Waiting for Superman

[jenbrdsly]

Does anyone get Netflix? The documentary "Waiting for Superman" is available on Netflix-streaming right now, so I finally watched it. A lot of the information isn't new. If you saw the Oprah episode about "Waiting for Superman" a while back, then you have seen all of the good parts.

 

What frustrated me about the film was that so much emphasis was put on schools and teachers. There was basically no focus on parental responsibility. The film made it look like good parents living in bad neighborhoods tried to get their kids into charter schools because that was the only hope. If your kid didn't get chosen in the lottery, than tough luck.

 

I just wish they had spent ten minutes talking about some of the things parents could have been doing with their children at home to promote learning.

 

Thoughts?

[Heathermomster]

Yes, I watched it last spring. My DS actually sat down and watched the end of it with me. Repeatedly, I looked at him and explained parental responsibility and how that was an essential part of the equation.

 

It's bothersome that so many people feel helpless and rely so heavily upon the schools to solve their problems, particularly when so many supposedly "good" schools fail the average student.

[EKS]

I have a few thoughts on this. One is that in many low income families, there is a single parent who is working, many times more than one job, perhaps at odd hours. It simply isn't feasible for these parents to regularly afterschool their children. Even in many two parent homes it is a stretch. And many parents aren't inclined for other reasons to afterschool. (I am using the term "afterschool" to range from any sort of academic instruction to listening to a child read to helping with math to even simply showing an interest in anything academic.)

 

Also, frankly, it really shouldn't be too much to ask to make children's 6+ hours in school every day as productive as possible.

[jenbrdsly]

I have a few thoughts on this. One is that in many low income families, there is a single parent who is working, many times more than one job, perhaps at odd hours. It simply isn't feasible for these parents to regularly afterschool their children. Even in many two parent homes it is a stretch. And many parents aren't inclined for other reasons to afterschool. (I am using the term "afterschool" to range from any sort of academic instruction to listening to a child read to helping with math to even simply showing an interest in anything academic.)

 

Also, frankly, it really shouldn't be too much to ask to make children's 6+ hours in school every day as productive as possible.

 

 

YES! I agree with this 100%. But still... I don't think it should be that you expect schools to do everything. Parents have responsibility too.

[Caroline]

I read somewhere, and I don't have the reference, that there was not a statistically significant difference in college acceptance and performance between students who won the lottery and students who didn't. However, there was a huge difference in college acceptance and performance between students whose parents put them in the lottery and students whose parents didn't.

[kiwik]

I don't know whether it is the same over there but here people have been over a number of generations taught to leave it to the school. The teachers do not want you to teach your kids - just help fundraise (they do have parent helps but if you work this is not an option) or provide transport for field trips. We don't have textbooks even so all I know about school is what my child remembers or the teacher chooses to tell me.

 

We were also taught as children not to question the teacher.

 

Is it really surprising that a busy and perhaps not very well educated parent would leave it to the school?

Does anyone get Netflix? The documentary "Waiting for Superman" is available on Netflix-streaming right now, so I finally watched it. A lot of the information isn't new.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

I haven't seen the movie, but isn't a lot of it about the Harlem Children's Zone project? If so, a big part of this project is training parents to be better parents. HCZ is a very ambitious project, and it isn't cheap, and it will take a long time to prove whether it works or not. For the sake of the kids, I sure hope it does work.

[Roadrunner]

there was a huge difference in college acceptance and performance between students whose parents put them in the lottery and students whose parents didn't.

 

I am not surprised.

 

I have been doing a personal informal survey/observation to determine the correlation of number of books parents own to performance of their children. My sample is small (play dates, friends, relatives), but yes, in my experience the ownership of a bookshelf is the best predictor of children's performance. I am shocked how many families don't own any literature. Family culture is crucial.

[Bang!Zoom!]

Roadrunner, if you are looking for an example for books owned/future learning..I think there is one that's showcased in Sylvia Rimm's book, "See Jane Win" - I remember when it first was published and it made a pretty definite impact on me as a topic.

 

That is a superb book by the way, it talks about all sorts of factors in future success as children grow up..what was present in their environment, what was not...just excellent.

[Roadrunner]

Thanks for recommendation one*mom. I would love to read it!

[Caraway]

the ownership of a bookshelf is the best predictor of children's performance.

 

 

 

Well then, my work here is done!

[NotSoObvious]

Yeah. They highlighted a lot of low income schools like where I used to teach. I had a student get into a charter school, her mom chose not to send her, and I went home and cried. The situation is DIRE in some of these districts. Many of the parents don't speak English or have had apvery little education themselves. So those desperate families really are desperate. A better education is their child's only ticket out.

When I left the inner city, I went to teach at a charter school.

