posted
Of course I know that, Irami. But it is not the school's job nor the Federal goverment's job to parent. I know there are crappy parents out there; it is heart breaking to me...but it is still NOT the governments job to deal with it through the school system.
posted
Well, according to the Massachusett's state constitution, as you seem to be partial to the constitutionalists, it is the government's job:
Chapter Five, section II
quote:Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.
I think Sam Adams, John Adams, and James Bowdoin are clear. I also think that better the school and library systems than social services, welfare, emergency healthcare, and the penal system.
posted
Did you miss the part where I said FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S job?
And, I don't live in Massachusetts.
One reason that may be included is that the Founders believed that our government could not survive without a moral and educated people.
If schools are to teach all those things, give us the power to discipline and back us up. But I really rue this brand of socialism in our republic.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did you miss the part where I said FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S job?
I did catch the part where you said it isn't the school's job. As to the breadth of the Adams men's statement,
quote:Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people
it seems they were making a statement about the dictates of democracy, not were narrowly talking about Massachusetts.
quote:One reason that may be included is that the Founders believed that our government could not survive without a moral and educated people.
I agree. Hop to it.
quote:If schools are to teach all those things, give us the power to discipline and back us up.
Well, you don't get to paddle anymore, but short of corporal punishment-- which I'm not sure is the appropriate way to cultivate social affections and generous sentiments-- what kind of power do you want?
quote:But I really rue this brand of socialism in our republic.
Hey, that's not my problem. You've got a job to do, and I'm in support of giving you anything you need to do it, short of a baseball bat or a hickory switch.
posted
Discipline is very often a problem when students don't feel invested in their education. If a student does not see the relevance or use of the topics being covered, then that child will have less interest in sitting through a class period without finding other outlets for his or her amusement.
We do a poor job of getting students invested in education.
The fault of this, however, I do not place on the teacher, but on the system of education we currently abide by.
We expect students to learn standards, which more often than not are not things they use yet in their day to day lives. For instance, multiplication of fractions is wonderful (both in method and concept), but a 12 year old just doesn't find much call for it in their lives.
Those students who value school, and have placed their interest in doing well and achieving academic goals, are the darlings of the classroom. Those students who don't value school as a thing in itself, and have goals that are not academic, tend to be the students lacking in discipline.
I have had a student with a terrible, terrible home life be totally motivated because I was teaching him not to get ripped off by salespeople giving him the wrong change. He could do addition and subtraction of decimals in his sleep.
I have also had students with wonderfully academic parents (teachers, doctors, etc) who didn't give a rat's patootie what went on in the classroom (and, my favorite, didn't care if they got shortchanged, because their parents would give them more money).
We need to increase relevance. If we can accomplish this for all students, then the problems of parental involvement and discipline would lessen tremendously.
Of course, this would take radical school reform, in my opinion. This goal of college preparation is not shared by a great many of our nation's students, so why do we force them through a standard high school regimen of courses?
Why are we closing trade schools and doing away with elective creative arts programs? We should be embracing them.
Students with affinity and interest in music should be taught math, science, literature and social studies using that as a medium. Math could be covered in the music itself, costs of various pieces of equipment, comparison shopping, ticket costs to overhead ratios, personal finance, etc. The science of sound and rhythm, from biological production of voice, to the chemistry and physics of different materials used for instruments. Reading the biographies of great musicians, writing reviews and personal statements, analyzing the works of different composers.
It would all tie back to the subject of interest, and the skills learned would be put into immediate practice.
The same could be done for any of the creative arts or trades, and there could be college preparatory schools right alongside for those students whose interests lie in fields that require advanced degrees.
Why push all students to get a generic high school diploma (which is meaning less and less) when they could learn the same requisite skills and "standards" as applied to a specific field or craft.
Students would be more invested in their education, and would learn more in the long (and short) run.
Of course, the students would go to schools based on field of interest/aptitude rather than on which city/town they lived in. Which would require an entirely new way of funding education (not property taxes). And teachers would need to be trained in entirely different ways, as well.
All the changes of NCLB and the last decade have been rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, as far as I'm concerned. The ship is slowly (rapidly?) sinking, and we're really only making cosmetic changes.
Of course, such drastic change would never happen. [/pipedream]
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We need to increase relevance. If we can accomplish this for all students, then the problems of parental involvement and discipline would lessen tremendously.
Agreed.
But I'll clarify, increasing relevance doesn't necessarily mean teaching them trade skills, although practical skills are part of the bundle. A relevant curriculum includes a curriculum that helps students develop a sense of dignity, then gives them the tools to realize the dictates of their sense of dignity, self-respect, and humanity.
The problem is that creating a standardized test that compliments this curriculum is not a mean issue. If students have a deep sense of dignity, self-respect, humanity, teaching them fractions and the periodic table is much, much easier. In addition, while knowledge of either of those is handy sometimes, a sense of dignity, self-respect, and humanity is appropriate all of the time.
posted
Okay, so I've missed this conversation, but I'm just popping in to say I'm a member of the class of 2008 and NCLB officially sucks, in my opinion.
I would say more, but I have to prepare for the test that begins in two weeks.
