Rupert Murdoch on US public schools

[Snickerdoodle]

As President Obama has emphasized, the single most important factor determining whether students succeed in school is not the color of their skin or their ZIP code or even their parents' income -- it is the quality of their teacher.

 

Nobody ever talks about the curriculum in the schools. I don't think it's really fair to only point the finger at the teachers.

 

I was wondering, how much latitude do teachers have to change up curriculum or teaching methods that are not working in their classrooms?

[CLHCO]

Nobody ever talks about the curriculum in the schools. I don't think it's really fair to only point the finger at the teachers.

 

I was wondering, how much latitude do teachers have to change up curriculum or teaching methods that are not working in their classrooms?

 

:iagree:

 

Gotto discusses how hard it is for a teacher to make independent decisions in some of his books. They tried hard to get rid of him - and he became New York's teacher of the year.

 

When I was in college taking education classes I never learned a thing about the phonics vs. whole language debate, spiral vs. linear math, etc. We weren't going to have that choice, so why teach us that information? We were going into the school system to follow a lesson plan only in a assembly line fashion. Yes, some people work better in the assembly line than others due to skills they may bring into the job, but it's still an assembly line. :glare:

 

I do remember spending a couple full classes talking about the importance of teacher unions. :001_huh:

[pqr]

Hmm, not in my homeschooling experience. I know very few hs families who don't use outside classes and activities to provide their children with a well-rounded education. There are at least a hundred families in just my local Friday enrichment program, where there kids are, in fact, being raised in part by the village.

 

ETA: Do you really not have your kids in any outside activities? Do your wife and you teach every subject at every grade? If you do, my hat is off to you!

 

You are missing the point. The family raises the child, while outside sources may be used, the responsibility still lies with the family not some amorphous group. Many (NOT ALL) of those who use that line will support external interference (and prerogatives) with regard as to how a child is raised, just look at those who would deny a parent the right to opt out of rather explicit sex ed for elementary children (see posts about that a few months ago).

 

No one denies the value of external influence many simply question who has ultimate say and if, and when, it may override the desires of the parent. Do not take this to the extreme of child safety issues (which is the constant and rather illogical fall back argument of those who espouse this view and further is fodder for another thread) rather look at it in the sense of a viewpoint that abrogates parental rights in favor of the aforementioned "amorphous" blob.

 

In many an argument with those who oppose hsing the quote has been used.

"It takes a village" and you are denying socialization.

"It takes a village" and the professional teacher knows better than the parent.

"It takes a village" and you are missing the experiences of others.

"It takes a village" and you are removing your child from the .....

 

 

The truth is that it is a trite saying that fits well with the "I know better than you..." attitude held by many teachers and referenced by numerous posters on this thread.

 

The truth is that it is my child (and my wife's) not the property of the village. I want no village council determining how I raise my child. As another poster stated I have seen the village and that is part of the reason why I hs.

 

The truth is that it takes a loving and nurturing family to raise a child and depending where one lives the village may present the greatest threat to raising said child (do you want the culture of...... pick your crime and drug ridden environment involved in the raising of your child?)

[Joanne]

You are only meeting parents who care. Parents who are like minded whose dc participate in the same types of thing you want to provide for you dc. Parents who have their kids in baseball, Tae Kwon Do, church and theater arts care for their children. Do you know how FEW dc actually do these types of activities? How many dc get to participate in sports unless it is provided by the school? If schools stopped providing extra curricular activities, what % of parents would make sure their dc still got the enrichment?

 

.

 

Except that my observation also includes my work as a Site Director at the YMCA. There, I was in 5 day a week contact with parents of public schooled kids - an exposure of 25 or so families (more if you include step families/blended) in several schools.

 

I just don't believe that in your average suburban school there is as much apathy on the part of parents that many homeschoolers or many public school advocates (including teachers and administrations) believe. I don't think it is the norm.

 

There was a post in this thread about if parents would start caring, providing, nurturing, etc, schools would improve. the assumption was that most parents don't. I've seen teachers blame parents for the challenges of schools. It's an odd coupling of common ground that I've seen before. I just don't think it's accurate in terms of numbers.

 

For the homeschoolers that feel that way, it's often a superiority in parenting or a competition. I care more and am better than "those parents". For the teachers, it's a defensiveness about the system and wanting to blame parents. I think in that case, it's also superiority in that the school system can and does develop a "we know more and better about kids" air.

[PineFarmMom]

That's impressive. How do you manage to interview every coop teacher, coach, ballet instructor, scout leader, etc. that your kids will interact with before you sign up? I've known some of my kids' teachers in advance and I've become friends with others, but there are lots of times that you don't know who will be the coach or what classes your kids will be assigned at coop ahead of time. That's never been a problem for me, but I don't mind my kids interacting with adults who don't necessarily share my goals, morals or beliefs. I think that's an essential part of growing up and becoming more independent.

 

Ballet and sports aren't areas that I consider "school". They are fun and extracurricular. My younger ds is in gymnastics, and I sit and watch his classes. So far, so good. If I see something that hits my radar, I'll talk to the teacher and him. One of my kids is on a homeschool sports team with a father who is a strong Christian man who does share our goals and morals. During childhood, I think it IS important to have them led by people who share our goals and morals because that will be part of forming who they become. If I sense that they don't, I stick around and am a part of the mix. I gradually lessen that as they hit their teens, because then we are more able to just discuss when people's values are off. By that point, my children are able to recognize things like this for themselves. Dd has had experience with an over-competitive soccer coach (to the point of taking wrong actions and letting that competitive nature be their compass), and because of our day-to-day involvement, we were able to discuss it, although she already could clearly see the flaw. So, you see, still...it really doesn't take a village. It actually DOES take a family!!

