How would you fix the American public education system?

[Asma_08]

Cut the fluff. Stop trying to have schools be centers of social work to fix the problems kids bring to school. Focus on core academics. Shorten the school day. Institute real discipline that holds kids accountable for their behavior. End compulsory schooling after 8th grade; kids who actually want to be in school after that can then attend college-prep high schools or vocational schools. The kids who are "too cool for school" can go out and get jobs.

 

Tara

 

I am late to this but I absolutely agree with this!! The kids who don't want to be there are ruining it for the majority who do, I don't think people realize how bad it is in some districts. I subbed a year in an inner city district and it was unbelievable, total chaos. Teachers can't do anything if the students don't want to be there and are disruptive.

[plimsoll]

I don't think it can be fixed. That's why I homeschool. I opted out.

 

If I had to recommend something, I'd say give it over entirely to free market forces. Let us keep the large amount of taxes we currently shell out for these services we're not using. Instead, let each of us use that money to buy the schooling we want, including homeschooling if that suits us. Schools of all sorts (vocational, classical, liberal arts, latin-centered, etc.) would spring up to meet the needs of consumers.

Edited November 22, 2009 by plimsoll

[Rosie_0801]

I think teachers should have a year round job and ps should be year round as well. They should have more smaller breaks throughout the year and maybe take one month off during the summer. That month should involve training for the teachers and time for tweaking their lessons. There are teachers that continue their education after becoming a teacher. But alot that I know take the summer off as their break. That's fine. But why not use some of the time to become a better and more knowledgeable teacher?

 

So when do teachers get a holiday then? Surely they are entitled to four weeks annual leave like everyone else? This sounds like a great model for homeschoolers, but not so good for people who have had to neglect their families all year in order to serve other people's kids. I remember my hubby talking about the differences between teaching certain subjects. First day back for the year, dh was talking to a maths teacher who said he'd had a great holiday, spent it down the beach surfing. "What about you, Mate?" "Um," said dh, "I wrote my curriculum." It doesn't seem quite right, does it? That some teachers should be given their lesson plans and others should have to write the entire curriculum, especially for their first year out...

 

My dh's experience was much like Kindermommy's. No wonder he is now part of the statistic which has 20%-50% of new teachers quitting within the first five years of what was to be their career.

 

Rosie

[mycalling]

The kids who don't want to be there are ruining it for the majority who do, I don't think people realize how bad it is in some districts. I subbed a year in an inner city district and it was unbelievable, total chaos. Teachers can't do anything if the students don't want to be there and are disruptive.

Maybe if there was less tolerance for this kind of behavior, the parents and children might take their free education more seriously. Maybe if places like boot camp / work camp schools for disruptive non-caring children were formed and filled. Maybe if these children's parents had to start paying for part of their children's educations, they'd have their children work harder. Even good parents produce non-caring students.

 

Teachers can't force the kids to care about their education. All the inspiration in the world doesn't effect most kids these days. There's a sense of entitlement even in the poorest that putting in nothing will still get them something free in the end.

[Heather in WI]

So when do teachers get a holiday then? Surely they are entitled to four weeks annual leave like everyone else?

Rosie

 

You're kidding, right?

 

My husband was a chef for a restaurant for 8 years. He had 0 paid vacation, but could take 1 week off a year.

 

Then he was a union carpenter. He had 0 paid vacation, but could take 2 weeks off.

 

Now we own our own business (construction). The way the economy is, we had to cancel our vacation this year (which is spending a week at my grandparent's house in North Carolina). We were able to get away for two weekends (not in a row) to go tent camping in August. That's it.

[Lovedtodeath]

I want to work for you. Those are some good terms. :D They are also rare in the US. Unless one is a teacher. ;)

The people in the US on average have/take less vacation time than people in any other developed country. My DH has worked 12 years for a company owned by his dad and has just now earned 3 weeks. I think that is the max; most jobs I have known don't even have 4 weeks as an option.

 

Maybe if there was less tolerance for this kind of behavior, the parents and children might take their free education more seriously. Maybe if places like boot camp / work camp schools for disruptive non-caring children were formed and filled. Maybe if these children's parents had to start paying for part of their children's educations, they'd have their children work harder. Even good parents produce non-caring students.

 

Teachers can't force the kids to care about their education. All the inspiration in the world doesn't effect most kids these days. There's a sense of entitlement even in the poorest that putting in nothing will still get them something free in the end.

Anytime something is mandatory people will fail to appreciate it.

