The Atlantic I Used to Preach the Gospel of Education Reform. Then I Became the Mayor.
Policy makers need to question their assumptions about what makes a good school.
That was an interesting read. A solution somewhere between the Unions and the Charters.
That was an interesting read. A solution somewhere between the Unions and the Charters.
84 comments:
He was making a lot of sense, despite being the guy most interested in proclaiming success for "his" plan, until he said that his gains were "irrefutable" /"just like Climate Change."/ No real scientific proof for the one raises questions about the real evidence for the other. It makes sense, but is it real? Did we perhaps just dumb down the test?
It looks like they still have that Unlucky Kid problem
It also appears they have only been rating the schools for a short time, do not equalize funding like MN does, and have not fully implemented the ideal that Mayor Rahm was bragging about. Until all of those things are well done, the "unlucky kid problem" has to be considered secondary. The other things we can actually DO something about, fairly quickly, just as mayor Rahm says.
Well one must say that you are dedicated to your solution...
and you to your fantasies.
My dream world where the needs of kids come before the wants of adults is a happy place... To be sure. :-)
I am somewhat dismayed that you think there is a difference between the two.
Of course there is...
Liberals strive to protect ineffective public employees.
Conservatives strive to cut their taxes and programs for kids.
Conservatives and Liberals both strive to protect questionable adults who make babies.
And both seem happy to sacrifice the unlucky kids as long as the adults are cared for. :-(
So, only the moderates like yourself hold the moral high ground? And parents universally hate their children?
A 2 year old can love her puppy, this does not mean that she is capable of providing the puppy what it needs to grow up healthy, trained, socially capable and well behaved.
Please remember that my proposal focuses on the parental exceptions, not the majority of parents:
- Stop "welfare moms" from having 3, 4 or more children. And yes I am happy to go after "baby daddies" also.
- Ensure Parent(s) on government programs have been educated regarding child development / care and are capable. Ensure the kids have access to pre-school.
- Promote the parent(s) becoming self sufficient good role models for their children.
We the tax payers are paying all of these individuals to care for and raise our "future citizens". We have an obligation to hold those adults accountable, just as we should hold the public employees accountable.
And if these adults don't what the tax dollars, they can live and raise their children however they like apparently.
As for moral high ground... I am not sure what that means.
I just know that your voucher idea will leave millions of the most unlucky kids behind as "normal kids" take their funding from the system. And I do not see that as acceptable personally.
And your resistance to providing easy access to sex education and reliable birth control will continue to promote millions of unplanned pregnancies by people who are unable or unwilling to raise children well. And I do not see that as acceptable personally.
Finally, your reluctance to place controls on "welfare parent(s)" means more kids in a bad place. And I do not see that as acceptable personally.
Moral high ground-- the place where morally superior people stand and pontificate.
You just know that a universal voucher that every kid gets, starting with the unlucky ones, will leave the unlucky ones behind. And you have no belief that losing students would reduce class sizes and convince the public schools to do better.
You firmly believe that sex education, however implanted and taught, plus bowls of free condoms in health class, will prevent casual sex, STDs and unplanned pregnancies.
I do not want to "place controls" on welfare parents. Where you would /attempt/ to coerce human beings to do what you want, I prefer to offer them opportunities. You would "hold them accountable" by taking away benefits, whereas I would offer them benefits for accepting our help.
I just cannot get the logic of your proposals; it defies human nature rather than working with it. Of course, if you see poor people as less than human, it's pretty easy I suppose.
Jerry,
We have decades of "White Flight" proving that good capable parent(s) relocate their kids and families to schools in low poverty, low crime, etc areas. And we know that the loss of heads / income decimates the left behind community schools even further. They are dedicated to helping their students, however more challenging students, more dead beat or over whelmed parent(s), more crime and less total funding is a nasty combination.
We know that keeping the kids ignorant and with holding Long Acting Reversible Contraception certainly is NOT working.
You would with hold ALL benefits from anyone who failed to meet the "improvement criteria" of your idealistic new social workers. You seem to keep forgetting that.
The schools were bad, so responsible parents who could afford it chose to move to an area with better schools. Saying that the schools became bad because these parents left has the causality backwards. As for total funding, you seem to forget that the state aid formula gives more money schools with "challenging students," To the extent that some of them spend twice the state average and yet still have poor results. More money is obviously not the solution. Putting the challenging kids together (because the lucky kids have removed themselves) should make it EASIER to tailor the learning environment to foster success, just like we used to do in Mississippi. And explain to me once again the wisdom of letting rich kids have access to good educations while we deny it to those who cannot afford it.