Posts: 973 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A relevant curriculum includes a curriculum that helps students develop a sense of dignity, then gives them the tools to realize the dictates of their sense of dignity, self-respect, and humanity.
My cadet unit teaches all those things, though I can't quite pinpoint how, except that the fact that if you don't mature you don't acheieve the next rank. It's almost completely practical, except for about three to five tests per rank. I joined it after having given up on the school system, and thought if school had been like this I would easily have finished.
Of course, it seems the whole system comes down to the fact that rank has its priviliges, and is the perfect incentive to get better. It even puts you into a position of maturity, confidence and leadership (BandoCommando seems to have something a lot like this), because if you don't have those things you lose your rank.
The question is though, could schools use a ranking system for incentives? Or better yet, do military schools use a ranking system for incentives?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that this discussion has begun to branched out into the more general reasoning for education. Perhaps we are seeing the demise of free and public education. The results of NCLB may seem good now, to those who have shown moderate improvement.
Perhaps in 4 years, they'll feel differently. When the % passing becomes too high to manage. I understand the purpose of the belief in accountability, I use it in my classroom on a daily basis. If anything, my 8th grade students will leave with a feeling of responsibility for the actions they take.
The issue is not whether or not the parents should be involved, because education has made their choice that it can be done without them. I for one disagree with this, but I am only one voice.
Too often people in our country sit on our hands because the daily grind interferes. That is something that needs to change. We who speak here are speaking out against a grave mistake, but it takes more than words on a forum.
Someone mentioned early on " But what can we do? Refuse to let children take the tests? Write to our senators and congresspeople? March in the streets? " and my answer is Yes to the last two. Writing congressional representatives may not make a difference if only a few do, but there are millions of teachers in this country. I doubt that the majority of teachers agree with this. As for marching in the streets, perhaps not to that extent, but we can rally our fellow teachers and try to explain to our towns why this is a problem. We can get the word out as people used to do when they saw a problem.
Our society has fallen into the opinion that nothing can be changed because that's how it always has been. We have become distrusting and fearful of making a scene. We sink into television shows to ignore what is going on, and worst of all... We do nothing to change what is thrown at us. We do not fight for what's necessary, because we believe that no one will stand with us. With that, we fail ourselves and those we teach.
Many of us who speak here are educators, we know what it is like to see the enlightening of a student's mind. If we allow NCLB to continue, we won't see that anymore. This is an issue that needs to be stood up to. This is for the future of public education. Without a fight against it, public education will fail, and many will go without the wisdom that they used to receive.
The first step is to get the parents to understand how it is a problem. To remind them that it was the public schools that raised them and gave them their education, and show them that the consequences of not doing this is the failure for their children.
I know this is a long post, but I need it to be understood that we can do things to start the ball rolling, but without a push, we'll just be spectators.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Perhaps we are seeing the demise of free and public education.
Perhaps we need to see the demise of the current free and public education? Education has not been improving, it has been declining for decades. Public education is far from free. Total federal, state, and local spending for education, both public and private, climbed to $745 billion for the 2001-2002 school year. Sixty-one percent, or $454 billion, was spent on K-12 education.
quote: Perhaps in 4 years, they'll feel differently. When the % passing becomes too high to manage.
I would be insanely happy if the problem we were facing is that our schools across the board had this problem. If our public schools were having great difficulty raising the overall test scores from 92% to 95% then we could say what a success public education is. This is not, and will not be a problem if we remove NCLB. Extremely few schools in our nation are suffering from having too high of a % of children passing their tests. Maybe we need to break the monopoly of public education and rebuild a better public educational system.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tell me what has changed from the education system of old? Education has been the same, society has changed.
As well you misinterpreted the quote that you took. The % I was speaking of was the % required by NCLB. If your district is able to get to that point, it will be excessively difficult to increase this percentage to 100%. What then? Should your district be closed because you cannot get 100%? Should your district be restructured despite a 99% passing rate? Those districts that are struggling as it is, due to circumstances that you have chosen to ignore, will fail not due to ineptness of the educational system, but by the demise of the family structure in the United States.
Monopoly you say? No one forces people to attend public school, they can by all means send their children to private school. For the right amount of money. WITHOUT public education the masses would go uneducated and unraised as our society ignores to take responsibility for their youth.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
DK: perhaps you could provide some evidence education has been declining? I've only seen an increase in the percentage of students taking advanced classes, and that normalized tests have had to be continually renormed upwards (one of the most common, false, assertions is that spending has been increasing but students haven't been doing better on standardized tests -- they have, generally, but those standardized tests are renormalized, so the same score a few years later represents more learning, meaning the average score stays about the same despite improvement).
I am at least heartened you're willing to consider a new public educational system as a replacement for this one, which does have significant problems.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Tell me what has changed from the education system of old? Education has been the same, society has changed.
That is one of my points. Why hasn't education changed?
quote: As well you misinterpreted the quote that you took. The % I was speaking of was the % required by NCLB.