[Rosie_0801]

No, not everyone here gets 4 weeks annual leave either. In theory, everyone is entitled to it. Naturally, theory doesn't always play out. In some professions, you can take your entitlement when you like, in other professions there are times you must, or must not take holidays. In some situations people get paid for their holidays, in some they don't. My point was that a teacher's holidays aren't necessarily holidays, more "non attendance periods. My hubby, if we added it up, probably took a fortnight off each year, in dribs and drabs. Nights were not his own for most of the year, he had to work at least part of the weekend for most of the year and the school holidays were spent working for the most part. Shall I rephrase? Even teachers should have a couple of weeks per year where their life is their own, where they can focus on their own families and hobbies. Marking work, writing your curriculum and doing professional development type stuff at home instead of at work isn't a holiday.

 

Rosie

[tricia]

Close them down. After all, when any other business fails to produce adequate products they are shut down. Period. But since they are supported by big gov they don't have to worry about business being slow. However, if a private school were to fail in it's output I guarantee you parents wouldn't pay for their kids to attend anymore while only getting bad results.

[Sputterduck]

Close them down. After all, when any other business fails to produce adequate products they are shut down. Period. But since they are supported by big gov they don't have to worry about business being slow. However, if a private school were to fail in it's output I guarantee you parents wouldn't pay for their kids to attend anymore while only getting bad results.

 

I totally agree.

[Pajama Mama]

No, not everyone here gets 4 weeks annual leave either. In theory, everyone is entitled to it. Naturally, theory doesn't always play out. In some professions, you can take your entitlement when you like, in other professions there are times you must, or must not take holidays. In some situations people get paid for their holidays, in some they don't. My point was that a teacher's holidays aren't necessarily holidays, more "non attendance periods. My hubby, if we added it up, probably took a fortnight off each year, in dribs and drabs. Nights were not his own for most of the year, he had to work at least part of the weekend for most of the year and the school holidays were spent working for the most part. Shall I rephrase? Even teachers should have a couple of weeks per year where their life is their own, where they can focus on their own families and hobbies. Marking work, writing your curriculum and doing professional development type stuff at home instead of at work isn't a holiday.

 

Rosie

 

I totally agree. I think I said that they teachers should time off in the summer. Maybe not a month(or 3 months) straight. I can't think of another profession that gets so much time off. The kids here get 3 months off in a row. Why not reduce that time? They should also have times for the teachers to take classes to further develop their subject(s). That should be a paid time for those teachers. They should also have a few weeks paid time for those teachers to develop their lesson plans and such. There will be one inservice DAY for teachers. Why not inservice WEEK or 2 WEEKS. I remember the few great teachers that I had growing up were those who did so much on their own time. They planned activities and spent some of their own money for their kids. That isn't fair because those are the teachers who will probably burn out. The teachers should have the time to work on their plans and mark papers at work. Dismissing the kids earlier in the day would enable the teachers to mark their papers at work. I agree that family time should be just that. But most are marking papers over the weekends and planning during their winter break.

[Lovedtodeath]

Here in Indiana they do not get 3 full months. They only get 2 and a half. I think one month is adequate.

[justamouse]

Deal with the poverty issue.

 

This. Totally, this.

 

I do think teachers should be paid well, but from what I understand in my neck the woods they do get paid well and get cadillac benefits as well. In fact, I almost choked when I read of a local teacher who was paid $70,000/year which is a lot for this area and that does not even include the cadillac insurance and pension. As an RN I was never paid that much even when I worked in critical care for many years nor did I have cadillac benefits or a defined benefit pension program paying about 70% of salary upon retirement.

 

Yup. Can teacher benefits. In our state they were freaking that their copays were going above 3 bucks. No pensions, either.

 

There's a school in NYC trying something like 125k, NO benefits, NO TENURE.

 

 

Get rid of the teacher union. It's political, not educational.

 

 

 

THAT, completely!

 

Towns in my state pay 40k PER child and these are kids that aren't reading. How the BLEEP can you have a kid that can't read when 40k a year is allocated to them? It's eaten up in administration costs! The janitors making almost as much as the teachers. The administrators making over 150k a year-and not just from ONE region. And that is all about politics and the unions.

 

In all actuality, I would actually do the teaching a lot like TWTM (esp in the history-I hate history textbooks with a passion.) Mandate that music appreciation and art be taken. Take sports OUT of school completely. Take out Gym.

 

No homework until kids are older. Say 7th grade and up. Smaller classrooms, smaller regions. Uniforms for all.

