US Education Sec says kids should be in school 11 mos/6 days a week

[Crissy]

The real issue is the parents.

 

Parents have dropped the ball. The schools can do no thing without parental support and involvement.

 

In second grade, when Johnny can't read, he's promoted to 3rd. When he doesn't know his mult tables or how to subtract, he goes to 4th.

 

There are no consequences from home when he doesn't do his school work. There are no consequences from school when he doesn't learn.

 

In families like this, where parents don't care, more family time will mean more time on the streets or in front of the tv as the kids grow up.

 

More time at school just means the parents have even less responsibility for raising their children.

 

I taught for several years in schools where parents just didn't care. Some students succeed regardless. But many don't. No amount of money, no better curriculum, no longer/shorter days or years will solve the problems.

 

The solution is at home. Until the parents have a vested interest in their dc's education, the system will stay broken, imo.

 

 

I completely agree with you, Aggie!

Far too many parents are apathetic about their children's education. They expect 'the system' to educate their children even as they refuse to foster an environment at home that places learning in a position of priority.

There is nothing that can be done with the system to educate our children well unless they are taught the value of that education being offered to them.

[skaterbabs]

I completely agree with you, Aggie!

Far too many parents are apathetic about their children's education. They expect 'the system' to educate their children even as they refuse to foster an environment at home that places learning in a position of priority.

There is nothing that can be done with the system to educate our children well unless they are taught the value of that education being offered to them.

 

 

 

And then, on the flip side, you have parents who look at their child and say "this child is NOT ready to progess to the next grade level." And the school administrations says "sorry, he's not *failing* his classes, so off he goes. Your wishes do not factor into this decision."

:rant:

[CalicoKat]

There is something to this. But an open discussion to "think outside the box" on a solution for US kids would be in order. I don't think that emulating another country so that we can be just like them is enough. The bar keeps raising and to just aim for it would be a mistake.

 

we've all heard it said in many venues, PS, HS, Private School, etc. that when our kids get too much time off they tend to forget what's already been learned. So yes, time spent would definately be something to change.

 

Right now, until there's something better to follow Homeschooling is the solution. But homeschooling isn't for everyone. So there does need to be another alternative.

[Stacie]

My opinion is that we need to go back to smaller, walkable schools with smaller class sizes and less administration. Kind of like homeschool ;)

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

Sadly, there seems to be a trend in the other direction, though. My friend substitute teaches in her children's elementary school. She called me all excited one afternoon to tell me of some radical changes the district was undertaking. It was going to be revolutionary!

 

Each classroom was divided down the middle based on the state achievement test scores (yeah, those). Then the most advanced student was paired with the lowest score in the class, the second highest was paired with the second lowest, etc. The more advanced student was tasked with helping teach the "dead weight" (her word) and the teacher now had much more free time. This allowed for a class size increase of 15-25%, depending on the grade level.

 

Revolutionary? :confused: Unfortunately most parents in the school district bought the spin. A few pulled their children out to homeschool. "That totally defies logical thinking," said dear friend. "Everyone knows that smart children love to help out the lower achieving ones. It's a natural fit." :001_huh:

 

Yes, I want my third grader to become a teacher, while the paid teacher has even more paperwork and even less student time. :willy_nilly:

[Crissy]

And then, on the flip side, you have parents who look at their child and say "this child is NOT ready to progess to the next grade level." And the school administrations says "sorry, he's not *failing* his classes, so off he goes. Your wishes do not factor into this decision."

:rant:

 

I am certainly not saying the system is never wrong. Boy, do I know it is!

When it comes to my child's education, however, I'd take that :rant: wherever I needed to in order to get what I wanted.

When I didn't feel as if my son's best interests were being met in his early elementary years, and I wasn't satisfied with the options I was being offered, I took my business elsewhere (home!).

 

I know that isn't an option for everyone, but in my original post I was referring to a different group of parents altogether--those who do not seem to help their children at all.

[Jenny in Atl]

The real issue is the parents.

The solution is at home. Until the parents have a vested interest in their dc's education, the system will stay broken, imo.

 

And society as a whole!

 

In my perfect world :D education, and not just book/academic education, but the arts, physical ed, etc would also be highly prized. Teachers (all sorts) would make as much as pro-sports players or CEOs. There would be endless types of schools and educational choices (from brick & mortar schools to homeschools and all things in between).

 

Kids would be encouraged to follow careers that utilize their given skills/talents, and not pushed towards jobs that just give them a check at the end of the week. So, say if one was interested in growing food, plumbing, or carpentry there would be educational resources as advanced and exciting as the country's top Science, Legal or Business programs.

 

Of course it's all a dream and we, as humans, always seem to focus on the short term, make a quick buck view of the future. I fear we will never have this educational renaissance we so desperately need. :tongue_smilie:

 

But a girl can dream...

[Jumping In Puddles]

I don't think the schools can be reformed. They need to be dismantled and remodeled. We need a nation-wide "do-over". :D

 

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree: and did I mention I agree? :lol:

 

But can this be done? How?

[Margaret in GA]

 

"Teachers (all sorts) would make as much as pro-sports players or CEOs. quote]"

 

Heck, even if they were paid as much as the *pricipals* of the school!

[laughing lioness]

Heather, will you hire me as undersecretary? I wrote my M.A. thesis on Why Parent's Homeschool with a lit review on the hx of ed in America. First order of biz: dismantle the NEA!

[FO4UR]

What we need is a homeschooling mom or dad as Education Secretary. Any volunteers?

 

Janet

 

:D Great idea!

 

 

 

Yep. I have long said that the solution is to knock class size down to ten kids and fire a minimum of 50% of the administrative level. Education needs to get back down to the simple equation of teacher + student, in a ratio that is small enough that the teacher really knows the needs and abilities of the student.

