posted on February 22, 2003 11:25:41 AM new
"Public schools are run by the National Educational Association. They are not run by people you can hold accountable, such as teachers, superintendents and school boards. The NEA opposes merit pay, charter schools, and any decision by any school administrator that has not been determined in advance by collective bargaining. Simply put, the NEA opposes everything except its own power.
"...Meanwhile, kids aren't learning. The vocabulary of the average American
14-year-old has dropped from 25,000 words to 10,000. San Francisco Examiner reporter Emily Gurnon asked teenagers to identify the country from which America won its independence. Among the answers: 'Japan or something, China. Somewhere out there on the other side of the world.' 'It wouldn't be Canada, would it?' 'I don't know; I don't even, like, have a clue.' 'I want to say Korea. I'm tripping.'
"...The problem, says (author Peter) Brimelow, is that the NEA is the backbone of the Democratic Party and public education is a government monopoly. . . . If the NEA is to be undone, its undoing will come from parents and teachers deserting the schools. Homeschoolers, without benefit of fancy facilities, science labs, and huge expenditures of money, outscore public school students."
posted on February 22, 2003 01:00:19 PM new
My question is "Why do right-wingers always insist that the solution to any problem is to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why do they not propose a known-good, tested and proven to be better solution to immediately put into place any system that they are replacing? Instead, like with the recent attacks on Affirmative Action, it's always to simply trash the existing system and to replace it with either an unproven, cockamamie special-interest idea or with nothing at all!"
posted on February 22, 2003 06:29:26 PM new
Why is it left wingers spend 10 billion and get 10 kids to read, then theorize that "for 20 billion we can at least get TWENTY kids to read".
You throw it out because it doesn't work. More education dollars go down a rathole than most programs. Tenure and decentralization breed a fierce, inpenetrable mediocrity.
posted on February 22, 2003 07:28:47 PM new
" "Public schools are run by the National Educational Association. They are not run by people you can hold accountable, such as teachers, superintendents and school boards."
I've been an educator for many years. The above statement is a load of hogwash.A gross oversimplification. I have never belonged to the NEA or any other teacher's association, and have never worked in a school that was run by them.
"Left wingers" and "right wingers" blaming each other will never solve anything.
posted on February 22, 2003 07:38:02 PM new
And another thing. I know some home schooling families who are doing a sterling job of educating their kids. I also know some "home schooled" kids who spend their days buzzing around on their dirt bikes, while their concerned parents are off working. Making the statement that home schools "outscore" public schools is not remotely provable, due to the fact that each state treats it's home schooled kids differently. Some states track them and require them to take the same standardized tests that are given in public school, and many others do not. Unless the author of the rest of bear's quotation above has some magic way of comparing ALL "home schooled" kids to all public school kids, he or she is just blowing smoke.In my state, a parent need only fill out a form upon withdrawing their child stating that they are going to home school the child. After that, there is NO follow-up, NO tracking of the child. It is not uncommon to see these kids return to public school after a year or two, when their parents realize that things aren't as rosy as they had imagined. More often than not, these kids will be an equivalent amount behind in basic grade level skills.
posted on February 22, 2003 10:20:56 PM new
>Why is it left wingers spend 10 billion and get 10 kids to read, then theorize that "for 20 billion we can at least get TWENTY kids to read".
Why is it Right-Wingers who are about to spend $10 Billion in bribes to Turkey and another $20 Billion in "loan guarantees" (later to be forgiven, meaning that WE get stuck with the bill!) At that rate, we could at least teach another dozen children to READ, so it would DO SOME GOOD!
posted on February 22, 2003 10:22:44 PM new
>"Left wingers" and "right wingers" blaming each other will never solve anything.
Really? And I don't hear too many in the center or on the left who are FOR School Vouchers and teaching Creationst "science" inthe classrooms -- do you, prof?
posted on February 23, 2003 05:55:30 AM new
" Really? And I don't hear too many in the center or on the left who are FOR School Vouchers and teaching Creationst "science" inthe classrooms -- do you, prof?"
No, I don't. I just hate to see how our educational problems have become politicized, that's all. Political ideology has become way more important than the kids, and that's sad.
posted on February 23, 2003 03:24:46 PM new
Though American education has many problems and weaknesses, Mr. Roberts doesn't identify them, nor does he understand the basic structure of American education since the issues that he raises are all ones that are governed by state and/or local law or policies. Also federal monies are only a drop in the bucket for the majority of school budgets. Most of the federal money is allocated for special education and enhancement programs for disadvantaged students or experimental programs.