And I suppose we could simply sterilize all of our kids at the point of puberty. That would be HIGHLY effective. :-^
I see. So under your plan, you would either continue Some benefits to those who refuse to improve, or you would withhold all benefits from those who failed to live up to YOUR rigid standards of behavior. Which is it?
So are you saying the "Bad Parts" of town are because of the town?
Sterilization is only needed for the worst of the baby mamas and daddas… And only after they are on welfare and refuse to stop making babies they can not care for well.
I am not with holding any benefits. I am with holding their privilege to have and keep babies that they can not care for well. And if they want to opt out of the program, that would be their free choice.
If a parent is on welfare with 2 kids. Getting pregnant and keeping the child seems pretty foolish to me. Where as you seem to want to encourage it.
Orrrr… Would that violate your social worker's "improvement plan" and get their benefits cut on your program? What if they have 4 kids and she gets pregnant again? How would that work in Jerry's new welfare program?
"Would that violate your social worker's "improvement plan" and get their benefits cut on your program?" I would have no say in that, nor should I. Nor should you.
Then... What criteria will your social worker use?
It is your proposal...
From what I understand the goal of your program would be to encourage people to become self sufficient and get off welfare for them and their children.
And if they fail to "improve adequately" the Social Worker would cut off their benefits. Including those to the kids.
Did I misstate this?
And would the welfare recipient get more money to help feed the new child(ren)?
I do not understand why you keep asking me. All I am suggesting is that we throw away the hidebound rulebook, One-size-fits-all money hole And replace it with a direct, personal, caring and compassionate interaction between An individual in need of help and a social worker trained to show people how to access better choices and improve their lives. I know for fact that this works in private charity, lacking only the massive funds that government is able to pour into vastly less efficacious programs. How fast people improved towards those goals, and what setbacks they might encounter along the way are all things to be considered on a compassionate individual basis. Now if the client throws the social worker out of the house, no benefits. That is one of those extremely rare cases. And unlike you I like to design a program for the vast majority and let the rare exception handle itself.
What will do the most to help under achieving students is a longer school year. More small group instruction is the second most helpful thing.
Jerry,
The local charity helping a few people with their relatively small budget is one thing.
When it comes to helping tens of millions of people you will need:
- rules, regulations, guidance, etc
- a bureaucracy to manage communications disbursements
- fraud prevention systems
- lawyers
- etc
And you can not even say how the Social Worker should handle this one specific example.
Laurie,
I agree that those 2 ideas are important.
Laurie, how much longer? If you extend by two weeks is that good, but six weeks better? Some districts have gone to year-round school, where the kids are broken into 4 groups, staggered every 3 months. It cuts the need for new buildings and lowers class sizes by 1/3. Is that acceptable? The argument against 3 @ 15-week semesters punctuated by 2-week holidays are child care, greatly reduced family vacation time or summer activity time, impact on the tourism industry, and reduced "diversity" or "well-rounded students."
As for class sizes, I will say again that it sounds reasonable, but there is no evidence that, for any reasonable number between "fits in the room" and "too expensive," it matters beyond the third grade. 18 in kindergarten, slowly moving up to 3rd, is good enough. HOWEVER, my experience forces me to admit that, even on a very limited basis, a lot of good can be done in a relatively short time (15 min-1hour per week) of individualized instruction for those lagging behind.
"The local charity helping a few people with their relatively small budget is one thing.
When it comes to helping tens of millions of people you will need:"
No, you don't, and that is the problem. We have all the rules and bureaucracy we could possibly want, and all it does is get in the way of seeing welfare recipients as less than real human beings with individual difficulties. Whatever the social worker and recipient work out between them as what needs doing, in what order and timeframe, and with what tax credits or public services are available, that is what they do. Expect some early resistance, some early successes, a period of growing acceptance and success, and some "failures" where people are left to their own devices-- becoming "self-sufficient" in their own way, without help, and we have to accept that as being OK.
Jerry,
Any sources to support your old often repeated class size and hours don't matter beliefs?
So you want to give a LOT of money to 10s of thousands of social workers with few or no controls or guidance?
Yes.
No.
Then please provide both.
Don't lump hours in with class size. Do a google search for "Megastudy class size" like I did. The first 3 that came up agreed with what I have been saying.
The second you have simply misstated my proposal so badly it deserves no response.
Yep... Not convincing.
as I always say, you can agree with me, or you can be wrong. Most studies, by experts, agree with me.
