Am I oversimplifying public education's funding?

[kokotg]

How long does one generally have to teach before earning retirement?

 

In Georgia, it's 30 years (but DH says very few of his co-workers actually retire when they're eligible to, and he probably won't, either. Well--it might be too early to say that, but assuming he's still enjoying it and not completely burned out on the bureaucracy, he'll probably keep teaching for at least awhile after his 30 years. He'll only be 58 then).

[johnandtinagilbert]

In Georgia, it's 30 years (but DH says very few of his co-workers actually retire when they're eligible to, and he probably won't, either. Well--it might be too early to say that, but assuming he's still enjoying it and not completely burned out on the bureaucracy, he'll probably keep teaching for at least awhile after his 30 years. He'll only be 58 then).

I sure wish my years of home schooling somehow transferred to that 30!

[Guest]

The middle class and affluent suburbs of NYC, the leafy burbs as they're called, have very high performing ps. The kids in these areas come mostly from college educated parents or tradesman like electricians/plumbers. Most of them enter school well prepared and have supportive home environments. The inner city schools in Newark, Trenton, Camden are tremendous failures. We've dumped large sums of money into these failing schools only to watch them continue to fail. The one bright light, at least in NJ, are charter schools. They enroll the same population as the failed inner city schools with significantly different results. The only high performing schools in cities like Newark are charter schools or magnets.

 

All this just to say, there are some ps that do wonderful jobs mostly because they start out with a well educated populations not because of their educational pedagogy. Then there are ps that do a wonderful job with lower funding levels (charter receive only 2/3 the level of funding) with disadvantages populations. Those are the schools we should be paying attention to.

 

The use of the word "dumped" for money put into inner city schools really disturbs me.

 

While I agree with much in your post, I also think that the funding of public schools vastly, vastly inflates the gulf between rich and poor, well and poorly educated. Note that it's the schools of kids whose parents are already well off who get rock climbing gyms, Olympic sized swimming pools, school-funded trips to foreign countries, high tech labs, full-sized theaters, specialist teachers not only for subjects, but WITHIN subjects, teachers with PhDs who stay in the school for years, on and on and on. By and large, inner city schools are crumbling, have broken ventilation and heating systems, not enough textbooks, broken bathrooms, "labs" with no running water or equipment, problems with sewage backups, rat infestations, no athletic fields or pools. I have read about classes taking place in janitorial closets and even bathrooms; about kids sitting in study halls for three periods a day because the district cannot attract teachers into that neighborhood.

 

I am not arguing in the least that there aren't plenty of other contributing factors (most of which also have to do with economics and class). But if money were not a deciding factor in public education, why would public schools in wealthy areas put so very, very much into their schools? Why wouldn't they be content with a basic building and excellent teachers? Why give yourselves all these incredible extras and then have the gall to say that they don't matter, that other kids don't need them because money isn't the problem? This is like Bush saying small class size (and the money needed to make it come about) isn't the answer, while ignoring the fact that his own high school education took place in classes where fifteen was a big group.

 

Why don't inner city kids have the chance to experience and learn in such wonderful environments, with such teachers? Why have we all but blocked desegregation to the point that in the few places where busing still occurs, minority kids are kept largely separate from whites on a different track of classes? Why are all the studies on "dumping" money into impoverished, failing schools short-term studies, while sociological research has repeatedly shown the way that wealth (and higher education levels) accumulate and pay dividends over time?

 

Anyone who can bear a very, very saddening look at the way funding inequities perpetuate and add to the education gap should take a look at Jonathan Kozol's Savage Inequalities and The Shame of the Nation, for starters, and take off from there. Kozol is one of the only people who is giving a voice to the kids on the receiving end of poor (in every sense of the word) educations.

[Stacy in NJ]

The use of the word "dumped" for money put into inner city schools really disturbs me.