 

Here's my blog post from when I saw this movie in the theater. It was the year we started homeschooling. http://homeschoolfortwo.com/homeschool/waiting-for-superman/

 

[Durriyyah]

I saw this movie when I started homeschooling, so I saw it with a different viewpoint than you're describing, though I definitely see your point. It really is a double edge sword... on one side we are paying tens of thousands of dollars per child for their education, and then they are sent home with loads of homework at young ages as if we didn't do enough in the 6 or so hours they were there. On the other side, education should not be something outsourced to the government and not a responsibility we schlep off either.

[MtnMama]

Jen, I agree 100% about the parental responsibility. I believe that my husband and I are responsible for ensuring that our children get a good education, regardless of whether we homeschool or send him to a brick and mortar school. My son is currently in PS 1st grade, and we look at it as a chance to learn some new things and practice what he already knows. I am well informed about what he is learning at school, and I supplement some subjects or, in the case of subjects that aren't taught at PS, like history, I teach them myself at home. I see his teachers as partners with us in his education. His teacher has commented on how obvious it is that we do lots of learning at home, and she says that is unusual in her experience.

[G5052]

IMHO society has a responsibility at large to educate the young, and that includes both parents and teachers. That said, I know several people who had very hands-off parents but were mentored by teachers who lit the spark of learning. So when the parent aren't involved, good teachers can hopefully fill in the gap. The movie focused on the school side.

 

Of course homeschooling isn't the answer by any means either. I teach paid classes to homeschoolers and also at the local community college, and there always hands-off homeschoolers who aren't that involved in their child's education despite what the paperwork says. It baffles me at times. Why would you pay for a class out of your own pocket and then not care that your kid is failing? Anyway...

[OSUBuckeye]

The other thing about parental responsibility is society's current inaction to help students living with irresponsible parents or parents unequipt (with education or money) to raise their kids with even the minimal amount of decency.

 

State legislatures if anything are trying to argue to cut "non-essential" programs like free lunches, but I know from my teaching experiences that this is the most important part of school for poor students. The attendance for poor students is amazingly high because of that $1.50 lunch they receive, and students with food in the fridge have more truancy problems.

 

I teach students who have their power/water/etc cut off, who don't have food provided by their parents so they need to hussle / steal for it. One of my best students in a class admitted his family owned a Bible and a phonebook, and no other books in the house.

 

Last year I knew an entrepreneurial kid who had set up a system where he used the lunch numbers of kids who didn't want their free lunch (mind you, the lunches aren't that appetizing - I went through years of school without eating them) and then distributed these extra lunches for either a $1 if the buyer could afford it, or for free if the person proved they were hungry and needed a second meal. He usually ate one of these extra meals himself, and if he made a dollar or two he would use it to pay for his meals on weekends.

 

Studies show that hungry kids don't pay attention and learn as well, and long-term their nutrition causes slower brain development. Some of them have medical conditions that require medications, but the parents will take them off the expensive meds over the summer or long breaks, causing lost days of learning when the kid returns without the meds taking effect yet.

 

The kids come to school without paper and pencils. Some wear bookbags, so we ask what's inside them if it's not school supplies. But we know the answer already - a change of clothes, possibly food, and likely some weed. These are the essentials, and bringing school supplies to school aren't something that the parents instill into the kid. So every day the teachers supply paper, pencils, and offer notebooks for sale ($.20) but we know that most students don't have the 20 cents or don't find the .20 cents on a notebook be a priority.

 

One thing thats helped alter parental priorities is that the subsidized housing (which costs less than $200 a month) now requires that the parent send the kid to school and that the kid remain in good behavior. Missing more than 10 days of school or getting into a fight is enough to evict the parent. Trust me, parents who don't put in any effort immediately begin to fuss at their kid for fighting when the kid begins costing them money. That's why I wish we could go one step further and institute a minimal fee system in the public schools - 5 cents for every pencil we lend and don't get back, a $2 dollar a day babysitting charge for when your child attends but refuses to participate/write anything down, and a $5 security fee for fighting. These sound like insultingly low prices, but they're universally affordable and they would force parents to push their kids to at least demonstrate effort so as to avoid getting billed. When a kid puts in effort, the school can teach them and make them grow leaps and bounds. When a kid is there just for the lunch and knows they're entitled to attend school, they stay as dumb as they arrived. A $2 daily fee is enough incentive to require that students engage in the system that they attend, and from there we can break the cycle of ignorance and uneducatedness. We already place these students in the special ed system and do as much as we can at school for them (even as the child puts in zero effort, we are legally required to assist in multiple ways and provide additional staff members), so why not also hold the parent financially responsible if they fail to carry out their moral responsibilities as a parent?

