitting with about 100+ other students in my Honors freshman engineering programming course 2nd semester freshman year at college. It happens that this class is taught by one of the 2 people on earth that I legitimately hate... I mean I despise this teacher for any number of reasons both personally and professionally. We had just finished a project which everyone in the class had busted their butts on for weeks, and the class average was probably a 50% (maybe a little higher).
One of the other students starts mouthing off to the professor about how the assignment was too easy and how he should be catering to this kid's abilities. At that moment, despite the fact that the kid was arguing with a man I loathed I was cheering the prof on to just deck the kid...
While I think everyone here would be in favor of improving some of the shortcomings of our public educational system, and we would like students to be able to do more than they currently can it doesn't mean that everything you find fascinating (as a very above average student) is right for every other student who may be struggling just with the 'easy' curriculum that they currently have.
as for your 4-fold plan:
1)I would love if finances were never an issue holding people back from college (though you're always going to have cases where the kids need to work to help support sick or disabled parents and the like)
as FC said, as soon as you mandate required college educations they lose their meaning. As it is, many college curriculums are basically jokes just designed so that students can get by and keep giving the college tuition while not dissapointing their parents.
2) Certainly, teaching to the student's abilities is desirable, and we can continue to try working towards that goal. I would temper FC's comments with the following observation though: there was a student in some of my freshman/sophomore classes in college who was I believe 14. While he arguably was intelligent enough to be there, he was absolutely not socially/emotionally developed enough to be in a college setting on his own. So basically we just have to be very careful with this kind of drastic deviation from the norms.
3) While certain states may make drastic mistakes, federal control would be so untrained (as mentioned) and so bureaucratically inefficient that it would likely cause the downfall of the public education system as a whole.
4) I'd basically just second what FC said, though also temper it with the fact that often students don't know what they're planning on doing with their life until the last minute.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I think sometimes this is the idea of the programs- the best will find a way. Also, why do we need or want more intellectual elites? As is, the job market for phds suck.
Bitter, much?
It is simply untrue that "the best will find a way." Burnt-out child geniuses panhandling for change may be a cliche, but for some it is also a reality. And for many more, it's not that extreme, but without someone to encourage them to reach their potential, they didn't. Don't make me pull out the sappy Animal School video again!
As for this "intellectual elite," would that be folks like my parents, each of who has a PhD and a good job? My friend who is about to complete her PhD in English and already has a job lined up?
Teachers, all. Intellectual elite, my foot. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I laugh. Seriously, you think education will get better if you get rid of local control?"
Yes, and I think that evidence will back me up. It takes many more idiots to screw something up at a federal level than a local level. I am frankly tired of reading headlines that say "school board bans book" or "school board [does something very stupid.]"
" Community colleges fill a valued niche in our society and I don't think they should be looked upon as less than optimal. Not everyone needs to attend an ivy league school, and not everyone that attends community colleges does so solely because of cost issues"
Very true, which is why I do not advocate getting rid of Community Colleges. I do advocate making other options more affordable. As you point out, financial need is only one reason to attend a Community College, it should not even be a reason.
"You're making a common mistake of equating a degree with too much value."
A degree in not always necessary, as you point out, Edison did not have one. Clearly, however, Edison was not a typical person. Not everyone needs a degree, but I am betting that the percent those who need some type of degree is greater than 27%.
" If college is mandated for all people, college becomes meaningless as a distinction. "
I have never advocated mandating college for any person. I have advocated, and continue to advocate, making some post-secondary school an option for everybody. Even within the level of post-secondary education, there is a big difference between an A.A. and a Ph.D.
"Second, I'm all for increased funding and teacher salaries, but where is the money coming from?"
One place to start would be the massive amounts of money wasted each year on projects with no actual use. Looking at a map of my State, there is a longish track of federally-funded highway leading from nowhere to nowhere. Even within education, money could be spent much more efficiently. I am not opposed to school athletics in any sense, but they are massively over-funded. We also spend a ridiculous amount of money on F.A.A. for a society which is almost entirely post-agrarian.
"First, you don't want the Board of Education in total control"
Not as it currently exists, no. I favor school inspectors, like the British model. Former teachers who visit schools, observe classes and speak with students and teacher and then write reports to be read both by government higher-ups and the school.