 

Ya know - I know tooooooooo many teachers in classrooms - public and private btw - who have flat out told me that they are stuck teaching stuff that 'aint workin' but they are powerless to change it b/c they are just the teacher!:banghead: meanwhile.....little Johnny and little Suzy spend the day with a teacher who sees a problem, knows how to fix the problem but can't b/c teacher is wearing a "straight-jacket" in the classroom!:rant:

 

Honestly, if teachers were given the freedom to teach and not simply conform to district/state/nat'l curricula and standards - we would see a swift turn-around imho.

 

Why can't we "outsource" our school administrators???????:tongue_smilie:

 

I'll do it! This is a dream of mine. Of course, I probably wouldn't be popular with the politicians because my "symbol" would be the weedwhacker! :D I have worked in all levels of education for the last 15 years and one of the problems is that there is BIG money in school "reform". LOTS of people have jobs in school reform, write books about school reform, run workshops on school reform, etc. If I told you how much money our district spent on "professional development" for reforming our schools you would faint (but it is in the 7 digit range). If the schools were ever really "reformed" all those people would be out of work.

 

I don't think the schools can be reformed. They need to be dismantled and remodeled. We need a nation-wide "do-over". :D

 

I also did my master's thesis on the effects of the extended school day/ school year and all of the research shows that quality "time on task" gives far more gains than merely increasing "seat time" (and that was in 1996!).

 

Having said that, we do school year-round with our kids and always have but it doesn't look the same all year round. I also don't feel that my highest educational goals for my kids are so they can compete with other nations.

 

:rant:

 

You've got my vote! and I'll bring along my weed-whacker in support!:001_smile:

[Amy in TX]

My niece, whom I love dearly, is in 10th grade in ps. She tells me that her math classes are always chaotic, and the teacher spends most of his time dealing with the disruptive students. It is never quiet and she can't concentrate. She comes to me every week for the help she can't get from her teacher. She is lobbying her guidance counselor to allow her to take honors math next year, although she is a poor math student, because, she says, the honors classes are quiet and you can actually learn in them.

 

She is also taking flower arranging, and baby care. Next year, since she wants to be a teacher, she will be in a program in which several hours a week she will go to the elementary school and be a teacher's assistant.

 

These kids don't need more hours of fluff classes. They don't need more hours of sitting in chaotic classes where they can't learn. Talk about a non-solution!

 

This really pushes my buttons b/c I feel for my niece, who is well behaved and a hard worker.

 

If it were up to me, I'd allow only those students who are performing at high levels in all the basics to take any electives at all. For the struggling students, elective time would be devoted to extra help in the basics, such as small group tutoring sessions.

 

Unfortunately, I don't know how to compel parents to teach their children to respect their teachers and not disrupt others' learning time!

[Murphy101]

we've all heard it said in many venues, PS, HS, Private School, etc. that when our kids get too much time off they tend to forget what's already been learned. So yes, time spent would definately be something to change.

 

You know I don't think I agree with this.

For something to be truely learned means it becomes a part of that person and they can't forget it or lose it.

I haven't had anyone ask me who the 16th president was in years, but I learned it and I know it and I'm not likely to forget it for many years even though it has nothgin to do with my daily life.

 

To me if they can forget to the point the subject has to be retaught for the first 1/3 of the year, then they didn't truely learn it to begin with. To me this is a symptom of teachign to the test. They contain and purge. hold the info until the test, then purge it 15 minutes after the test.

 

Just my .02

[laughing lioness]

For something to be truely learned means it becomes a part of that person and they can't forget it or lose it.

 

 

Wow, Martha, you sound like a classical educator :001_smile:! I've been saying this for years to homechoolers who believe that overview = learning...not.

[Marylou]

Mr. Duncan is on the cover of World Magazine this week.

 

www.worldmag.com

[Heather in Neverland]

Sorry...I thought my rant was over but it's not.

 

I deal a lot with test score data. I was looking at the most recent scores, comparing them with other districts, etc. And I started thinking about a child's educational experience as a pie chart. How much does each thing that goes into a child's education account for on this pie chart?

 

The district I work in is blue collar and/or unemployed. We have about 60-70% poverty with our students. Our population is about 50/50 caucasian/african american. Our high school test scores are DISMAL and our dropout rate is about 20-25%.

 

About 15 miles from here is another district. Upper middle class, mostly white, poverty rate is nearly 0%, parents are college educated, about 95% of the students go on to a 4 year college. Their test scores are through the roof.

 

So my co-workers and I were talking about what makes the biggest difference between these two districts?

 

-is it the nicer buildings/better technology/newer books? If we moved all of our kids to their district to use their buildings/technology/books would the test scores suddenly go way up? It might help but not a lot.

 

-is it the teacher quality? If we switched staffs would the test scores suddenly go way up? It might help but not a lot.

 

- is it the water?

 

What is it that makes the kids in district B score so much better than district A (and we are talking more than 50% better not just a small gap). What is the biggest piece of the educational pie?

 

We decided it was a combination of parenting and a small part of socioeconomics. The students in district B aren't necessarily "born" smarter. Shiny new buildings doesn't make the smarter either. What makes them "smarter" is having parents who value education, who are a big part of their children's education, who expose their children to more opportunities and life experiences (usually because they have the funds to do so, hence the socioeconomic link). These kids go to French camp and take music lessons and travel abroad, etc. Getting a good education, going to college are things that are expected of them and they grow up knowing that.

 

The kids in district A? Not so much. People don't expect too much out of them. We are lucky if we get 20% of the parents to come to conferences. These kids are at a disadvantage educationally speaking the moment they are born because their parents do not value education as much as other parents do. Their parents do not take an active role in their child's education.

 

Now of course, there are the exceptions. The parents that want more for their kids and really push that, but these situations are far too few.