Nope I got it. I know what you are talking about. So far that is NOT a problem. The overwhelming majority of schools are not close to 100%. If the problem was as I stated that schools were struggling to improve in the 90% range then we can look at other things. But now, right now and for the next several years, worrying about what will happen if your school can't reach 100% is not an issue. Statewide in PA, we are at 49% for 11th grade math, and 61% for 11th grade reading. We have a long long way to go before worrying what will happen when we reach 95%. Yes, Monopoly I do say. All children are forced to attend school and if they can't afford a private school, they are forced to go to a public school. I did not say in any way to do away with public education. I said in my last line 'rebuild a better public education system'. Just like you said in your opening line, society has changed but public education has not. Public education should change, and change for the better. You are taking that to mean the total destruction of any public school which I am not saying. I am saying that we can do a lot better, especially for the children who need it the most. (edited slightly because I kept doubling words?)
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If about 90% of students attend public school isn't that a monopoly? I would argue that public education is a government funded monopoly. Since we are paying for that monopoly shouldn't we be getting a better public education than we currently have?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Monopoly is an odd word. Colloquially, 90% would typically be considered a monopoly. Economically, it would not. However, the economic definition is not particularly applicable in this case. It isn't necessarily inappropriate to fall back on the colloquial definition, but as the colloquial definition has really no explanatory or prescriptive power (that is, it doesn't tell us anything about why or what, if anything should be done in response), there's not much point.
Regarding whether we should be getting a better public education than we currently have, I suspect that our public educational system is doing just about as well as is possible given other systemic factors. For instance, one can hardly expect a wildly successful public education system in the inner cities given how common extreme inner city poverty is.
And of course, we really aren't paying very much for our public education system, its a remarkably small expenditure for its scope.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is as a percentage of our GDP, DarkKnight. Plus to compare 2 eras, it helps to use a common year currency to compare the two expenditures.
After all, 40 years ago $1million was worth more than it is now. So it's nonsensical to just bring up one dollar amount.
40 years ago we also had higher drop out rates, so the system culled itself of the people who would have brought down those test scores. Also, kids are simply learning more, earlier, than before.
You are just throwing out some numbers and opinions without thinking it through, IMO. The educational system in the USA isn't perfect, but it's very likely the best one in the history of mankind, as far as it's depth AND breadth is concerned. We can do better, but lets not just trash it because it doesn't meet our current expectations.
quote: Perhaps in 4 years, they'll feel differently. When the % passing becomes too high to manage.
I would be insanely happy if the problem we were facing is that our schools across the board had this problem. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Quoting you, quoting me.... IN 4 YEARS, as I said, when the % have increased by another large percentage. Perhaps you forgot.
Education has changed. The majority of the material has not changed. DarkKnight, you agree with NCLB because you have seen improvments. When the percentages increase to the point that it becomes unreasonable, what then? I say as I've said since the beginning, a lower percent is reasonable, 80% perhaps, but not 100%. 100% is illogical and it needs to be altered. Better to get rid of NCLB and put something in place that makes a little more sense.
As far as the cost that you represent, the problem is that we are increasing it to include more technology instead of teaching conceptually as it was done of old. Concepts get students much farther than being able to avoid learning the idea as calculators and computers allow them to do.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note the qualifier: for its scope. Consider that its a program that encompasses at some point or another nearly every person in the entire United States, by far most of them for thirteen years, and quite a few of them for seventeen years.
Consider that its a program turning out some of the most successful students in the world (note: I'm not talking about how they test compared to other students in the world, I'm talking about how they do after finishing school).
Consider that even were the system to just provide daycare for the twenty million children (as of 2000) in the US ages 5 to 9, at a rate of just $100 per week, it would cost fifty billion dollars.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to see this thread die, because I think more needs to be said.
I am looking for ideas that anyone can give to alter NCLB to something that is more logical that I can take to my representatives and to use to promote the change to the masses.
Anything that you can offer will be acknowledged. It must be brought to the attention of the government that NCLB is unreasonable. It must be brought with force by the people, because it needs to stop. The citizens of the United States now feel disillusioned by the government and don't believe that they can make a difference. Help rid our schools of outrageous idealism and help take back something that means everything for our society.
posted
The difficulty, Johivin, is not NCLB - that's just one large and visible problem within a host of other issues. The best metaphor I can use is that the patient is sick, NCLB was incorrectly prescribed as a treatment, and the medication is doing more harm to the patient than good.
Instead of trying to use NCLB to solve the nation's educational ills, there needs to be whole system change. The patient's entire lifestyle/diet/environment/habits/routine must be altered to correctly address the problem.
People sometimes say that the educational system used to work great, and now it doesn't. While there is some debate as to how great the educational system was in the past (especially with regards to race/gender equality), there have been some major changes on both sides of the desk since then.
First and foremost, the goal of the system used to be to buff and polish the classroom gems, give the majority of students adequate skills to find a job, and ignore the students who would "never get it" or pull them from the classroom in one way or another.
Now the goal is to buff and polish every student the same way, be they diamonds (those students who could easily skip a grade or two and still succeed) or granite (those highly resistant, disruptive, don't-care-if-they-pass-or-fail students who may have already stayed back a grade). The unrealistic expectation is that every student can come out glistening the same way, regardless of all the thousands of other factors in their life.