Edited October 11, 2010 by Texas T

[Parrothead]

That's impressive. How do you manage to interview every coop teacher, coach, ballet instructor, scout leader, etc. that your kids will interact with before you sign up? I've known some of my kids' teachers in advance and I've become friends with others, but there are lots of times that you don't know who will be the coach or what classes your kids will be assigned at coop ahead of time. That's never been a problem for me, but I don't mind my kids interacting with adults who don't necessarily share my goals, morals or beliefs. I think that's an essential part of growing up and becoming more independent.

I spoke to the karate instructor on the phone. The Girl Scout leader, too. Prior to actually meeting them. I've spoken to the dance instructors in person. We've never had a co-op available. I imagine if we did I'd speak to the instructor on the phone or in person however briefly. It does not take much to get an impression of someone.

 

I don't care what religious belief my dd's instructor's subscribe to. I'm not threatened in any way by it. And as long as the instructor does not tell my child she is going to H3ll for her beliefs we are good. The same for personal goals. I do try my best to screen for morals though. I don't want dd to unnecessarily hear bad words, see excessive skin or inappropriate behavior. So, yeah, I make the effort.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Parrothead

[Spy Car]

 

I was wondering, how much latitude do teachers have to change up curriculum or teaching methods that are not working in their classrooms?

 

In our district that depends on the school and the willingness of the principal to look the other way.

 

For example, our district uses a reading program called Open Court. Open Court is very scripted (most schools are on the same lesson the same day) and it's implementation has raised reading levels and test scores across the district. Our teachers don't use it, or if they do they use selected pieces of the program. They "get away" with it because our test scores are high, and Open Court doesn't mesh well with the needs of our students. At some school they would be in trouble if they were not "with the program."

 

While the teachers could not just ditch the main math program (enVision) they are free to (and do) bring in other materials to teach and supplement with. One of my favorite teachers home-schools his children and I know (from long conversations with him) that he tries to bring a little "home-school" to school.

 

But there is a tension in any school and district between getting everyone on board with a "standardized" program and allowing teacher "freedom" to teach subjects as they will. There are upsides and downsides to both approaches.

 

Bill

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Hmm, not in my homeschooling experience. I know very few hs families who don't use outside classes and activities to provide their children with a well-rounded education. There are at least a hundred families in just my local Friday enrichment program, where there kids are, in fact, being raised in part by the village.

 

ETA: Do you really not have your kids in any outside activities? Do your wife and you teach every subject at every grade? If you do, my hat is off to you!

 

That's impressive. How do you manage to interview every coop teacher, coach, ballet instructor, scout leader, etc. that your kids will interact with before you sign up? I've known some of my kids' teachers in advance and I've become friends with others, but there are lots of times that you don't know who will be the coach or what classes your kids will be assigned at coop ahead of time. That's never been a problem for me, but I don't mind my kids interacting with adults who don't necessarily share my goals, morals or beliefs. I think that's an essential part of growing up and becoming more independent.

 

Oddly this is exactly the "it takes a village" attitude being exemplified. You seem to know exactly what is best for everyone else's children and won't accept that yes, many do interview potential teachers, check out coops, playgroups, music teachers and others who interact with their children. As a matter of fact, in my case, I wouldn't allow my child to continue in any activity where I was barred from observing or knowing what was happening. There are certainly plenty of parents who don't want their children (especially younger children) to interact with adults who don't share their family's morals. There is no need to mock those who actually take responsibility for those who take an active roll in parenting and educating their children. I want to raise my children not abrogate that right to any village.

[Tabrett]

Except that my observation also includes my work as a Site Director at the YMCA. There, I was in 5 day a week contact with parents of public schooled kids - an exposure of 25 or so families (more if you include step families/blended) in several schools.

 

I just don't believe that in your average suburban school there is as much apathy on the part of parents that many homeschoolers or many public school advocates (including teachers and administrations) believe. I don't think it is the norm.

 

There was a post in this thread about if parents would start caring, providing, nurturing, etc, schools would improve. the assumption was that most parents don't. I've seen teachers blame parents for the challenges of schools. It's an odd coupling of common ground that I've seen before. I just don't think it's accurate in terms of numbers.

 

For the homeschoolers that feel that way, it's often a superiority in parenting or a competition. I care more and am better than "those parents". For the teachers, it's a defensiveness about the system and wanting to blame parents. I think in that case, it's also superiority in that the school system can and does develop a "we know more and better about kids" air.

 

I'm not talking about good suburban schools.

I'm not trying to talk about homeschoolers verses public schoolers.

Again, when talking to parents who are members of the Y, you are talking to parents who are ACTIVELY involved with their kids. IF you are involved with the Y, you are paying money for activities and providing transportation for your dc. I'm not saying that all parents don't care about children, but you can't have 2-3 parents in a class who activity care and expect a school to improve. You need a majority of parents in a class to be active in their dc education.

 

I have a hard time believing if 75% of parents in public schools were knocking on the doors daily, trying to get the schools to improve, complaining about the methods used and so forth that schools wouldn't change.