The answer, in the end, is not to change as little as is possible, but to change as much as is desirable.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:One place to start would be the massive amounts of money wasted each year on projects with no actual use. Looking at a map of my State, there is a longish track of federally-funded highway leading from nowhere to nowhere.
How do you proposed to do this under the current congressional budgetary system?
quote: Even within education, money could be spent much more efficiently. I am not opposed to school athletics in any sense, but they are massively over-funded. We also spend a ridiculous amount of money on F.A.A. for a society which is almost entirely post-agrarian.
Maybe we should be spending more considering that our post-agrarian society is facing an obesity epidemic with massive public health implications.
quote:Yes, and I think that evidence will back me up. It takes many more idiots to screw something up at a federal level than a local level. I am frankly tired of reading headlines that say "school board bans book" or "school board [does something very stupid.]"
The farther removed the governing body is from that which is governed, the more problems you will see. There needs to be some form of local management, because the federal government can't handle small day-to-day details.
quote:Clearly, however, Edison was not a typical person. Not everyone needs a degree, but I am betting that the percent those who need some type of degree is greater than 27%.
No, he's not. Though the typical person has no degree, nor really needs one. Less than half the adult population of the country has a degree, which means less than half the jobs require one. Knowing that many college degree holders work at jobs where no such degree is necessary leads one to infer that a good deal less than half the jobs require a degree.
Having a degree is atypical. Those with degrees are in the minority. This grants some distinction to those with degrees, granting them access to that minority of jobs that require a degree. If the majority of people had degrees, those same jobs would have to set a higher bar and the value of a degree would lessen.
quote:I am not opposed to school athletics in any sense, but they are massively over-funded.
Moreso at the collegiate level than the secondary level, though. If anything is massively overfunded it is paper and standardized tests. The money that could be saved in severely curtailing the use of the former and eliminating the use of the latter is astounding.
quote:I favor school inspectors, like the British model. Former teachers who visit schools, observe classes and speak with students and teacher and then write reports to be read both by government higher-ups and the school.
Though ignorant of the British model, am have been in favor of an independent group of school auditors to conduct classroom observations for years. The one or two a year announced observation model is a farce. Observations are only valuable when they are both unannounced and frequent.
quote:The answer, in the end, is not to change as little as is possible, but to change as much as is desirable.
Many changes cause ripple effects that would force change to the fundamental way our system of government is run. Just like you won't get the Congress to vote itself a pay cut, you won't see it pass reform measures that are too radical.
Charter schools have been changing things considerably, and many have had great success. Here is an example of a charter school system a friend of mine teaches in. Quite a departure from the norm, but not something that I believe would work on a national scale.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not opposed to school athletics in any sense, but they are massively over-funded.
where is your evidence that school athletics are so overfunded? Because in my experience, most of the money needed to keep a high school athletic program running comes from the community, not the school.
We could certainly argue that the community should not support athletics over classroom-centered learning programs, but I think it' s a mistake to say the school itself spends too much money on athletics.
Also, as AJ pointed out, we have record numbers of obese kids, should we cut funding to one aspect of our education system that encourages physical fitness?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"where is your evidence that school athletics are so overfunded?"
When was the last time you set foot in a Secondary School athletic center. I used to be a varsity swimmer for my small school, and the size of these things amazed me. We were lucky, and eccentric, in having the only half-olympic pool of any high school in the city, but our athletic center was tiny compared to the ones we competed in. And our athletic center is not tiny by any reasonable measure.
"hould we cut funding to one aspect of our education system that encourages physical fitness?"
At my school, most students participate in athletics (it is required for Freshmen.) This is patently not the case at most schools, where athletes are a tiny minority. That is, the minority is tiny, the athletes are generally rather astonishingly large.
"How do you proposed to do this under the current congressional budgetary system?"
" If anything is massively overfunded it is paper"
I have no doubt that a huge ammount of money is spent on paper, but considering how miserly most schools are with it, charging money for computer paper etc., it does not appear over funded.
I find it funny that you ask this immediately after I answered it "The answer, in the end, is not to change as little as is possible, but to change as much as is desirable."