 

While I agree with much in your post, I also think that the funding of public schools vastly, vastly inflates the gulf between rich and poor, well and poorly educated. Note that it's the schools of kids whose parents are already well off who get rock climbing gyms, Olympic sized swimming pools, school-funded trips to foreign countries, high tech labs, full-sized theaters, specialist teachers not only for subjects, but WITHIN subjects, teachers with PhDs who stay in the school for years, on and on and on. By and large, inner city schools are crumbling, have broken ventilation and heating systems, not enough textbooks, broken bathrooms, "labs" with no running water or equipment, problems with sewage backups, rat infestations, no athletic fields or pools. I have read about classes taking place in janitorial closets and even bathrooms; about kids sitting in study halls for three periods a day because the district cannot attract teachers into that neighborhood.

 

I am not arguing in the least that there aren't plenty of other contributing factors (most of which also have to do with economics and class). But if money were not a deciding factor in public education, why would public schools in wealthy areas put so very, very much into their schools? Why wouldn't they be content with a basic building and excellent teachers? Why give yourselves all these incredible extras and then have the gall to say that they don't matter, that other kids don't need them because money isn't the problem? This is like Bush saying small class size (and the money needed to make it come about) isn't the answer, while ignoring the fact that his own high school education took place in classes where fifteen was a big group.

 

Why don't inner city kids have the chance to experience and learn in such wonderful environments, with such teachers? Why have we all but blocked desegregation to the point that in the few places where busing still occurs, minority kids are kept largely separate from whites on a different track of classes? Why are all the studies on "dumping" money into impoverished, failing schools short-term studies, while sociological research has repeatedly shown the way that wealth (and higher education levels) accumulate and pay dividends over time?

 

Anyone who can bear a very, very saddening look at the way funding inequities perpetuate and add to the education gap should take a look at Jonathan Kozol's Savage Inequalities and The Shame of the Nation, for starters, and take off from there. Kozol is one of the only people who is giving a voice to the kids on the receiving end of poor (in every sense of the word) educations.

 

I live in a very wealthy area of NJ, and while the facilities in our area are good, they are in no way superior to many of the facilites in our urban districts. Our district does attract more qualified teachers, not because their pay scale or benefits are any different than those in urban areas, but because of attitudes about education and educators within the community. Again, our very high performing schools spend no more than the state average on education (10k in NJ). I'm commenting here on my observations about circumstances within NJ.

 

I'm in the process of moving from that wealthy, leafy suburb which is about 90% white to a neighboring community that is more "diverse". Diverse being the pc term meaning there are a lot more black and hispanic kids. The school district in the town is nearly as high performing as the neighboring wealthier disticts. At first glance the school appears to be fully integrated, but it is not. The A track kids are all white and asian with a few stray hispanic and black kids. The B track is a mix of white, hispanic, and black kids. The C track is mostly black with a few hispanic and fewer white kids thrown in. The performance gap between these groups is persistent. The standardized test scores are consistent over years. Move 20 miles east to Newark and a charter school there. The standized test scores for the mostly black kids at this charter, which again receives 2/3 the funding level of the local ps, are 30% higher than the test scores for the black kids in our high performing, diverse district. In fact these charters with disadvantaged populations score 90% proficient or at the same performance level as our wealthiest districts.

 

All of this is just to illustrate a point that is obvious to many here in NJ. The guilt that many white, affluent suburbanites feel has led them to demand, encourage and tolerate the wasteful spending of millions of dollars on untested, unproven and, in fact, stupid remedies to "fix" these inner city schools. But that is not a tragedy. It's only money after all. What is a tragedy is the wasted lives and opportunities of the tens of thousands of disadvantaged kids that have been processed through these sh*t holes.

 

Here's the remedy: effective pedagogry. We have many examples of wonderful, high performing charters in NJ. We know what to do. Money is a distraction and masks the real argument.

 

ETA: I would love to see NJ spend additional dollars on charters in disadvantaged areas that consistently meet or exceed state standards. As I've mentioned again and again, in NJ charters are funded at only a 2/3 level. The additional 1/3 of funding is transfered to the non-charter in the same school district even though the student is on the campus of the charter. This was part of the sop that was offered to the NJEA to get them to even consider allowing charters in NJ.