 

HIGH expectations and no tolerance for disrespect of themselves, their peers or their teachers.

[Perry]

How the BLEEP can you have a kid that can't read when 40k a year is allocated to them?

 

Balanced literacy (whole language with a bit of phonics thrown in).

[justamouse]

Balanced literacy (whole language with a bit of phonics thrown in).

 

Yeah, you're right about that. I'm seeing it happen with a friend's kid and it's horrific to watch.

[Rosie_0801]

Here in Indiana they do not get 3 full months. They only get 2 and a half. I think one month is adequate.

 

Is that three months really a holiday? I mean a "forget work, I'm heading off to the mountains to spend three months on the couch drinking hot chocolates and playing monopoly with the kids" type holiday? Here schools have 5-6 weeks off over summer, but many teachers spend a minimum of half of that working.

 

Rosie

[Lovedtodeath]

Is that three months really a holiday? I mean a "forget work, I'm heading off to the mountains to spend three months on the couch drinking hot chocolates and playing monopoly with the kids" type holiday? Here schools have 5-6 weeks off over summer, but many teachers spend a minimum of half of that working.

 

Rosie

I was talking about the kids. For the teachers, I would think 2 weeks would be adequate.

[elw_miller]

My friend's son attends a year-round school. They have periodic 4-week vacations, with maybe 1-2 week vacations thrown in occasionally, too. He has school over part of the summer, but then has vacations when other schools are in session. I think they learn in 6 or 8 week segments and then get a vacation. My friend thinks he retains far more of what he is learning due to the year-round set-up.

 

On a side note, I just read in NurtureShock by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman about a method of teaching that is having impressive results in Kindergarten classes--Tools of the Mind. There is a great deal of educational scaffolding, students learn habits of attention and self-control--apparently the program is so successful they keep losing their funding because the kids are no longer 'at risk' by the end of the year. http://www.mscd.edu/extendedcampus/toolsofthemind/index.shtml

[Jumping In Puddles]

 

On a side note, I just read in NurtureShock by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman about a method of teaching that is having impressive results in Kindergarten classes--Tools of the Mind. There is a great deal of educational scaffolding, students learn habits of attention and self-control--apparently the program is so successful they keep losing their funding because the kids are no longer 'at risk' by the end of the year. http://www.mscd.edu/extendedcampus/toolsofthemind/index.shtml

 

There is a preschool in NJ that practices this. I ILL'd the Tools of the Mind book and it was an interesting read. Basically, the children have to write out a "play plan" before they do an activity. It starts with the kids drawing a picture, then they learn to write their plan. It involves getting the kids to act out or pretend play with complex plots and props where they have to remember that they are using and keep track of characters. Kids use to naturally play this way and develop their self regulation.

 

Here is a well done story from NPR with details on the program. :)

[Mommyfaithe]

I would completely do away with it.

If local communities wanted to create schools, they could pool resources, but I don't think any govt/tax should be involved.

 

I agree....I would put it back into the hands of local communities, with oversight by the PARENTS. I would totally do away with federal funding. Let the parents hire...fire...and decide what is being taught....get rid of the social engineering and bact to reading/ writing and arithmetic. I would also shorten the school "season." IOW, it would not serve as a daycare center.

 

~~Faithe

[Mommyfaithe]

:iagree: 4 week vacations?? Where do I sign up?? Oh, yeah...teachers union...here it is more like 10 weeks, so I get to pay higher taxes for more unemployment checks....IOW, I work all summer so the teachers can be at the pool with THEIR kids and I foot the bill...nice....

~~Faithe

 

I want to work for you. Those are some good terms. :D They are also rare in the US. Unless one is a teacher. ;)

[Mommyfaithe]

Millions of children don't today. But heavy taxation means there is less money available to people to choose to give it to help others, such as by paying for a poor child's school costs. The government spends upwards of $15,000 per year per child on public schooling. IMO a child can be schooled for much less. I'd rather my money go towards helping more children rather than a privillaged few favoured by the government.

 

me too!!!

[Mommyfaithe]

Fix it? I don't think that's even possible.

 

The only fix is to get rid of it. Won't happen. The machine has grown much too large. People depend upon it way too much. Mission accomplished...except for a few renegade home schoolers....;)

 

Faithe

[Haiku]

Unfortunately, many of those who should go out and get a job will just end up misfits on the streets increasing crime rates.

