posted on July 7, 2002 04:15:59 PM new
Is it the curricula, the complacency of some teachers and the related problem of tenure, the lack of parental involvement, the many negative influences on the kids, or some other factor(s)?
posted on July 7, 2002 04:31:48 PM new
Everything you mention is a factor, no single major cause can ever be singled out, IMO. You did however forget to mention small minded, job fearful, inept administrators who have been promoted to the level of their incompetence, ignorant school board members who view their school's success thru it's football team, and state legislators who are so busy robbing peter to pay paul that there isn't any funding left over for the testing and programs that they mandate to the schools...
posted on July 7, 2002 04:33:51 PM new
All of the above, but not necessarily at all schools. Also class size, political meddling,promotion of sports at the expense of academics, outmoded science labs,peer pressure to not suceed, etc.
posted on July 7, 2002 05:07:11 PM new
all of the things you mention factor into it. But there is also the fact that, comparitively, education just isn't valued in this country. Sports are more celebrated in schools than scholarship is. Teachers are undervalued and underpaid. The cult of "self-esteem" has become deeply entrenched and is undermining our kids at an alarming rate--they are learning that they have to put forth no real effort and that cheating is OK.
Class size isn't the problem. *How* we teach is. And it wouldn't hurt at all if we had a standardized national curriculum. Not that that has a hope in Hell of happening (hey, alliteration!).
posted on July 7, 2002 05:18:59 PM new
On the school side of things, I think that profe51 hits it right on the nose! From those points alone, one can extrapolate any number of fruitful lines of greivences including inept teachers, old textbooks, and maintainance problems.
IMO, the problem with our schools are the PARENTS as the first line of troubles. Certainly, the parent or parents that can encourage kids to read by they themselves reading - those that can find the time, to enjoy doing homework, to enjoy learning and participating in educational activities are not in the minority. However, the parent that thinks that it is all up to the schools to turn their ignorant kid into a educated adult are sadly mistaken and are often at the root of many problem kids, not the least is that parents often do not have the time to participate. Some argue that if parents simply gave up on modern comveinences, one parent could support while the other raises the kids. That's another dissscuion, but I brought it up because so many think that parents who do not have the time for their kid's educational development are just wasteful consumerists. Maybe, but I doubt it.
I say that to fix things up, we need first to educate the parents in how to educate their kids, and then fix up the schools and update the textbooks. That would be an adequate start. Once you have those things, THEN you can begin to "punish" schools for failing.
posted on July 7, 2002 05:22:34 PM new
MY big question here is "what are the schools (private or public) supposed to be achieving ?". Are we expecting all A+ students?, do we anticipate every graduate to immediately get a job ?, are all students supposed to go to college?. We have to agree on how the schools are to be measured before we declare their product to be inadequate.
Remember, we do need laborers, grounds keepers, as much as dentists, and lawyers. We have more scientists alive today than have lived in the previous 500 years (or something like that). Our standard of living continues to increase and we have social programs that generally serve the poor. Schools don't seem to have failed.
posted on July 7, 2002 05:37:52 PM new
Borillar: thank you...a teacher who blames parents will be accused of abdicating his own responsibilites....and some who do, are...but consider this....on parent conference night...ask the average teacher what parents show up for conferences.....you'll find that the majority of parents who BOTHER to come, are the ones you DON'T need to see, because their kids are doing so well....why are they doing so well? because they know their parents support them, they CARE....
posted on July 7, 2002 05:58:39 PM newsuspector: the goal of our schools is to enable kids to become productive, contributing members of society. No, no all kids are college material. But how will we(or they) *know* whether or not college is in their future without a solid education? And the ability to think and reason that education provides. Math, science, art, music, etc. etc. etc. should not be the sole province of those who are college bound in any case.
posted on July 7, 2002 06:03:00 PM new
It doesn't take a special insight to see where the problem begins. I used to donate my time on the weekends to help emotionally disturbed children. I discovered all too soon that kids were pliable and willing to learn if they trusted you. What always sabotaged those kids weren't their memories and experiences, but their own parents and other family members. I saw those good values taught to those kids purposely sabotaged by those parents in a struggle for power and dominance over those kids. Because for them, their kids getting better meant that their kids weren't fully under their control and they turned around to re-exert their control by purposely sabotaging and undoing all the good that I tried and the program tried to do. I eventually gave up, not because the kids were at fault, but because the parents and family *wanted* their kids to grow up badly! And in light of this, the parents refused to spend any time with their kids, and absolutely refused to help their kids out with homework and failed to participate in their kids lives in any meaningful way. I realized that if you truly want to help out thjose kids to get straigtened out and to get a proper education, you had to deal with the parents and/or family first, before you can even begin to address the learning aspects of the kids. I'm not saying that these were parents in the majority wehatsoever - certainly they were a minority. but to many parents are working multiple jobs being waitresses, janitors, gardners, rough laborers, etc. that there is simply no time left over for the kids at the end of the day. All that adds up too.