 

Here's a link to North Star Academy. A charter in Newark. For the past two years 100% of their students passed both portions (Language Arts and Math) of the HSPA, which is given to all 11th graders in NJ. 100% of their students have been accepted to a 4 year college. http://www.uncommonschools.org/nsa/ourResults/

Edited November 4, 2010 by Stacy in NJ
more

[Julie in MN]

take a look at Jonathan Kozol's Savage Inequalities and The Shame of the Nation, for starters, and take off from there. Kozol is one of the only people who is giving a voice to the kids on the receiving end of poor (in every sense of the word) educations.

 

I agree there are kids put into some sad situations. But I don't think it's all done by the government or the teachers or the facilities.

 

We lived in the city of Mpls. when our oldest started school. Many of us parents got involved and went to meetings and chose the idea school or teacher or situation for our little darlings.

 

The families who didn't care ended up at certain local schools, including the school down the street from us. I talked to the principal there and she said they didn't do field trips or anything extra because they couldn't keep the kids under control. Much later, my boss left the military, moved to our neighborhood, and enrolled in that school. She went to ask the principal about when the next PTA meeting was, and the principal said, "You just attended it. You're our first member." My oldest son's closest friend down the street was typical of some of the kids around there. He had parents who both worked and probably earned more than dh and I, but their son went to K in the mornings and then was on his own until his parents returned home from work some 5 hours later. Social Service would come by once in a while and tell them to put him in daycare, so they would for a few days. Said he didn't like it. So this 6 year old was riding his bike down busy streets and otherwise entertaining himself, unless he was at our house. This is the type of parents the teachers were serving.

 

And even when we moved to a first-ring suburb, just outside of Mpls., and we passed the reforendums for nicer buildings. I was a room mother for my youngest and at the little parties, I'd see the teacher bouncing from the child with Downs' syndrome who was eating the crayons, to the child who didn't speak English and didn't know what to do, to the child who was angry and hitting other children. My older dd had her Social Studies textbook and another time her French headphones stolen during class and the teachers could do nothing. Teachers have their hands tied because they are responsible to educate every single American child, whether the child is there for education or babysitting or social therapy. Each of those children are precious but providing 30 of them with "academics" is no easy task and I'm not sure the condition of the building is a big piece of the problem.

 

In defense of such families, my dh comes from a long line of laborers, machinists, truck drivers, small business starters, and the like. In some ways, they have the same opinions in reverse -- they feel like they pay the taxes for folks who want to study history and never get a real job :) It isn't always that the families don't care about anything, but sometimes that they just don't care about the same things.

 

 

I live in a very wealthy area of NJ, and while the facilities in our area are good, they are in now way superior to many of the facilites in our urban districts. Our district does attract more qualified teachers, not because their pay scale or benefits are any different than those in urban areas, but because of attitudes about education and educators within the community.

 

This is what I saw. If the family doesn't care about the same things, then are we trying to fit square pegs into round holes?

 

wasteful spending of millions of dollars on untested, unproven and, in fact, stupid remedies to "fix" these inner city schools.

 

Yes, when a fix is tried, I almost always think it's the wrong fix. But it's hard to go against the stream, especially when it's the child's parents.

[Robin in DFW]

nt

Edited November 4, 2010 by Robin in DFW

[angela in ohio]

but, in the area where I live, the powers that be decide how to divide up our school tax dollars. So, although, I have an extremely high property tax rate, this funding does not all stay within my district. It gets routed to schools with less funding in order to equalize. So, all those schools in the urban areas are getting funding equal to if not more than what goes into the schools in my area.

 

Michigan's school funding system is similar. They changed it to rely on state funding instead of local property taxes, and there is a minimum and maximum funding amount set.

 

Ultimately, though, whether you put more money into the school or move the low SES students to another school, the fact that their parents are low SES and have less education is the biggest factor. More money in the schools is not a quick fix for that. Innovative programs that bring one-on-one mentors from higher SES communities (often through church or business programs) into the schools are working. Let's fund those instead. :001_smile:

[Rosie_0801]

Snort...You find that person and then hop over here and fix ours.