 

But what I see is maybe 15% of parents trying to get change and 85% either are apathetic or don't care. 15% is very easy to ignore, 75% would not be.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

How is pointing out there are good schools, bad schools and a range of schools in between an extreme position? Or being supportive of people who conclude home schooling is the best option for their children an extreme position?

 

:confused:

 

Bill

 

In case you haven't noticed this board is made up primarily of those who have or do homeschool their children. If we all felt that the school systems were so wonderful we might actually have children who attend schools. Even those who afterschool often do so because there is a visible deficiency that the schools have, that they, as responsible parents, are willing to fill. To come here and try to tell everyone how great some schools and ps teachers are is really not going to met with much applause. Most of the folks here are dissatisfied with the educational alternatives available to them and are working to provide their kids with what is best. In sum-quit telling us how great schools are if we just look for the good ones-we've all looked and now we homeschool. Arguing the exception, not the rule [that most schools are deficient], won't turn the exception into the rule. Rather, be glad that you are fortunate enough to have a school that meets your child's needs.

[Spy Car]

I think it takes a village, and I taught my son to read (using phonics) and I'm teaching him mathematics well in advance (and on a deeper level) than I expect the schools would (or could). And I extend to teach in grammar in a similar fashion.

 

But he gets a great deal from his school experience as well. And his life is enriched by men and women who coach baseball, soccer, rugby and cricket. And those who teach art classes, and arrange events for the children to participate in. And those who are out early (like this morning) setting up book-fairs, and working to support the educational mission of the schools. People who put time in with their children, and also help other peoples children.

 

When good people give of themselves it makes for a better world.

 

Bill

[newlifemom]

I never get involved in these threads, b/c while I have definite opinions, I am not confident in my ability to express them well. Others will do a much better job than I could ever do. However . . . [you knew that was coming ;)]

 

In my very, very, very, [did I say very] humble opinion it is all of the above. It changes from environment to environment. The problem is huge! It isn't just the parents, or the teachers. It isn't just the curriculum or the unions. It isn't just . . . you name it.

 

What I don't know is what is more important and what should be fixed first.

 

In my ideal world, schools would be set up by the community and run by the people who live there. Thus, the majority of people would get to speak into how that school is run. I know that leaves me open to all sorts of but what about the minority community that doesn't agree, or what about national norms etc. What about poor communities where parents don't have time b/c they have to work two jobs etc. I don't have the answer to that. I don't know.

 

My sister teaches a 2 yr rotation of 1st and 2nd grade. She is a staunch supporter of govt intervention in education, and the teacher's union. However, she hates that she cannot control the content of her classes. She is told what curriculum to use and how to use it. I would like to think I can see the from more than one perspective even though my kids have never been in ps.

 

Back to my point. There are indeed many parents I've met who are barely involved with their kids in terms of their extra curricular activities, even though they pay for them. There are other parents I've met who scrape and save to put their kids into them and cannot get to them b/c they are working to pay for them.

 

There are times, when a village [in my case the local church] has helped me with my kids. However, my dh and I know that the mandate to raise them and educate them is on us. Duet. 6 doesn't not say the govt should teach them in the way and on couches. That doesn't mean that we will not ever use outside resources as we see fit. Unfortunately, ps will not 'help' me when I need it, b/c I know what I want for them and they won't provide it for many reasons.

 

I guess the reason I am responding is b/c more than blaming. How can we come to a common ground to provide solutions?

 

Are we supposed to provide solutions?

 

Should we let the govt only provide solutions and we just elect people to do that for us?

 

I don't know, but it seems to me that trying to figure out who is at fault is getting us [not people on the board, but us as in Americans in general] no.where.

 

I thought the article was interesting and don't know much about the guy, other than he's loaded, but it wasn't imo some out of 'right' field thing. We all agree to the problem he is discussing.

 

Wow. Sorry to ramble. Early and not much coffee this morning. :D

[Perry]

Nobody ever talks about the curriculum in the schools. I don't think it's really fair to only point the finger at the teachers.

 

:iagree:

I would like to see more discussion about curriculum and how they determine what is taught. For example:

 

Reality Check 2002 (article by subscription only, sorry)

But Can They Spell?

 

It is also possible that disagreements over the importance of such skills as grammar, spelling, punctuation, and basic math are a stumbling block.

Very large majorities of employers and professors cite these skills as key concerns. And in a recent study of high school teachers, just 20 percent said that students in their schools typically "learn to speak and write well, with proper pronunciation and grammar."3

But findings from other Public Agenda research suggest that these skills are actually a low priority in schools of education. While 84 percent of education professors said that it is absolutely essential for teaching programs to encourage teachers to be "lifelong learners" themselves, just 19 percent said it was absolutely essential to produce teachers who "stress correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation" for their students.4

 

 

However, teacher quality is one piece of the problem, and getting rid of lousy teachers is a problem that shouldn't be that hard to fix, so I'm glad to see it being addressed.

[Snickerdoodle]

How can we come to a common ground to provide solutions?

 

I wonder if part of the problem is trying to find a one size fits all solution to large and extremely diverse population.

[Tabrett]

I wonder if part of the problem is trying to find a one size fits all solution to large and extremely diverse population.

 

I think you have a very valid point! The needs at Bill's school are very different from the need of other schools I have seen. One size fits none.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Tabrett

[newlifemom]

I think you have a very valid point! The needs at Bill's school are very different from the need of other schools I have seen. One size fist none.