I also agree that what we need to do first for the schools is to define what we want to produce from our schools. I vote for a two-tiered approach. Instead of simply teaching these kids how to be good little employees, we also ought to be teaching them how to become self-sufficient businesspeople and entreprenuers. Think about if in the future the factory closes in town and they get laid off from the job, or get injured on the job. Instead of permanent taxpaid welfare systems, they could simply start up their own little business and keep themselves off of the dole. But that seems too much to ask of our system of taxpayers.
posted on July 7, 2002 06:08:42 PM new
that is more than a bit simplistic. It is not feasible to expect every employee disenfranchised by a failed employer to "start their own business and keep themselves off the dole." That simply wouldn't work.
Edited to say: a more feasible idea that *has* worked is that such employees *buy* the failed business and run it themselves.
[ edited by bunnicula on Jul 7, 2002 06:10 PM ]
posted on July 7, 2002 06:16:11 PM new
I wish to hell my kid would go to sleep already. After reading me three poems (that was the deal) he's now reading in the dark.
I guess I'll do a quick hairwash in the kitchen sink...
posted on July 7, 2002 06:17:47 PM new
Hi bunnicula! I read that part as saying we need to teach our children to have alternatives and not just be good at one thing.
posted on July 7, 2002 06:30:38 PM new
How about the effect of single parent families where the parent has virtually no energy left after working full time and taking care of all the chores to read or otherwise spend quality time with their kid(s)? Or the effect of so many distractions like computers, e-mail, video games, cd's etc? Or tenured teachers who have virtually total job security and unions that block efforts to test teachers periodically to see that their skills have not eroded or that their knowledge is up to date?
Recap- What should be taught is always debated. Which tools/textbooks to use is debated. How to teach is debated. How to test is debated. School prayer, extra curricular activities= no consensus. The only common denominator is parental involvement and yet some have neither the time nor the skills. I suspect there is much less debate in Japan and other countries.
posted on July 7, 2002 06:37:31 PM new
>>How about the effect of single parent families where the parent has virtually no energy left after working full time and taking care of all the chores to read or otherwise spend quality time with their kid(s)?<<
Uh-huh. What about them?
Single-mother By Choice 24x7x"Six and three quarters"
posted on July 7, 2002 06:40:49 PM new"that is more than a bit simplistic. It is not feasible to expect every employee disenfranchised by a failed employer to "start their own business and keep themselves off the dole." That simply wouldn't work." (emphesis mine)
posted on July 7, 2002 07:07:54 PM newBorillar: Why? Because a) an economy made up entirely of retailers would soon sink; b) even if that *would* work, the fact is that 80% of all new businesses fail within the first year, leaving them "on the dole" again; and c) most people have neither the inclination nor the "business smarts" to run their own business.
kraftdinner: a well-rounded education *does* provide alternatives. If kids aren't exposed to a wide variety of thoughts/ideas/things, then they don't know what is out there for them.
posted on July 7, 2002 08:54:36 PM new
I find that there is more wrong with the school systems than that which many have identified.
The model of our school system is basically patterned on a mass production industrial/agricultural economy, which really doesn't efficiently exist in the US anymore, at least not in the manner our schools are based on.
The school calendar is based on the planting, cultivating and harvesting of crops. The teaching environment and the need for uniform behavior and actions are based on assembly line production workers.
Setting in a room, learning as a mass group the same material is how the old economy demanded their future workers be trained. They needed people to remain at their position on the assembly line and perform a task repeatedly all day long. They are not asked to think, but only to learn how to do a task repeatedly.
Two of the most important things not taught is schools are politics and economics. Why ? These are two things that a worker doesn't need to know, or perhaps his future employers don't want him/her to know.
Schools are not producing independent thinkers, or those that would consider creating their own businesses, but rather they are modeled to produce low maintenance production workers that will follow directions, just as they are expected to do in the schools.
The US has the best college education models in the world. The reason many students aren't ready for college is because the colleges have moved far beyong the models of the primary schools.