(Just so it doesn't sound too callous, granite is far more useful than diamonds in a great many areas, but not for shining and polishing. Yet all students are expected to achieve academic success, when many would find far greater success training for a career/job rather than studying for college. If we sent every child off to the academy throughout the history of the world, civilization would have collapsed for lack of craftsmen, merchants, farmers, artisans, soldiers, etc. Not all niches of society require advanced academic training.)
The second major change that must be dealt with is in the student and the parents. Parents today are far more leary of authority figures than they were fifty years ago, and most of the parents of today grew up in an era of political corruption and police abuse in the media. There is less trust for teachers than there once was for many segments of our society, and this is reflected in the students.
Further, children have a lot more freedom for self distraction today than they once did. Between the instant ability to communicate via cell phones and the internet, the instant mindless entertainment at their fingertips on their computers or gaming systems, and the infinite mindless viewing options on the internet and television, many students are getting lost in the bright lights.
Sixty years ago, none of this was present in a child's life - and entertainment was limited to a few stations on a television most families didn't own, radio broadcasts (that, quite frankly, built listening skills far more than anything today), physical interaction with their peers outside the house, and reading.
Moreover, the entertainment the students are exposed to validates a defiant attitude towards adults or authority figures, shortens attention spans and tolerance for long periods of sameness, and reduces the acquisition of reading skills.
In short, the student of today is a far different animal than the student of the past.
BUT, does this mean they are inherently less teachable? NO. It just means that the system we've relied upon for generations needs to be altered as drastically as the students it is expected to educate.
To use another analogy, it's as if we're eating at a restaurant that has totally changed its cuisine from soups to steaks, and we're still trying to eat with spoons. The education system needs to adapt by a complete changing of its methods, rather than by trying to sharpen its spoons.
My concern is whether this sort of drastic change is possible. At this point in time, I don't think it is. The politicians are too invested in their current plans, the teachers associations are too entrenched to allow major structural changes, and the system of funding schools is seriously flawed. All three would need to change in order to effect true school reform.
Here's my pipedream.
First step, toss NCLB and the idiotic focus on testing-instead-of-educating to stop the bleeding.
Second step, pay teachers an attractive wage that represents the responsibility they have for educating the next generation of our society (teachers should be able to comfortably afford a house in the town/city they teach in, or a nearby suburb, for instance - which is difficult in many places).
Third step, toss tenure and find a fair way of assessing teacher performance that *does not* include the people they may politically influence in the loop (independent auditors, more frequent observations - i.e. no more one-a-year observations with 24 hour notice that burn-outs can easily wake up for, replace them with random several-times-a-year observations by outside auditors a teacher doesn't know and can't influence).
Fourth step, do away with property tax funding and find an alternate method (tax the people benefiting most from the product of education, maybe those who hire our graduates rather than those who just happen to own property).
Fifth step, drastically overhaul our goals for our students and do away with the unrealistic expectation that all students need to go to college (bring back trade and art schools and develop more career-training/ apprentice programs).
I know, I know. Pipedream. And I'm sure it's got plenty of flaws I haven't seen (I've found many and have ways of accommodating for them, but there are definitely problems I can't foresee).
I'm just tired of all the cosmetic changes we're making to a structurally troubled system.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Free Public Education" (note the capital letters) is as much a pillar of our society as the Constitution (the only one we have. Does that make THAT a monopoly.) or our diverse economy. It needs to be cherished. It is not a failed system. It can be improved, but using it as a political red flag is just wrong on so many levels.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fifth step, drastically overhaul our goals for our students and do away with the unrealistic expectation that all students need to go to college (bring back trade and art schools and develop more career-training/ apprentice programs).
I'm wary of these programs, but if I were convinced that elementary and junior high school reading and writing courses were made rigorous, and reading and writing literature were encouraged, even at these trade schools, I could find myself supporting such a plan.
I can support a plan that did not focus on moving every student to college, but I will not support a plan for education that even insinuates that a person in this state is fully mature without the ability or drive to read and write.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with you on that Irami. Every person should be able to read, write, and calculate - and not just at a simplistic level.
But what we ask our students to read and write is often considered "boring" to them because they have no interest in the material.
Back to the standardized test stuff, we have them read passages about some random topic, then answer questions and write response essays. How is that really helping? Other than drilling them and making reading even less interesting then they found it before?
If a young person decided that they really wanted a career in music, they could attend an art school that specialized in that. But along with the training in their specific talent area, they would also have math, science and literature - but themed to their focus. For instance, a reading list with musicians in mind, that could be used to teach all the same concepts of plot, character, etc... but would have more direct ties to the students lives.
Fractions could be handled with practical application to writing and reading music, and ratios could be covered with chords and instrument pitches - tying the subjects together, with decimals and percentages covered in finance and economics classes for personal investment and planning.
Within this framework, you could also teach students the elements of other parts of the music industry, from being agents to managers to sound technicians to lawyers to producers. And those students who wanted to go to college would still have those requisite skills - but with a musical flavor.
Such schools could be set up for a variety of arts and trades, tailoring curriculum to the interests of that special interest school - rather than teaching a generic curriculum to a broad range of students.
