Okay these 3 link were posted by FB friends.
- CBS Why St Paul Teacher Can Not Get a License
- SM Public Schools Aren't Failing Us
- MH White Privilege is a Myth
Since you all know me so well, which response goes with which link?
A. That is so true and terrible, we need to do something to improve it.
B. Why would anyone even bother to listen to such an off base hypocrite?
C. Those are some fascinating facts that should be discussed.
Thoughts?
23 comments:
In regards to point #3, it matters how you came to this country. Many modern American immigrants from Asia came here by choice and had better educational attainment *before coming* than the general population.
Sorry, but I cannot let that "public schools are not failing us" specious nonsense stand. By her own admission, SOME public schools are failing SOME of our kids, and therefore her statement is simply wrong. The schools ARE failing US, as a whole. She is correct that family income is the big determinant of academic success, but WHY is that so? Purely and simply, it is because the first thing a family does when they have the money to do so is to MOVE to a home "near good schools." That is, they exercise school CHOICE. Those who do not have a choice become frustrated, feel hopeless, and the local schools suffer accordingly. Apparently, according to the author, "all other things being equal," being a choice is the one distinguishing characteristic between "good" schools and "bad" ones. Simple solution: give every parent the choice.
Sean,
Maybe or Maybe Not.
The reality is "A recent Brookings Institution study undermined that theory by finding that if Americans of any race just follow three basic rules – graduate high school, get a job and don’t have kids until after you’re married – they are virtually guaranteed not to fall below the poverty line."
Now the big question is what is encouraging people in certain groups to veer off the track from this simple tried and true formula.
Jerry,
And of course our society is failing the schools, but not in the way she thinks. We simply are not doing enough to push people on to the above mentioned recipe. Yourself included wants to let people be "free"...
So, does being "free" include getting to choose a school that "works" for your kids? I would like parents to be free on that score. Rather than "push" people to do what we "know is good for them," why not make that an available choice?
And your prescription keeps people out of poverty ONLY if they are able to graduate from high school (with an actual education), yet because of the poverty they are denied that opportunity. Society is failing them, but not in the way you think.
No, it's actually a fact. In 2014, for instance, India and China sent almost the same number of immigrants to the U.S. (within 2,000), but India's immigrants were almost 2x as likely to have a college degree. To pretend that, say, Haitian refugees just need to go to high school to equal everything out is absurd.
Jerry,
Nah, in your version of free. Anyone can have a baby, raise them poorly for 5 years, and not support them in their K - 12 years... And somehow it is the schools fault that the child isn't a mature capable knowledgeable adult at age 18. In your version of free Baby Mama's and Papa's are not held accountable.
And in MN, between Magnets, Open Enrollment, Charters, Privates, etc we have nearly unlimited school choice. And yet the educational achievement gap persists.
Sean,
I am not so interested in Haitians... I am interested in all the American children who have access to an excellent education system and yet they fail to make more of themselves. That is unless you are saying that the Chinese and India education systems are better than the one operated by Ed MN...
John, you started with an article claiming all things are equal in public ed, went on to say that these "equal" public schools in poor neighborhoods resulted in poor educations, and now you suggest that the reverse is NOT true, that poor schools do not create and sustain poverty. You are never going to be able to force people to live the way you want them to live, and you shouldn't try. What you should be doing is offering them some sort of "better" choices, and the public school system and its adherents vehemently oppose any such suggestion. Do you ever wonder why?
The Chinese and India educations systems ARE better in how they teach, though their student populations contribute to the difference.
Jerry,
You keep calling them poor schools... When in reality they are often just schools full of a lot of troubled unlucky kids...
Of course they fight letting any funding be cut from their schools, they need that to help the unluckiest kids.
We have already made it so easy for people to choose other alternatives in this state, and yet the achievement gap problem persists.
Here is an Interesting Piece
And I forgot... "Chinese and India educations systems ARE better in how they teach"
Source please...
The biggest thing I have learned from my Chinese friends is that:
- most Chinese Parents seem to be married
- the grand parents have an active role in the life of the child(ren)
- the whole family is focused on making sure that child goes to the best school they can afford and that they learn / perform
I am sure they have poor people who violate these views, but this seems to indicate that I am correct for the most part.
"You keep calling them poor schools... When in reality they are often just schools full of a lot of troubled unlucky kids..."
Very well, have it your way. So why do we not simply close those schools, the "failure factories" and save a boodle of money? Give every kid a check for $200,000 when they reach kindergarten age, save the taxpayers the other half of what they would have spent, and hope the kid watches enough Sesame Street (a public education) to get through life.
Or better yet, find a way to TEACH those "troubled unlucky kids." Let any of the thousands of schools-- public, private, parochial, home, charter and for-profit-- that have higher academic achievement and lower "gaps" do the job? If only there were a way to offer parents such a choice....
Or are you going to continue to insist, contrary to all logic and evidence, that every parent in Minnesota who would choose, given the means, an alternative, already has one?
Of course every Parent in MN has a choice regarding where their child goes to school.
First they choose where they live.
Second they choose if they go through the effort to enroll their child in a charter, magnet and/or open enroll.
Why is it so hard for you to believe that some baby mamas and dadas are not prepared to be capable responsible knowledgeable self sacrificing parents? And therefore their children struggle to become more than their makers.
So, every family in MN can afford a $300,000 home in the suburbs? And the charter school enrollments are completely open to everybody and not capped? Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that some people make bad choices, which then, thanks to overweening government, limits their ability to make good ones? Suppose somebody opened a non-profit "success academy" in downtown Mpls, free to all who could win the lottery for the 300 available slots. Are you going to insist that nobody would show up to take that chance?