 

 

We already have those kids. They're called drop-outs. I think it's a false notion that we can design an education program that will guarantee success for every child. Some kids just don't want to. They just won't. Currently, we can mandate that kids be at school, but we can't mandate that they are learning and benefiting from school. I don't believe in compulsory attendance, and I do think that, were more kids alerted to the idea that a high school diploma is not a right but something that must be worked for if one wants it, more kids would choose to work for it. I believe in free public education, but I think that an unfortunate side effect of that is that, because it is freely available, it is sometimes seen as worth exactly what we pay for it: nothing.

 

So, I think we should make the option available to those who are willing to work for it but not force those who choose not to work for it to merely show up.

 

Tara

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

We already have those kids. They're called drop-outs. I think it's a false notion that we can design an education program that will guarantee success for every child. Some kids just don't want to. They just won't. Currently, we can mandate that kids be at school, but we can't mandate that they are learning and benefiting from school. I don't believe in compulsory attendance, and I do think that, were more kids alerted to the idea that a high school diploma is not a right but something that must be worked for if one wants it, more kids would choose to work for it. I believe in free public education, but I think that an unfortunate side effect of that is that, because it is freely available, it is sometimes seen as worth exactly what we pay for it: nothing.

 

So, I think we should make the option available to those who are willing to work for it but not force those who choose not to work for it to merely show up.

 

Tara

 

What a great idea:)

[lgm]

There are many problems. My top ten:

 

1. teacher certification in content, not in 'education'

2. teachers and staff to be in a nationwide pool where they can transfer between locations without losing seniority/retirement bennies

3. reduce pay to be comparable to jobs with similar responsibilities and education in the government sector (this of course only applies to those with compensation as good as NY teachers have it)

4. bonus for teaching in urban violent areas, special needs, mentally ill when district does not stick to correct support levels

5. teacher accountability - each child must advance a year X ratio IQ in reading and math ability. No coasting, no deciding not to teach certain subgroups, no parties every Friday. Each teacher must remain in the building during their prep and teaming periods and actually prep or team (here teachers by contract terms only teach 5 45-min periods in the high school, only about 3 hrs in the ele since they have no duty during student lunch, recess, specials and teaming/prep is during the school day when the classroom is covered by a para doing the weekly reader).

6. district accountability - hire teachers that can teach the content for each class without a script. Quit taking so much vacation time within the school year. Don't pay the principal more than the the CEOs of similar sized firms in the area or military officers with comparable duties. Bring compensation in line with federal gov't jobs. Have teachers work a full 8 hours day each day of the entire year - take vacation in summer. They can use the summers to get their prep for classes done or as a sabbatical to educate themselves.

7. fiscal accountability - it's a recession. Be happy with 5% step raises; the grid doesn't need to be raised another 5% on top of that, causing the tax levy to push the grandparents out of their lifelong home. Be happy you have no copay and don't contribute out of pocket to medical coverage - the rest of the world does.

8. take Li Ping Ma's recommendation...teachers must collaborate to deliver content effectively; not each do as he/she pleases leaving horrible differences in outcome.

9. end full inclusion. It doesn't work and it is extremely dangerous to those trapped with violent classmates. fund the mental and medical health costs through another dept, not the state education dept. "nuff said.

10. don't track. Allow motivated students to take honors classes. Walk the talk when saying 'be all you can be'.

Edited November 22, 2009 by lgm

[Impish]

I haven't waded through all the pages of responses, but I truly believe that there won't be any fixing of public education, either here in Canada or in the US until schools are no longer parenting.

 

I have a friend and a cousin that teach elementary. The amount of time they spend disciplining far eclipses the time spent teaching.

 

There needs to be the ability for children who are so disruptive on a continuous basis to be turfed from school. Make them their parents problem. Let the kids who are there to learn actually have their teacher's time and attention, as opposed to getting what little is left after the disruptive student is dealt with.

 

Until metal detectors are no longer needed, until drug dogs aren't a normal presence, until schools are there for purely education and not parenting, nothing will change.

 

Too many parents are falling down on the job, shipping their kids off to school, and then complaining wildly when the school attempts to discipline. I heard one parent complaining because her child had been suspended. You see, he'd had a ball of paper thrown at him in one class, and in gym another kid was teasing him (which was witnessed and dealt with by the gym teacher)...then at recess, the kids had two teams, neither of which wanted him. He announced he was joining anyway, and a girl told him no...so he shoved her to the ground. The mom claimed it wasn't HIS fault, it was that he'd been pushed beyond what he could cope with. Her darling didn't deserve to be suspended for pushing the girl, it was the other kid's fault for being mean to him.