It could work... at least it could in my mind.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this thread it seems that cultural aspect is being overlooked, especially concerning minorities. Some of the most struggling schools that have been mentioned here are filled with minority students.
We've been talking in this thread as if education is a common, homogenous value shared by all Americans. This is not the case. I personally know several Latin parents that have discouraged their children from finishing high school so they can get a job. This was not to help the family out for money, this was because they honestly thought it was the best for their kids or younger siblings. I don't know near as many African-Americans as I do Latin-Americans, but from those few I have talked to and from my attempts to be aware there seems to be an anti-educational cultural pressure present-'going white.'
On the other hand, I saw a statistic about 6 months ago that Asian-Americans outperform their white peers. The Asians I know have always enshrined education with an almost relegious fervor.
My point is, besides economic barriers there are some root cultural issues that need to be addressed. Without support of the parents and the desire of the students to learn, I don't see how we can expect the teachers to succeed, NCLB act or no NCLB act. I just wish I had some good ideas how to approach this.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BaoQingTian, That is an issue that I think many of us are well aware of. The cultural issues. However, that is an issue that is not helped by NCLB. That is an issue that schools have always shied away from. However, the point is that NCLB forces these issues away from discussion and forces the schools to deal with test scores. Once NCLB is no more, maybe we can finally have it out with the parents to show them the value.
Flying Cow,
I agree with many of the things that you say. I agree that education needs to be reformed, however there are some issues I have with your suggestions.
1) With all the money that is being spent in foreign lands on wars and the like, the people will not want to pay more to pay teachers what they deserve. As well, with NCLB still in effect it makes the teachers look less deserving.
2)Without tenure, many districts would simply toss older teachers in favor of new teachers who they can pay less. There is no incentive and its makes the teachers expendible in the minds of school boards and administrators.
3)Companies and people who benefit from people being educated will just find ways to reduce their taxes by hiding their income levels.
4)The biggest problem with bringing back trade schools and apprenticeships is that it allows those who qualify under the 'bad teacher' mentality to simply fail students and attempt to push people into alternatives and away from college. As well personal biases come into place on many levels. I do think that schools need to have a larger variety of "electives" that is larger than is currently applied. As well, make them necessary classes. It allows the students to get a glimpse of different fields without force.
Bring back trade schools, but it has to be on the student's desire, not on the schools. I think that many schools would put undue pressure on students they may dislike to go into these schools to get them away.
quote:1) With all the money that is being spent in foreign lands on wars and the like, the people will not want to pay more to pay teachers what they deserve. As well, with NCLB still in effect it makes the teachers look less deserving.
One, NCLB would have been gone in the first step. Two, with a shift in funding, property taxes would drop significantly, and the money would be coming from other areas. Would the cost of certain products go up? Probably, as the companies tried to offset the education tax.
But, you're right, that it would be more expensive, and people don't like expensive things. This is why Walmart is successful - lower quality for lower price. It's become the American Way.
quote:2)Without tenure, many districts would simply toss older teachers in favor of new teachers who they can pay less. There is no incentive and its makes the teachers expendible in the minds of school boards and administrators.
First of all, there would be no more "districts" in the old sense... because property taxes would not be funding education, the idea of a regional district would be gone. There would be overarching administration for like-themed schools, but not on a town by town basis.
Second, take the firing of teachers out of the hands of the building supervisors. Set up an independent system of auditors who observe teachers frequently throughout the year without notice, with short post-interviews of teachers after each observation.
The auditors would be given a rubric of things to look for and an evaluation form to fill out. They would see several teachers every day, so that by the end of even just one year, you have auditors who have seen thousands of different teachers.
Moreover, these auditors would rotate regionally, not returning to the same school in the same year. This way, the auditors have a reduced amount of contact with building politics, and would even be evaluating the administration while in-building.
The way observations stand now, even the worst teacher in the world can whip up a "one day only" lesson plan given notice and execute it to the letter. To burnout teachers, observations are a joke - just a show to be put on once a year.
With ten or more unannounced observations in a year on record, you can see a trend. Gone would be the teachers whose lesson plans consist of "what video while I show today" and gone would be the teachers who never have any control over their classrooms.
The independent auditors would make determinations after every year based on reviews, and would put teachers on warning after a year of bad observations. The second year's observations would be decisive as to whether that teacher continued on in that capacity.
With higher salaries all around, there would be more candidates to choose from to replace the poor teachers.
But, again, this is still all pipe dreaming, because the associations would never on their best day allow this to happen. It would mean dropping their favorite weapon and shield, no matter how inefficient and obsolete they are.
quote: 3)Companies and people who benefit from people being educated will just find ways to reduce their taxes by hiding their income levels.
I'm not an economist, so I don't know how this part would be handled, quite honestly. One method would be to give them an easy way of avoiding this tax - sponsor a school. If a corporation sponsors a school (or schools), they could defer this cost from their taxes.
Microsoft and Intel could easily sponsor technical schools and provide them with all manner of resources, money, training and equipment. Ford, Chevy and Jeep could sponser mechanical schools in much the same way. Music production companies could sponsor music schools, and huge finance firms could sponser college mathematics prep schools.