Try a little thought experiment. Let us imagine a typical home school situation or a private tutor situation. With one or two children, they receive lots of attention and individualized instruction, and advance at their own pace, and can be expected to do very well. Add 1/2 dozen more And the individual teacher has to change tactics. They can no longer tailor their instruction to each individual student, nor can they devote the same amount of time to each. Then double that number, the minimum number that most schools could afford, even assuming they had the available classroom space. Individual attention is nearly impossible, four minutes per hour, minus whatever time is spent teaching to the whole group. The whole paradigm has changed, and remains the same up until the room becomes too crowded or discipline problems set in. In short, once the kids develop the discipline and learning skills – that is in the first three grades- class-size ceases to be an issue. Almost every study shows exactly that. Gains from small class sizes in K-3 tend to persist throughout school but The gap does not increase by continuing the small class sizes. But feel free to believe what you want.
Jerry,
I am sure the teachers will be happy to hear that behavioral issues disappear by grade 3. :-)
I really don’t know where you get these ideas.
Laurie,
Thoughts?
Children learn, IF TAUGHT, self-control and self-discipline somewhere before age 9, yes. Those who are not taught, at home or in school, have greater difficulty in life. Are you saying children can NOT learn these things, or is it only poor black kids who cannot learn these things?
It is child(ren) with incapable parent(s) and poor role models who find it very hard to learn these things. Have you not been listening for these many years? :-)
~5 years of bad habit building with continual reinforcement on nights, weekends, summers and holidays is very hard to over come.
So how many of these poor parents do you actually know, personally? Isn't it all just a boogey-person made in your misanthropic imagination?
And it may be more difficult for some families and kids, but it CAN be done and we should be helping them, not sitting back and condemning them for it.
Rahm has some good ideas, though it doesn't sound as if they are working as well or as completely as he wants or says. I think more needs to be done along those lines. Maybe Laurie can weigh in on the value of these changes?
Jerry,
I know you want to ignore the poor parent abuse and neglect stats, unfortunately those children do not get to do that.
There were 676,000 victims of child abuse and neglect reported to child protective services (CPS) in 2016.
A non-CPS study estimated that 1 in 4 children experience some form of child abuse or neglect in their lifetimes and 1 in 7 children have experienced abuse or neglect in the last year.
About 1,750 children died from abuse or neglect in 2016.
The total lifetime economic cost of child abuse and neglect is estimated at $124 billion each year.
I understand that you want to keep on your rose colored glasses.
But there are a millions of children begging you to take them off and help them.
tell you what. I will worry about the three in four children who do NOT experience "some form of child abuse or neglect" and you can continue to worry about the one in four that do. Apparently, because not every kid can be educated sufficiently to get into an Ivy League college we should simply quit trying to enable any of them to do so. Our school district has a slogan, "to educate each child to their full potential." Shouldn't that be the goal? If we can change the education system in any way to do better for some population, should we do that instead of continuing to allow the educrats to escape responsibility by blaming parents?
You keep focusing on the lucky kids then.
I am more concerned about those who do not have loving capable parent(s) to help them
Great. So let us ignore the lucky kids trapped in failing schools and try to do something for those unlucky kids who get abused-- which is already illegal, immoral, and should have been prevented by all those government programs we have-- because they cannot POSSIBLY be expected to learn anything in school. The one, single point of contact we have with all children and which we expect to raise them out of their unfortunate circumstances, we fail to employ for that purpose and instead ask the hobbled pony to ride itself to freedom.
I have asked you to let the schools grade parent(s) and you don't like that logical solution.
By the way, you do realize that a large percentage of the neglected and abused kids are enrolled at the "schools you deem as failing"...
I wonder if there is correlation or causation at play?
How about we let the parents grade the schools and then do something about it?
If there is causation, in which direction do you believe it runs? I think denying kids an education which could better their lot in life is SERIOUS child abuse.
Well I believe neglected and abused children bring some serious problems with them into the classroom. Which makes learning difficult for them and their class mates.
Now if you can name a "magic bullet school" who works miracles with a diverse mix of students... I would be happy to study what they are doing right?
Unfortunately I have only found 2 techniques that work consistently:
- schools who only take/keep students with responsible capable parent(s)
- schools who start at birth and train the parent(s)and kids to be responsible and capable
I think there are many more than 2, including:
-- Chicago schools, where principals are given more autonomy
-- NON-diverse schools, where all are equally behind but make gains because they all move at the same pace.
-- Schools with a majority of "lucky kids," where the few with problems can be individually helped.
-- choice schools that insist on discipline and focus on learning
-- online schools and home schools.
-- any school which takes the kids as they come and attempts to teach rather than blaming parents.
I think only these 2 are "successful" and they kind of prove my point.
-- Schools with a majority of "lucky kids," where the few with problems can be individually helped.