You seem to believe that a school can fulfill all the Parental roles needed to help a child develop into a bright vibrant responsible American citizen while only having the children in their care for a small portion of the child's life.
It does fascinate me. Let's do the math again.
18 years x 365 days x 24 hours = 157,680 hours = total time
13 years x 172 days x 7 hours = 14,652 hours = school time
And 7 is stretching it given bus time, passing time, lunch time, etc.
Not to mention that the child gets mostly only one on group attention for the vast majority of it since the Teacher has ~28 kids in the room.
And the fact that the school gets the kids after the most important 5 years.
One does not need to buy a $300,000 house to live in the burbs... They need to be able to rent an apartment...
You often say that mamas and papas need to be responsible for their actions. (ie making babies) This is just one of those responsibilities.
As for the 300 slots, yes people would show up. It would be the same parents that enroll their kids in magnets, charters, open enroll, etc. The Parents of the kids who are failing in school would likely be clueless as they are today.
So how about we just raise the welfare payments so poor Moms can afford an apartment in a nice burb instead?
And you seem to believe that parents are the primary educators, and that the people who have spent years of dedicated preparation to become teachers, with millions of dollars of research, support and salary, cannot do better, in fact do much worse, than an uneducated home school teacher? How do you explain the fact that some schools do much better with the same demographic-- in some cases in the same school with much of the same staff-- after "reconstitution" than the status quo schools? The quality of the school overall HAS to make some difference or there is no point in having them. And when we spend twice the State average on them and they do half as well, something is wrong and blaming the parents doesn't begin to solve it. In fact, that lets the schools escape their part of the responsibility, and get paid extra to do it.
It's been tried. While kids bussed from the inner cities to the burbs do better-- same kid, same home life, different school-- they do not come up to what the kids born in the burbs do, because the suburban schools do not know how to teach them where they are. Urban schools SHOULD be able to tailor their approach and do better, but they don't. Therein lies the failure.
"the fact that some schools do much better with the same demographic"
Source please... I have been looking for this magical school for a long time and have yet to find it. The closest I have found is HCZ and that is because they invest a lot of money into Parent Education, Early Childhood Education, Social Services, etc. All things that you are against.
And even they have the same self selection difference from the normal public school.
The Parents and Child must sign a performance contract and fulfill certain obligations to stay enrolled. Unruly/lazy kids and kids with dead beat Parents can be expelled.
Where as Mpls Public Schools has to keep them all:
- unruly, lazy, special needs kids
- kids with Mommas / Dadas who can barely care for themselves
One of my favorite comics.
I'm not against any of that stuff, so long as it has a purpose and a goal. The big difference that HCZ makes is that their purpose is to succeed with the kids, and everybody else buys into that. Mpls schools, the purpose seems to be to pay teachers well and ignore everything else. I mean, how many years have they had the problem, and have barely budged towards a solution?
Ah, sources. A, personal experience and talking to real teachers in this situation. B, an analysis of all 300+ MN schools, demonstrating that schools that spend twice the state average do as little as half as well in achievement. Or, for the same expense, some schools do twice as well as others. Apparently it is not what you spend, but how you use it.
and finally, you can claim charters do no better than the publics if you want, so why do parents still choose charters where they can? What would denying them that choice accomplish? Also, if a public school is 70% unlucky kids, why should not the 30% "lucky" kids-- two parents, employed but poor. wanting something better for their kids-- not be given a choice of education?
First, I do agree that MPS owns 30% of the problem due to their systems. But again they receive many kids who simply are not ready for school and have little or no capable support at home. In part because folks like yourself are against funding early childhood education, parent education and holding mommas / pappas accountable for being good parents.
Your sources are worse than usual. They in no way prove... "the fact that some schools do much better with the same demographic"
Many of the people who I know that have chosen charters is because the charter caters to their race, country of origin, religion and/or the parents are just a bit strange. Most normal folks I have known apply to the magnets to escape the questionable kids/mommas/pappas.
That 30% has many choices in MN as we stated above. Some like myself feel it is important for people to fight for their community and schools. Otherwise we would have moved to the Orono district. As I often say... Having good students with helpful Parents is important in a school and district. If every capable responsible family runs, they doom the community and school to failure. (ie N Mpls)
I am going to post something that actually supports your argument. But I would hate for that to absolve the schools of their responsibility.
two brains
what we are addressing here is the matter of causation. I suspect there is a wide range of disparity in brain function, ranging from this "severe neglect" case up through "minor impairment." Nonetheless, this lends credence to the numerous studies that conclude that social economic status is the best predictor of academic success. Other studies suggest that the best predictor of academic success is "a good teacher." This raises perhaps the critical question: Suppose that we, by the usually assumed government magic, managed to eliminate this neglect and the brain impairment that follows. When they reach school age, they will be better able to learn, but will they have a good teacher to learn FROM? Evidence indicates that, right now, those kids who have not been impaired still fall behind if they go to school with those kids that are. If we started today magically transforming these young brains, it would be at least six years before we would see any results, if then, and a whole generation before the benefits would start to flow. But if we started today allowing school choice and holding all schools accountable, we could see results in one or two years, and benefits would gradually accumulate. The costs of the former are huge while the cost of the latter is modest or even lower than what we do today. I am not saying we should not be doing parent training as a part of welfare reform, quite the contrary. But I think education reform is equally necessary, and with wider benefit.
Post a Comment