 

And of all the things that public schools CAN control...parental involvement (or lack thereof) is NOT one of them. So going back to my pie chart, if parental involvement makes up, say, 60-70% of a child's education and the schools cannot control that, then the best the schools can do is improve 30-40% of a child's education and that is not enough.

 

Parents are the key.

 

OK, now my rant is over...I think. ;)

[Impish]

I agree that a lot of the problems in ps today are because of the parents, not the teachers. Good friend of mine, and a cousin of mine are both teachers. They've told me horror stories of what happens in their classrooms, and have both admitted that they spend more time disciplining than teaching. One had a kid huck a desk at her!

 

Its now policy in the board that one teaches in that no teacher shall put their hands on a student. So, if my friend sees Johnny, a 6th grader, sitting on Jimmy, a 2nd grader, wailing the crap outta him, all she is allowed to do by board standards is request that Johnny stop, and get off the smaller, younger child. Nor are they to pat a child on the back and say, "Well done!"

 

I kid you not. Complete insanity.

 

School was never meant to raise children. But that's whats evolved. Parents have handed over more and more parenting responsibility to teachers and school...and blame the school when their kid turns bad, so they don't have to take responsibility for their own kid. Too many times I've heard parents whine about "I can't wait for school to start!" and even, "I can't handle this kid...how many days til summer vacation is over?" Well, if as their PARENT you can't handle them, why do you expect a teacher to?

[jenL]

The real issue is the parents.

 

Parents have dropped the ball. The schools can do no thing without parental support and involvement.

 

In second grade, when Johnny can't read, he's promoted to 3rd. When he doesn't know his mult tables or how to subtract, he goes to 4th.

 

There are no consequences from home when he doesn't do his school work. There are no consequences from school when he doesn't learn.

 

In families like this, where parents don't care, more family time will mean more time on the streets or in front of the tv as the kids grow up.

 

More time at school just means the parents have even less responsibility for raising their children.

 

I taught for several years in schools where parents just didn't care. Some students succeed regardless. But many don't. No amount of money, no better curriculum, no longer/shorter days or years will solve the problems.

 

The solution is at home. Until the parents have a vested interest in their dc's education, the system will stay broken, imo.

 

As a former teacher, I say AMEN to this!

[laughing lioness]

Just to throw in another perspective: Marva Collins and John Taylor Gatto both worked in abysmal situations with amazing results.

Edited April 8, 2009 by laughing lioness
spellling

[Jumping In Puddles]

 

Parents are the key.

 

OK, now my rant is over...I think. ;)

 

What do you think could motivate the parents to value education? How can we get through to parents?

[Heather in Neverland]

What do you think could motivate the parents to value education? How can we get through to parents?

 

Honestly? I don't know that you can. That's why I am a big fan of homeschooling. Those parents are some of the most motivated and involved parents I've ever met. Instead of hasseling homeschool parents, why isn't the PS system grateful that at least a certain percent of the population actually cares enough about their child's education to take it on themselves?

 

They need to spend less time trying to take away homeschooling rights and devote all their energy to the things they can control and that need thier attention.

 

As far as schools are concerned, the first thing they should do is eliminate the NEA. Unions do nothing but protect lazy people. Tenure should be harder to get and NOT irreversible. Teachers should be paid more AND there should be higher educational requirements to become a teacher. It should be more like the process of becoming a doctor or lawyer but should also pay as much.

 

Classes have to be smaller. Schools have to be smaller. And grades should be grouped differently (k-2 in a building, 3-5 in another, 6-8 in another, 9-10 in another, 11-12 in another...although my favorite idea is letting children attend classes according to their demonstrated ability in that subject and NOT according to their age!).

 

The school year should be spread out more evenly (I love the idea of 9 weeks on, 3 weeks off). There should be ZERO fluff classes. All students should have volunteer work/community service/internship opportunities in their last years of high school.

 

Those are just a FEW things that I think should change. But I am not in charge...YET. :D

[HRAAB]

Sorry...I thought my rant was over but it's not.

 

I deal a lot with test score data. I was looking at the most recent scores, comparing them with other districts, etc. And I started thinking about a child's educational experience as a pie chart. How much does each thing that goes into a child's education account for on this pie chart?

 

The district I work in is blue collar and/or unemployed. We have about 60-70% poverty with our students. Our population is about 50/50 caucasian/african american. Our high school test scores are DISMAL and our dropout rate is about 20-25%.

 

About 15 miles from here is another district. Upper middle class, mostly white, poverty rate is nearly 0%, parents are college educated, about 95% of the students go on to a 4 year college. Their test scores are through the roof.

 

So my co-workers and I were talking about what makes the biggest difference between these two districts?

 

-is it the nicer buildings/better technology/newer books? If we moved all of our kids to their district to use their buildings/technology/books would the test scores suddenly go way up? It might help but not a lot.

 

-is it the teacher quality? If we switched staffs would the test scores suddenly go way up? It might help but not a lot.

 

- is it the water?

 

What is it that makes the kids in district B score so much better than district A (and we are talking more than 50% better not just a small gap). What is the biggest piece of the educational pie?

 

We decided it was a combination of parenting and a small part of socioeconomics. The students in district B aren't necessarily "born" smarter. Shiny new buildings doesn't make the smarter either. What makes them "smarter" is having parents who value education, who are a big part of their children's education, who expose their children to more opportunities and life experiences (usually because they have the funds to do so, hence the socioeconomic link). These kids go to French camp and take music lessons and travel abroad, etc. Getting a good education, going to college are things that are expected of them and they grow up knowing that.

 

The kids in district A? Not so much. People don't expect too much out of them. We are lucky if we get 20% of the parents to come to conferences. These kids are at a disadvantage educationally speaking the moment they are born because their parents do not value education as much as other parents do. Their parents do not take an active role in their child's education.

 

Now of course, there are the exceptions. The parents that want more for their kids and really push that, but these situations are far too few.