Reading is supposed to be essential in our culture, but you'd be surprised how many literate people function quite well without really reading anything for months at a time. Reading used to be essential for entertainment, especially for children, but not so anymore.
A new model is needed, but I doubt that I'll see it in my lifetime.
posted on July 7, 2002 09:16:02 PM new
Bunni, it wouldn't be an economy made up entirely of retailers. :0 There would always be employees, professionals, tradesmen, laboroers, etc. You're being silly!
posted on July 7, 2002 09:55:27 PM new
The fact is in this area is that what schools are focused on is how much they can suck out of the local community they dont give a rats ass about the kids.
Morons passing who cant read a ruler do not know history geography or anything related to surviving in a modern enviorment.
Hordes of illegals being dumped in oour schools then demanding to have and getting special classes.
politically correct garbage that passes as an education.
Like our wonderful president going to Milwaukee to say what a great school rufus king is I went there he is just about the worst fool have seen I dont think this guy is a pimple on an educated persons ass.
posted on July 8, 2002 03:49:35 AM new
Borillar: Why? Because a) an economy made up entirely of retailers would soon sink~
There is a lot more than retail to go into!
I have had a plumbing business an office cleaning business and a window washing business that also power vacuumed parking lots at night.
There are auto mechanics - all the construction trades and services such as heating and air cond. - thousands of little one man machine shops - yard and landscaping services - computer service and repair all the arts and crafts such as potters and jewelers - lots of people who make a good living doing tailoring and repair - Pool installers and cleaners - free lance advertising and graphics - truck farmers - snow removal.
I have a friend who for years polished and serviced plastic molds as a one man business and now he does executive recruiting from his home as a living. I have another friend that makes kitchen cabinets and installs them from a one man shop.
The possibilities are vast of you have a little imagination - and we have not even touched private instruction as a tutor of acedemic subjects or in sports such as scuba - golf - gymnastics - equestrian and in the musical instruments - working as a performer in music - dance - comedy - movies.
It is true my schools never presented any idea but that you grew up and went off to work for somebody else. They never even encouraged the professions like a lawyer or a doctor. They certainally never gave any priority to the tools one needed to formulate a business plan and make it work. They never talked about the banking system even to talk about how to make out a check. Nobody ever spoke about the SBA or had small business people in to talk to us.
[ edited by gravid on Jul 8, 2002 03:57 AM ]
posted on July 8, 2002 07:59:18 AM new
You have to recall that there was a time when those that did not work on a farm had to survive with their own little trade business. The typical employee was an apprentace who eventually set up his own little shop or took over the existing one. That would qualify as an economy made up of retailers and it worked fine for thousands of years.
However, my point, which you want to keep being silly at, is that we do not train our kids to become entreprenuers. Here, in the world's First Best Place to start up your own business, we create a nation of wage slaves. Sad.
posted on July 8, 2002 08:43:47 AM new
you might want to re-read your post--I responded to what *you* said. BTW, in that "there was a time" you speak of that last for "thousands of years" the *majority* of the population was subverviant to a small but powerful ruling class, in a system that kept folks "in their place." Breaking into those apprenticeships you tout was difficult and guild systems ruled with an iron hand. And those apprenticeships lasted for a minimum of 7 years, with no pay, in conditions dictated by the master--and you couldn't just walk away from the job if you didn't like it. Apprentices were flogged if they ran away. Of course, one could always become a servant though, again, conditions were often bad (employers could & did dictate whether or not servants could marry,low pay, food quality, etc.). Those times weren't really all you crack them up to be, unless one belonged to the nobility. And the outlook was even dimmer for the female half of the population.
The truth is, unless one is willing to be totally self-sufficient, growing their own food, making their own tools/clothes, etc., or is independently wealthy, *everyone* is a "wage slave." Doctors, lawyers, scientists, presidents, whatever--all are working for a wage.
You make it sound like a shameful thing to work. To earn wages. To start at the bottom and work your way up. The real strength of our country is that people *can* start with nothing and through hard work have it all. And one of the real troubles we have is that so many kids think work is beneath them, that they are above it somehow. That they should start at the top or they won't bother at all. The son of one of my friends believes just that. He only wants to do what he wants to do when he wants to do it. As a result he never does anything. He's incredibly bright, but at 22 he's had to move back home, having dropped out of college, tried the military but left in a huff when they actually expected him to follow orders, and able to work only in low & low-paid positions because he is qualified for nothing else. He speaks of becoming a librarian like myself (he has done best in a library page/assistant position), but I know that that will never come to be--he'd have to get a Masters degree & that would entail getting a Bachelor's degree first. He doesn't have that much work ethic. See? That four-letter word "work" pops up in every profession or walk of life.
posted on July 8, 2002 10:39:26 AM newAnd one of the real troubles we have is that so many kids think work is beneath them, that they are above it somehow. That they should start at the top or they won't bother at all.