This is the outer suburbs model. <20% free and reduced lunch... It aligns pretty well to my "mostly lucky" kids concept.
-- choice schools that insist on discipline and focus on learning.
This is another "we only take good parent(s) / kids model"
The rest of yours have no proven better results...
You're saying Rahm Emanuel is a liar?
That non-diverse schools include only lucky kids, even if they accept only unlucky kids?
As for results, I would like to see some place, other than HCZ, where your model works. Or is it merely theoretical?
Come to think of it, HCZ does not really meet your model, because parents have to choose it and agree to all the rules.
HCZ follows method 2...
"schools who start at birth and train the parent(s)and kids to be responsible and capable"
Chicago may be improving, however I doubt if the meet this goal...
"Now if you can name a "magic bullet school" who works miracles with a diverse mix of students... I would be happy to study what they are doing right?"
By the way, by diverse I am racial, monetary, lucky/unlucky, English Learners, Special Ed, etc...
Robbinsdale is a good example of diverse
We have pretty:
- every race
- every income level
- homeless families
- great parent(s) and questionable parent(s)
- many languages
- 14% special ed
And they accept any child who shows up at their door.
OK, but you missed the part where the parents CHOOSE to participate. According to you the problem is abusive parents who don't give a crap about their kids, or about what kind of education they get. I claim those kids need extra help in their assigned public school and don't get it-- child neglect or abuse, depending on what you want to call it. Parents aren't the only ones.
Show me an example where one teacher can successfully teach 16 different levels of race, family structure, economic background, previous education, and current educational achievement.
I will give you an example: The Mississippi public schools my kids attended. Much of the same diversity you have, but the kids were sorted into 16 different groups based solely on educational attainment upon entering. Each little group stayed together and progressed together, and the lowest were given the extra time and best teachers. By third grade the "diversity" [in educational achievement, all we care about] was gone.
Though you keep saying this...
Mississippi's educational results are still at 46 or 47 of 51.
Where as MN is 4 or 7...
The recent history in this piece is interesting
Mississippi's results should not be confused with what I experienced in one particular city's school system, admittedly not a statewide practice as far as I know.
I must also point out that this was some years ago, before the federal government stepped in to notice that all of the "top" classes were white, and all the kids in the "lowest" classes were black. (Up until 3rd grade, when they were all "equal" in attainment). This could not be permitted, even though this segregation was strictly based on academic status. As a result, the classes were mixed by race but complicated beyond the ability of a teacher to educate them. The teachers would find themselves with 14 kids who didn't know their letters and 14 kids that were reading at or beyond grade level. How does she teach? The same thing is happening in our inner city schools. We expect kids to read, do math, etc. "at grade level" despite the fact that many of them have been disadvantaged before, during or after that grade. Research shows that two weak teachers in a row and the kids never recover.
Source?
google search for "two weak teachers in a row."
Well this an interesting link that supports the weak Teacher concern.
Unfortunately no one is going to let you put the "dumb" mostly minority kids in one class and the achievers in another... And the simple reality is that those kids will never catch up to their "bright and progressing quickly" peers without a LOT of EFFORT and TIME.
And with little or no qualified support at home its a problem... I mean if 2 questionable Teachers is bad for a kid... What do you think the impact of 18 years of questionable parent(s) are?
You continue to make the same argument, that there is nothing the education system can do to educate kids if they are "unlucky" = by your definition =. That is wrong on just so many levels.
In Mississippi, we DID allow kids to be segregated by their current educational achievement level, and then had the best teachers assigned to the lowest level kids. Two good teachers in a row, and these kids did in fact catch up with those who, thanks to their advantages, could learn even under the new teachers (we didn't employ bad ones). But you are correct, that those who think teaching kids is less important than mixing up the races will stop this simple and effective expedient and thus hurt the very kids it is intended to help.
it doesn't even make sense that a school which is 80% minority cannot use this "trick" because they cannot say that all the minority kids are "dumb." There must be some difference. The drawback may be they cannot find any excellent teachers to teach those lagging behind, but that's a systemic problem, not a "poor parenting" problem.
And you keep denying the one sure fact..
Parent(s) are more important than anyone else in the life of a child.
Followed closely by their peers and friends.
Teachers are far behind these folks.
OK, so now you are not only going to magically make all parents "lucky," but you are going to choose every kid's peers and friends, so that they cannot /possibly/ miss out on the "great leveler" education the government PROMISED them, no strings attached?
Now you want to make government responsible for the success of citizens...
Next you will be saying everyone deserves a "chicken in their pot" whether they work or stand idle.