 

And of all the things that public schools CAN control...parental involvement (or lack thereof) is NOT one of them. So going back to my pie chart, if parental involvement makes up, say, 60-70% of a child's education and the schools cannot control that, then the best the schools can do is improve 30-40% of a child's education and that is not enough.

 

Parents are the key.

 

OK, now my rant is over...I think. ;)

 

When I think of these issues, the answer always seems to be education. But where in the world do you start. You are talking about a whole sub-culture that revolves around poverty, unemployment, single parent families, drugs, gangs, abuse. The problem seems over-whelming and self-perpetuating. If you're able to mentor one child to rise above this, it's a great success.

 

I'd forgotten about Marva Collins. How did she motivate the parents to be involved in their children's education?

 

Janet

[JWSJ]

Totally agree. When Microsoft is recruiting people from Asia to work here b/c they can't find qualified people in the US we have a problem.

 

This is not true. Microsoft is not recruiting overseas because they can't find qualified people in the US. I work in the field with many people from Microsoft and other multinationals.

 

They are recruiting overseas because it's less expensive. The best programmers in India and China are paid $11/hr tops.

 

So, we (as a nation) will become more competative when our workers are willing to accept less money.

[laughing lioness]

From what I remember Marva Collins didn't necessarily motivate the parents to be involved, though I think I remember reading that she did go to the parents homes when they didn't show up for teacher conferences. Talk about guts- I've been to some rough places in Chicago! She gave the kids a vision for what was possible, for what she expected and then she captured the kids hearts so that they trusted her and wanted to met her expectations. She made conneections for the kids. A history lesson could turn into a vocaulary lesson which could turn into a job skills lesson. She tied things together. She wasn't teaching just because, she was teaching because it was her passion.

 

Amen, Heather, the NEA needs to GO.

[Rosie_0801]

I'll work on your campaign. :D

 

Janet

 

Yeah, me too. You can become a world leader in education, and as we all know Australia does what the US does, your greatness will trickle down to us too!

 

Far too many parents are apathetic about their children's education. They expect 'the system' to educate their children even as they refuse to foster an environment at home that places learning in a position of priority.

 

It's not just apathy. If Mum and Dad have both been at work all day, where are they going to find the energy to create and maintain this educational environment at home? There are only so many hours in a day and we really do need to eat and sleep. Some people don't even have time to do enough of that...

 

I'm also curious where they'd get the teachers from. My hubby quit teaching at the end of last year because his blood pressure had risen by 40 points in those three years of his "career." Who wants to work 10 hours a day for 50 weeks a year? That's my estimate of what he was doing. If you increased the hours like that mad bloke was saying, teachers would have to work what? 14 hours a day, 55 weeks a year? That'd be tricky, wouldn't it? It seems not to have occurred to the guy that teachers need to have a personal life. Oh, and teaching is hardly well paid.

 

Unfortunately, I don't know how to compel parents to teach their children to respect their teachers and not disrupt others' learning time!

 

I don't think that's possible. It's the down side of the Western value on the individual. The parents are the customer and their kid is more important than the teacher. Who do you think the administration is going to favour?

 

Tenure should be harder to get and NOT irreversible.

 

What does tenure mean? Contract work? Imagine a rant about the evils of contract work, will you, so I don't have to type it out!

 

 

Rosie

Edited April 8, 2009 by Rosie_0801

[Georgiana Daniels]

Yep. I have long said that the solution is to knock class size down to ten kids and fire a minimum of 50% of the administrative level. Education needs to get back down to the simple equation of teacher + student, in a ratio that is small enough that the teacher really knows the needs and abilities of the student.

 

Sadly, they can't fire the administrators because there are SO MANY disciplinary issues that have to be resolved each day. (One of my relatives works 70 hours a week as an administrator, and still has more work that needs to be done.) That goes back to how uninvolved many parents are with this generation, and it's left to the schools to spend time and resources on crowd control. Also, because lawsuits are rampant, everything has to be done by the book, logged, other people present, etc., which requires more admins.

[Aggie]

What do you think could motivate the parents to value education? How can we get through to parents?

 

They have to have *something* invested in it.

 

Either their time or their money.

 

Presently, parents don't have to ever be at the school. They *need* to be there. They need to invest their time in the education of their children. Possibly something to the effect of the lower the child's grades, the more time the parents need to be at the school. I don't know if that would *solve* the problem, and it certainly can't be enforced now.

 

I'm, of course, referring to parents who don't work. In Heather's district, for example, I'd say a very small percentage of those parents work 8-5 M-F. Heather, if I'm wrong, please correct me. I'm going on my experience in a low-achieving district.

 

If a student fails and needs to take a class or grade over, the parents need to pay for it, not other tax-payers. If they can't afford it, they can work it off. There's plenty of work to be done in schools. Plenty.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think high school should be reserved for the students who want to be there. Why should we be paying for disruptive, inattentive students to be at the school? What, exactly, are they learning? Of course, this opens a whole 'nother can of worms, so to speak.... Those kids who don't go to hs certainly aren't going to be star workers no matter where they go, and then other problems develop with unsupervised teens.

[coffeefreak]

What do you think could motivate the parents to value education? How can we get through to parents?

 

Some states try to FORCE parental involvement. They send home homework that requires the parent to participate and sign off, they require parents to spend time in the classroom, they require parents to pick up report cards, and our state has new truancy laws that hold the parent responsible and fines them if their children are not in school (although our Governor signed a law yesterday that we can no longer use the word truant. They are now, "Children at risk," or something like that:glare:). What's funny to me is, these things don't work! The parents fight back and win! They have all this energy and anger to force the state to take responsibility for THEIR children, but no time or energy to do what's right and raise them on their own. I know there's always the exception to the rule. I know parents who do their best and really don't have the time or money and are really are stuck with whatever school district they live in. But, I really see this as the exception.

 

As long as Americans believe the Government is solely responsible for the education and well being of their children, our public schools will continue to erode.