 

That's why my ideal would be community led. I know it would only work in an ideal world, but . . .then you could tailor the lessons/curriculum.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I think it takes a village, and I taught my son to read (using phonics) and I'm teaching him mathematics well in advance (and on a deeper level) than I expect the schools would (or could). And I extend to teach in grammar in a similar fashion.

 

But he gets a great deal from his school experience as well. And his life is enriched by men and women who coach baseball, soccer, rugby and cricket. And those who teach art classes, and arrange events for the children to participate in. And those who are out early (like this morning) setting up book-fairs, and working to support the educational mission of the schools. People who put time in with their children, and also help other peoples children.

 

When good people give of themselves it makes for a better world.

 

Bill

 

 

But the only road to that better world isn't through the public school system. There are plenty of good people who homeschool and give of themselves through the community.

[PineFarmMom]

Oddly this is exactly the "it takes a village" attitude being exemplified. You seem to know exactly what is best for everyone else's children and won't accept that yes, many do interview potential teachers, check out coops, playgroups, music teachers and others who interact with their children. As a matter of fact, in my case, I wouldn't allow my child to continue in any activity where I was barred from observing or knowing what was happening. There are certainly plenty of parents who don't want their children (especially younger children) to interact with adults who don't share their family's morals. There is no need to mock those who actually take responsibility for those who take an active roll in parenting and educating their children. I want to raise my children not abrogate that right to any village.

 

Exactly!! It's not the "everyone out there giving of themselves" thing that makes the "it takes a village" mentality repugnant. It's the idea that "others" know what is best for our children and we need to bow the knee to their opinion. At this point of moral and spiritual bankruptcy in our culture, I could never feel safe buying what that village is selling. "I've seen the village."

 

On the second bolded part, we were once signing our children up for an activity that we were told we weren't "allowed" to sit in on. We took that to mean that they weren't the ones for our family.

[Zann]

This guy makes me sick. He is part of a group of elitest corp. owners who have and cont. to destroy the world around us. The greedmongers who have destroyed our educational system and the freedoms given us via the constitution.

 

He quotes statistics but gives no evidence of where those numbers are from.

 

Since its obvious that Murdok only cares about is political agenda as how it relates to his greed. Lets look at who is getting attacked. Leader of the teachers union, who is to my suprise Randi Weingarten.

 

Wiengarten is another person who only cares about her political agenda. Her actions are ones that bolster her position as the Federation leader and nothing to help the actual school teach our children better.

 

Michelle Rhee who is also mentioned by Murdok is more concerned with results and has some good plans for better more qualified teachers. She is continously bogged down by the teachers union. In the end until she as well as others realize that teaching to test scores doesn't train the mind we will continue to see the same level of student coming out of our public school systems. But hey they tested higher! right ... wrong

 

Murdok suggests that teachers should be graded on how well thier students test. Which will lead to more teachers teaching to pass tests instead of training the young mind.

 

A person who is truely sincere about the problems with education would present suggestions for solutions. Not more of the same, coupled with the a power house blame game. We know as homeschoolers that the real failure of the school system is how they teach, and the lack of good unbiased textbooks.

 

You can lay a timeline of the discontiuation of the trivium in education, next to the deteriation of our society in america. ( This greately accelerated after the T.V. was made widely available)

 

Of course the powers that be don't to fix the problem. People who can't think for themselves are easy controlled. If you look at any truely supressive society it keeps its society as dumb and inept as possible, takes there weapons and segregates and ostrazised groups of people all under the guise of protecting the people at large.

 

One question that someone might beable to comment on. What is this new tech. they want to get into schools?

[Spy Car]

In case you haven't noticed this board is made up primarily of those who have or do homeschool their children.

 

I've noticed.

 

If we all felt that the school systems were so wonderful we might actually have children who attend schools.

 

Same point I made.

 

Even those who afterschool often do so because there is a visible deficiency that the schools have, that they, as responsible parents, are willing to fill.

 

It think any parent would be ill-advised to think they can absent themselves from their children's education and leave things to the schools alone. And that includes "the best" schools. Overseeing a child's education is the duty of a parent whether the child is entirely home-educated or attends a school.

 

It is folly to think you can just ship them off with lunch and think your job in done.

 

To come here and try to tell everyone how great some schools and ps teachers are is really not going to met with much applause.

 

So what? The fact remains that there are great teachers who work extremely hard to enrich the lives of children. I think theirs is a noble profession and I'm grateful to them for their dedication.

 

Most of the folks here are dissatisfied with the educational alternatives available to them and are working to provide their kids with what is best.

 

Work I admire. I respect people that care enough for their children to provide their full education at home when the local school alternatives are poor. That's first-class parenting as far as I'm concerned. I would also suggest parent can get together and drastically change the situation at local schools if they have the will. We have seen that happen here, where there are very fine schools that were once mediocre, but parents stepped in and turned things around.

 

In sum-quit telling us how great schools are if we just look for the good ones-we've all looked and now we homeschool.

 

First, I've never said any such thing. Second, you are over-stepping you prerogatives by issuing "orders."

 

Arguing the exception, not the rule [that most schools are deficient], won't turn the exception into the rule. Rather, be glad that you are fortunate enough to have a school that meets your child's needs.

 

I am glad. But no school is "sufficient". That is the whole point. Aren't need to be involved in their children's education an not expect the schools to do it all.

 

Bill

Edited October 11, 2010 by Spy Car

[Parrothead]

Then there is the entire "keep 'em stupid so they can be content running a machine" mentality.

