MP MN Prepares for ESSA Ray, who I believe is a Retired Teacher, makes some good points. However he like most Ed MN Liberal supporters seems to want to focus on only one cause. If only we could fix that Race and Poverty issue, then everything will get better...
"Words Matter. Education officials and commenters continue to use the phrase "low-performing schools" as if it reflected an obvious reality. It does not. What Minnesota (and many other states) must deal with are low-performing students.
To the degree that inadequately-trained teachers are a part of that inadequate student outcome, they must be properly trained, meet state standards, and be assigned classes in their field of expertise. Administrators charged with evaluation of professional staff ought to be people who themselves have substantial teaching experience.
To the degree that inadequate and/or obsolete physical facilities affect and contribute to inadequate student outcome, those facilities must be upgraded, improved, and/or replaced.
In the unlikely event that schools in Wayzata or Minnetonka find themselves being rated as "low-performing schools," there might be reason to examine the root causes of such a ranking in areas that are normally not part of this picture. Lacking that, the primary reason for low-performing students has been known and pointed out by study after study over the past half-century and more: low-performing students in great disproportion come from families living in poverty, and especially from families living in what are now designated as RCAPs, or Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty. This is where Minnesota's largely unacknowledged legacy of racial and economic segregation has come home to roost, so to speak.
Unless and until the Met Council, county officials, school district officials, legislators, state government, and the state's education hierarchy address this ongoing segregation, we can make plans to address low student performance 'til the cows come home, and some of them will actually make a difference for some kids, so I don't want to dismiss such plans out of hand, but they won't "cure" the fundamental underlying problem(s).
To make genuinely significant progress among low-performing students requires that the state and the areas directly affected by it address, and begin to overcome, the ongoing racial and economic segregation that characterizes some parts of the Twin Cities metro, and perhaps – especially in an economic context – some of the state's rural areas, as well.
In combination with other programs to directly address the issue of RCAPs, some important gains may finally be made in trying to improve the inadequate intellectual development and knowledge base of "low-performing students."
Without addressing the issues of segregation and concentrated poverty, it's my hunch that there will be plenty of noise and commotion, but relatively little in the way of genuine progress for these children who are currently, and in the future, not developing the knowledge base and intellectual skills necessary to serve as vital, contributing citizens of the area, the state, and the country." RayThoughts?
"I agree with you that there is a root cause in your statement.
"low-performing students in great disproportion come from families living in poverty, and especially from families living in what are now designated as RCAPs, or Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty"
However when are folks going to stop making this about race and start making it about familial beliefs, single Parent households and and familial actions? Or about the Ed MN policies that allow the high cost Teachers to be employed mostly in the schools with the children who have good family support?
Here are a larger number of issues / causes...
G2A Blame vs Contributions
Just increasing the household incomes via public assistance will not help. Somehow we need to encourage 2 Parent households in these at risk communities, promote Parents who support education, and hopefully smaller families. That is how families get out of poverty and support their children.
Single Parent households with more children than they can afford is a recipe for continuing disaster..." G2A
58 comments:
All I hear is "poor black kids can't learn, so why should we try." The politicians, teachers and educrats say that they know how best to teach all kids – no exceptions. But when it comes time to hold them responsible, it seemingly has nothing to do with them at all. It is all race, poverty or inadequate funding (and all the fault of Republicans, of course). If they would want to admit the challenges and propose ways to meet those challenges, I think we would all be a lot more interested in helping them do so.
I think low performing schools should have greater funding for extended day and extended school year. I think students in my school should be headed back to school about the first of August.
Personally I think students should go to school year round until they get up to performing at their grade level.
Of course if we find the money, then we need to find qualified excellent teachers who are willing to work year round. These kids need them.
Then we need to deal with the Unions and all the concerns they will raise...
Finally we will need to deal with all the students and Parents who will think it unfair. Remember that these folks aren't big academics...
I think I'm with Trump on this one. Don't tell me all the reasons it can't be done; tell me it's going to get done.