[swellmomma]

That's why I wish we could go one step further and institute a minimal fee system in the public schools - 5 cents for every pencil we lend and don't get back, a $2 dollar a day babysitting charge for when your child attends but refuses to participate/write anything down, and a $5 security fee for fighting. These sound like insultingly low prices, but they're universally affordable and they would force parents to push their kids to at least demonstrate effort so as to avoid getting billed. When a kid puts in effort, the school can teach them and make them grow leaps and bounds. When a kid is there just for the lunch and knows they're entitled to attend school, they stay as dumb as they arrived. A $2 daily fee is enough incentive to require that students engage in the system that they attend, and from there we can break the cycle of ignorance and uneducatedness. We already place these students in the special ed system and do as much as we can at school for them (even as the child puts in zero effort, we are legally required to assist in multiple ways and provide additional staff members), so why not also hold the parent financially responsible if they fail to carry out their moral responsibilities as a parent?

 

:smilielol5: :smilielol5: :smilielol5:

 

Oh wait, you were serious..... :mellow: hmmm, okaaaaaaay then.

[jenbrdsly]

Yeah. They highlighted a lot of low income schools like where I used to teach. I had a student get into a charter school, her mom chose not to send her, and I went home and cried. The situation is DIRE in some of these districts. Many of the parents don't speak English or have had apvery little education themselves. So those desperate families really are desperate. A better education is their child's only ticket out.

When I left the inner city, I went to teach at a charter school.

 

Here's my blog post from when I saw this movie in the theater. It was the year we started homeschooling. http://homeschoolfor...g-for-superman/

 

 

I couldn't figure out how to leave a comment on your blog post, but it was awesome! We have similar stories in that I taught in East Palo Alto, CA (around the time it was the murder capital of America), and then moved on to teaching at a charter school.

 

The part about the teacher's unions is really conflicting for me too. I saw in East Palo Alto how the teachers union was often the only thing protecting children and good teachers from some very bad principals. But the union also protected bad teachers. Arg!

 

Homeschooling was an option for your family, but it is not an option for every family. I really think there needs to be massive parental education/empowerment about how to support learning at home. That is of course, easier said than done.

[jenbrdsly]

:smilielol5: :smilielol5: :smilielol5:

 

Oh wait, you were serious..... :mellow: hmmm, okaaaaaaay then.

 

 

 

Actually, I think in the documentary Freakanomics they actually tried something close to this. (I sound like a Netflix advertiser, but I think that doc was on Netflix too.)

 

As I recall, economic researchers from Northwestern? (I could be wrong about that) went into low performing schools and paid kids for good grades. It made a remarkable difference for a lot of them. The researchers point was that if it only takes $100 a year of possible incentive money to get kids to do well in school, then that is a heck of a lot cheaper than society paying the price later for high school drops outs.

 

Did anyone else see that? Please fill me in on everything I've forgotten. :)

 

Edited to add, I found the Freakanomics clip here

[butterflymommy]

I read somewhere, and I don't have the reference, that there was not a statistically significant difference in college acceptance and performance between students who won the lottery and students who didn't. However, there was a huge difference in college acceptance and performance between students whose parents put them in the lottery and students whose parents didn't.

 

 

That's the problem with charter and lottery school statistics. The parents who care about academics apply. The ones who don't care about academics or who are just too burnt out or overwhelmed, don't apply. So you have an automatic litmus test taking place. Of course the kids in these schools will do better (albeit in some cases marginally) than the other bunch of kids. The same could be said of homeschooling statistics. It's not that HSing is necessarily a magic bullet, it's that the families who homeschool are going to be exceptional in some way, to some degree, just by being willing to think outside the box-- and bothering to care in the first place.

 

An interesting aside, similarly to this, there have been studies showing that ivy league attendance doesn't impact future earnings when compared to either 1) kids who were accepted to ivy league schools but didn't attend, and 2) kids who were rejected but who had SAT scores on par with those accepted.

 

So I think you're looking at a g factor influence more than anything else, since these qualities (intelligence, motivation, drive, ambition) are to a large extent genetic. The parents' choices will reflect the student's aptitude. Not 100% but to a quantifiable degree.

[Bang!Zoom!]

Ya Jen I'd watched that also. This was not a penalizing system but a reward.

[swellmomma]

Actually, I think in the documentary Freakanomics they actually tried something close to this. (I sound like a Netflix advertiser, but I think that doc was on Netflix too.)

 

As I recall, economic researchers from Northwestern? (I could be wrong about that) went into low performing schools and paid kids for good grades. It made a remarkable difference for a lot of them. The researchers point was that if it only takes $100 a year of possible incentive money to get kids to do well in school, then that is a heck of a lot cheaper than society paying the price later for high school drops outs.