I do, however, think that Mr. Roberts is right on in this recent article...
Iraq: the last republican hurrah
"An invasion of Iraq is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history. It has the support of only two overlapping small groups: neoconservatives infused with the spirit of 18th century French Jacobins who want to impose American "exceptionalism" on the rest of the world, and foreign policy advisers who believe that the primary aim of U.S. foreign policy is to make the Middle East safe for Israel."
posted on February 23, 2003 04:59:07 PM new
>No, I don't. I just hate to see how our educational problems have become politicized, that's all.
So do I, prof. I'm not misunderstanding your objection - I agree with it. So long as they can divide us, they keep us from having any unity to fix the problem. My issue is that people who call themselves right-wing have drawn up the battlefield in political terms. You have to fight your battles where they are.
posted on February 23, 2003 08:37:51 PM new
I know, I fight it daily, from the ten commandments in the classroom to those who want me to teach that the earth is only 6,000 years old...all this along with kids who run out of gas at 9:00 a.m., because their parents are too "busy" to give them breakfast.
posted on February 24, 2003 12:57:50 AM new
Something is very wrong with our schools. Schools in Third World countries operating on pennies a day turn out much better students than ours. India is a good example.
On the bright side, many of their brightest move over here, to our benefit.
posted on February 24, 2003 04:59:15 AM new
Asia in general produces far more science and engineering baccalaureate degrees than the US does. Yet we provide the bulk of the jobs (or at least we DID). That's why you see so many Indian engineers and researchers here.
posted on February 24, 2003 04:15:53 PM new
How about the parents bearing some responsibility?
Presently in our school system, a failing child is not held back a grade. They continue to move up. To keep them back would "make them feel bad" about themselves.
Is this the effort of hard-nosed right-wingers? No.
Then it must be the efforts of the bleeding-heart left-wingers? No.
It was because of the effort of a small group of parents who sued the school system for "making their child feel bad" by failing him/her....JUSTIFIABLY!
.................................................
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Firemen, Police. We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
posted on February 24, 2003 07:40:55 PM new
My school retains students sometimes, but only in instances where parents, teachers, counseling staff and administration agree that it will be beneficial. When it happens, the student is given all assistance possible and placed into an academic performance contract which is reviewed frequently. Usually, if the kid has done well by mid-year, he or she will be moved back up to grade level. There is little evidence that mandatory retention does anything for student performance in school. What it does do, we know, is create over-aged students who are TWICE as likely to drop out of school by the age of 16. Being forced to repeat classes that you were unwilling or unable to complete the first time doesn't really make much sense if you think about it. Although the "feel bad" part is easy to berate, in this day and age it is of great importance to our kids, whether we like it or not. If teachers spend more time helping kids to succeed rather than waiting to smack them when they fail, kids will rise to that expectation. In order to do that though, teachers need to be freed as much as possible from the babysitting aspects of their jobs. Time spent providing free child care for kids who couldn't care less and who are only in school to cause trouble and hang out is time taken directly away from students who want and need help and are eager to succeed. Trouble makers in today's schools know only too well that there are only so many consequences the school can lay down. In my state the most a school district can do is expel a kid for the balance of the year. Next year, after he/she has hung out on the street for a year and become even less responsive, we are required by law to accept him back, until he screws up again. What teacher in his or her right mind would WANT to retain a kid like this?? I am all for permanent expulsion of students who commit serious behavioral infractions, particularly if they chronically interfere with the educational rights of other students, whose time with their teacher is being taken away from them by miscreants, not just those who are violating drug or safety laws. Most of those are the ones who end up as candidates for retention anyway. Students who are seriously struggling academically have other avenues for help besides retention.
posted on February 24, 2003 08:14:27 PM new
I homeschooled my 3 kids for 7 years. When my oldest reached high school we enrolled her in a k-12 public school. She graduated last year with a 4.0 and earned a 4 year full scholarship to our local university.
[ edited by ewora on Feb 24, 2003 08:14 PM ]
posted on February 24, 2003 09:11:50 PM new
I think there needs to be more vocational training in high school. Algebra and English composition classes are a waste of time for some kids and instead they should be taught auto mechanics, A/C repair, plumbing, etc.
posted on February 24, 2003 09:21:17 PM new
>Being forced to repeat classes that you were unwilling or unable to complete the first time doesn't really make much sense if you think about it.
Prof, I am a bit of a different case. Holding me back a year worked wonders for me. I started school a year early, because every other kid in the area was at least a year older than me and when they went to school, I had no one to play with. It was a major mistake to start me out early, as I wasn't mature enough for it.