 

Retirement pay and benefits take up a large part of our local budget. They post it on line and I was shocked at the numbers.:w00t:

 

QUOTE=Rosie_0801;2155407]And I'm happy to report that I've solved Australia's education system problems. Now if only I could figure out who to tell; someone who has the power to implement my brilliant ideas.

:D

Rosie

 

 

Sorry! My brilliant plan wouldn't work for you guys. I'm afraid you'll have to have your own dinner time conversations :)

 

Rosie

[Nan in Mass]

Teach Like a Champion?

 

I would rename the book "How to not do your children's work for them and how to immediately make them begin memorizing whatever you tell them and how to teach your child to think for themselves and generally how to make your child hate you as a teacher sigh"

 

Some of it works at home but some of it doesn't because you are in the tricky position of being a parent teacher.

 

-Nan

Edited November 5, 2010 by Nan in Mass

[johnandtinagilbert]

My life was grand until my parents divorced; I was in 6th grade. That's when I attended some of those rat infested schools in inner city Chicago. We had a few exceptional teacher's who drove from the fancy burbs to educate the "poor kids." I do believe, they could have taught us with rocks and beans, though, b/c they were outstanding teachers with a desire to reach their kids. One thing they all had in common, "I expect you to work hard and do your homework." They gave us idea, idea, idea on how to succeed. They came early and stayed late so kids could sit in the classroom before and after school to get homework done. It wasn't about money, it was about dedication and hard work. They helped us figure out the path to high schools (magnets) that would get us out of the rat infestation, gang infestation (worse than the rats) that was in our district. Magnets/charters were a way out then, too. I found out early on, if I were willing to do the work, there was ALWAYS a teacher that could fill the gaps for me....and it was never about money.

 

Even when I lived in a better district, under the care of foster parents (yeah, my life was ugly), the teacher's still rewarded me b/c I worked hard. I was editor in chief of the yearbook b/c I put in the time and effort to prove my worth. My teacher's paid for field trips b/c they knew I appreciated the art museums. My effort earned my reward.

 

When my foster mom got abusive, people from my job let me stay with them b/c they saw my hard working attitude in work, school and athletics. It was never about money. It was always about effort.

 

A long time liberal friend recently said to me, "You make your own fortune. You were always stronger and more together than you had any business being." If I followed the "poverty needs more money" line, I'd be much less fortunate because I would have given myself an excuse instead of working for opportunity.

 

America's education woes have plenty to do with politics and funding, but they also have plenty to do with personal choice, abuse of freedom, and government dependency. Those with spouses teaching or who used to be in the classroom, how many parents are NOT involved in education; drive pimped out cars, but can't send their kid to school with a box of Crayola; dress in the finest name brands and drop their kids in front of the Xbox each night because they CHOOSE to, while they refuse to read for 20 minutes a day to their dc? Have out of control kids that are interrupting the education of those who want to learn or teach? Those parents choose to lose control of their kids, same way I have chosen to raise well mannered, kind and self-disciplined children. Throwing More Gov't Money at these schools is not the answer.

 

I come from nothing; the kind of nothing where we had cereal and water b/c we couldn't afford milk; yet I've made something out of my life b/c of the choices I've made and the stressed importance of education by my parents. Where my life is lacking can be directly tied to poor decision making. I always have a choice. My parents always had the choice to encourage education...or not. When I went to college on scholarship, I earned the hand up and didn't rely on a hand out. College wasn't entitled, it was earned.

 

My life is testimony that poor kids can make it if their parents make school important. We had nada...nothing....zilch, but if I didn't make good grades, I was grounded! If kids aren't getting encouragement at home, there is little a school can do. More money is not the answer.

 

I think the schools with the rock climbing walls are spending money where they can. Parents are doing their part, so students and teachers can get the extras a parent might not otherwise provide.

 

Seems to me, at a glance, the NJ model is proof in the puddin'.