 

Did anyone else see that? Please fill me in on everything I've forgotten. :)

 

Edited to add, I found the Freakanomics clip here

 

Yes but they were REWARDING the kids, the posted suggested PENALIZING already poor families if their kid doesn't succeed etc. My family was that poor family when my kids were in ps that struggled to send lunch(no lunch programs in the schools they attended and heavy restrictions on what could be sent due to allergies so no cheap foods, and no way to heat left overs), we got the charity backpack with school supplies each year because I could not afford them etc. They kids were there but since you can not force a child to do more than show up in class. Now my dd was in detention every day in 1st grade for refusing to do her work. If I had been charged $2 a day for that we would not have made our rent each month, or the kids would have been sent to school with no lunch, because I would be out $40 a month. On the other hand if someone offered to pay dd to do the work (which I could not afford to do), she would have jumped right in. SHe was bored to death in school and knew that work so she didn't think she should have to do it. DS well I would have been paying for him $2 a day too because he never spoke up, he did his work, but always failed because he did not understand it, never raised his hand, never said a word to anyone, never paticipated in class discussions or group work etc. So between my 2 kids I would have been out $80 a month. THat is no small amount for even a middle income family, putting that burden on an already struggling family is the most ridiculous peice of baloney I have ever heard of, and would only be come up with by someone who has never been that poor. Seeing it from the outside is not the same. Teaching kids who live that way is not the same. Try being that mother doing all she can to feed, clothe and provide shelter to her kids, that gets them to school and wants them to succeed and then be told oh by the way your kid is not good enough so we are going to charge you an extra fee now. When you are already on the edge that is enough to push you over.

 

It's funny I have the same income now as I did back when my kids were in ps, but we have more to work with, without all the extra school expenses (our schools are not free, you pay reg costs, and admin fees and few other things so it is usually for elem kids about $150, plus bus passes, plus lunch room fees(you provide lunch but you have to pay for the priviledge to eat in the lunchroom), school lunches(no peanut butter, no eggs, no bananas, no tuna and no kiwi at the school they attended. No leftovers to be microwaved. deli meat is uber expensive but if I wanted them to have protein at lunch I had to buy it), add in fundraisers, school pictures, monthly book orders, tickets to the school concert(yes we as parents had to buy tickets to see our kids sing in the school concert), etc. Almost 1/2 my monthly income went to the school already and if they told me I had to pay more, well my kids would not have been there even as long as they were. I didn't pull them out due to costs, but that was a lovely surprise that suddenly I had enough for most of our bills by not sending them.

 

Families on the edge, if told they would have to pay for their kid to do more in class, or for a lost pencil or for whatever reason would revolt and the kids would pay. Either they will stop sending them to school completely, which for many of the families would not be good since the parents are uneducated, or it would increase family tension and strain to the point that kids would find themselves on the receiving end of the rod too often because the parents had to pay that weeks grocery money to the school again.

 

Growing up I was not that poor, I attended okay schools, I got good grades. I would not participate in class, too shy, but got in trouble daily for chatting to my friend next to me. In high school if I showed up to class (normally by gr 12 I took naps in the student lounge and played cards in the cafeteria instead of going to class), I doodled in my notebook and still rarely participated. Yet I scored well, classes that I never showed up to after the first week until it was time to write the year end provincial exam for my diploma grade and passed the course(the exam is worth 50% of your grade so I had to have scored pretty much perfectly). My parents would have been billed that $2 a day and it likely would have resulted on me being kicked out of my home and me dropping out of school, instead I graduated with decent grades and moved on. Student apathy is not just in the low income schools, it is everywhere, and I highly doubt anyone would consider billing the middle and high income families for the same thing.

 

Rewarding as they did in freakanomics works, penalizing does not.

[swellmomma]

double post

[Bang!Zoom!]

There are schools out there which have a system of instituting fines or fees on students, do some googling on the concept. Make your eyes fall out...here's one for example, fairly recent...

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/chicago-high-school-makes-190000-student-fines-bad/t/story?id=15758891

 

Here is the actual code also for noble

 

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wls/documents/Noble_rulebook.PDF

[jenbrdsly]

Rewarding as they did in freakanomics works, penalizing does not.

 

 

I agree. Thanks for filling in my shaky memory!

 

I would definitely not be in support of penalizing people. I am in support of using money in creative ways to try to enact change through positive reinforcement.

[regentrude]

As I recall, economic researchers from Northwestern? (I could be wrong about that) went into low performing schools and paid kids for good grades. It made a remarkable difference for a lot of them. The researchers point was that if it only takes $100 a year of possible incentive money to get kids to do well in school, then that is a heck of a lot cheaper than society paying the price later for high school drops outs.

 

Yes, it is cheaper - but isn't it sending a horrible message? Do we want to raise people who don't do anything unless they are rewarded with money?

[TranquilMind]

Does anyone get Netflix? The documentary "Waiting for Superman" is available on Netflix-streaming right now, so I finally watched it. A lot of the information isn't new. If you saw the Oprah episode about "Waiting for Superman" a while back, then you have seen all of the good parts.