 

When you have parents like that, who defend their darling no matter what the offense, it leads to chaos in the classroom.

[momtoboys]

Didn't read all the posts:

 

1. school choice/competition between private/public schools. . .let the tax dollars follow the student.

 

I know for a fact my son could go to a private school for $4-5K in our area, and receive a *far* superior education to the local public elementary school. If he attended the public school, they would be allocated $18K for educating him.

 

Competition would save money and provide a superior education for all.

 

The poor students would not be left behind, because all schools would need to improve to keep students.

 

2. More training for "real life" (i.e. internships, etc), particularly at the high school level.

[Joyful]

I haven't read all the responses, but I just wanted to share about a friend

of mine....

 

I have a friend who began her first year of teaching high school chemistry this fall. She has a masters in Chemistry, worked in industry for a couple of years, and then quit when her first child was born (the child is now 11 years old). A couple of years ago she went back to school to train to be a secondary school teacher.

 

My friend works in a high school in Philadelphia - not a magnet school, and not one of the worse ones, just sort of "average" as far as the city goes. She has found it so difficult given that she has a handful of kids who cannot even read or do simple addition. How can she even approach teaching chemistry with this youngsters?

 

I don't have any well thought out sophisticated fixes. But I think the public schools can accomplish a lot just by making sure kids can read proficiently by the end of second grade and apply all their energies to that, even giving one-on-one instruction if needed. I just think that such a big world is opened up to kids when they can read. And competence in reading is such a confidence forming task for kids.

 

Just my 2 cents. :D

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

Didn't read all the posts:

 

1. school choice/competition between private/public schools. . .let the tax dollars follow the student.

 

I know for a fact my son could go to a private school for $4-5K in our area, and receive a *far* superior education to the local public elementary school. If he attended the public school, they would be allocated $18K for educating him.

 

Competition would save money and provide a superior education for all.

 

The poor students would not be left behind, because all schools would need to improve to keep students.

 

2. More training for "real life" (i.e. internships, etc), particularly at the high school level.

 

Bolded by me

 

I do not disagree that money is wasted in the public school sector, but wanted to let you know that tuition alone does not cover expenses in most private schools. Most private schools have additional forms of funding to cover expenses, so just taking tuition and comparing it to dollars spent per student at ps is not an equal evaluation. One would have to find out dollars spent per student at private school and then compare it to dollars spent at public school.

[LibrarianMom]

I would like to see teaches at the elementary level teach only classes in a specific content area(s) more like high school teachers do. Depending on the school size, preferably the teacher would then loop with the students over several years. For example, one teacher could be the math teacher and only teach math for 1st and 2nd grades while another teacher is the writing specialist and only teaches the writing classes. It would require very specific scheduling. It could also be difficult to pass as you wouldn't have that 1 teacher who knows a few children really well.

 

I also would love to see year-round school.

[mycalling]

We already have those kids. They're called drop-outs. ...

 

So, I think we should make the option available to those who are willing to work for it but not force those who choose not to work for it to merely show up.

I agree. Plus, we don't need to pay for babysitting 16-18yos who don't want to be there.

[kalanamak]

Most private schools have additional forms of funding to cover expenses, so just taking tuition and comparing it to dollars spent per student at ps is not an equal evaluation. One would have to find out dollars spent per student at private school and then compare it to dollars spent at public school.

 

This was my impression. The local founded-by-religious-people-and-has-a-chapel but now is basically a secular prep school is 20,000 bucks for 1st grade (I know someone who refi'ed their house to start their K and 1st grader at this school), where as the definitely-religiously based private schools in the area are a third of that, I believe, if not less. One school charges considerably less if you are member of that religious community, and the child goes to religion classes as well as regular classes.

[momtoboys]

Okay, to clarify, the actual cost to educate the students at the private school I was talking about (including fundraising, etc). . is $6,000 per student. Far less than the $18K per student spent by the local public school district. :001_smile:

[lgm]

Okay, to clarify, the actual cost to educate the students at the private school I was talking about (including fundraising, etc). . is $6,000 per student. Far less than the $18K per student spent by the local public school district. :001_smile:

 

It's not an apples to apples comparison. You have to understand that the local public district classified student costs are averaged in to obtain the 'average per student cost'. Consider: $150/day round trip for each sped transport, 180 days of school + 30 days summer school = $31.5K alone, that's for one student without the chaperone cost and we haven't even begun to allocate the staff support and the teachers. So the ratio of classified to unclassified students dramatically affects the ultimate per student cost. Remember also sped will be in-system for 18 years, unclassified for 12 or 13 years. Similar for all other classifications...private school is not supporting ESL, offering counseling and social services, yada yada. A private school that does not have services for classified students does not have to support all the staff, equipment and specialized transport expenses that a public school does, nor does it have an equivalent retirement cost. It's just not a fair comparison.