[coffeefreak]

"The WEED-HACKER Verne. The weed-hacker." - Hammy from "Over the Hedge"

 

:lol::lol:

[Loupelou]

 

About 15 miles from here is another district. Upper middle class, mostly white, poverty rate is nearly 0%, parents are college educated, about 95% of the students go on to a 4 year college. Their test scores are through the roof.

 

So my co-workers and I were talking about what makes the biggest difference between these two districts?

 

-is it the nicer buildings/better technology/newer books? If we moved all of our kids to their district to use their buildings/technology/books would the test scores suddenly go way up? It might help but not a lot.

 

-is it the teacher quality? If we switched staffs would the test scores suddenly go way up? It might help but not a lot.

 

- is it the water?

 

What is it that makes the kids in district B score so much better than district A (and we are talking more than 50% better not just a small gap). What is the biggest piece of the educational pie?

 

We decided it was a combination of parenting and a small part of socioeconomics. The students in district B aren't necessarily "born" smarter. Shiny new buildings doesn't make the smarter either. What makes them "smarter" is having parents who value education, who are a big part of their children's education, who expose their children to more opportunities and life experiences (usually because they have the funds to do so, hence the socioeconomic link). These kids go to French camp and take music lessons and travel abroad, etc. Getting a good education, going to college are things that are expected of them and they grow up knowing that.

 

The kids in district A? Not so much. People don't expect too much out of them. We are lucky if we get 20% of the parents to come to conferences. These kids are at a disadvantage educationally speaking the moment they are born because their parents do not value education as much as other parents do. Their parents do not take an active role in their child's education.

 

Now of course, there are the exceptions. The parents that want more for their kids and really push that, but these situations are far too few.

 

And of all the things that public schools CAN control...parental involvement (or lack thereof) is NOT one of them. So going back to my pie chart, if parental involvement makes up, say, 60-70% of a child's education and the schools cannot control that, then the best the schools can do is improve 30-40% of a child's education and that is not enough.

 

Parents are the key.

 

OK, now my rant is over...I think. ;)

 

:iagree:

 

I caught an episode of Oprah, okay, it was in my bedridden days!:) Anyway, it was an eye-opener for me as they showcased several children from a poverty ridden school whom they bussed to a wealthier suburban high school. It was truly shocking the differences in the buildings, class size, curriculum, etc. These kids were not stupid but they struggled. I think that the more privileged students also gained a greater appreciation for their blessings. I know that the show probably chose two polar opposite schools but the illustration was sufficient. I have to agree though that there was less expectation for the poorer inner city children, and they were seeing the fruits of those low expectations with high drop out rates, low test scores, few students entering college, and a general lack of caring about their future.

 

Educators can only do so much. I have a friend who teaches public school and most of the time her resources and her patience is stretched to the maximum.

 

I agree that parents are the key. I know my sister-in-law used to volunteer once a week in each child's classroom, at the time the school was a block from their home and there were a lot of other parent volunteers. The teachers were able to do more with individual students, work with groups, etc. Now they have moved and the new school is a 20 minute drive. She still volunteers but there are fewer parents who do the same and the atmosphere at the school is noticeably different.

 

I for one am just very glad we made the decision to school ours at home. Our family has been very blessed for doing so.:)

[Crissy]

It's not just apathy. If Mum and Dad have both been at work all day, where are they going to find the energy to create and maintain this educational environment at home? There are only so many hours in a day and we really do need to eat and sleep. Some people don't even have time to do enough of that...

 

Rosie

 

I've never been in that situation, so I don't know how it's done. I know it happens, though. There certainly are examples of dual income families that have strong educational values.

[AuntPol]

Too much time is wasted in school as is. Most of the day is wasted on dealing with discpline issues and teachers are stretched trying to teach multiple levels. My daughter made no progress in 3rd grade. Why? She wasn't taught. She spent her time:

a) Preschool Assistant

b) Reading buddy in K

c) Leading literature circles in 1st

d) Writing buddy to a student in her class

e) Media Assistant

 

These things were created so that teacher could work with the ESL and Special Ed students so they could pass the test. Meanwhile, my dd did not get to learn cursive as it was not on the test. She also had to miss recess because the AG pullout coincided with recess (every year for 3 years straight-you would think they could schedule it differently).

 

 

My opinion is they should just create two types of schools

a) one for parents who give a crap

b) one for parents who just want babysitting.

 

Actually, I think that we should do away with public education and let everyone use their tax money to chose a school that is best for their families. There is no one size fits all solution to government schools because kids and families don't come in one size. Let teachers be innovaters and parents chose. Parents don't care because they don't have to care. The government says "I'll take care of you". Teachers tell you that everything is "fine". The more the government takes responsibilty, the less parents have to and the less they will.

[Impish]

Laurel, I agree with you, to a point. I've been a single mom, working 2, sometimes 3 jobs at a time. I know how crazy insane that gets, trying to keep a family financially afloat, and still trying to find time to spend with the kids. I've lived that nightmare, and thank God every night that I'm not still there. It was a juggling act in the extreme, exhausting and stressful to the point I ended up with walking pneumonia...but you do what needs done to keep everyone fed and clothed and a roof over their heads.

 

Even with all of that, homework still was done, conferences still attended, etc. I even squeezed in a field trip if I remember correctly.

 

When it comes to behaviour and discipline, I absolutely lay it on the parents. It is not the teachers responsibility (or at least it shouldn't be) to parent their students, to teach them proper behaviour such as not hitting, cursing, etc. That's something that should have been taught at home, before they even started school.

 

Extras are nice, absolutely, but there are plenty of families that can't afford them, yet their children turn out to be perfectly well rounded, well behaved individuals despite not having had hockey or piano lessons. And then there are families who could and did put their children in TONS of extra activities whose children are horrid snots.