 

What frustrated me about the film was that so much emphasis was put on schools and teachers. There was basically no focus on parental responsibility. The film made it look like good parents living in bad neighborhoods tried to get their kids into charter schools because that was the only hope. If your kid didn't get chosen in the lottery, than tough luck.

 

I just wish they had spent ten minutes talking about some of the things parents could have been doing with their children at home to promote learning.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

I watched it. I found this perspective annoying, as you did.

 

Not to mention my daughter was in a "highly sought after" charter school, and it was not a good move, though I am sure the academics were better in the AP classes than at the local high school.

[swellmomma]

 

Yes, it is cheaper - but isn't it sending a horrible message? Do we want to raise people who don't do anything unless they are rewarded with money?

 

well except when it comes to getting work done that is how it works. You go to work, you work hard, you get paid. Families do the same thing in regards to allowance and chores. Do the work get the money. Or scholarship money, same deal work hard, get the grades get teh money for post secondary.

 

Now that said I do not do allowance anymore and when we did it was not tied to chores. There is somethings that you do simply because they need to be done like housework. But generally speaking if one thinks of school as a child's job than it makes sense in terms of productivity to say work hard get paid. That does not instill the love of learning, ingenuity, inspiration etc that comes from simply working out of love for it. It will however produce those bottom teired workers that need to learn to push the productivity, keep their heads down and get a cheque at the end of teh week. So the cubicle workers rather than the bosses. Not a bad thing if the goal is to simply get the kids to a certain standard so they can hold a job and not need welfare programs. Not a good thing if your goals are something higher. When it comes to the proverty stricken though all you want is for your kid to learn and be able to support him or herself. Generally it is those that are already more affluent that have the loftier goals and dreams for their kids. Many of those kids throw those away too, but they already have fewer strikes against them to bounce back so to speak.

 

Students that already have the cards stacked against them sometimes just need that carrot at the end of the stick to push through and not fall into the same dysfunctional patterns their families are living. Penalty systems will push them faster into those patterns imo.

[LucyStoner]

Yes, it is cheaper - but isn't it sending a horrible message? Do we want to raise people who don't do anything unless they are rewarded with money?

 

But at some point, for many if not most, if they are doing the work and learning (regardless of the fact they may only be doing it for the reward), they will have an ah-ha moment and start actually enjoying it when they find something they love that they never would have been able to get to without the basics. At the very least, incentives will help create a habit where studying becomes a matter of course. Just getting more kids out the door with literacy, arithmetic and a hs diploma is shown to increase earnings, decrease poverty and decrease the rate of incarceration.

 

Bluntly, prison systems use grade school literacy rates in planning for their future occupancy rates. This isn't only about getting kids into college. It also has huge public health and cost benefits that can reverberate for decades.

[LucyStoner]

Of course parental responsibility plays a huge role. Educated parents, parents who insist that learning is their kids' A1 priority, parents who own and read a lot of books etc are all good solid indicators of student success But bluntly, not all kids have responsible parents or parents who have a choice in how much they can be with their kids. Public schools need to reach the kids with no parental guidance and support the most. It's the hardest job, but frankly it is why I personally support the continued existence and funding of public schools.

 

One of my nephews lives in a different state with a totally awful home life- mom and step-dad are both users, step-dad is usually wanted by the law somewhere for something, mom and step-dad never finished high school (I don't think step-dad even ever WENT to high school) surrounded by teen pregnancy etc. His public school isn't great but it's enough- it gives him access to books, computers, athletics etc. He has to go and get it himself, his mother and step-dad sure don't help, but for whatever reason he's made it through and is headed to college this fall. If the public schools he attended had not done as good of a job, he'd likely be headed the same direction as his mom.

[Bang!Zoom!]

Has anyone here seen the movie "Stand and Deliver"?

 

There's a pretty good story about what happens when it gets from seat of your pants to actually doing a fine job, and the reward you get...lol.

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2010/03/jaime_escalante_dies_at_79.html

[jenbrdsly]

Has anyone here seen the movie "Stand and Deliver"?

 

There's a pretty good story about what happens when it gets from seat of your pants to actually doing a fine job, and the reward you get...lol.

 

http://voices.washin...dies_at_79.html

 

 

 

Great article.

[Bang!Zoom!]

Even better movie!

 

Just playing Devil's advocate Jen. You are a sport. ;)

[SKL]

Well. I haven't seen the documentary, but I find some of the comments above interesting. I am a single working mom. I have very limited time with my kids each day. I do work with them, but there are factors that stymie our progress. Also, it can be difficult to decide what to spend the most time on. Is it more important that my kid get enough sleep, or exercise, or math practice on a given school night? If I pick up my kids at 6pm, something has to give.