Edited November 23, 2009 by lgm

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

It's not an apples to apples comparison. You have to understand that the local public district classified student costs are averaged in to obtain the 'average per student cost'. Consider: $150/day round trip for each sped transport, 180 days of school + 30 days summer school = $31.5K alone, that's for one student without the chaperone cost and we haven't even begun to allocate the staff support and the teachers. So the ratio of classified to unclassified students dramatically affects the ultimate per student cost. Remember also sped will be in-system for 18 years, unclassified for 12 years. Similar for all other classifications...private school is not supporting ESL, offering counseling and social services, yada yada. A private school that does not have services for classified students does not have to support all the staff, equipment and specialized transport expenses that a public school does, nor does it have an equivalent retirement cost. It's just not a fair comparison.

:iagree:

 

Other expenses exist in public school that are included in the average per student cost. Most private schools do not have a school nurse. A per-student average cost would take all take the salaries of all employees and average it into the per student cost. Thus, private schools would have the average, since they typically do not have school counselors, nurses or paid coaches. Many private schools rely heavily on volunteers, whose contributions cannot really be quantified monitarily.

 

Private schools usually do not have bus service, so that is an additional per-student cost public schools incur. Even if a child does not ride the bus to public school, the cost is figured into the average per-student cost.

 

So, even though some of the expenses are not specifically related to "educating" each child, they are averaged into the per-child cost. I do not really think there is a way to make an equivilent comparison.

[lgm]

There are actually more support staff than there are classroom teachers in your average public school elementary. Aside from all the paraprofessionals, clerical workers, lawyers, administrators, food service, technology support,and building and grounds personnel, there are:

-gym, art, health & music teachers

-resource teachers for math and language arts - they also serve unclassified students as part of the state mandated Response to Intervention

-nurse and nurse ass't who also serve an the attendance clerks and administer physicals to those whose parents will not take their children for vision, hearing and physical checkups

-school pyscholgists

-social workers

-english as a second language teachers

-speech, occupational, and physical therapists

-special education teachers and aides

-deaf/hard of hearing interpreters

 

Transport here varies by district. Some outsource, some are in-house.

 

The level of compensation is much higher than our-local-country-day-school offers, in terms of salary while working and in retirement, and benefits. It is lower than the toniest private schools in Westchester County and Manhattan.

Edited November 23, 2009 by lgm

[momtoboys]

Is all that support staff necessary???

 

And should it really cost $18K to educate each child???

 

It seems a bit excessive to me.

[lgm]

Is all that support staff necessary???

 

And should it really cost $18K to educate each child???

 

It seems a bit excessive to me.

 

Yes. It is not fair to special needs children to omit them from an education.

 

There is actually a case going on in our county where the parents have publicized their point of view that their high school child who is homebound needs to have a satellite link into each and every one of his classes in real-time, since in their view the homebound instructor is not providing a comparable educational experience.

Edited November 23, 2009 by lgm

[LibraryLover]

Okay, to clarify, the actual cost to educate the students at the private school I was talking about (including fundraising, etc). . is $6,000 per student. Far less than the $18K per student spent by the local public school district. :001_smile:

 

 

New England private schools (some religious, mostly Quaker) start at about 20k for day students, and in Rhode Island, the Quaker schools start at 22k. A place like The Dalton School in NYC starts at 34 k for day Kindergarten. Sidwell Friends, a Quaker day school in DC (where the Obama kids attend) starts at 29k.

 

Say what you will about these types of schools, but they provide an education most schools cannot provide, and it comes at a huge cost. I don't see how a school can maintain a facility, provide small classes, give kids the individual attention they need, plus pay their teachers a living wage on 6k a year.

 

I have seen some smaller religious-type schools try to do this, but I've rarely been impressed. I know that Catholic schools used to be able to do this, but most of the teachers were nuns (not true so much today) who were not paid to teach, and the church provided for the care of the buildings. Because the Catholic church still funds many of these buildings, I do think Catholics have an edge here. I've seen some decent Catholic schools, but they are still more than 6k/yr in most cases.