Yes, the defenders of the status quo are the enemy, and the enemy must be defeated, but it is not as if we don't know what needs to be done. The school day may be long enough if we put real academic content in it, and we could expand teaching hours without extending the school day with teacher productivity tools and an effective discipline policy. Teachers get paid all year already, and we already have summer school for the kids falling behind, so all we need to do is expand summer school as needed. If we need to air-condition some rooms or schools, we can surely find the money to do it in our whopping K-12 budget.
As for the teachers, they should be employed under a merit system (including academic improvement and class size) and if that leads to higher pay for some (and lower for a few), it's worth it. The unions will hate it and maybe we'll eliminate that huge obstacle as well.
Some of your beliefs are fascinating...
"if we put real academic content in it"
What do you think is missing?
"an effective discipline policy"
Since the schools can not expel trouble makers, and since corporal punishment is illegal. What are you thinking? Remember that the Parents of these kids are not engaged / capable.
"Teachers get paid all year already"
Really??? I think they will disagree with you... What do you base your belief on?
What is missing is content. Too much time spent keeping order, so the pace of instruction falls behind. And the quicker kids are not challenged enough, in some cases NOBODY is challenged by the learning pace. And I am convinced there is too much "social engineering" being taught, including history, science, and "health."
That the schools cannot expel trouble makers sounds like a problem over which we should have control. Expel 'em! Or have them arrested, or force the parents to pay for an alternative education (I'll be generous; sliding scale). But that is the extreme. Effective discipline starts with the little things, and behavior modification starts with teaching kids the expectations.
Teachers are paid monthly-- every month, just like the rest of us. Unless you know for certain otherwise?
You're still giving me reasons it can't be done...
I guess I must have missed that "social engineering content" when helping the girls...
Apparently they can expel kids. And guess which kids they are...
MP Expulsions
For typical example of work days See Page 38
more time off has long been used to justify teachers low salaries. If you want teachers to put in more weeks work they are going to need a pay increase.
I am still waiting for technology /software to get good enough to have a significant impact at individualizing education and greatly improving student achievement. We are not there yet.
Here we go again, with "Black Lives Matter" nonsense. "...nonviolent behaviors for which African American kids are most singled out." NOBODY is "singling them out"! Disruptive kids are disruptive kids, regardless of skin color. That a disproportionate number of them are black is a matter of the statistics of other social pathologies and it is not "racist" to tell such unfortunate truths. We have seen, in the St. Paul schools, what the effort to eliminate "disparate impact" in school discipline-- chaos and injury. It's silly, and we need to go back to something that at least holds it down while we look for something better. ISS was a good start, but ALCs may be needed.
Laurie, I disagree. CAI has been around for decades and it is highly effective. 20 years ago I was in a school where the kids were 2-3 years ahead of their peers, based on CAI alone. It has the additional advantage of substantially reducing discipline problems. Teacher productivity tools are more recent but also mature enough for general use. Our school district will be rolling out both systems over the next few years and it already shows great promise. Yes, it costs a little money, but compared to what we are spending now to NOT get results, it is easily justified.
Jerry,
Given your inability in the past to assign causality correctly...
"I was in a school where the kids were 2-3 years ahead of their peers, based on CAI alone."
I find this hard to believe... Do you have any sources to corroborate your view?
My view??? I saw it. I participated in it. I saw the results on paper and in the everyday. If you believe that reducing class size matters then the ideal class size is 1, and this is how you do it, and it actually costs LESS once the capital expenditure is made.
Well that will be a hard source to review and analyze for other more important causal factors.
Now I do not disagree with you that Computer Aided Instruction can be helpful. I just don't see it as the solution.
Maybe you WOULD see it as a solution if you could actually SEE it, as I did. Isn't this another case where simple common sense would tell you what results to expect, and not need exhaustive proof when someone confirms your expectation?
I don't think this is very common sense if you have spent much time with kids. There are some kids who thrive sitting at a desk with a computer and there are some who need the information presented in a different way. Then thanks to main streaming there are special needs kids who need something different yet.
By the way, RDale has been using Google Tablets the last couple of years. My daughters have good and bad things to say about them.