 

And there is the big question that is so politically incorrect to ask. Why are tens of thousands of my earnings going to support schools, and why are kids required to spend 40+ hours per week in/on school for 13 years, if the schools can't be relied upon to teach basic required knowledge, at least to kids without major learning barriers? How in the world does a neuro-typical kid sit in a room full of books for so many thousands of hours and not learn to make sense of printed material? It truly baffles me. I visited a slum school in a developing country where the third graders were learning in 3-4 languages, and in English (not their native language) their spelling was on par with high-achieving US third-graders. These are kids who don't have books or literate parents or even enough to eat. Forget computers or even electricity. These kids are learning well enough to get into competitive universities. And it's not because the parents are sending them to school already ahead of the game. It's because the schools and teachers take the responsibility for academic education extremely seriously.

[Roadrunner]

SKL - it's also probably because those kids know school is the only way out of extreme poverty. In situations like you described, odds are those kids are in school to begin with because their parents valued education and made sacrifices to get them there, not because of government rules. How many others kids were on the streets or working land at the same time? Poor or rich, family culture matters for not all , but many kids.

[regentrude]

SKL - it's also probably because those kids know school is the only way out of extreme poverty. In situations like you described, odds are those kids are in school to begin with because their parents valued education and made sacrifices to get them there, not because of government rules. How many others kids were on the streets or working land at the same time? Poor or rich, family culture matters for not all , but many kids.

 

I agree.

In those countries, being able to go to school is a privilege. And I would imagine it is easier to be motivated to work hard in school if your alternative is working hard in a field or a mine - as opposed to watching TV or playing video games.

 

Also, if school is a privilege, unruly and disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. There is no political correctness carp, I am quite sure the teachers will not have to spend as much time with discipline and crowd management as they have to do int the US public schools. The disruptive kid will be expelled and/or disciplined by his parents.

[jenbrdsly]

How in the world does a neuro-typical kid sit in a room full of books for so many thousands of hours and not learn to make sense of printed material?

 

This is frustrating yes, but I can partially answer this. When I was teaching third grade at a Title 1 school, I only had 20 students at a time. But over the course of one year I had 40 students! That's because the children were constantly coming and going from Mexico. I got one kid who didn't speak any English the week before the standardized test. His scores went into my "effectiveness as a teacher" record.

 

The other problems is when school districts don't give teachers enough control. I HAD to use 3rd grade materials, even though many of my students didn't know the ABCs. (They had just come from Mexico.) So in many ways, my hands were tied. Also, there wasn't a classroom full of books. The school library had burnt down TWICE! and the only books in my classroom were ones I had purchased.

 

(This made me in favor of Charter schools.)

 

SKL - it's also probably because those kids know school is the only way out of extreme poverty. In situations like you described, odds are those kids are in school to begin with because their parents valued education and made sacrifices to get them there, not because of government rules. How many others kids were on the streets or working land at the same time? Poor or rich, family culture matters for not all , but many kids.

 

Yes! Also, don't parents have to scrape together money to buy a school uniform? Maybe investing money into something makes you more likely to follow through.

 

(This would be in favor of the parental responsibility argument.)

[Arcadia]

When I was teaching third grade at a Title 1 school, I only had 20 students at a time. But over the course of one year I had 40 students! That's because the children were constantly coming and going from Mexico. I got one kid who didn't speak any English the week before the standardized test. His scores went into my "effectiveness as a teacher" record.

......

 

Yes! Also, don't parents have to scrape together money to buy a school uniform? Maybe investing money into something makes you more likely to follow through.

 

Aren't students who have been in the states for 12 cumulative months or less allowed to take California's Standards-based Tests in Spanish? Also these students would have been classified as ESL for the purpose of STAR testing reporting. I guess each school district does things their own way.

 

Not all chartered schools required uniforms. Two chartered school that we toured did not not require uniforms but did ask for big optional monetary donations. One asked for $3k and one asked for $6,500.

[jenbrdsly]

Aren't students who have been in the states for 12 cumulative months or less allowed to take California's Standards-based Tests in Spanish? Also these students would have been classified as ESL for the purpose of STAR testing reporting. I guess each school district does things their own way.

 

Not all chartered schools required uniforms. Two chartered school that we toured did not not require uniforms but did ask for big optional monetary donations. One asked for $3k and one asked for $6,500.

 

 

I'm not sure of the rules in CA now. This was many, many years ago with Ron Unz had just passed through an English only initiative. At the time, teachers were only allowed to teach in English by law.

[Χά�ων]

Not all chartered schools required uniforms. Two chartered school that we toured did not not require uniforms but did ask for big optional monetary donations. One asked for $3k and one asked for $6,500.

 

Who has that type of money?? And just how optional is that?