 

Blame is being tossed around at parents, teachers, districts, system, there is a deeper problem that is not addressed. For all technological advancements we have made, humanity is not any better off now than it was 5000 years ago. There is still some type of class system in place, with those in the lower classes being kept there by the ruling class.

 

The powers that be do not want the masses to be smarter. Entertain them with garbage like reality TV and make news out of celebrity gossip.

 

The nightmare of our educational system is the way it is on purpose. Until someone finds a way to take politics out of the equation, our children are going to continue to get the short end of the stick.

[Spy Car]

Then there is the entire "keep 'em stupid so they can be content running a machine" mentality.

 

The problem is there are fewer and fewer machines to be run. Not ones that pay a living wage anyway. Gone to China. A child without a good education in the 21st Century has dim prospects.

 

The powers that be do not want the masses to be smarter. Entertain them with garbage like reality TV and make news out of celebrity gossip.

 

 

That is why I find it galling for a man like Rupert Murdock opine on the decline of culture. Smut-monger heal thyself.

 

Bill

[Tabrett]

That's why my ideal would be community led. I know it would only work in an ideal world, but . . .then you could tailor the lessons/curriculum.

 

You're right.

And if 75% of parents were constantly on the schools backs, I think this could happen!

[justamouse]

Have you also seen Race to Nowhere? I'm interested in their point of view as well.

 

 

Another one like that is http://www.thecartelmovie.com/

 

Basically it says what Joanne did. Which, I heartily agree with.

[Joanne]

Again, when talking to parents who are members of the Y, you are talking to parents who are ACTIVELY involved with their kids. IF you are involved with the Y, you are paying money for activities and providing transportation for your dc. I'm not saying that all parents don't care about children, but you can't have 2-3 parents in a class who activity care and expect a school to improve. You need a majority of parents in a class to be active in their dc education.

 

A clarification of context. These weren't bussed members of the YMCA. They were enrolled in the YMCA owned and administered before and after school care system that operated IN the public school. I'd say that likely represents a fair spectrum of kids in these suburban public schools. They were, by definition, working parents.

 

Also, when we talk about parental involvement, that is largely confined to the early elementary years.

 

I don't think your numbers of caring parents are accurate. It's just not my experience that 2-3 parents care and the rest don't. Again, though, it's a common idea of both schools and homeschoolers.

[Spy Car]

But the only road to that better world isn't through the public school system. There are plenty of good people who homeschool and give of themselves through the community.

 

Who is arguing otherwise?

 

Bill

[OnTheBrink]

Exactly!! It's not the "everyone out there giving of themselves" thing that makes the "it takes a village" mentality repugnant. It's the idea that "others" know what is best for our children and we need to bow the knee to their opinion. At this point of moral and spiritual bankruptcy in our culture, I could never feel safe buying what that village is selling. "I've seen the village."

 

 

 

AMEN AMEN AMEN! Did I mention, AMEN? Oh, and AMEN!

[M&MsMom]

Unfortunately, the discussion about the fact that there are some "good" schools misses the point. The entire American education system suffers from a dumbing down of the curriculum, lower standards, and tests that change to meet the lower expectations. So a "good" school today is not the same as a "good" school of fifty years ago. And this lowering of expectations has reduced our standing in the world (we rank 33rd in the world in reading!).

 

I live in a "great" school district...and 65% of college freshman have to take remedial courses in college because they are not prepared for college work. Is this a good education? Unequivocally, no. So even the good schools are seriously lacking...and is probably why Bill feels he has to go further in reading, math and grammar. Because if he didn't, could his child perform in college? When even the best schools are under performing, is there much difference between good and bad?

 

The biggest problem in education (IMHO), is that everyone agrees that the public school system is bad, but everyone then goes on to say that their school is the exception. It's obviously not, but if one thinks that, is there much incentive to fix the system?

[Tabrett]

I don't think your numbers of caring parents are accurate. It's just not my experience that 2-3 parents care and the rest don't. Again, though, it's a common idea of both schools and homeschoolers.

 

I'm saying there are normally 2-3 parents per classroom of students who are willing to actively try to change what they perceive as wrong. Parents who will vocally stand up to the teachers and principals to fight for their child.

 

Many parents may "care", but what good is that if they don't stand up and fight to make it better.

 

Caring and doing nothing is worthless.

[pdalley]

I'm saying there are normally 2-3 parents per classroom of students who are willing to actively try to change what they perceive as wrong. Parents who will vocally stand up to the teachers and principals to fight for their child.

 

Many parents may "care", but what good is that if they don't stand up and fight to make it better.

 

Caring and doing nothing is worthless.

 

 

So by choosing to pull our kids out of public school and not hire an attorney (like we could have afforded one) to sue the school into complying with IDEA and the like we fall into that category?

 

I did all of the above. It changed NOTHING. No, we didn't sue. They retaliated by having my oldest arrested for a manifestation of his disability and reporting me to DSS for medical neglect. I can only imagine how filing a lawsuit would have invited worse trouble.

 

I know a lot of people who have tried to change things locally. It's not working.

 

So tell me what we were supposed to do? Leave our kids in a situation where they were not only getting an inadequate education but were being abused? I'm not angry. I know I've done all I can. I'm genuinely curious.

[Tabrett]

So by choosing to pull our kids out of public school and not hire an attorney (like we could have afforded one) to sue the school into complying with IDEA and the like we fall into that category?