A you a closet liberal or something... :-)
I want for government to deliver on the promises it has made, and for which the taxpayers have regally rewarded them. That some parents may or may not be doing everything that they could to help is irrelevant to the promises that have been made. That is we were told that education was the great leveler, so government should not be coming back now and say "well, yes, but you're too low for us to level."
I am not a liberal, I am for equal opportunity. Shorting the kids who need more education, or allowing them to distract from those who need less to succeed, is wrong in both directions.
Today we have a free "equal opportunity" society where anyone can move, work harder, live in different communities, attend different schools, etc.
What you want is "government" to make people become more responsible and successful... That is not "equal opportunity" that is "equal outcomes".
I just don't see it happening, especially when you refuse help.
your assertion about me is a "page not found." Sounds right.
So explain to me how everybody has an equal opportunity when some people are forced to attend schools which notoriously fail to educate equally. We even have a lawsuit here in Minnesota claiming such, and it is not at all without merit.
Just the usual
No one is forced to attend a specific school in MN. We have SO MANY options...
- move and rent an apartment in any city you wish
- open enroll to most districts
- attend a charter or magnet
- attend a private, apply for scholarship
What case?
This silliness?
Wrong. EVERYONE is forced by law to attend school. If you cannot afford an alternative, one will be provided to you. If what you say is true, then why, when "opportunity scholarships" are made available, do people sign up for them at up to 100:1?
That "silliness" is correct in premise and may prevail. The only thing silly is the proposed remedy.
Source of 100:1?
I looked long and hard for a source because I knew you would ask. But the only one I could find reported about 800:1 so I didn't cite it.
one thing that did come up in my search was how some people are using vouchers to do "school within a school" things-- basically contracting out to private enterprise part of the public school, to manage those students who choose vouchers. It is an excellent approach because it maintains the neighborhood school, and all of the other amenities thereto, while almost "instantly" improving academics.
It reminds me of how RDale used / uses magnets and AP/IB class rooms to instantly improve results... Only lucky kids / parents apply...
It is amazing how the results of those classes are so much better than those of the normal kids.
According to your simple logic... The programs must be much better. :-)
No doubt those programs WERE better. So tell me, was anyone turned away? Were there more applicants than available slots? Were some people not allowed to participate for some other reason (travel, cost, test scores)? If so, you are proving my point. And here is another question: If the public schools know how to operate "these programs" and they are so much better, why doesn't EVERYBODY get to participate?
I think you missed my point... Likely intentionally. :-)
It was not he programs that were better...
Just like the Wayzata school programs are not better than the RDale school programs.
It is just demographics that make them look so...
So it seems to me that you would be okay with bussing all kids to the burbs so they could seem more successful.
I missed your point because I simply read what you wrote. Now that you explain it, I see that what you were doing was engaging in circular reasoning. That is, the students do better because the program is better because the students do better. If you want to suggest that those students who start (at any point in school) with a full grasp of what they should have learned up to that point succeed better in classes with others at the same level, congratulations, you have discovered what Mississippi knew years ago. The question you have yet to answer is what you are going to do for those kids who, through natural disadvantages or previous school system failures have NOT learned at this point. Again, the Mississippi solution was to place them in classes with the best teachers, insist on discipline, and "play catch-up." And if the public schools do not know how to do that the kids should go elsewhere at public expense. No more throwaway kids.
Good. Let’s bus them to the burbs where test scores are great.
And you said that lawsuit was "silly," yet here you are proposing exactly the silly remedy the plaintiffs are. And based on skin color, not something that matters to educability.
What you have suggested is the opposite of what I am suggesting. If you bus these kids to the burbs, they will be even further behind, because of their "pre-existing conditions" (disadvantages). Now if you want to bus them to the burbs and segregate them out by their current educational attainment level, and give them the best teachers so they can catch up, it would probably work, but the extra time on the bus would take AWAY from that and it would be better to do the same thing in their local school. So why doesn't the public school system do it?
Tell me the name of that miracle school so we can all learn from them.
Warrenton Elementary, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1978. The problem is, you and the educrats NEVER learn.
How about a modern day school???
Why? It was working just fine until the government stepped in and ordered racial mixing-- not for improving education, but for the purpose of racial mixing. Why do we do that today, when it was a mistake 40 years ago?
Like I said, it is ironic that it is the education establishment that cannot seem to learn.
Unfortunately usually segregating people was done for bad reasons.
Now what modern school should they all learn from?
How about looking at modern schools and learning what is NOT working, for starters? Maybe ask why, when "better school" vouchers are offered, why hundreds line up for each one available. Or how about Khan academy?
Post a Comment