[Roadrunner]

I agree.

In those countries, being able to go to school is a privilege. And I would imagine it is easier to be motivated to work hard in school if your alternative is working hard in a field or a mine - as opposed to watching TV or playing video games.

 

 

:iagree:

I know of a European lady who lives in a mountenous part of a developing country (married to a local) and homeschools her children. When local villagers found out she knew how to read and write and was teaching her kids, one by one they started to ask her to teach their children to read as well (no school locally). She ended up opening up a school in her house and getting a grant from some organization overseas.

I can just imagine the pride and hope those families and their children now have. Those situations simply can't be compared to the ones in our troubled schools.

[mathnerd]

Who has that type of money?? And just how optional is that?

Apparently all the parents who send their kids to these charter schools have that type of money. In my area, this kind of money is cheap compared to prices for private education so these schools are oversubscribed several times (like 500 applicants for 70 seats in K).

And the "voluntary" donation is really mandatory or the parent name is published in the school's "wall of shame". You can read all about one such (in)famous school in my neck of the woods here: http://www.dailykos....Charter-School# - you need to scroll down to read about the "Wall of shame".

 

As for the OP's post about parental involvement and responsibility in a child's education, it is only possible if the parent is educated and is confident enough to know how to teach their kids or have time to afterschool or have extra money to afford suitable afterschool tuition and most importantly, the need for the parent to have stability in their lives to be able to focus on their children's education. A lot of American families are low income (middle income is also considered to be "on the poverty line" in my neighborhood where the costs are sky high), have family issues like divorce/custody battles/visitation/health etc, have not enough education and expertise to do what it takes, are struggling to put food on the table with 2-3 jobs for each parent while videogames are used as babysitters for their kids. These families take any education provided by the PS. Whether they get a dedicated teacher who sparks that flame of interest in some field of education that lasts a lifetime depends on luck.

PS: I have a friend who teaches PS 1st grade in SoCal and her stories about children of immigrant laborers who do not have any parental help (ability or time) to do even simple posters like favorite foods, favorite animal, culture of any country etc is heart breaking. Some of them send their kids to school because it has subsidized lunch and acts as a free child care center and she says a lot of the kids just disappear and move on every few months.

[SKL]

I would just note that when I was a kid, it was not the norm for parents to work with their children on academics, especially if the child didn't have learning problems. My parents never did at all. Nor did I have any homework until 3rd grade. My family also happened to be poor, my mom worked, and my dad was illiterate. I managed to get a pretty good education because I went to a school where teachers taught, and the overall culture respected teachers (so most kids were afraid to screw up at school).

 

So I have a hard time with the attitude that if you don't at least "afterschool," your kid's chances for a decent future are poor. Again, kids are sitting in school for so many hours. Kids are sponges. I can't fault parents for expecting a reasonable amount of information to enter their kids' brains at school.

[jenbrdsly]

So I have a hard time with the attitude that if you don't at least "afterschool," your kid's chances for a decent future are poor. Again, kids are sitting in school for so many hours. Kids are sponges. I can't fault parents for expecting a reasonable amount of information to enter their kids' brains at school.

 

 

I agree with this.

 

What I'm saying though, is that your kids’ lives don't have to be ruined if you are zoned for a bad school. Parents can make a difference too. It doesn't have to be formal Afterschooling. Things like going to the library regularly and having your kids watch PBS kids instead of Cartoon Network can make a big difference. It's possible that a lot of parents don't know this, especially if they didn't grow up with that.

[SKL]

What would you like the parents to be responsible for?

 

In my district, I am responsible for instilling behavior expectations, seeing that the child attends regularly, arranging for care when he's sick, and ensuring that homework and studying is done. I am responsible to see that he arrives ready to learn (fed, emotionally calm). I agree to all that. I would like the responsibility of ensuring that the child is teachable to go to the parents and the staff - I'm real tired of the 'you're not the boss of me, I don't have to do what you say' types taking up valuable teaching time and aide money all year, every year until they can go to alternative school. The parent needs to own part of that, before they wind up in family ct agreeing to alternative instead of a prison placement. I don't agree to the additional expectation of having to teach content. It's been great; always wanted to learn composition and lit analysis from the English teacher's perspective, and as an engineer I appreciate the opportunity to teach arithmetic correctly, but I really don't see why the teacher can't do it. We are paying six figure salaries here and offering generous bennies...in return we get presenters who have no responsibility to ensure that any learning takes place. It is ridiculous that well behaved students with educated parents have to afterschool in order to get the grade level learning objectives covered. In my time, the teachers taught effectively or the school board let them go. What's your take? What do you think the teacher should be responsible for?

 

 

See, that's my issue. If parents have to do so much, why are we paying so much? Aside from the salaries mentioned above, they nickel and dime us to death. And then they expect us to take what little time and resources we have left and do the teaching ourselves?