Edited November 23, 2009 by LibraryLover

[TravelingChris]

Get rid of the public school model and go with complete vouchers. Would it help everything- no. But with competition there would be better service. The money would go with the student. That is actually done in a number of other countries and all kinds of special schools pop op like schools that help older students learn a specialized trade.By going to a competitive model, we would also gratly decrease the administrative overhead because it wouldn't pay. There could be one type of voucher for regular students and an enhanced voucher for special needs like blind or autistic.

[Perry]

Yes. It is not fair to special needs children to omit them from an education.

I agree-- BUT

 

something like 80% of the kids that receive special ed services and IEPs are there only because they can't read. And most of those kids would have learned to read just fine if they had had appropriate reading instruction (explicit phonics) from the beginning. They are curriculum casualties.

 

An awful lot of money could be saved if the instruction was better.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Perry

[lgm]

I agree-- BUT

 

something like 80% of the kids that receive special ed services and IEPs are there only because they can't read. And most of those kids would have learned to read just fine if they had had appropriate reading instruction (explicit phonics) from the beginning. They are curriculum casualties.

 

An awful lot of money could be saved if the instruction was better.

 

That would depend on the district student population and instructional practices. Districts like mine that offer phonics based instruction still have LD students even after intensive intervention. They also have huge amounts of students that can't read on grade level because they refuse to practice - no LD, no special need, just " I don' wanna". Here the IDW students receive mandated services which do not fall under the special education services category in the budget. By middle school it is double period classes in LA and math for these children, then they hit the vo-tech trail if they don't drop out. Literacy is not a priority in their families and never will be.

[FairProspects]

I agree-- BUT

 

something like 80% of the kids that receive special ed services and IEPs are there only because they can't read. And most of those kids would have learned to read just fine if they had had appropriate reading instruction (explicit phonics) from the beginning. They are curriculum casualties.

 

An awful lot of money could be saved if the instruction was better.

 

I don't agree with this at all. Dh worked in special ed. at a large public elementary school for several years before moving to the mental health side of things and this was absolutely not his experience. He was in a contained learning center and most students were autistic, had cerebral palsy, mild mental retardation or other physical/mental disabilities. He did have a few kids who had post-traumatic stress syndrome or oppositional defiance disorder from an abusive situation or something, but I can't think of a single student during his time there that was special ed because of a reading/instructional system failure. This is a gross fallacy.

[Catherine]

of immigrants and poor people, I see so much dysfunction in families that it's no wonder that these children have trouble in school.

 

The great majority of school failures, drop-outs, come from a fairly small number of schools, and I think that working most intensively on those schools will be most successful. Unlike some of you, I don't see PS as a deeply dysfunctional, failing system. Public education in the US is democratic, and as such, must attempt to serve all students, not just those who want to go to college. I think diversifying options at the high school level for students who are not college-bound will go a long way to eliminating chronic unemployment and criminality.

 

The other problem that needs to be addressed, for everyone's benefit, is the very seriously dysfunctional families\schools in very poor areas. I grew up in a pretty poor place, and I can tell you that eliminating schools would have been disastrous. No way would I have gotten an education if it had been left to the charity of other poor locals!

 

I think major initiatives like those described in the Harlemschool website are one good way to tackle head-on those families who have become so alienated from education over the generations that their children have little hope of educational success without major intervention. Winning over those kids would benefit them and all of us so much.

[Perry]

That would depend on the district student population and instructional practices. Districts like mine that offer phonics based instruction still have LD students even after intensive intervention. They also have huge amounts of students that can't read on grade level because they refuse to practice - no LD, no special need, just " I don' wanna". Here the IDW students receive mandated services which do not fall under the special education services category in the budget. By middle school it is double period classes in LA and math for these children, then they hit the vo-tech trail if they don't drop out. Literacy is not a priority in their families and never will be.

Sure, there are regional variations depending on how reading is taught. That 80% is a national figure.

 

President's Commission on Excellence in Education

 

Of those with “specific learning disabilities,†80 percent are there simply because they haven’t learned how to read. Thus, many children receiving special education—up to 40 percent—are there because they weren’t taught to read. The reading difficulties may not be their only area of difficulty, but it is the area that resulted in special education placement. Sadly, few children placed in special education close the achievement gap to a point where they can read and learn like their peers.

And from Preventing Early Reading Failure and its Devastating Downward Spiral

By Joseph K. Torgesen Ph.D

 

That's the bad news. The good news is we now have tools to reliably identify the children who are likely destined for this early reading failure. (See 'Early Screening Is at the Heart of Prevention'). Most importantly, given the results of a number of intervention studies, we can say with confidence that if we intervene early, intensively, and appropriately, we can provide these children with the early reading skills that can prevent almost all of them from ever entering the nasty downward spiral just described.