[kokotg]

I think there are approximately a gazillion different issues being talked about here (I'm good with big numbers like that because I'm married to a math teacher ;)). For one thing, more money isn't being thrown at education right now. In most places, education funding is being cut, big time. DH has 4 furlough days this year plus, as always, an increase in health insurance premiums. Other places have it much worse. Schools with rock climbing walls are not the norm. DH's school certainly doesn't have one, and it's a brand new school in a relatively affluent district. Class sizes are getting bigger every year. Teacher salaries and benefits make up the bulk of spending, and they're the first thing that gets cut. As good capitalists, we all believe that you attract higher quality employees by paying more money, yes? You're not going to, in general, attract people who are experts in their fields with the money teachers are paid, particularly in math and the sciences. DH is there because he wants to be and because he's not interested in a corporate job. He could be making much more money elsewhere.

 

There are individual examples of charter schools (and traditional public schools) that are doing a great job, but overall charter school test scores are not higher than traditional public schools, including in NJ:

 

http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/playing-with-charter-numbers-in-nj/

 

There are more things to look at than test scores, of course, and I'm not anti-charter school.

 

From looking at my husband's relatively wealthy suburban high school, I can tell you things I've noticed. This is the same school district I grew up going to, incidentally, but it was much more rural then and had less money.

 

I'm constantly appalled at how low the expectations are for these kids. DH regularly gets e-mails from parents asking why their kids aren't doing well in class, often with thinly veiled accusations that it's all his fault they're not (if not open accusations). Almost invariably, part of his response is, "your son/daughter's homework average is 30/40/50%. I grade homework on completion, not accuracy, so doing the homework regularly is one easy way to bring up the average." When I was in high school, I freaked out if I missed ONE homework assignment; not doing HALF of them would never have entered my mind. And if it did, I can't imagine my parents complaining to my teacher about my grade without first making sure I was doing my homework. He just had one of these e-mails the other day. Instead of saying, "oh wow--I'll make sure she does her homework from now on," the parent is scheduling a conference and saying she doesn't think the review sheet had everything on it that the test had. I also don't remember feeling entitled to a review sheet before every test in high school; maybe that was because I did my homework and could use that to review.

 

So I think there's this huge culture of entitlement. I remember it when I taught college freshman in grad school, and I think it's only gotten worse. And the administration supports it. DH has administrators who don't want to deal with angry parents, period, so they tend to give them whatever they ask for. DH can't even get the administration to back him up in cracking down on cheating. One assistant principal actually told him, "I wish my kid cared enough to cheat." It boggles the mind. And, remember, this is a "good" school. If DH has a high failure rate, he's the one who gets in trouble; never mind that none of the kids who failed bothered to turn in their homework 80% of the time. There's very little he, as an individual teacher, can do to change this and raise expectations, because the administration won't back him up if he does.

 

So I'm agreeing, really, much as I think teacher salaries could be more competitive (and, realistically speaking, making teacher salaries higher isn't going to be a priority in this economy), that money isn't the big issue. I think parents and communities are. The charter schools that I've seen do well are the ones where parents are deeply involved in all the right ways, see themselves as partners in their children's educations with the teachers instead of as adversaries, and where there's a very strong sense of community and "we're all in this together" in the school.

[Stacy in NJ]

There are individual examples of charter schools (and traditional public schools) that are doing a great job, but overall charter school test scores are not higher than traditional public schools, including in NJ:http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/playing-with-charter-numbers-in-nj/

 

There are more things to look at than test scores, of course, and I'm not anti-charter school.

 

 

 

I agree with a great deal of what you've written. I just wanted to address the part highlighted above.

 

While on average charters are not doing a significantly better job in NJ than traditional schools, charters located in low poverty areas are doing a significantly better job than their local ps. I'm sorry I can't link to statistics that back up this assertion. I just don't have the time right now to do my google research! I volunteer at an elementary charter located in a high poverty area, Jersey City, and am familiar with many of the circumstances of individual charters in NJ.