 

I think the bottom line does come down to parenting. An active involved parent will make the biggest difference, more so than anything else.

[mo2]

I think it's really just a holdover from our roots as an agrarian society that needed kid's labor on farms.

 

I don't want to see a 6 day school week. But I would vote to shorten summer break by several weeks, given a chance.

 

In the rural area where I live, you still see kids working on farms all summer. And I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing; those are important skills to know too (at least around here, not so much in the city).

 

I personally think young kids (elementary age) are in school too much and don't get enough time to be kids. Many of the ps kids I know go to before and after-school care, then to sports or dance lessons, scouts, church groups. I don't doubt that these are all fun activities, but when do they get unstructured play time? Or, for heaven's sake, do they ever have a chance to get bored and have to use their imaginations to come up with something to do?

[Aggie]

Parent participation - The schools blame student failure on parents, particularly on middle/lower-class/poor parents not being committed to their kids' education and success. I would just like to comment about that.

 

1) Time - Two working parents (especially those working at low wages in physically draining job situations) simply do not have as much of this particular commodity to invest. They are tired when they get home. Their kids are tired and hungry. They may/may not even get an update on how the school day has gone or what else needs to be on the calendar. Sometimes it is a success just to read a bedtime story - and what if they're trying to read it in a second language? And that's the 2-income families; what about the struggling single mom?

 

2) Money - All those "extras" that empower kids are a LOT harder to obtain for those families whose budgets are stretched just to feed their kids. And often they are convinced that they can only enrich their kids with things outside the family (kind of like formula being sold as better than breast milk). They don't see that a backyard garden or home cooking or native language literature can be empowering, too. Sports cost money. Arts cost money. Music costs money. About the only thing that *doesn't* cost money are church programs, which often are focused more on fellowship than anything else.

 

3) Vision - Many families in the lower socioeconomic bracket just don't have any sense that they *can* make a difference and get themselves out of that position. Whether it's language barriers or expectations, they don't feel they can have an impact....so they don't try. One of my friends who teaches a mainly ESL class was truly thrilled that she got 100% open house attendance from the parents in her class....she did it by advertising to the kids that her HUSBAND would be there - presenting him as a bit of a "superstar" and telling stories about him through the year. The KIDS were so motivated to come and meet her husband that they made their parents bring them to open house.

 

So, I don't think it's fair, either, to lay all this on the parents. Teachers can motivate, they can provide vision - and vision can overcome some pretty big money and time obstacles. Think of the guy who wrote The Essential 55 - about what he did with classrooms full of kids in Haarlem, whose life situations were pretty grim. He is a motivator...he built vision and hope into those kids, in such a way that many were able to free themselves from that cycle of low expectations. I believe many teachers * want* to do this, but the rigid existing system restricts their options...and they get tired...and they have lives, too...and they need tools....and the WHOLE PIE matters, not just one piece.

 

At home, I control as many pieces of the pie as I can, but I am also at the mercy of my own flaws and limitations. I'm not providing a perfect education either.

 

 

Laurel...

 

You have good points. Education is a cumulative project between the school and the home. When both parents work 40+hrs/wk, there's not much time to be up at school. But *usually* these parents understand the value of a good education and teach that to their dc. If you and your dh work and one of your dc was failing math, what would you do? Throw up your hands and say "so what" or work with your dc and the teacher to improve your dc's education?

 

In my posts, I'm referring to parents who don't work and don't take an interest in their dc's failing education.

 

Parents on this board are interested in their dc's education. Either public, private or home schooled. Step into a school like Heather's or the ones in which I taught and try to find a parent. I can't tell you the number of times I tried to reach a parent and failed. It's completely frustrating.

 

Parents have more influence, positive or negative, than the system. Most teachers are very good, but they have too much on their plates. They can't do it all. We read here about moms with 3,4,5 kids who are burned-out. Imagine having 180 kids (30 per class, 6 classes/day) pass through your classroom every day. How much motivating, homework checking, teaching, crowd controlling, lesson writing, rule-following, attendance taking can one person do in 50 minutes? (I had to stop class more than once to tell girls to not put on make-up.)

 

It's not easy, for sure, but it's much better when the student gets to class with motivation from home. When the parent has made an effort to make sure dc did the homework instead of leaving that completely to the teacher.

 

I gotta run. Know I'm not picking on parents who are working in some way to make sure their kids are provided for. I think many people here would be surprised (or maybe not!) at the lack of parental involvement in some schools.

 

later....

[Heather in Neverland]

Laurel, I agree with you, to a point. I've been a single mom, working 2, sometimes 3 jobs at a time. I know how crazy insane that gets, trying to keep a family financially afloat, and still trying to find time to spend with the kids. I've lived that nightmare, and thank God every night that I'm not still there. It was a juggling act in the extreme, exhausting and stressful to the point I ended up with walking pneumonia...but you do what needs done to keep everyone fed and clothed and a roof over their heads.

 

Even with all of that, homework still was done, conferences still attended, etc. I even squeezed in a field trip if I remember correctly.

 

When it comes to behaviour and discipline, I absolutely lay it on the parents. It is not the teachers responsibility (or at least it shouldn't be) to parent their students, to teach them proper behaviour such as not hitting, cursing, etc. That's something that should have been taught at home, before they even started school.

 

Extras are nice, absolutely, but there are plenty of families that can't afford them, yet their children turn out to be perfectly well rounded, well behaved individuals despite not having had hockey or piano lessons. And then there are families who could and did put their children in TONS of extra activities whose children are horrid snots.

 

I think the bottom line does come down to parenting. An active involved parent will make the biggest difference, more so than anything else.

 

It is about priorities and having a certain "mind-set". My dh and I have ALWAYS both worked full-time AND we have always homeschooled our kids and taken them to church and they have sports and music lessons and I take grad-school classes, etc. etc. Is life hectic? Sure. But nothing is more important than raising my children well.