There is plenty of evidence that appropriate intervention works, even in kids who "don't wanna". They're harder to teach, but almost all of them will learn to read if it's done properly. They might still drop out of school, but they CAN be taught.

[lionfamily1999]

Perry - I think there's a difference between "haven't learned" and "haven't been taught." Imo, there's a reason why we have averages, it's to say what the median population is capable of. When we demand that everyone do what the median population is capable of, we ask too much from some and not enough from others.

 

I've known adults that could "read" if you stood over them and threatened their life :001_rolleyes: They're technically illiterate, but they were taught. It's just not for some people, imo. Granted, I've seen kids that were tossed aside, because no one thought they could, but I've also seen kids having it pounded into them when they couldn't.

[Perry]

Perry - I think there's a difference between "haven't learned" and "haven't been taught." Imo, there's a reason why we have averages, it's to say what the median population is capable of. When we demand that everyone do what the median population is capable of, we ask too much from some and not enough from others.

 

I've known adults that could "read" if you stood over them and threatened their life :001_rolleyes: They're technically illiterate, but they were taught. It's just not for some people, imo. Granted, I've seen kids that were tossed aside, because no one thought they could, but I've also seen kids having it pounded into them when they couldn't.

Okay. They haven't been taught correctly. ;)

 

There is tons of evidence about this. About 95% of kids that have been diagnosed with reading disability can learn to read if they are taught correctly from the beginning. The number is much lower if you wait until they are behind and then try to remediate. They may never read as quickly, or comprehend as well, but they CAN learn to read, usually at least at grade level.

 

Very, very few schools are doing it right.

[myfunnybunch]

I agree-- BUT

 

something like 80% of the kids that receive special ed services and IEPs are there only because they can't read. And most of those kids would have learned to read just fine if they had had appropriate reading instruction (explicit phonics) from the beginning. They are curriculum casualties.

 

An awful lot of money could be saved if the instruction was better.

 

Specific learning disabilities does not refer to all disabilities for which a child might be placed on an IEP. It refers to children without the more global delays and challenges of children with disabilities like autism or Down Syndrome.

 

Specific learning disability definition:

"A specific learning disability is a disorder in one or more of the central nervous system processes involved in perceiving, understanding and/or using concepts through verbal (spoken or written) language or nonverbal means."

 

80% of children receiving special education services is a very different figure from 80% of children with specific learning disability. That 80% of children with a disorder that interferes in understanding concepts, verbally and/or non-verbally, have difficulty reading is a pretty reasonable figure, as it's likely that reading challenges are the reason they've been identified and placed on an IEP in the first place. Also, we have no way of knowing which children identified with a specific learning disability are identified solely based on reading challenges. Reading is a concrete skill, easy to pinpoint. Either a child can read well or s/he cannot. It is difficult to assess perceiving/understanding/using concepts in a child who cannot read or who cannot read well, so it is also likely that of that 80% some children with challenges in areas like retention of information, information processing, abstract reasoning are first identified because of their inability to read.

 

I do agree that good phonics instruction would increase the likelihood that some of those identified children would learn to read well enough that they'd not be eligible for services.

 

Cat

Edited November 23, 2009 by myfunnybunch
like, likely...obviously I had to rush out the door when I posted.

[StartingOver]

Do away with them. Public education as we know it is to broken to be fixed. Government should stay out of it. Bring back once room school houses, where teachers are paid by the community. Teachers accountable to parents. Choices in education are the key.

 

To the PP that said to start all teachers out at 85K a year. The median income for the US is approx $46,000 a year. Why should teachers be paid anymore, than average when starting out?

 

My husband has never made more than $46,000 in a year, we manage to educate our children, and send 3 to college.

 

Spending for education in America is INSANE !!!!!!

[FairProspects]

Specific learning disabilities does not refer to all disabilities for which a child might be placed on an IEP. It refers to children without the more global delays and challenges of children with disabilities like autism or Down Syndrome.

 

Specific learning disability definition:

"A specific learning disability is a disorder in one or more of the central nervous system processes involved in perceiving, understanding and/or using concepts through verbal (spoken or written) language or nonverbal means."

 

80% of children receiving special education services is a very different figure from 80% of children with specific learning disability.

 

:iagree:

 

Let's be clear. 80% of kids in special ed are NOT simply there because they were not taught properly.