This is the stickiest wicket I've got, since I know very little about economics. I'd imagine that as good as the economists the corporations have to hide money, there could be economists just as good to close the loopholes. But I'm in the dark in this area for now.
quote: 4)The biggest problem with bringing back trade schools and apprenticeships is that it allows those who qualify under the 'bad teacher' mentality to simply fail students and attempt to push people into alternatives and away from college. As well personal biases come into place on many levels.
The "simply failing" students would all be handled by the independent auditors, obviously, and teachers who "just fail" students would be weeded out by that process.
The hope is that this "you must go to college or you'll never amount to anything" mentality would change or go away, and the "you should find a field you will enjoy and succeed in and work towards that goal" mentality would reign supreme.
Real counselors at the middle and high school level would be needed to help students assess their goals and choose the themed schools they wish to *apply* to. Obviously, some poeple might want to be musicians but have no musical talent whatsoever (watch American Idol), so such a school would have an audition process. Each of the various schools would have some minimum requirement for entry.
This would also call for shorter term remediated schools that could help catch up those students who fell far behind in early grades. Two year schools to give them the requisite reading and mathematics skills they missed, and to help them choose a four year secondary program that suits them best.
posted
Here's another pipedream I wanted to throw out while I was on the issue of fantasy education.
I came to a few understandings while I taught these past four years.
The first was that students learn at different levels - we already do this, breaking these levels into grades - and some schools breaking them further into accelerated programs and remedial programs.
The second was that we need to teach students at different levels to maximize their performance. Teaching students concepts that are either above or beneath them does not help their progress.
The third was more a realization than an understanding, but, and this is important, *student learning level does not correspond to biological age*. So, this forced me to ask the question, why do we force fit students into age group learning levels when their ability clearly is not at the level of their same-age peers?
Sure, some students skip a grade, and some are left back. But these are extreme cases. There are plenty of sixth grade students operating on a fifth or fourth grade level, and plenty more operating on a seventh or eighth grade level. But they aren't so far ahead or behind to warrant a full year move into a goup of students at a socially different age - they would be the odd one out.
Here's my next pipedreamish proposal.
Instead of having eight grades of primary/middle school that promote their students each June, why not have twenty grades with flexible promotion at any point during the year?
Traditional first grade material would be covered in levels 1-3, lets say - but many students could easily enter the school at level 3 based on preliminary testing and kindergarten performance. Similarly, sixth grade students may be anywhere from 13-15, with low performing students maybe around 12 and higher performing students up around 16.
Students could learn at their own pace, and have intermediate goals set where they could push forward without waiting until the following September.
Even more, there could be varying levels for differing subjects. A student could be a level 12 math, but a level 8 language. Or a student could be a level 15 language but a level 9 math. The standard would be that every student would need to hit, say, level 16 in both areas before moving on to their choice of secondary school.
I know, I know, before you say it, this would be a logistical nightmare, and would require a whole host of teachers to accomplish. Plus, it would drastically change socialization of students - though I'm not sure if that's a bad thing.
Just wanted to throw it out there.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1) With all the money that is being spent in foreign lands on wars and the like, the people will not want to pay more to pay teachers what they deserve. As well, with NCLB still in effect it makes the teachers look less deserving.
Money being spent anywhere else in the world is not the problem, never has been. There is no lack of money in education. Education is absolutely swimming in money. The problem is where the money is being spent. I know most of you won't believe me, but take a look at your schools spending, I mean it's actual spending. You should be able to see the School Board books or reports or whatever you call them, it's a Public school so I think in most states it will all be Public knowledge. Ask them to see the financial part of it, or really the whole thing as you can learn quite a bit. My first guess is that you will meet with great opposition because they do not want you to know where and how that money is being spent, nor how much they are truly spending. The people have NO say in how much teachers are paid. That is the between the teachers union and the school board. The public is not asked to give the teachers a raise or not. It is not voted on by the public. So the teacher pay issue is a union/management issue and not a people are tired of paying for things issue.
quote: 2)Without tenure, many districts would simply toss older teachers in favor of new teachers who they can pay less. There is no incentive and its makes the teachers expendible in the minds of school boards and administrators.
I don't think you have any proof of this? This is just what you think might happen. It is very naive to think that just because they can pay new teachers less they will fire all the veteran teachers. Removing tenure will allow Principals to take more action against the few (please note I said few, as in not many at all) teachers who are not cut out to be teachers. The teachers already have unions to protect them, they do not also need tenure. You cannot just up and fire a teacher because they have been there for 10 years or 20 years. This is why there is a Teachers Union, that is more than enough protection against unjust firings. Tenure should be immediately removed. Granted, this is my opinion, but it seems like a rational one. Removing tenure will do no harm to the below average, average and above average teachers. It may make things simpler to remove the small minority of teachers who are simply not working out.
quote: 3)Companies and people who benefit from people being educated will just find ways to reduce their taxes by hiding their income levels.