 

As for mind-set...that is really the biggest problem in the low-income districts. The apathy in the parents and students is STAGGERING. Even the very few students that I was able to pull out of the situation and get them into a college were shunned by their friends and families...like they were "trying to be something they're not." In fact, a couple of kids that were able to get academic scholarships were told by their parents that "they need to stop trying to act white."

 

It was very discouraging to watch them get pregnant at 15 yo, or end up in jail, or drop out. And the saddest part is that nobody was shocked by it. :banghead:

[Margaret in GA]

This is not true. Microsoft is not recruiting overseas because they can't find qualified people in the US. I work in the field with many people from Microsoft and other multinationals.

 

They are recruiting overseas because it's less expensive. The best programmers in India and China are paid $11/hr tops.

 

So, we (as a nation) will become more competative when our workers are willing to accept less money.

 

OK. Just spent some time looking for the thing I initially heard on NPR. I did find this article in which Bill Gates says, " Demand for specialized technical skills has long exceeded the supply of native-born workers with advanced degrees, and scientists and engineers from other countries fill this gap"

 

Now, I also ran across several editorials that said that they believed the real motive for extending these visas was to pay these guys less. So, it's all in who you believe. We do, however, graduate less math and science majors than other industrialized nations.

http://www.achieve.org/files/Achieve-MathWorks-FactSheet-GloballyCompetitive.pdf

 

I hope the statement about becoming competitive when we accept less pay was tongue in cheek.

 

Margaret

[cathmom]

I think you would have less teachers if all schools went year-round. Most teachers that I have talked to don't like the year-round schedule. Teaching is so stressful they need the summer to completely relax and gear up for a new year. Plus, it is when they can work on professional development during the summer - take grad classes, work on a master's or doctorate's, etc. Or they could just actually see their families!

[JWSJ]

We do, however, graduate less math and science majors than other industrialized nations.

http://www.achieve.org/files/Achieve-MathWorks-FactSheet-GloballyCompetitive.pdf

 

Not necessarily, I've met many with BAs in Math from European universities. However, that meant they had only a total of four math courses at uni. Not much, if any, more than a graduate in another field.

 

Each nation defines its requirements for educational standards. Degrees are not the same across the world.

[iamom]

Great discussion, everyone! I agree with so many comments on here but I'll need to take more time reading all of them.

 

Someone asked for a link to the article and I don't know if it ever was posted so here you go:

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DUNCAN_MORE_SCHOOL_DAYS?SITE=IADES&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-04-07-16-22-31

 

It's an AP story and it was actually edited down quite a bit in the print version of my local paper. I am actually glad to see that Sec. Duncan is not towing the line of the party in power with every issue (and just to clarify, I don't think either party has all the right or wrong answers when it comes to education.)

[Perry]

First off, I agree with those that say lack of parental involvement is an important cause of academic failure. I don't think anyone can dispute how important parents are in the education of their kids.

 

However, blaming all of our educational problems on parents isn't accurate, and isn't going to solve anything.

 

Many schools are succeeding even in high poverty, low parental involvement areas. They are doing amazing things by focusing on academics, using excellent curricula, and having high expectations. These schools should be serving as models but aren't imitated nearly enough. Here's an article describing what they have in common.

The schools can't do much about it if the parents absolutely won't do their job. But there are many things they can control, and I don't see them doing it.

 

When my dd was in first grade, I volunteered often, helping with reading, math, and doing some office work. The teachers were (mostly) hard working, well-meaning and very dedicated to the kids. But the curricula they were using was awful! The class was a combined 1st-2nd grade, and by the end of the year, NONE of them knew their addition facts unless they could draw pictures or count on their fingers. My dd was the only one who could read very well, and most of them couldn't read at all. But it was no surprise to me, because of the way they were teaching reading and math. The class was out of control, but that was no surprise either, because the teacher sat on the carpet working with 3 or 4 kids at a time. The other 16 kids were goofing off while she would occasionally yell at them to get to work. Work? How could they work? They couldn't read and didn't have anything to do. That fall, when our local newspaper printed the results of the ITBS, I learned that her school was in the 3rd percentile in the state. I was horrified, and went to discuss it with the teachers and principal. They just kept saying they didn't understand it, because they were working so hard, and the kids just weren't learning. I asked them what their plan was to change it, and I received blank stares. They said they were working as hard as they could, they couldn't work any harder, and there was nothing else they could do. When I brought up curricula, they insisted what they were using was "Best Practices" and they wouldn't consider using anything else. Well, the math curricula (TERC Investigations) s*cked, and after several disastrous years, they ditched it. Instead, they bought Everyday Math, which is only marginally better. As long as they are making those kinds of stupid decisions, they aren't going to get anywhere, and the kids aren't going to learn.

 

After that disappointing year, we moved to a new school district, which is supposed to be one of the best in the state. There is virtually no poverty, parents are highly educated, and parental involvement and expectations are high. But I really don't see much difference in what the kids are learning. The math curriculum still stinks, but the kids get help at home or go to Kumon or Sylvan. The kids living in poverty don't have that option, but they wouldn't need it if the schools would just use what works. But that conflicts with their constructivist ideology, so they won't do it.

 

One last thing about wasting time-- my 8th grade dd told me today that for Language Arts, the teacher read them "The Veldt" for the last 2 class periods. Why on earth is a teacher spending 80 minutes reading a short story to these kids? Shouldn't that be homework? I am not opposed to an occasional read aloud, but this happens all the time. Since Christmas, she has read one book in LA, and it took her one evening. She has had NO OTHER reading assignments in the class. Either they watch a movie or the teacher reads to them. Rarely, the kids read a paragraph out loud. She has almost no homework, except the occasional stupid collage or drawing.

 

No wonder they aren't learning anything.

 

This is supposed to be one of the best school districts in the state. The kids do well in spite of the schools, not because of them.