Just a reminder, the kids /families in the Wayzata / Orono districts will do great no matter what method is used.
The challenge is how to teach the unlucky kids who have more special needs, less family support, less physical safety, less social support, fewer learning experiences, poor role models, etc.
I think NAI (Nature Aided Instruction...No, it's not currently a thing. I made up the name.) would be at least as beneficial in reducing discipline problems. Access to the natural environment also reduces ADHD.
Just my 2 pennies.
Joel
Here's a quote: "U.S. high school students recently scored a huge victory when they won the 2016 International Math Olympiad. The team’s head coach attributed the U.S.’s increased standing in math to the many online elements of self-education that are now available to the enterprising young student."
And once again you are telling me it cannot be done, when quite obviously it is NOT being done already, with the current approach. The "lucky kids" will learn BETTER with CAI, so why would you deny them that? The "unlucky kids" need more individualized instruction and that is what CAI provides. They also need more teacher ATTENTION, and the way CAI is employed, as a "hybrid" system, gives them that, as well. One of the great things about CAI is that it /becomes/ personal to these kids as it drills them where needed, presents problematic concepts in other ways, offers instant rewards, does (almost) all things a good tutor would do and that we cannot possibly afford for every kid. The real live teacher does the rest, but can do it for many more kids than could be managed in a regular classroom.
Joel, thanks for the term "NAI." Now when we talk about feral children we can say they are the "products of NAI." Now I'm waiting for the distinction between that and the current situation in some RCAPs.
Can't really tell if you're mocking my comment, but I'll bite.
Access to nature does not create "feral children", but rather more intelligent, focused, healthy, and better behaved children.
Research
Joel
Joel,
Don't worry, it can't be worse than Jerry's recommendation that we brainwash / teach the kids with virtual reality devices... :-)
One would think real reality would be much better for people than virtual reality.
:-)
Joel
Sorry, Joel, I thought you were the one being facetious. Yes, all kinds of studies support the idea that crowding kids into dense urban jungles isn't the best for their social, physical and mental development. Duh. But getting them park time doesn't do that much for their academic achievement, or for making them productive members of the society. As an adjunct to formal public schooling, absolutely, to the degree it is possible. One of the things CAI does is allow kids to do more exploration on the Inet, in areas that interest them, and that aren't limited by their surroundings-- this "virtual reality" is often better than their real reality.
Still trying to understand why you folks are so dead set against this major improvement in education. I mean, we haven't had a productivity improvement in education in 150 years. Isn't it time to at least start?
Who is against it?
"Now I do not disagree with you that Computer Aided Instruction can be helpful. I just don't see it as the solution." G2A
Remember all the causes for the problems...
Parents
•Irresponsible, yet they have children
•Do drugs, alcohol, smoking, etc. (ie harm child)
•Have more children than they can afford
•Poor parenting due to laziness or ignorance
•Propogating victim / entitlement mind set
•Can't speak English (Laurie)
•Parents are illiterate (Laurie)
•Working 2 or more jobs (Laurie)
•Single parent household (Laurie)
•Belief systems, behaviors and actions not aligned with "typical American culture"
•???
Children
•Choose to behave poorly or resist learning
•Child is academically or behaviorally challenged for physical, mental or emotional reasons
•???
Public K-12 Teacher / Union System
•Protect the time served and education based comp system
•Resist firing of poor performers
•Resist standardized curriculum
•Resist competition / limiting options and availability
•???
Public K-12 Administration
•Protect the time served and education based comp system
•Resist firing of poor performers
•Resist accountability measures
•Resist competition / limiting options and availability
•???
Charter and Private K-12 Administration
• Fiscal and Result Reporting scandals that damage reputation
•Cherry picking good determined students and leaving the others for the public schools to deal with
Belief Systems/Philosophy (may apply across categories)
•Soft bigotry of low expectations, expected to fail (JE)
•That universal public education is a public good AND entitlement. (JE)
•That education can not be run as a business. (JE)
•Belief that the Public School model is the only viable model. (JE)
•Education is entitlement and social service (JE / NG)
•???