I have called for far more than a new budget, I have been known to call for a new Constitution in which Representatives would not be elected from districts but on a national basis, to eliminate pork-spending and strange local causes.
All politics is not local, but international in scope.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "where is your evidence that school athletics are so overfunded?"
When was the last time you set foot in a Secondary School athletic center. I used to be a varsity swimmer for my small school, and the size of these things amazed me. We were lucky, and eccentric, in having the only half-olympic pool of any high school in the city, but our athletic center was tiny compared to the ones we competed in. And our athletic center is not tiny by any reasonable measure.
"hould we cut funding to one aspect of our education system that encourages physical fitness?"
At my school, most students participate in athletics (it is required for Freshmen.) This is patently not the case at most schools, where athletes are a tiny minority. That is, the minority is tiny, the athletes are generally rather astonishingly large.
"How do you proposed to do this under the current congressional budgetary system?"
" If anything is massively overfunded it is paper"
I have no doubt that a huge ammount of money is spent on paper, but considering how miserly most schools are with it, charging money for computer paper etc., it does not appear over funded.
I find it funny that you ask this immediately after I answered it "The answer, in the end, is not to change as little as is possible, but to change as much as is desirable."
I have called for far more than a new budget, I have been known to call for a new Constitution in which Representatives would not be elected from districts but on a national basis, to eliminate pork-spending and strange local causes.
All politics is not local, but international in scope.
posted
pH, yes, but we competed against big Public Schools in individual sports, with predictable results. My observations on such things as athletic facilities and the miserly use of paper are all based on experiences I have had at various local schools.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm... complete federal control over schools...
That'll be great! If that were the case right now, what you read in school would be controlled by a George W. Bush!
I so look forward to the day Pel's plan is implemented, the Republicans win a landslide and credit the Religious Right with their victory (as has happened recently. It will happen again.) and suddenly Harry Potter is banned from schools, all the text books have to teach Intellegent Design and sex edumacation consists of "If you have sex you will DIE and go to HEYULL!!!"
Remember Pel, the people who get elected are usually dumber than dog dirt and disagree with you on dozens of issues. At least one of them you will care about deeply. And that's regardless of who gets elected.
The beautiful thing about localized government of any sort is that when they do something incredibly stupid you can move away. You can't do that when the federal government controls it. And when we have a world government, you're completely screwed.
posted
I can assure you, your experience with massive secondary school athletic centers is not the norm. Most schools around here have a gym, a weight room, an equipment closet, and a bunch of fields for their physical education department. Each sport has its individual uniforms and equipment, and that's about it.
I live in a pretty wealthy area of New Jersey, and I don't know many schools here that have any sort of pool dedicated to the school itself. Most schools use pools in community centers and township ice rinks. Perhaps it's just Texas that has to do things bigger than everyone else.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My husband used to believe the athletics department was overfunded. Then he became a teacher and very quickly was wishing every single one of his students had been on a sports team. If a basketball player was misbehaving or not doing hw or not studying enough, one word to the coach and the kid shaped up immediately. They would stat being polite, show up for tutoring, pay attention in class, etc. Calling parents, detention, suspension, none of that was as effective as threatening to take the kid off the team. In his classes atleast, there was a direct correlation between grade and sports affiliation and it was NOT because he compromised his grading.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
FC, most school here share massive athletic centers with other schools. The number of schools varries greatly, but is almost never more than six and is often only one or two. They can afford to share becouse these places are big enough to four or six teams simoltaneously. And that is just for low-prestige sports like swimming. High-prestige sports like basketball, soccer, volleyball and (inevitably) football are all played in school gyms or fields. There are also football fields used only for games. It's insane.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When was the last time you set foot in a Secondary School athletic center. I used to be a varsity swimmer for my small school, and the size of these things amazed me.
Last week.
I have kids in public schools, Pel. I have many friends who are teachers, I have close relationships with school administrators and I'm working on becoming a secondary teacher myself. One of my kids is an athlete, the other plans on participating in the marching band and tries out this year. I happen to know many parents with kids either members of the marching band or the football teams and I can assure you - the school does not provide the majority of the funding for these programs. First of all, the parents pay a lot of money for their kids to participate. Secondly, most of the buildings were built by private funds donated by the community.