 

I did all of the above. It changed NOTHING. No, we didn't sue. They retaliated by having my oldest arrested for a manifestation of his disability and reporting me to DSS for medical neglect. I can only imagine how filing a lawsuit would have invited worse trouble.

 

I know a lot of people who have tried to change things locally. It's not working.

 

So tell me what we were supposed to do? Leave our kids in a situation where they were not only getting an inadequate education but were being abused? I'm not angry. I know I've done all I can. I'm genuinely curious.

:grouphug:

 

 

If 75% of parents, in your child's class, were active like you were, I don't think you would have to hire an attorney to get things changed. This is the point I'm trying to make. 2-3 parents per class can't make the change, it would take more like 75% of all the parents in the school.

 

I care, but know that my fighting is not going to make a difference because there are simply not enough parents willing to fight.

 

Leave your dc in that situation? NO WAY!!!!!!! You have done the only thing that can be done!!!!!

 

So, I homeschool.

[Perry]

I did all of the above. It changed NOTHING. No, we didn't sue. They retaliated by having my oldest arrested for a manifestation of his disability and reporting me to DSS for medical neglect. I can only imagine how filing a lawsuit would have invited worse trouble.

 

I know a lot of people who have tried to change things locally. It's not working.

 

I organized a local grassroots group. I created a website. I went to school board meetings, talked to superintendents, principals, teachers and parents. I wrote letters to the editor.

 

What I got was the hostility of the teachers and a reputation as a troublemaker. I was publicly called names by the superintendent.

 

We did manage to get the math curriculum changed. From TERC to Everyday math. Big deal. They both stink.

[pdalley]

:grouphug:

 

 

If 75% of parents, in your child's class, were active like you were, I don't think you would have to hire an attorney to get things changed. This is the point I'm trying to make. 2-3 parents per class can't make the change, it would take more like 75% of all the parents in the school.

 

I care, but know that my fighting is not going to make a difference because there are simply not enough parents willing to fight.

 

Leave your dc in that situation? NO WAY!!!!!!! You have done the only thing that can be done!!!!!

 

So, I homeschool.

 

Same here. I really really wish there were more I could do. I have three autistic kids. My job is not only to prepare them educationally but vocationally as well. They need life skills. They need to be taught in the manner that will lead them into becoming independent productive adults. It would take way too much of my energy that they need to fight the way I would want to fight to change because I cannot do things half way.

 

This local system is so bad that a friend of mine had to file a equal access lawsuit under ADA. Seriously. The principal told her that they don't 'have to follow that law'. I heard the same things. I did talk to attorneys and basically they laughed at me. I did hear of an attorney who made a ton of money suing in another part of the state and forced the ps to pay for autistic kids to go to a private school.

 

I try to stay involved. I listen, I vote. I write letters. Not to get overly political but it seems like everything else these days - I can't get 'them' to listen.

 

Parents here are treated with disdain - not so much by the teachers but the school board and administration. They had the NERVE to refuse to partner with a school that specialized in dyslexia and other language disorders. The asst. Super said in the paper that they 'do a fine job of providing services for dyslexic students.' News to me - they told me at least ten (documented) times that my oldest did not have dyslexia. I guess if you deny the disorder exists that's good enough.

 

Yes, there are good schools out there but they are coming fewer and farther between. The saddest thing about the local school is that somehow they got this reputation for being great for the education of autistic kids.

[Parrothead]

The problem is there are fewer and fewer machines to be run. Not ones that pay a living wage anyway. Gone to China. A child without a good education in the 21st Century has dim prospects.

 

That may be (and is) but the same mentality is there system wide. All the way around - some parent, some teachers, some politicians, some boardrooms. Dare I say it is many instead of some?

 

That is why I find it galling for a man like Rupert Murdock opine on the decline of culture. Smut-monger heal thyself.

 

Bill

As to the charges against Murdock, I can't say. I only have a vague bit of knowledge about who the man is.

[Audrey]

To prove that this isn't a new problem, read "To Kill a Mockingbird" - Scout gets into trouble for reading with her dad and they have to hide that from the teacher.

 

 

I remember reading that in jr. high and thinking "Gee, it really never changes." My kindy teacher was always rolling her eyes at me for reading the books on the shelf or reading the whole page on the Dick and Jane charts. She didn't like my mom when she would come to help the class. I could tell. She told my mom to help a reading group (she was supposed ot read us a story and show us the pictures on the pages) and then got snippy with her for sounding out words with us. My mom never came back to help after that. I hated that old bat for treating my mom that way. Once I knew that being able to read ticked her off, I would read out loud anything I could get my hands on. I would read her newspaper out loud when I had to go up to her desk. I would read the instructions out loud on the game boxes. I would read all the text on any colouring pages out loud, too. I was a "willful and defiant child" on my report cards.

 

Yes, I was, you sorry old bat. So there.

 

And you know what? Someone went and cloned that sorry old bat and now her replicant is teaching at the school in my little town. Younger, and with curlier hair, but pretty much the same old bat.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Audrey

[newlifemom]

I was a "willful and defiant child" on my report cards.

 

Yes, I was, you sorry old bat. So there.

 

And you know what? Someone went and cloned that sorry old bat and now her replicant is teaching at the school in my little town. Younger, and with curlier hair, but pretty much the same old bat.

 

I bet you were. :D

[Elizabeth in WA]

For all technological advancements we have made, humanity is not any better off now than it was 5000 years ago.