State Policies and Laws
•Inadequate funding
•Too many regulations
•Inadequate early childhood education
•~9 mth school year (ie Summers off)
•Inadequate parent training
•Inadequate health care
•Inadequate social and nutritional systems
•Limit competition
•Too much or little accountability focus
•???
National Policies and Laws
•Inadequate funding
•Too many regulations
•Too much or little testing and measuring
•???
American Culture
•Too socialist - coddling lazy people
•Too capitalistic - coddling rich people
•Values Football more than Education
•Self centered with little thought of others
•Too few volunteers to help the unlucky kids
•Rich and Middle Class parents run from Poor neighborhoods and kids. Leaving high density neighborhoods of poor and unlucky students. (ie less funds, fewer volunteers, fewer good role models, more problems, etc)
•???
Other Countries/Parties
•Foreign infiltration plot (JE)
•???
OK, I give up. It's not possible. Nothing can change.
I had to look up the details of ESSA, which apparently nobody believes will work? I see it as treating the symptoms rather than the disease, or the root cause of the disease, but it's the best we can do for some diseases, until a miracle occurs.
Unfortunately the Public Schools are not miracle workers. They can improve the situation somewhat by weakening the seniority based stranglehold the Unions have on the system and implementing improvement ideas like CAI.
Unfortunately to truly ensure that all capable children are well educated, emotionally stable and ready for college, tech school or a job, we need to find a way to hold Parents accountable also.
And this a topic that you are not even willing to address...
If a child spends 5 of their most formative years with a person who is immature, irresponsible, poorly educated, has limiting beliefs, poorly behaved, poor communication skills, etc. And then the school only has the child ~175 days a year for ~8 hrs/day... The rest of the time the bad stuff is reinforced by their Parents/ community... Then to make things worse the unlucky kid is more likely to have special needs due lead, parental addiction, poor diet, high mobility (ie unstable), etc.
Sorry... They are going to have problems.
You know what I'm going to say... Let's tackle that part of the problem we DO control-- the schools, their systems, methodologies, attitudes, evaluation and accountability-- and THEN let us see how much needs to be done with those things we do NOT control (except to the degree government has CAUSED the problem). I think you think too little of our fellow human beings, just because they have lower economic status. They are not "just like us," I concede that, but most of them would be given the opportunity.
They are given that opportunity.
Get educated
Get job
Get married
Delay having kids until fairly stable
Have only 1 or 2 kids if money is tight
Raise kids in a stable loving 2 Parent home
The formula for success is not rocket science. And one can follow it even if step 1 does not go as well as it could have.
What we control and do not control is a societal choice. As we have discussed many times before.
We have different definitions of "opportunity" and of "control."
"Get educated," you say, yet only about 1 family out of every 500 that apply for an "opportunity scholarship" actually get one. So do the 499 have an "opportunity"?
"Get job," you say, yet government education does not equip everybody for a job, nor train everybody for a job, or permit them to take a job for less than a minimum wage or work more than 30 hours without billing the employer for healthcare, basically pricing the low-skilled out of the job market.
"Delay having kids," you say, yet what are the incentives and disincentives? Our culture glorifies sex round the clock. Our schools teach it as mere exercise with no moral component, and, I would venture, downplay the "risks." Our government promises to subsidize unwed motherhood and ignore unwed fatherhood's responsibility.
"If money is tight," does not apply when additional children born to "single mothers" gets an increase in the monthly check.
"2 parent homes," therefore, due largely to government action and inaction, plus societal permissiveness, have decreased them, creating what appears to be a vicious downward spiral.
As for what we control, society has been losing "control" of the "social norm." It used to be that bastard children, or fathers of them, faced serious social opprobrium. Unwed motherhood was shameful. Sex outside marriage occurred, but it was considered "sinful" or at least not openly celebrated as it is today. Government, on the other hand, DOES control our education system, welfare system, and to a too-great degree, the conditions of employment. Government does NOT control individual choices, thank Goodness, but can offer incentives or disincentives to influence those choices. Those incentives and disincentives have gotten us where we are, and ought to be changed.