Yes, we have athletic coaches, but they are also full time teachers who simply receive an extra stipend on top of their salary (which nowhere near covers the extra hours they put in) so the school would be paying for those teaching units anyway. One of my good friends is a football coach and math teacher ask him if high school athletics are overfunded and I assure you he'll laugh. I've known football coaches to buy pads and uniforms out of their own pockets so kids without the money to buy their own could play.
quote:There are also football fields used only for games. It's insane.
Are you sure it never gets used for anything else? The high school football field here doesn't belong solely to the high school team - the entire community uses it. It gets used for little league football, intramural flag football, and community soccer leagues. In my experience that's the norm for most high school stadiums.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then he became a teacher and very quickly was wishing every single one of his students had been on a sports team. If a basketball player was misbehaving or not doing hw or not studying enough, one word to the coach and the kid shaped up immediately.
This would hardly have been the case if every kid had to be on the team regardless of motivation, though. "You'll take me off the team if I don't shape up? Yay! Football sucks!"
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think she meant that he whished they *had* to be on one, just that he wished they all *were* on one.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, your experience does not match mine. My school's lit football stadium was not paid for by parents or local businesses, it was paid for by the district. Ditto the football pads and uniforms.
(The same district, mind you, that did not provide any sort of stipend for the FIRST Robotics coach, or help at all with registration and travel fees for FIRST. The same district who allowed a National Championship forensics program to disband rather than fund it.)
And the football field and the beautiful gym canot be used by anyone other than the appropriately designated school sports, because someone might mess up the ever-so-carefully cultivated grass, or the parquet floor.
I do believe that high school athletics are over-funded at the expense of academics.
-o-
I agree with those who believe that national control of education would be disastrous--for reasons already pretty well explained by others.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess it's just a difference in local areas. I live in a mostly rural county, and the county school system can't afford first rate athletic facilities, but the community pitches in to make sure we do have them. Our football field has sponsors ads all around the perimeter fence, and there are placques everywhere denoting the support of local businesses.
I think that's how it should be, personally. The Friday night football games are events the whole community participates in (the entire downtown will close this Friday at noon because it's homecoming) and therefore the community should support it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We do have some advertising, but that can't bring in the hundreds of thousands that the facilities cost. They help with operating expenses.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Are you sure it never gets used for anything else? The high school football field here doesn't belong solely to the high school team - the entire community uses it."
Well, seeing as there is another one across the highway....
p.s. I don't know about where you are from Belle, but here, rural schools are the worst offenders. Small towns in Texas are not a good place to grow up. As my mom, a pediatrician, put it "there are three four things to do in small towns: 1. football, 2. band, 3. church and 4. drugs."
Obviously this is an over generalization, but the drug use rate is very high, since not every one can be on the team or in the band.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's my Plan to (almost) Fix Secondary School English:
Step 1 - Briefly write down WHY the students need to learn what we are teaching them in English.
Step 2 - Read back over that reason and try to imagine whether or not your average ninth grader would buy that reasoning.
Step 3 - If you think the average ninth grader would not buy that reasoning, start over and try to write an explanation that they would buy as to WHY they should bother to learn these things.
Step 4 - If you can't come up with any possible reason that a ninth grader would buy into, stop teaching that material.
Step 5 - Once you have a list of reasons why students should care about learning what they are being taught, teach them those reasons, so that they will have some reason to learn what they are being taught.
Unfortunately, step 5 would presumably take far far longer than a week.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres- Step 5 encompasses the whole of 7th through 9th grade for many many many students. I wouldn't be suprised if it still failed alot of the time. Good to have reasons, but I doubt you could better explain your reasons than simply allow them to become obvious in other ways- for instance: a really skilled teacher will be able to make the process of reading noticeably rewarding to the students, (the subject of "dead poets society" genre education movies).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the topic of high school athletics, I also grew up in Texas. I attended Katy High School which has fallen in the ranks since I graduated but is one of the major state/national football dynasties.