 

Do you really believe this? By what measure are people not better off than in 3000 BC? Because just from gross measures of life expectancy and infant mortalilty we are far better off, even in poor countries than the ancient Egyptians were.

 

While I can;t find a specific citation for life expectancy in 3000 BC, at the time of the Roman empire:

 

Life expectancy at birth in the Roman Empire has been estimated to have been between 22 and 25 years. Censuses held in Egypt during the same period give similar results: 22 for women and 25 for men. In comparison: at the turn of the last century (i.e.circa 1900) it was less than 30 years in India.

 

Uganda is a very poor country with low life expectancy now. But life expectancy at birth is still 44, much higher than 5000 years ago.

 

from http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/people/index.html

[Amy loves Bud]

I remember reading that in jr. high and thinking "Gee, it really never changes." My kindy teacher was always rolling her eyes at me for reading the books on the shelf or reading the whole page on the Dick and Jane charts. She didn't like my mom when she would come to help the class. I could tell. She told my mom to help a reading group (she was supposed ot read us a story and show us the pictures on the pages) and then got snippy with her for sounding out words with us. My mom never came back to help after that. I hated that old bat for treating my mom that way. Once I knew that being able to read ticked her off, I would read out loud anything I could get my hands on. I would read her newspaper out loud when I had to go up to her desk. I would read the instructions out loud on the game boxes. I would read all the text on any colouring pages out loud, too. I was a "willful and defiant child" on my report cards.

 

Yes, I was, you sorry old bat. So there.

 

And you know what? Someone went and cloned that sorry old bat and now her replicant is teaching at the school in my little town. Younger, and with curlier hair, but pretty much the same old bat.

 

Audrey, I'm really sorry that was your kindergarten experience, but I really, really LOVE that story!

[Parrothead]

Do you really believe this? By what measure are people not better off than in 3000 BC? Because just from gross measures of life expectancy and infant mortalilty we are far better off, even in poor countries than the ancient Egyptians were.

 

While I can;t find a specific citation for life expectancy in 3000 BC, at the time of the Roman empire:

 

 

 

Uganda is a very poor country with low life expectancy now. But life expectancy at birth is still 44, much higher than 5000 years ago.

 

from http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/people/index.html

Yes, I do believe it. I group life expectancy in with technological advancement. Strip away all the trappings and we still have a ruling class, a middle class and a lower class. Strip away all the trappings and parents are trying to get the best available education for their children. There is still slavery, children being exploited and someone or some group trying to rule the world. When you take it down to the very basic of levels, nothing much has changed.

[pqr]

But he gets a great deal from his school experience as well. And his life is enriched by men and women who coach baseball, soccer, rugby and cricket. And those who teach art classes, and arrange events for the children to participate in. And those who are out early (like this morning) setting up book-fairs, and working to support the educational mission of the schools. People who put time in with their children, and also help other peoples children.

 

 

Does your child go to a public school? It must be a rare one that has a rugby and a cricket team.

[Spy Car]

Does your child go to a public school? It must be a rare one that has a rugby and a cricket team.

 

Those are outside school activities.

 

Bill

[Joy at Home]

I remember reading that in jr. high and thinking "Gee, it really never changes." My kindy teacher was always rolling her eyes at me for reading the books on the shelf or reading the whole page on the Dick and Jane charts. She didn't like my mom when she would come to help the class. I could tell. She told my mom to help a reading group (she was supposed ot read us a story and show us the pictures on the pages) and then got snippy with her for sounding out words with us. My mom never came back to help after that. I hated that old bat for treating my mom that way. Once I knew that being able to read ticked her off, I would read out loud anything I could get my hands on. I would read her newspaper out loud when I had to go up to her desk. I would read the instructions out loud on the game boxes. I would read all the text on any colouring pages out loud, too. I was a "willful and defiant child" on my report cards.

 

Audrey, this is too funny. A true rebel, even at five . . .

[pqr]

Those are outside school activities.

 

Bill

 

...but does your child go to a public school?

[Spy Car]

...but does your child go to a public school?

 

Yes, he does.

 

Bill

[Rosie_0801]

See comments above

 

By spoon feeding I mean presenting information in such a way that the students have to try to do badly because it's easier than doing well. Where all the minor details are given, so there is virtually nothing to think about even if the student wanted to; or even as bad as just telling them the answers.

 

Whether teachers can be home with their kids depends very much on what subject they teach, I think. My dh would rock up at the beginning of the year (even his first year) and the maths teachers would ask what he did with his holidays, "I went surfing" said they. "I wrote my curriculum," said dh.

 

I absolutely agree that it should be possible to fire the incompetent teachers, but perhaps the first step would be to raise the passing grade of the teaching degrees. I don't know that it is possible to fail one, even with negative comments from their supervisors on teaching rounds. But, as I said, some of the teaching course content is absolute mumbo jumbo and I don't know how you fail mumbo jumbo. From what I've heard, dh's course was one of the worst (which we didn't know when he enrolled!) but seriously, he was planning to go from the Dip Ed to the Teacher of the Deaf course (another year- even worse mumbo jumbo, unfortunately, but thems the hoops we jump) and one of his lecturers was telling him to write lesson plans including music. That must have really been this guy's thing, because he wouldn't believe that music is not a useful teaching tool in a classroom of profoundly deaf students. :glare:

 

If only we had something like that (a Dip Ed) here (and maybe we do somewhere and I just don't know about it.) How is that working there? In wanting that here, I was hoping that it would allow professionals who would like to go into teaching to do so more easily. Do you see that happening or not so much? Am I way off base with this pipe dream?