I believe that this is the chief problem in education today. It's what I've referred to before as the soccer mom and dad syndrome, which is a shift in attitude with the majority of middle class parents. When speaking of educational values and goals, they speak the same language as earlier generations, but their behavior in specific instances consistently contradicts their professed beliefs. Many specific behaviors can be considered here, but the chief one that impedes progress is that they value their child's immediate happiness, self-esteem, above any struggling, any frustration, which will inevitably accompany a challenging curriculum and the ability to achieve intellectual self-discipline in problem-solving. Not all parents have that attitude toward life but it has been the predominant one for at least two decades now and those parents who would really like for their children to be well-educated have the added burden of having to try to fight the influences of peer pressure. Education has become just another consumer product in many respects. The schools supply what the parents demand.
posted on July 8, 2002 02:57:13 PM new
antiquary said:
"... the chief one that impedes progress is that they value their child's immediate happiness, self-esteem, above any struggling, any frustration, which will inevitably accompany a challenging curriculum and the ability to achieve intellectual self-discipline in problem-solving."
when a teacher asks to conference with parents regarding either a behavioral or an academic matter, the parents often come into the meeting with the attitude "what have you done (or not done) to make my child misbehave (or fail )?"
On the part of many parents these days there seems to be much more focus on blame rather than resolution. Having said that, those kids who do well nearly always have parents who are proactive, who have set very high expectations for them, and who know that sometimes the best lessons are the ones that don't feel so good........
posted on July 8, 2002 05:14:47 PM new
Speaking from a parent's viewpoint, I have been very happy with the schools in my neighborhood. We live in a wealthy county in which most parents are as well educated or better educated than the teachers. As a result, there is a level playing field between parents and teachers. The condescending attitude that I felt last night on another education thread just does not exist in my school system between parents and teachers. My childrens's teachers were all courteous, conscientious and sociable. I can honestly say that I never met a teacher that I didn't like and respect. Parent - teacher conferences were social events .
So, I am trying to understand your defensive attitude and how you believe that parents are causing the problem that you are having with your curriculum. Are you referring to immigrant and native ameican cultural differnces that may affect your interaction with the parents?
posted on July 8, 2002 07:03:44 PM new
Helen- Although I am eager to hear profe51's response, I can't wait for it in light of your continued jaded, tunnelvision-filled posts. Do you, as a supposedly educated person, really think that the party atmosphere you enjoy in your affluent neighborhood's schools is typical of parent-teacher relationships in the other 90-95% of the country's regions? Prior to my career in the medical field, I was a national director of educational services for two major academic publishing companies. During a 20 year career, I visited over 10,000 preschools, 500 public schools and 200 private schools in some of the country's wealthiest and poorest cities. I would spend the entire day with teachers and administrators. I was NEVER in a school where EVERY teacher was courteous, conscientious and sociable. Some of the worst discipline problems existed in the most affluent areas. Many of the kids were arrogant, spoiled and constantly challenged the teachers. The parents would often blindly question the teachers' attempts at control. Are your rose-colored glasses so thick that you can't even conceive of this? "...Immigrant and native American cultural differences..."? OF COURSE! And socio-economic snobbishness! And socio-economic over-compensation and charges of rascism! Education is an unquestioned success in relatively few cities. WAKE UP HELEN!!!!!!!!
posted on July 8, 2002 07:18:55 PM new
Calm down, "stusi"
I'm not here to fight with anyone. I am just trying to understand something that I have never experienced. My previous post is sincere.
I helped with classroom trips and other activities throughout the years that my children were in school. I attended every parent teacher conference and I never saw the chaotic problems that you describe.
posted on July 8, 2002 07:25:02 PM new
If you are fortunate enough to have a bright, well-disciplined kid who does not get bullied you may actually have little reason to question anything. How many parents do you think fall into this category?
posted on July 8, 2002 07:43:03 PM new
Actually "stusi", I am most concerned with the attitude that has been evidenced here toward parents. They are either accused of dictating policy or involved in blaming teachers for problems that occur.
They are even found at fault when they want their children to be happy and have self esteem.
Profe51 states..."
the best lessons are the ones that don't feel so good..."