I'm unsure of what you are trying to say for this one...
quote: 4)The biggest problem with bringing back trade schools and apprenticeships is that it allows those who qualify under the 'bad teacher' mentality to simply fail students and attempt to push people into alternatives and away from college. As well personal biases come into place on many levels. I do think that schools need to have a larger variety of "electives" that is larger than is currently applied. As well, make them necessary classes. It allows the students to get a glimpse of different fields without force.
I think public trade schools would be a great thing. College is overrated and specialized courses can benefit many students more than college. Of course, this could be because I never went to college, and have had many family memebers who went to trade schools instead of college. But then again, I do have siblings who attended college and are also doing very well. NCLB is the only thing that has ever attempted to ensure that all children are receiving an adequate education. Completely doing away with NCLB would do more harm than good. At least with standards based education you know exactly what your children are learning, as opposed to the "Trust us, they are learning" mentality that exists out there
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Johivin, I agree with you. Perhaps my post did not come off as clear as I would have liked, but I was attempting to point out that lack of acknowledgement of cultural factors is a major blindspot of the NCLB act and that ignoring this one factor alone could doom it to failure (or if it is to survive it would need to be so drastically altered as to not even be the same bit of legislation).
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am impressed by your ideas. Very innovative and intriguing. Your new educational system is very interesting to me.
A small issue regarding your new grades. What do you do with those students who are not capable of passing the level no matter what.
As it stands now, there are students up to the age of 21 who are allowed to continue in a school district. The issue is that these students are below the requirements but are pushed ahead because of their grades. How would you be able to balance student level with age?
Its a major blindspot because people refuse to acknowledge that which is of significance. Why pay attention to the cultural and economic issues that plague the students and rather focus on why the students aren't passing tests? Its sickening.
I find a bigger problem is the decline of the family structure and the fact that our society has focused more on the Me, Myself, and I mentality.
posted
Johivin, we have that problem now, with students who can't keep up or learn the material, but they are pushed on because of the fear of the social concerns. Having a lone fifteen year old in a class of 13 or 12 year olds makes that student a social abnormality.
If levels are not equated to age, every level would have a mixing of several students in it. The exceptionally bright student would not seem so out of place among an entire class of older students, because each micrograde would have a spattering of students over several age years.
If a student can't grasp the idea of division or parts of a greater whole, they will never be able to understand fractions or decimals, let alone basic algebra. Unfortunately, those students who have a very poor grasp of this concept are socially promoted to the point where you have seventh and eighth graders who haven't the faintest idea how to divide.
And these students may score proficient on their fourth, fifth and sixth grade standardized assessments, but then drop below to partially proficient in seventh and eighth grades. But by then, it's almost too long ago to go back and address the problem - because they will then miss out on all the new topics needed for the ninth grade assessment.
Topics that they won't understand, either.
Holding a student in a micrograde until they master the concept helps address this, as the student is not pressured to learn by a certain deadline. If they start micrograde 9 in May, they'll continue in micrograde 9 in September - it's not a matter of squeezing in curriculum for all students so you can move on.
Of course, the whole two months off for summer break is a little wonky, too, and I've heard coworkers of mine come up with very viable trimester systems of three months on, one month off. This could also help lessen the stigma of students only having to learn from Sept-June... it would be an ongoing thing with a regular cycle.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its a major blindspot because people refuse to acknowledge that which is of significance
This isn't so much of a blindspot, but a spot education can't easily reach. It's not ignored, but it's not something schools can properly address.
You get to see students, on average, about 40 minutes per day after primary school is over. The remaining 1420 minutes, they aren't in your classroom. Students are in school, on average, 400 minutes per day. The remaining 1040 hours, they are at home.
The culture of school impacts them less than one third of their average day, and less than 15% of their time over the course of a year. (based on 400 minutes per day over a 180 day school year)
The culture of their homes impacts them more than 85% of the time, and is one of the most important determiners of academic success.
Now, a large part of this home culture is racial/ethnic, but an equally large part is economic. Other factors include family dysfunction, number of parents at home each day, number of children in the house, interaction with other relatives and the neighborhood, etc.
Students come into school with emotional matched luggage on a forklift, and teachers are expected to somehow get around this massive wall of home-life and impart academic knowledge and understanding.
If the home baggage encourages students to embrace what a teacher is providing, there is a higher chance of success. If the home baggage does not encourage students to embrace education or actively ignores or works against it, then there is a lower chance of student success.
In 40 minutes, it's exceedingly difficult to surmount home based cultural obstacles.
Over the course of a year, you can develop relationships with your students and start to undo any damage that may have been done to their academic potential at home - but that takes a lot of time both inside and outside of the classroom, and it's on an individual basis.
When I had 80 students for a year, and taught the *same* 80 students the following year in the next grade, I developed very strong relationships and found ways to get students over these obstacles. I knew them, I knew their parents, we worked together.
When I had 130 students for a single year that I would never teach again, the forging of those relationships with each student was exceedingly difficult. I may have successfully reached 5 or 10 students who were blocked by their home lives, and I considered that a success.
So many of the remaining 130 I knew only superficially. I didn't even know what was going on at home, let alone had the ability to help the students past it.