 

I suppose it does allow professionals to go into teaching faster. A year of mostly stupid hoop jumping is still necessary, but at least it is only one year of your life, or two if you do it part time. It beats me why professionals would want to go into teaching, unless we're talking tradesmen. I've known a few of them who have either been injured or decided they didn't want to be crawling under cars when they were 60, who've gone and done a Dip Ed. One of my uni lecturers actually had a Dip Ed, which is very rare, because he'd been a secondary school teacher previously. He had no time at all for teaching degrees and firmly believed teachers should have degrees in their subject areas, then do a dip ed. I don't think anyone has a problem with the Dip Ed as an institution, but many have problems with the quality of the course. Dh could have done without the music obsessed psychology lecturer ;) and would have benefited greatly from classes on child development because dealing with a bunch of year sevens, half of whom have started puberty and half that haven't, is a challenge he wasn't prepared for! I've heard that those classes are included in courses run by other universities. The major complaint is of insufficient teaching rounds and insufficient mentoring while they are doing them. That, as I said, depends where you are. Teachers get benefits from having student teachers, and that doesn't necessarily attract good mentors. The courses are generally agreed to be 90% time wasters, so people don't feel at all glad at the prospect of doing them. In theory that could be changed, though. It beats me who can do that, but it is theoretically possible.

 

The other problem I see, is what was mentioned by Liping Ma in her book; the good students are not going on to become teachers. Dh was pretty disgusted by some of the, well, kids, who did their Dip Eds along with him. They don't think or read any further than what the course teaches, and if it is one of the poorer quality courses, they really need to! Dh used to bring home pearls of wisdom that I was shocked even counted as pearls of wisdom. These kids appear to be graduating from Dip Eds or teaching degrees, thinking unit studies are the height of educational sophistication. I wouldn't mind so much if the focus was on the content, but it is usually focused on the theme, y'know.

 

Most professionals wanting to move to teaching do adult ed diplomas. I'm not sure what the requirements are for them. Who would teach high school if they could teach adults? There are dip eds available for primary school, but most people planning on that as a career do a general teaching degree. Perhaps they are more appropriate for generalist teachers, but I'm starting to think they're not.

 

That was probably wordier than necessary, but oh well :tongue_smilie:

 

Rosie

[Elizabeth in WA]

Yes, I do believe it. I group life expectancy in with technological advancement. Strip away all the trappings and we still have a ruling class, a middle class and a lower class. Strip away all the trappings and parents are trying to get the best available education for their children. There is still slavery, children being exploited and someone or some group trying to rule the world. When you take it down to the very basic of levels, nothing much has changed.

 

Okay, if you are going to take the Marxist position that the existence of disparate social classes is the measure of human progress rather than quality of life, we will just have to disagree on this point.

[Rosie_0801]

Here's an example of a mighty fine community school. Dh visited them as a field trip during his Dip Ed (Diploma of Education, one year teaching qualification you do after your bachelors degree.) If my kids want to go to high school, they might have a chance of getting me to agree if it is this one. I don't know why there aren't more. Funding is a problem, I guess.

 

http://www.alia.vic.edu.au/

 

Rosie

[Parrothead]

Okay, if you are going to take the Marxist position that the existence of disparate social classes is the measure of human progress rather than quality of life, we will just have to disagree on this point.

I don't see any difference in my quality of life that that of a middle class Roman matron. (Yes, I know she lived about 2000 years ago.) I might have refrigeration and if in a climate that called for it air conditioning. But typically we are both SAHM homeschooling daughters. I might live longer, but I might get hit by a bus.

 

If that is Marxist then I suppose that is what I am. But, really, I don't see that either. Then again, I'm not familiar enough with Marx to say.

 

Yeah, we will have to agree to disagree.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Parrothead

[Elizabeth in WA]

I don't see any difference in my quality of life that that of a middle class Roman matron. (Yes, I know she lived about 2000 years ago.) I might have refrigeration and if in a climate that called for it air conditioning. But typically we are both SAHM homeschooling daughters. I might live longer, but I might get hit by a bus.

 

 

Leaving aside that refrigeration, which implies electricity and speaks to food safety, is not a trivial matter let's discuss some serious other, non technological differences between you and a Roman matron. (In China today social status is derived to a large part from possession of such technologies as indoor plumbing and electricity. You would be hard pressed to find a middle class person in China who thought these trivial matter in quality of life.)

 

Roman women had no political rights. Although they could be citizens, they could not vote or participate in politics. Your daughter, at 11, could be given in marriage by your husband without your, or her, consent. She almost certainly would be by 14. She could have been exposed (left to die) at birth if he had so chosen. If your husband divorced you, you would have no custody rights. She would also not be given the same kind of education as a boy, or for as long since she would be married young. Even a free woman was effectively the property of her male relatives. First her father, and then her husband. If widowed, other male relatives. The relatively rare event of getting hit by a bus (or chariot) would not be a flippant line, instead you and she would face a strong possibility of death in childbirth.

[HollyinNNV]

Exactly!! It's not the "everyone out there giving of themselves" thing that makes the "it takes a village" mentality repugnant. It's the idea that "others" know what is best for our children and we need to bow the knee to their opinion. At this point of moral and spiritual bankruptcy in our culture, I could never feel safe buying what that village is selling. "I've seen the village."

 

DITTO!