 

We have only one charter in my immediate area. Its primary focus is not academic, it is sustainable living and the environment. Most of the kids attending this school are from middle class or affluent parents. The school's academic performance is on par with or slightly below the neighborhood ps.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Stacy in NJ

[kokotg]

I agree with a great deal of what you've written. I just wanted to address the part highlighted above.

 

While on average charters are not doing a significantly better job in NJ than traditional schools, charters located in low poverty areas are doing a significantly better job than their local ps. I'm sorry I can't link to statistics that back up this assertion. I just don't have the time right now to do my google research! I volunteer at an elementary charter located in a high poverty area, Jersey City, and am familiar with many of the circumstances of individual charters in NJ.

 

We have only one charter in my immediate area. Its primary focus is not academic, it is sustainable living and the environment. Most of the kids attending this school are from middle class or affluent parents. The school's academic performance is on par with or slightly below the neighborhood ps.

 

yeah--I don't think we're disagreeing about charter schools, really. I guess my point was just that we need to look at what specifically is working in successful charter schools rather than just declaring charter schools to be the answer. And I know that's what you were doing in your post--looking at individual schools and how they've gotten good results.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

My life was grand until my parents divorced; I was in 6th grade. That's when I attended some of those rat infested schools in inner city Chicago. We had a few exceptional teacher's who drove from the fancy burbs to educate the "poor kids." I do believe, they could have taught us with rocks and beans, though, b/c they were outstanding teachers with a desire to reach their kids. One thing they all had in common, "I expect you to work hard and do your homework." They gave us idea, idea, idea on how to succeed. They came early and stayed late so kids could sit in the classroom before and after school to get homework done. It wasn't about money, it was about dedication and hard work. They helped us figure out the path to high schools (magnets) that would get us out of the rat infestation, gang infestation (worse than the rats) that was in our district. Magnets/charters were a way out then, too. I found out early on, if I were willing to do the work, there was ALWAYS a teacher that could fill the gaps for me....and it was never about money.

 

Even when I lived in a better district, under the care of foster parents (yeah, my life was ugly), the teacher's still rewarded me b/c I worked hard. I was editor in chief of the yearbook b/c I put in the time and effort to prove my worth. My teacher's paid for field trips b/c they knew I appreciated the art museums. My effort earned my reward.

 

When my foster mom got abusive, people from my job let me stay with them b/c they saw my hard working attitude in work, school and athletics. It was never about money. It was always about effort.

 

A long time liberal friend recently said to me, "You make your own fortune. You were always stronger and more together than you had any business being." If I followed the "poverty needs more money" line, I'd be much less fortunate because I would have given myself an excuse instead of working for opportunity.

 

America's education woes have plenty to do with politics and funding, but they also have plenty to do with personal choice, abuse of freedom, and government dependency. Those with spouses teaching or who used to be in the classroom, how many parents are NOT involved in education; drive pimped out cars, but can't send their kid to school with a box of Crayola; dress in the finest name brands and drop their kids in front of the Xbox each night because they CHOOSE to, while they refuse to read for 20 minutes a day to their dc? Have out of control kids that are interrupting the education of those who want to learn or teach? Those parents choose to lose control of their kids, same way I have chosen to raise well mannered, kind and self-disciplined children. Throwing More Gov't Money at these schools is not the answer.

 

I come from nothing; the kind of nothing where we had cereal and water b/c we couldn't afford milk; yet I've made something out of my life b/c of the choices I've made and the stressed importance of education by my parents. Where my life is lacking can be directly tied to poor decision making. I always have a choice. My parents always had the choice to encourage education...or not. When I went to college on scholarship, I earned the hand up and didn't rely on a hand out. College wasn't entitled, it was earned.

 

My life is testimony that poor kids can make it if their parents make school important. We had nada...nothing....zilch, but if I didn't make good grades, I was grounded! If kids aren't getting encouragement at home, there is little a school can do. More money is not the answer.

 

I think the schools with the rock climbing walls are spending money where they can. Parents are doing their part, so students and teachers can get the extras a parent might not otherwise provide.

 

Seems to me, at a glance, the NJ model is proof in the puddin'.