While it is a factor that must be kept in mind, Johivin, it's not something that is easily addressed or corrected. Maybe I should throw on another step to my pipedream of community outreach and parent education, and home visitation by professionals who can help teach parents to better facilitate their children's growth.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your pipedream is one that is logical. I think that your first step after NCLB should be the community outreach/parent education.
It may not be an easy reach, but it is a necessary one. It is a key one if one hopes to be able to educate the students. Their day begins and ends at home, yet little is done to extend our reach to the parents. It is a societal problem.
Few make the attempt, so it is being ignored. It is being seen as something beyond school control, but its impact is felt severely in the schools. Something must be done and done soon.
As for your first response. The issue for me is that you must also throw in the students beliefs of where they should be. If a student is 15 in a class of 13 year olds, they will have a serious time coping with that. To know that your peers are 2 'levels' ahead of you is a great detriment to a student's mental state in the same regards as if a students is two grades behind their peers age level. There will always be some relationship between grade or level and the student's age.
quote:Why are we closing trade schools and doing away with elective creative arts programs? We should be embracing them.
Students with affinity and interest in music should be taught math, science, literature and social studies using that as a medium. Math could be covered in the music itself, costs of various pieces of equipment, comparison shopping, ticket costs to overhead ratios, personal finance, etc. The science of sound and rhythm, from biological production of voice, to the chemistry and physics of different materials used for instruments. Reading the biographies of great musicians, writing reviews and personal statements, analyzing the works of different composers.
It would all tie back to the subject of interest, and the skills learned would be put into immediate practice.
The same could be done for any of the creative arts or trades, and there could be college preparatory schools right alongside for those students whose interests lie in fields that require advanced degrees.
Why push all students to get a generic high school diploma (which is meaning less and less) when they could learn the same requisite skills and "standards" as applied to a specific field or craft.
Students would be more invested in their education, and would learn more in the long (and short) run.
Of course, the students would go to schools based on field of interest/aptitude rather than on which city/town they lived in. Which would require an entirely new way of funding education (not property taxes). And teachers would need to be trained in entirely different ways, as well.
All the changes of NCLB and the last decade have been rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, as far as I'm concerned. The ship is slowly (rapidly?) sinking, and we're really only making cosmetic changes.
I agree with what you are saying. I think a more feasible way of dealing with these issues is if schools can change the way teachers and students relate to one another, particularly in secondary schools.
Right now, the normal secondary school student has about 7 different classes with 7 different teachers. They have each teacher for an hour and classes may or may not relate to eachother in any way. After the year is over they move on and have a whole new set of teachers and classes. Correspondingly, each teacher may have over 100 students, and will have a new set each year.
As a result, I think it is difficult for any teacher to get to know any student very well, and vice versa. Teacher's often do get to know student well as they relate to the subject that teacher is teaching, but they do not really see the big picture of a student. Similarly, while students can look to each subject teacher to help in that particular subject, there is normally no teacher that a student can relate to and rely upon in a more general way. Some students develop such relationships, but I suspect most do not.
I think this causes students to be largely isolated in figuring out what they are supposed to do with their education. For those whose parents are not helpful enough to them, or who are not on good terms with their parents, or who have parents who do not share their interests, I think these students are probably a bit adrift. There is often no single person who shares their interests who can be a model for them. At best they have a counselor or advisor (normally randomly assigned) who takes a few hours (or less) a semester to help guide their path. Given this, I think it is no surprise that many students are unmotivated - without someone helping them tie their interests to their education, and without people modeling how education can help them achieve what they hope to achieve, they should not all be expected to see that connection between education and their own individual goals.
My idea would be to drasticly alter the teacher-student relationship, more towards the elementary school model, in which students have a single teacher. Each student should have a teacher that is their primary teacher, much more so than the sort of in-name-only advisor I had when I was in high school, whom I saw very rarely. The goal should be to match them up by interest areas, rather than random assignments. Students who have a strong interest in music should be assigned to a similar teacher. And then a program of study should be built around those interests. The trouble is that a music teacher is not normally qualified to also teach every other subject, so it would still be necessary to have multiple teacher teaching multiple subjects. But, once students are grouped by interest and organized by one primary teacher, they could be moved from class to class as a group, rather than having each individual go separately to entirely different schedules. This would allow subject teachers to know the interest areas of the group they are teaching. If the history teacher knew that period 2 consists of students focused on music, he or she could work to develop an appropriate way of teaching to kids with that particular interest. It should be viewed more as similar to the football coach sending the football team to a weight training coach, with football as the focus of the wieght training.
These are just some thoughts... I'm not sure how well such an idea could be implemented, but I think it would be at least feasible within the current infrastructure. It would definitely entail teachers completely altering the way they approach things, however. If you don't do that, you are just making cosmetic changes to the school. The idea is to ultimately change the focus of a student, from viewing school as series of often unrelated hoops to jump through, to viewing school as a means of furthering their own interests - and to do so by having teachers that share their interests work more closely with them to unify their education and show students how that education does further those interests. The goal should be to provide students with at least one mentor with shared interests within the school to guide them through the tools that schools provides them, rather than drop them in a factory-like system and hope the student figure out on his own how to apply education to his own interests.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