I think it would be easier to change the education system, that it could be done almost immediately, and that over the next 10-20 years would move the society in the right direction. Coupled with reform of the whole "welfare" system, we could have a much better situation a generation from now.
In MN we have Charters, Magnets, Open Enrollment, Parents can move, etc. Stop making excuses for irresponsible Parents. By the way, "1 of 500" source please?
Good God Man !!! "government education does not equip everybody for a job, nor train everybody for a job" You are sounding like a Liberal... Let's repeat those words... PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Simple: fund free Long Acting Reversible Contraception... If Conservatives care about babies, let's make sure they only are born on purpose.
More Kids More Money?
I agree that individuals Parents are responsible for making babies they are NOT equipped to care for and not staying married. This is not the Education systems fault.
What do you have against holding Parents responsible for their choices?
The homework isn't done on time... Punish the Parents.
A Parent doesn't show up for conferences... Punish the Parents.
The child isn't at school on time... Punish the Parents.
Now I agree that we need to keep working to improve the Union controlled Schools.
But this problem is not getting fixed until Parents are responsible, or we keep the kids away from them more and earlier. Early education and longer school years.
I think I have shared the story about my irresponsible neighbors... The Mom would get so mad when the Teacher would call about missing homework or extra assistance that the child could use.
Her answer was that the 7 year old was responsible for getting the homework done... Not her...
Her answer was that the schools was supposed to teach the child... Why were they calling her...
It was amazing. The good news is that schools did keep bothering her and the girls did just squeak by... One is a pet groomer now, the other I am not sure.
"What do you have against holding Parents responsible for their choices?"
First, I will say again that the lack of natural consequences (because government makes taxpayers responsible and refuses to make moral judgments) seems the primary problem, and what you want to do is apply artificial consequences after the fact. Your approach is punitive, punishing wrong choices rather than encouraging and rewarding right choices. Is that the best approach to helping your fellow human beings? Not only that, you are punishing them for making bad choices when you have not offered them a good one. The MN education tax credit, for example, averages $267-- not quite enough to go to a "choice" school.
Also, I assume you want this long-term contraception to be mandatory (rather than offering people choices), so congratulations on agreeing with Margaret Sanger and the eugenics people. Perhaps your experience with your neighbor has hardened you to the fact that most people are NOT that irresponsible, but may appear so because of the hopelessness created by their failing public school.
Oh come now, I don't care if the parent(s) are single, married, poor, rich, Black, White, etc... The child's homework should be done on time, the parent should be there for conferences, the child should be at school on time, etc. Stop looking for excuses.
I never said the LARC had to be mandatory... Just easily available and free... As you said, let's make it easy for young women to make the right choices.
You keep implying that so many Parents are responsible. Yet with 72% of Black babies being born to single Moms and ~50% of marriages ending in divorce I think you are very incorrect.
In accordance with "the path to hell is paved with good intentions". I don't think Parents are trying to screw up their kids. I am sure that even the 17 year old High School drop out single Mom wants to care for her baby/child. This does not mean that she is capable or self disciplined enough to do it well.
I'm not looking for excuses. If the parent isn't doing what they're supposed to be doing, who is telling them what they should be doing, making it easy for them to do it, and having them see the rewards? What good is going to teacher conferences if all they do is tell you your kid isn't learning (notice it's never "not being taught")? I want to know why YOU keep trying to excuse gross incompetence, at best, in the government school system, by blaming parents?
Imagine this: You're forced by law to send the kid to school. You do not have the resources to move to a better school district or send your kid to even a parochial school, let alone private school. There are not enough charters and they're underfunded. You worry about the kid's safety in the school he is in, and they have been labelled a "failing school" time and time again, with abysmal academic results. You would homeschool, but it's simply not possible for you. Now explain to me again why you get all excited about a chance to go talk to that teacher, who is going to blame YOU for that situation?