 

There it is. There is the reason I look for your posts lately, and usually agree with you!

 

I also grew up on cereal and water, or "gravy" on toast...or a biscuit and a mug of tea for lunch. Hungry. Cold.

 

My parents cared very much but mental illness was the problem.

 

I had helpful teachers and friends, but success in school was not really part of my equation. I was "gifted" and never did any homework. My brother had skated through high school the same way, getting A's and B's with no noticeable effort, so the teachers were not surprised when I did the same thing. School was not a place where I wanted to excel. It was just a place to get away from home.

 

The way some teachers helped me was to let me ignore their lessons, and provide me with better materials to study on the side. If they couldn't give me something better, they ignored me and let me do my own thing, keeping themselves available for discussion.

 

It worked. I read the local library and educated myself. I quickly learned how to see kind people as resources for true learning. I'm still learning that way!

 

I went to vocational school and began to climb up, and then threw it all away to live in deliberate poverty so that my children can be classically homeschooled.

 

My husband, who is an electrician, supports what I'm doing for our boys. He is thrilled that they are learning Latin, Logic, Ancient History, etc., and is willing to eat beans and rice every day so they can have books.

 

I have *zero* answers for the special needs of so many students. No clue at all what should be done for them in public schools.

 

I do know that I taught my three older sons with Ray's Arithmetic, McGuffey Readers and Speller, Charlotte Mason methods of language arts and nature study, and a library card. That is why I don't really believe that elementary education should be expensive, for anyone.

 

In recent years I've spent more on curriculum. So thrilled to have access to Sonlight, MEP math, Apologia elementary science, Memoria Press Latin materials, and so much more.

 

All of these fancy materials are still cheaper than public school materials, and they can be used to truly educate happy, healthy, children who can retain their love of learning.

[johnandtinagilbert]

There it is. There is the reason I look for your posts lately, and usually agree with you!

 

I also grew up on cereal and water, or "gravy" on toast...or a biscuit and a mug of tea for lunch. Hungry. Cold.

 

My parents cared very much but mental illness was the problem.

 

I had helpful teachers and friends, but success in school was not really part of my equation. I was "gifted" and never did any homework. My brother had skated through high school the same way, getting A's and B's with no noticeable effort, so the teachers were not surprised when I did the same thing. School was not a place where I wanted to excel. It was just a place to get away from home.

 

The way some teachers helped me was to let me ignore their lessons, and provide me with better materials to study on the side. If they couldn't give me something better, they ignored me and let me do my own thing, keeping themselves available for discussion.

 

It worked. I read the local library and educated myself. I quickly learned how to see kind people as resources for true learning. I'm still learning that way!

 

I went to vocational school and began to climb up, and then threw it all away to live in deliberate poverty so that my children can be classically homeschooled.

 

My husband, who is an electrician, supports what I'm doing for our boys. He is thrilled that they are learning Latin, Logic, Ancient History, etc., and is willing to eat beans and rice every day so they can have books.

 

I have *zero* answers for the special needs of so many students. No clue at all what should be done for them in public schools.

 

I do know that I taught my three older sons with Ray's Arithmetic, McGuffey Readers and Speller, Charlotte Mason methods of language arts and nature study, and a library card. That is why I don't really believe that elementary education should be expensive, for anyone.

 

In recent years I've spent more on curriculum. So thrilled to have access to Sonlight, MEP math, Apologia elementary science, Memoria Press Latin materials, and so much more.

 

All of these fancy materials are still cheaper than public school materials, and they can be used to truly educate happy, healthy, children who can retain their love of learning.

:grouphug: You know what is beautiful...this thread, combined with the education in India thread, and you have my financially poor kids (we eat lots of beans and rice here, too) who receive an outstanding education, work toward the high goals set for them, who are great little people.

 

When I recently told a ps teacher friend I educate the entire lot on less than 2K a year, she couldn't believe it. When I told her I spent a lot of money compared to others, she fell out. I sure hope there is a turn around in schools and money. The system is getting worse annually and I've decided I'm not gonna let anyone say it's about money anymore. They don't need more $, they need an overhaul!