I did hate seeing so much money going towards a new football athletic facility when I was in an underfunded choir program and the academic teams were buying their own letterjackets when the district wouldn't help out (as it did with the sports and arts organizations.) Course, a big chunk of the money for football came through booster programs and fundrasiers organized by alumni and players' families, rather than the district. The point about behavior was also a good one. On gamedays those boys in class in their jerseys were the most perfect little angels. The football program was good for the local economy and brought alot of attention to the school. There was a huge influx of people moving into the area. They were enticed by the "small town feel" that football represented while being close to Houston. Even in its earlier years, when my father was transferred to Houston for work, my mother made sure we moved to Katy. The reputation of the schools goes beyond football. Our school had the funds for several major constructions during my years there. Other schools popped up quickly to pick up the growing population. These schools had better technology and additional academic opportunities. So much grew out of one school and its public success.
I never had a problem with secondary cirriculum. The gifted/honors/AP program was available to me. I took easier history classe because I struggled with the subjects. I took extra math because I liked it. I stayed with AP English because its where I was pleasantly challenged. There were always chances for me to take courses which fit with my own learning speed and interests. Whether I succeeded or even enjoyed the material was based entirely on the personality and style of the teacher I had.
I have a problem with the idea that all students need to go to college. Heck, even now I'm struggling with my college because of the idea that everyone should go on to grad school. Everyone is going to have a different idea about the value of their education and where they want to go with the skills they have. A PhD, while necessary for certain fields, is not the only measure of academic value.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres- Step 5 encompasses the whole of 7th through 9th grade for many many many students. I wouldn't be suprised if it still failed alot of the time. Good to have reasons, but I doubt you could better explain your reasons than simply allow them to become obvious in other ways- for instance: a really skilled teacher will be able to make the process of reading noticeably rewarding to the students, (the subject of "dead poets society" genre education movies).
I can tell you that the school system I went to lists their curriculum for 7-9th grade, and although it includes many skills and benchmarks students are supposed to pass, it does not list "understanding why they need to learn english" anywhere as something students are required to be taught in that period. The emphasis is on skill-building and passing those standardized tests.
I can also tell you, having been through those grades, that if my teachers did try to do Step 5, they almost certainly skipped over Steps 1-4. At best we were taught vague explanations like, we need to learn this stuff in order to succeed in college, or we'd need to do it in order to fully appreciate literature. These are the sorts of things that teachers seem to like to say, but that did not resonate with us as students. It makes english class seem like something you are simply "supposed to do", something that you need to get decent grades in until you graduate but that then has little value.
In some cases, that is probably accurate. If a kid were to ask me "Why do I need to learn Shakespeare?" I don't think there would be able to come up with any convincing answer, unless the kid was planning on being an English major one day. My knowledge of Shakespeare does not really come in handy much at all in life outside school. If it did, I suspect there'd be a lot of adults out there clamoring to learn more about Shakespeare. But there's not, because most adults have decided they don't need to spend that time and effort.
And in other cases, students ARE being taught things in English class that they really need to know to succeed in life. But I don't think many students understand this need, and if they don't understand it I don't see why they would bother to make much effort to learn it. It is like an athelete who doesn't think weight training will help him in his sport - do you think such an athelete will go through the effort if they don't think it will help? If a coach wants an athelete to make that effort, he must first convince the athelete that it is worth it. I'm surprised that teachers don't approach their students the same way - the vast majority of my teachers seemed to take it as a given that I either cared about a subject or didn't, and that if I didn't then the solution would be to try to force me to do the work anyway.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
My private school...well, they probably put more money toward athletics than the music program. But they put a heckuva lot into the drama program, and the sport that was biggest at my school was girls' volleyball, since we were always state champs or something, and lots of students got athletic scholarships to big name schools because of it. We did have an Olympic swimming pool. We also had a rock climbing wall. And a football field and a couple soccer fields and a baseball/softball field. And a really nice weight room.
At the same time, we couldn't get money for new uniforms for Pipe and Drum Corps. In all honesty though, I think that had more to do with donations than anything else. Most of our shiny new bulidings, including the shiny new theatre, were named after someone who paid for the school to build them. When the Corps did get new uniforms, it was because one of the students' parents donated money for them.
But that's what private schools do. They name buildings after people who give them a bajillion dollars. And the stuff we had for music and whatnot really wasn't half bad. It just wasn't super shiny new like the theatre.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The unemployment rate for people with econ phds is something like 2.3%.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