"I don't think Parents are trying to screw up their kids"
Finally we agree on something. So the question is, why do the kids get "screwed up"? There are things the parents can control, and things they cannot. Or, looked at another way, there are choices the parents can make, or things for which there is no choice, and things for which there are choices good but unknown. It is my contention that most of the "choices" poor parents have fall in the latter two categories, of things where they really have no "good" choice, or where the "good" choice is unknown to them. Do you need examples, or can we agree that failing schools are not a choice?
Unfortunately I think we will need to disagree...
I think "failing schools" are usually just schools who are full of failing Parents and therefore failing students.
"why do the kids get "screwed up"?" Back to list...
Parents
•Irresponsible, yet they have children
•Do drugs, alcohol, smoking, etc. (ie harm child)
•Have more children than they can afford
•Poor parenting due to laziness or ignorance
•Propogating victim / entitlement mind set
•Can't speak English (Laurie)
•Parents are illiterate (Laurie)
•Working 2 or more jobs (Laurie)
•Single parent household (Laurie)
•Belief systems, behaviors and actions not aligned with "typical American culture"
•???
I am sorry but if a 2 year old is being raised by a stressed out, immature, broke, relatively ignorant, dependent, single Mother who wants love and can barely care for herself. That child is much more likely to have HUGE problems by age 5.
I find it interesting that both the Liberals and the Conservatives want to let these Parents off the hook.
The Conservatives because they fear Society judging poor Parenting via Big Government.
The Liberals because they feel everyone should have the right to have as many children as they want, no matter how unprepared they are.
Only the kids get screwed in this deal.
Oh, come now. Do you really think that the government who can't run a school system is better qualified to decide who is a "good" parent by some hidebound book? How would they do it? Let's see, you make under $25,000/year, you're black, and a single mother. That sounds like the parent of Ben Carson, a great neurosurgeon and not-so-great presidential candidate. For every rule government could offer there would be thousands of exceptions and what we want is MORE exceptions.
What you seem to be arguing that, rather than try to help these children, we should not allow them to be born. I thought education was supposed to be the Great Equalizer, the way to access the American Dream and equal opportunity. You want to deny it to somebody just because 70% of kids of their race don't have a father? What about the 30% that do? Throw them away?
Students fail because they haven't had the advantages others have by "accident of birth." One of those advantages is NOT being forced to attend a failing school. Which end of this disadvantage do you think government most controls and could be expected to fix most readily?
I think you are putting a lot of words in my mouth...
Do you think this looks like a hide bound book...
The homework isn't done on time... Punish the Parent(s).
A Parent doesn't show up for conferences... Punish the Parent(s).
The child isn't at school on time... Punish the Parent(s).
They seem pretty simple and straight forward. Do you think any of them are too challenging for a good responsible parent?
I may add that if a non-special needs child is disrespectful, destructive and/or violent to class mates or staff on a regular basis. Punish the Parent(s)
Do you think Ben Carson was allowed to skip homework, be truant, be violent/ destructive, etc? Or do you think his Mother punished him when he behaved wrongly? Do you think his Mother worked with his Teachers to help him thrive or avoided them?
Do you think income, race or being a single Mother prevents one from getting homework done, talking to the Teachers, getting the child to school or teaching one's child to behave?
"you seem to be arguing that, rather than try to help these children, we should not allow them to be born."
Which part of making LARC free and readily available sounds like "not allowing them to be born"? Are you now supporting welfare and paying for kids that Parents can not afford? :-)
"What about the 30% that do? Throw them away?"
Again you make a huge leap of causality. You keep assuming that "failing schools" fail because of the Teachers, Staff, District, etc. Which of course is incorrect in most cases. Now many schools could be improved by eliminating tenure etc, but it will not fix the core problem.
Zachary Lane vs Northport Results
Zachary Lane vs Northport Demographics
Hopefully this link works. These are 2 schools in the RDale district. Nearly the same in everyway except the student body, their Parents and their academic success.
The reality if the poorly raised unlucky kids were not in the Districts. One would have a hard time seeing a performance difference between Wayzata and Minneapolis schools.
Unfortunately after looking into this many times. The only way to eliminate failing schools is to desegregate our neighborhoods. And I don't mean by race...