[Nan in Mass]

The proposal for a new school in our town included heated sidewalks!!!!!!!! You can imagine how that went over at town meeting with the upright, hardworking old yankees on fixed incomes.

[johnandtinagilbert]

The proposal for a new school in our town included heated sidewalks!!!!!!!! You can imagine how that went over at town meeting with the upright, hardworking old yankees on fixed incomes.

WOW! Just WOW!

[Tammyla]

That is just lovely:glare:.

 

The proposal for a new school in our town included heated sidewalks!!!!!!!! You can imagine how that went over at town meeting with the upright, hardworking old yankees on fixed incomes.

[rlugbill]

I agree with your main point that public schools have gotten off track and would do better if they were more like homeschools.

 

If public schools had very small, multi-grade classes and the teachers stayed with them, like homeschool moms do, then things would be very different. It would be more like the old one-room schools. Children would be better behaved, better socialized, better educated, and more like homeschooled students.

 

It is doable, but it flies in the face of accepted education practices. Instead of having 30 kids the same age in the class all learning the same things at the same time, the kids could be various ages to ensure individual attention and individualized education. The older kids could help the younger kids so they learn to care for others. Instead of learning irresponsibility in school, they could learn responsibility.

 

But it would mean not having as many specialty teachers and relying instead on books and videos to do much of the teaching. In order to get the class sizes smaller, they would have to cut corners like not having all the special classes and emphasizing the 3Rs more. Having the kids clean up the school instead of hiring a janitor.

 

Schools would look more like the one room schools of one hundred years ago. Homeschoolers know it works to have smaller, mixed age classes, with individualized education. However, just as many people are opposed to homeschooling, many people would be opposed to having their child in class with younger students instead of with older students. And many people would balk at the idea of dropping the specialty teachers for PE, computers, music, librarians, etc. In order to get the class sizes down, they would have to eliminate these positions.

 

It is doable, but would take a major pardigm shift in education.

[Rosie_0801]

The proposal for a new school in our town included heated sidewalks!!!!!!!! You can imagine how that went over at town meeting with the upright, hardworking old yankees on fixed incomes.

 

In the absence of a jaw dropping smilie, :svengo:

 

 

If I were in charge of that money, I'd spend it on department secretaries, so the teachers didn't have to spend so much time on admin like making phone calls to parents about absences and missed homework, chasing kids to try and make them turn up for their exam re-sits etc. Then the teachers could use that time for class prep, marking and doing those study circles like Liping Ma speaks of in her book. I don't know how it is in the US, but when my hubby was teaching, admin took up so much of his time.

 

Rosie

[johnandtinagilbert]

I agree with your main point that public schools have gotten off track and would do better if they were more like homeschools.

 

If public schools had very small, multi-grade classes and the teachers stayed with them, like homeschool moms do, then things would be very different. It would be more like the old one-room schools. Children would be better behaved, better socialized, better educated, and more like homeschooled students.

 

It is doable, but it flies in the face of accepted education practices. Instead of having 30 kids the same age in the class all learning the same things at the same time, the kids could be various ages to ensure individual attention and individualized education. The older kids could help the younger kids so they learn to care for others. Instead of learning irresponsibility in school, they could learn responsibility.

 

But it would mean not having as many specialty teachers and relying instead on books and videos to do much of the teaching. In order to get the class sizes smaller, they would have to cut corners like not having all the special classes and emphasizing the 3Rs more. Having the kids clean up the school instead of hiring a janitor.

 

Schools would look more like the one room schools of one hundred years ago. Homeschoolers know it works to have smaller, mixed age classes, with individualized education. However, just as many people are opposed to homeschooling, many people would be opposed to having their child in class with younger students instead of with older students. And many people would balk at the idea of dropping the specialty teachers for PE, computers, music, librarians, etc. In order to get the class sizes down, they would have to eliminate these positions.

 

It is doable, but would take a major pardigm shift in education.

Great post. I guess this also lends to: it's a broken system. Does anyone think it Can be fixed?