[Margaret in GA]

Not necessarily, I've met many with BAs in Math from European universities. However, that meant they had only a total of four math courses at uni. Not much, if any, more than a graduate in another field.

 

Each nation defines its requirements for educational standards. Degrees are not the same across the world.

 

You know, I have really been enlightened here-- seriously, I'm not being snarky. I wonder if it is true that fewer Americans choose the science and technology fields?

 

Margaret

[Chris in VA]

(quietly)

I like a long summer break. It strengthens my family and allows us to spend time together. So much time has been stolen from us this year.

[dtb1999]

Yes, because the gov't has goals for its citizens. It's all about competition. All I can say is, "good luck." I don't want anything to do with their system. Quite frankly, I don't want them deciding goals for my children.

 

:iagree:

[Snickerdoodle]

Who do the schools answer to? Do they answer to the parents?

[Heather in Neverland]

Who do the schools answer to? Do they answer to the parents?

 

Not really. They should, since that is where their money comes from. But they don't. They answer to their state department of education which in turn answers to the USDE. And it is all about money.

[Stacy in NJ]

First off, I agree with those that say lack of parental involvement is an important cause of academic failure. I don't think anyone can dispute how important parents are in the education of their kids.

 

However, blaming all of our educational problems on parents isn't accurate, and isn't going to solve anything.

 

Many schools are succeeding even in high poverty, low parental involvement areas. They are doing amazing things by focusing on academics, using excellent curricula, and having high expectations. These schools should be serving as models but aren't imitated nearly enough. Here's an article describing what they have in common.

The schools can't do much about it if the parents absolutely won't do their job. But there are many things they can control, and I don't see them doing it.

 

When my dd was in first grade, I volunteered often, helping with reading, math, and doing some office work. The teachers were (mostly) hard working, well-meaning and very dedicated to the kids. But the curricula they were using was awful! The class was a combined 1st-2nd grade, and by the end of the year, NONE of them knew their addition facts unless they could draw pictures or count on their fingers. My dd was the only one who could read very well, and most of them couldn't read at all. But it was no surprise to me, because of the way they were teaching reading and math. The class was out of control, but that was no surprise either, because the teacher sat on the carpet working with 3 or 4 kids at a time. The other 16 kids were goofing off while she would occasionally yell at them to get to work. Work? How could they work? They couldn't read and didn't have anything to do. That fall, when our local newspaper printed the results of the ITBS, I learned that her school was in the 3rd percentile in the state. I was horrified, and went to discuss it with the teachers and principal. They just kept saying they didn't understand it, because they were working so hard, and the kids just weren't learning. I asked them what their plan was to change it, and I received blank stares. They said they were working as hard as they could, they couldn't work any harder, and there was nothing else they could do. When I brought up curricula, they insisted what they were using was "Best Practices" and they wouldn't consider using anything else. Well, the math curricula (TERC Investigations) s*cked, and after several disastrous years, they ditched it. Instead, they bought Everyday Math, which is only marginally better. As long as they are making those kinds of stupid decisions, they aren't going to get anywhere, and the kids aren't going to learn.

 

After that disappointing year, we moved to a new school district, which is supposed to be one of the best in the state. There is virtually no poverty, parents are highly educated, and parental involvement and expectations are high. But I really don't see much difference in what the kids are learning. The math curriculum still stinks, but the kids get help at home or go to Kumon or Sylvan. The kids living in poverty don't have that option, but they wouldn't need it if the schools would just use what works. But that conflicts with their constructivist ideology, so they won't do it.

 

One last thing about wasting time-- my 8th grade dd told me today that for Language Arts, the teacher read them "The Veldt" for the last 2 class periods. Why on earth is a teacher spending 80 minutes reading a short story to these kids? Shouldn't that be homework? I am not opposed to an occasional read aloud, but this happens all the time. Since Christmas, she has read one book in LA, and it took her one evening. She has had NO OTHER reading assignments in the class. Either they watch a movie or the teacher reads to them. Rarely, the kids read a paragraph out loud. She has almost no homework, except the occasional stupid collage or drawing.

 

No wonder they aren't learning anything.

 

This is supposed to be one of the best school districts in the state. The kids do well in spite of the schools, not because of them.

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I've observed similar things. :001_smile:

[Snickerdoodle]

[The schools] answer to their state department of education which in turn answers to the USDE. And it is all about money.

 

So, you're saying they want to have my kids for longer hours and more days and I have no say in how they educate or otherwise appropriate my child's time?

 

Hmm...

 

No thanks.

[Heather in Neverland]

So, you're saying they want to have my kids for longer hours and more days and I have no say in how they educate or otherwise appropriate my child's time?

 

Hmm...

 

No thanks.

 

Pretty much, yes. You could go to a school board meeting and complain but it generally doesn't get you anywhere. If you ran for school board AND you had other friends on the board so that you had a majority vote in all decisions, you could make some changes. But other than that, parents have very little power.

[Plucky]

(quietly)

I like a long summer break. It strengthens my family and allows us to spend time together. So much time has been stolen from us this year.

 

Don't be so quiet about it. I totally agree!

[Aggie]

(quietly)

I like a long summer break. It strengthens my family and allows us to spend time together. So much time has been stolen from us this year.

 

You don't have to say it quietly, Chris!:001_smile: Most, if not all, of the parents here are interested in their dc's education. We have the freedom to make different decisions.:)

 

Generally what we're talking about here are schools with low test scores and low parental involvement. I believe the two are related. Not every time, of course.

 

From my experience in the public schools, summers were detrimental to most kids' education. They were unsupervised, didn't read or do projects, and most didn't spend quality time with their families. Whether the kids learned anything the year before or not, the first weeks were spent reviewing. And although there are still some kids who work on the farm in the summers, it's not like it was years ago. Every teacher in our building would have signed up for year round school. Every one.