 

Why don't we shut down the school system if it's costing way more than its output is worth, and nobody can do anything about it?

[regentrude]

What would you like the parents to be responsible for?

 

In my district, I am responsible for instilling behavior expectations, seeing that the child attends regularly, arranging for care when he's sick, and ensuring that homework and studying is done. I am responsible to see that he arrives ready to learn (fed, emotionally calm). I agree to all that. ....

I don't agree to the additional expectation of having to teach content.

 

 

I agree completely. It should be the parent's responsibility to make sure the child is present, teachable, behaves appropriately, does his homework. Parents should not have to be responsible for teaching content.

But: as long as children who are able and willing to learn are grouped together with children who are neither able nor willing, I as a parent have no choice: if I send my kids to school to be babysat without them learning, I have to try to teach content at home. (Or I can pull them out and homeschool.) As long as school caters to the lowest common denominator and all of the teacher's time and energy is spent on disciplining disruptive students and teaching the lowest 50% of the class, the situation is hopeless. Grouping by ability would be very helpful, alas, it is not politically correct.

[SKL]

I agree completely. It should be the parent's responsibility to make sure the child is present, teachable, behaves appropriately, does his homework. Parents should not have to be responsible for teaching content.

But: as long as children who are able and willing to learn are grouped together with children who are neither able nor willing, I as a parent have no choice: if I send my kids to school to be babysat without them learning, I have to try to teach content at home. (Or I can pull them out and homeschool.) As long as school caters to the lowest common denominator and all of the teacher's time and energy is spent on disciplining disruptive students and teaching the lowest 50% of the class, the situation is hopeless. Grouping by ability would be very helpful, alas, it is not politically correct.

 

But until recently, there was no differentiated teaching or separately educating the disruptive kids etc. And teachers didn't use that as an excuse to not teach those who came prepared to learn.

 

And that brings up another little peeve of mine. While I 100% agree that parents are supposed to send kids to school rested, fed, and able to behave, teachers should also be expected to understand and make reasonable adjustments for the range of age-appropriate behavior they will encounter. To know how to prepare kids, manage transitions, pick battles, communicate effectively with parents, etc., without taking away a lot of time from academic work. It's only recently that we're told this is impossible. We all recall a few "spirited" kids in our classrooms and yet we all learned to read.

[SKL]

I had differentiated teaching back in the Jurassic (1970s). Being a military brat, I went to nine different schools; all had grouping by instructional need for math and reading thru eighth grade, whether they were on base or a civilian school. There were usually three instructional groups per 30 student classroom.

 

My schools did remove disruptors from the regular classroom. My current school district allows them in preK-5, and removes them in 6-12.

 

In all of the schools I attended, my mother's job was to send a note in if I did not understand how to do my homework (hw wasn't given until grade 5) and could not advocate for myself. The teacher was responsible for remediation. There was no specialist to send an unclassified student to for 're-teach' - it was done during seatwork time. In my current school district, parents of unclassified students are told to hire a tutor if the child needs 'extra' help.

 

Wow, you are old, ha ha. (Actually I entered KG in 1971 myself.) Where I lived, they had "reading groups" within each classroom, but no more, except for a few kids who went to another part of the school for tutoring, after a certain age. This is the first I've heard that some folks had differentiated math back then. Kids who were great at it simply got easy As, while those who struggled got the teacher's attention during seatwork. When my kid sister was in elementary school (mid-80s), they did not differentiate any assignments (even reading), but had the advanced students assist the slower ones during seatwork. (Which I think was actually brilliant.)

 

On the rare occasion that I was stumped (I recall one time after a sick day), I asked my elder brother to help me understand. I recall many kids asking their friends as well.

[Roadrunner]

I don't think anybody would argue that parents should be the ones doing the teaching. Valuing education means creating an atmosphere at home where learning is expected, homework is checked..... Teachers should teach, of course, but parents should do their part. Knowing why your kid isn't at school is your job, not a teacher's.

 

I do feel that differentiated instruction is a very different problem alltogether. The issues are not the same in failing schools and "good schools". I don't think you often see kids who don't know how to read and write in "good schools." Our PS has special tutoring for ESL kids and I don't know a single child no matter the background who isn't making steady progress (speaking of my kids classmates). All the basics are being met, kids can add, subract and test scores are excellent. Our school is failing the top 20% of the kids because it can't meet the needs on the higher-end of abilities. All the resources are focused on the struggling kids.

[regentrude]

 

But until recently, there was no differentiated teaching or separately educating the disruptive kids etc. And teachers didn't use that as an excuse to not teach those who came prepared to learn.

 

My older colleagues who went to school in this country all recall tracking in school. In fact, several were completely astonished to find out that there is no longer any differentiated instruction.