I had problems all the way through the sixth grade, where I was forced to repeat that grade. My teachers all used to write on my report cards that I was bright enough to do the work, but lacked the motivation to do so. You see, when I entered the first grade, I actually went there not to learn, but to play with the other kids. My attention was always focused on recess or PE where we could all have fun playing games. The higher grades weren't much help as I never took them seriously, that is, until, I got put back for a year. I had to repeat the sixth grade and I was ashamed of it. The shame was hard to bear, but I put up with it and I eventually shaped up.
I suppose I met my own maturity level really. It was a good thing for me to have been held back a year. I probably would have done better being held back another year. But that's just me and other kids are made of thin glass that shatters at the slightest touch and become mind-crazed serial killers and school bombers.
posted on February 25, 2003 05:21:34 AM new
I'm not opposed to holding back if it will benefit the kid. Individual situations like yours show that we need to consider it sometimes. It's just not the panacea that some would like it to be. Studies do show that most, but not all, will derive little benefit from it. A lot of times, especially in the early years of school, a kid may be intellectually equipped for the curriculum, but not have the emotional maturity to handle it. I've seen other kids who were started early and ended up having difficulties.
posted on February 25, 2003 06:04:33 AM new
ebayauctionguy
You are a freakin' troll aren't you? You have been spouting some of the absolute STUPIDEST statements in mankind lately, haven't you?
Emphasize vocational training rather than English....what kind of moronic statement is that? Hell, why not right after kindergarten put children in large dimly-lit and dirty halls and have them do piecework 8 hours a day. That's a trade. Don't teach vocational training in the classroom, better to have on-the-job training at meat packing plants. And it will keep them from aspiring to such things as college(which we all know should only be for the wealthy) and they learn to not expect much from their government representatives
I became a Nudist not because of the Sun, Fresh Air and Freedom, but because I got tired of people making fun of the way I dressed
posted on February 25, 2003 11:07:30 AM new
Well, Prof, as someone who has absolutely no experience teaching in a large classroom setting, I have my own ideas what might work. You know, some new novel approach. I may as well voice it here and see what you or anyone else thinks if it might work.
My idea is for the first through sixth grades. Schools may be different today than when I went through those grades back in the 1960s, but back then, each year you had the same classes, only a higher level each year. By that I mean, every year you have math, English, PE, etc. and each year a higher level of achievement is placed on that year.
Now that pre-supposes that all kids will be ready for those subjects in those years of their lives. I feel that if a child entering the first grade was faced like college, where they had to pass six units of Reading & English, six units of Math, six units of PE, etc. A kid who has an aptitude right now for math, say, and little comprehension for English Grammar could instead take two or three math courses for the first year and not take the English grammar until later years when their brain is wired properly for it. Something along those lines.
I got the idea because kids I've worked with one year are real whizzes at math and other years, they excel in other subjects; or, they are terrible at a subject until one day, it clicks in their brain and they are able to become interested in the subject and to retain the information.
It's not a perfected idea, but do you think that an approach of where subject material was custom tailored to kids, at least as I've suggested it to be, wood work better than the current system of one unit per year, ready or not?
posted on February 25, 2003 12:47:22 PM new
"Readiness", as it's called, is recognized as an important factor in a kid's success in a given subject area. There have been attempts made with varying degrees of success to model a child's school experience according to his readiness in subject areas. The Montessori method is one such idea, and there are a lot of private and charter schools around the country modeled after the Montessori method. Some of these schools' graduates are remarkably well prepared compared to mainstream school graduates when compared on the basis of standardized tests, and some aren't. Like anything, it's all in the execution. When you have a serious , Montessori trained staff that is diligent in applying the method, it seems to work really well for some kids. Other schools will be lax in their approach, and just let kids "explore" to find what they're interested in. This does not result in child who is well prepared , one who typically will have big gaps in his or her basic skills.
Sadly, most US public schools are ultimately under the thumbs of state legislatures. These bodies typically do a lot more than control the purse strings. They mandate course requirements, in some states ratify texbook selection, and determine what standardized tests will be used to analyze the success of the state's students. Hardly any of these congresspersons are educators. Most are local business people. They want to see clear, simple to understand results. Can our kid's read and compute? How well do they do it compared to other states? So they mandate standardized tests which are often irrelevant to real learning, and only offer to success to students who are good test takers. A school like you describe is really most educators' ideal, but I don't know how, given the bean counters we are responsible to, that will ever come about.
[ edited by profe51 on Feb 25, 2003 12:49 PM ]