Isn't it amazing that the "Failing Schools" are mostly where the Low Income Households are most densely located. Maybe that is just an unrelated and random occurrence...
I wonder why all those folks in West Plymouth (Wayzata School District) don't want a bunch of low income housing dropped into their neighborhoods. Could it be that crime, school problems, etc follow the people in this demographic?
By the way, here are 2 Wayzata schools with different student bodies. FYI, the "poor" school here is about the same as the "well off" school in RDale.
Sun vs Kim Dems
Sun vs Kim Tests
How long are you going to insist that this is mostly a school problem?
What is the most affluent and poor school in your district? Let's compare the data...
I know for fact that desegregating neighborhoods, by poverty or race (or most generally both) doesn't make much difference. The problems DO come with the families. But that proves my point. Picking up disadvantaged kids and putting them into an educational environment geared for those who DO have advantages is futile. The reverse is not a big problem, where it exists, accounting for why white students do better in the same schools-- because the "system" is geared for them. It proves that the school system needs to change its ways to serve these disadvantaged kids. Punishing their parents won't get you there; it will get you the opposite. High expectations and the pride of real achievement will. There are too many private schools-- very "nontraditional" in style-- proving that demography is not destiny. Let us quit condemning kids to substandard education based on demographics and figure out how to get them to overcome those disadvantages. So long as we allow parents to bear the whole blame for failing schools, we'll never change the status quo.
What kind of punishment do you propose, anyway? You already force their kids to attend schools at their peril, in order to NOT receive the education that was promised and to be rebuffed when you want to help your kid. Then you are told it's your fault. What more punishment can you offer? What's wrong with the schools changing so as to help and to make things better?
As always... Please provide the names of these miracle schools. I have not found them.
"too many private schools-- very "nontraditional" in style-- proving that demography is not destiny"
Please remember that the RDale Magnets have better results than the district as a whole. This again is not because the schools are better, but because only responsible capable Parents who are dedicated to education go through the trouble to apply.
Who is trying to "allow parents to bear the whole blame for failing schools"? I always give it a roughly 70% Parents / Community and 30% School System split. It is you who want to blame the school system completely. And as long as we allow the school to bear the whole blame for failing schools, we'll never change the status quo.
I still remember when a past supt presented at Zachary Lane regarding problems that the district was having and he said that one of them was a lack of engagement by Parents on the East side of the district. He said that though we had 50 Parents show up for this meeting, there would be almost none show up at those schools.
The reality is that when a school has 75+% lucky kids and Parents, there is enough good peer pressure and parental support to help the <25% of unlucky kids. When this mix is not met the challenge grows quickly. And when it is 75% unlucky and 25% lucky the staff / school is likely doomed without a larger support system like HCZ offers. Remember those early ed and parent ed programs that you are against funding...
Please remember that:
Lucky is a child with academically focused Parent(s) who are capable and responsible enough to ensure the child is ready for kindergarten and school behavior / learning is high priority. They partner with the school to help their child grow up as a healthy stable educated young adult.
Unlucky is a child with Parent(s) who are not capable or responsible to do the above.
Though having 2 parents and more income helps. Lucky / Unlucky is not due to income, marital status, race, etc. It has to do with Parent(s) beliefs, capabilities, self discipline, etc.
"Lucky / Unlucky is not due to income, marital status, race, etc...."
There is a flaw in your definition. When people have kids, what is the first thing they do? If they have the income (and white, two parent families have more, usually) they move to a new house with "good schools." Or they send their kid to private schools that they at least believe offers a better education. Now, what about those parents who WOULD do the same, but do not have the income to do so? Aren't many of your "unlucky kids" just those born to "unlucky parents"? If lucky kids get moved to good schools, are not the unlucky kids, by definition, those condemned by circumstance to attend BAD schools?
"The reality is that when a school has 75+% lucky kids and Parents, there is enough good peer pressure and parental support to help the <25% of unlucky kids."
No, there's not. I've seen it, it doesn't happen, and if you think about it, it can't. Peer pressure (even if these poor black kids were accepted as peers) and parental support (for the unlucky kids, it still doesn't exist) do not teach, teachers and teaching styles do. Schools MUST adapt to the kids they have because the kids cannot adapt to the school. They're poor learners because they haven't been given the tools to be good ones. Good private or parochial schools adapt to their "clients" and thus get better results. Most public schools do not.
Take another example: Remember when the idea of school busing to create integrated schools started? The idea was that white parents, being richer, would spend money to keep up their school and that some of the black students bused over would benefit? And sending some white kids over to the black school would get THAT one "fixed up" as well? I watched it happen, and it didn't work. All that happened was that BOTH schools, and the unlucky (by court order) kids therein, suffered academically. The kids from the opposite school couldn't learn as well in the approach "tailored" for the other. The long, costly bus ride was discouraging and took money away from education. The idea that black kids couldn't learn unless a white kid sat next to them was, in reality, just as stupid as it sounds in theory. You have to teach the kid you have, not the imaginary kid your pedagogical style requires.
Let's try this: Give every parent a voucher for the full cost of their kid's education, and let the parent take that to any school, /including/ the public. Do you really think, given a real choice, every kid now in a failing public school would stay there? If not, then do you believe said school COULD be made good enough to retain most students?
What kind of fluff is this?
"the kids cannot adapt to the school."
The reality is that if one wants to be successful in America it is critical that one adapts to what business owners want from the employees. Or you had better adopt a professional communicative behavior if you want to start a successful business. It is easier to start earlier.
To me vouchers are just a way for a few more kids/parents to run from the unluckiest students. And then folks like you will complain that the Public Schools are failing even more. Here are some of our past discussions on the topic.
G2A Voucher
G2A Cream Skimming
Since my girls went to a very diverse middle and high school, they know it has nothing to do with Black, White, Hispanic, etc. It has to do with belief systems and self discipline.
They have best friends from all races and they know who to avoid from all races.
I guess I should laud you for having high expectations for children, but really, you want them to KNOW how to adapt to employer expectations, to KNOW self-discipline, self-motivation, good behavior, effective communications? Isn't that what we send them to school FOR? Yes, if they come in with the rudiments of those good behaviors they will advance faster, but your solution continues to suggest to me that you don't care to teach them to those who do not. If they aren't of your (admittedly successful) belief and value system, to heck with them? I just cannot believe that decent people will excuse such blatant discrimination and denial of opportunity. The schools have the excuse that they don't NEED to change, because they get paid whether the kids learn or not. But that's what vouchers are for, to force schools to compete based on real results. What incentive do they have otherwise, especially when they can simply blame parents?
And about that "cream skimming"... So what? You want to deny both the "cream" and "non-cream" an education? If the cream leaves for better schools (as millions who can afford it do every year simply by buying a new house), they get a better education. If the "non-cream" left behind brings the school down in (average) academic results, will that school finally be forced to get better, itself? By what effective incentive would that occur? Or are you suggesting it is not possible under any circumstance?
If you cared as much as you profess you would seek ways for society to help promote children not being born by accident to unprepared Parents.
And you would be a huge advocate for Parent Education and Early Childhood education.
Unfortunately you seem indifferent to what happens to the children during the most important first 5 years of life. And only spend your efforts vilifying schools...
Are you sure you care about the children, or do you just like attacking the schools?
First, this:
http://www.americanexperiment.org/2016/07/4250/?utm_source=Support+Copy+of+7-29-16+Friday+email&utm_campaign=7-29-16&utm_medium=email
Then: You insult me, sir. I care every bit as much about children as you do.
But I simply fail to see how giving the government schools more to do-- early ed and parent ed-- when they have proven utterly incompetent at ed ed, is caring about the kids. Look at the Head Start statistics. Look at the results of school choice programs and the better alternatives.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1515935/
http://live-aaicae.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/article_pdf/Our%20Immense%20Achievement%20Gap%20WEB.pdf
Note especially the results in Forest Hills. It isn't race, or socioeconomics, or money spent. It's HOW the money is spent.
Like so many other things, education will improve only when government gets out of the way, rather than applying new government band-aids to deep, government-created wounds.
Post a Comment