[maxelson]

No! Really!
My Fury knows no bounds.

Pleased to see that despite rumors to the contrary, few things really change.
This is an education thread. F*ck Politics.

[OldManMac]

It's very sad that we value concert tickets, Nike shoes, and other such expensive needless items more than we value the state of our childrens' education.

[chris v]

Educate someone else's childre with MY tax dollars?!? Isn't that Socialism?!?

I think we need to remove the "Promote the common welfare" line from the constitution-- it seems to just get in the way of the american "ideal" of greed, anymore.

Pave your OWN damn road.

CV

[dencamp]

Sadly, that is one of the reasons I quit teaching. When you combine a lack of support for the materials necessary for educating a student with the bizarre logic of the current-model standardized tests, I could see myself becoming one bitter teacher. Best not to teach than to teach angry.

[memento]

KarlG - I'm not sure how to take your comment, but the priority and value of a child's education is up to the parent. If they do not teach the child that education is important, then school is irrelevant - no matter how good a school is. Having said that, the USA still needs to work on their educational system. I may get flamed big time here, but the teacher's union needs MAJOR reform or it needs to be abolished. There should be no such thing as tenure. It encourages mediocrity. There should be a fair system to evaluate the teachers and give them raises based on their performance. If I don't perform on my job, I risk getting fired or at least not getting a raise. Why should teachers be any different?

When I have kids, I am going to seriously evaluate private school.

[maxelson]

Hold on, there memento.
Forgive the tone of this in advance. THIS topic gets me going like NO other.
TEACHERS are not the ones at fault here.
The Teacher's UNION is the LAST thing that needs reforming. It may need reforming, but it is the last item on the list.
Look at how society treats teachers. Look at how they are paid. Look at what they DO. I am not particularly Pro Union, but I will DEFINITELY say that the unions are NOT the problem, here. I'd say that teachers are one of the few professions that still NEED a union- still need protection. Protection from town and state governments. From Parents (ever been sued because a kid failed an exam? DOn't think that does not happen. It does. And I have personal experience).
Tenure does NOT encourage mediocrity. Not in the majority of teachers. And how will you gauge a teacher's performance? Based on the students that pass? Sure- that may be how the Feds want it done, but that is ABSURD. The results of the teacher's job are not that tangible. I think you may be missing something. You seem to be blaming teachers for this mess. How else should we gauge? Retesting on the cores? FIne. Another waste of taxpayer money. ANy fool can learn the information. Any fool can map out the procedure for doing a quadratic equation. But can any fool TEACH? Can anyone truly shape a life and mind? NO.
Are you a teacher? Ever been one? Know one WELL?
No one goes into teaching for the money or "summers off". In fact, "Summers off" is a monster misnomer. Any GOOD teacher will be spending a fairly large amount of the summer doing any number of professional advancements- not to mention prepping for the next class year. They sure as hell don't teach for the money. The days are VERY long and do not end at the office door. The job is thankless. ANd you know what? Most teachers accept that. Teachers teach because they need to. The teach to help make a better world. They do it because they love students and want a better life for them. They are DEDICATED to the whole concept of education.

There are as many lousy teachers out there as there are folks who are substandard in any job. We pay our politicians pretty friggin well. What are they doing for us? Answer: SHYTE.

SOME teachers do a bad job. But it is not the teachers who need to be vilified here. It is the society that cuts funding to schools- the society that allows some schools to be badly equipped and over crowded while others enjoy much more than they will ever use. It is the society that finds all of this acceptable that is to blame and I have friggin HAD it with people blaming teachers. Only reason I see for that is that they are convenient. They are the front line target- and they are easy to hit.

You'd best take a really good look at that private school you think will do so well for you. You think there are bad teachers in the public school? What makes you think things will be better in private? You don't even need a BACHELORS degree to teach at a private school. The freedom one has in the classroom- I was evaluated ONCE in 8 years. ONCE. As an intern, I had a full course load. 6 classes. I didn't even have 4 classes in my 8th full time year. Don't think that is out of the norm. It is COMMON. I was never trained. I was never background checked. Hell, they didn't even get my transcripts.
Want to fix it? SCREW private school. That's hiding in a little box. Make the public- the government, the citizenry, the teachers, school boards and the FEDS accountable for the system- because I'll tell you this: the PUBLIC is to blame for the state of public education today. Parents don't care. Not their job to teach, right? Money needs to be cut, what's first? Education. So. We'll throw another billion at the Big Dig or a rotary overpass to the Cape... but we are cutting Arts funding and no raises for teachers this year and professional development is out of pocket. Sorry. "No Child Left Behind" is the biggest crock of shyte going. What gets the MOST money in our society? Right. Military and DoD. Why? Because that is what we have decided is acceptable.
And it fvcking sucks.
Apologies for my tone.
Yeah, it is personal.

[dencamp]

I started 5 responses and deleted them. I have a knot in my neck now. Max, thank you for actually getting through writing and posting that. If anyone wants a good reading list on issues in education, let me know. In addition to teaching, I used to work for a not-for-profit organization that sought out ways to better teach writing. I was let go because the federal government deemed it necessary to leave children�s abilities to write coherently behind.

[maxelson]

Heh. Thanks. Please pause now while I wipe the foam from my screen.
"federal government deemed it necessary to leave children�s abilities to write coherently behind."
And this is absolutely true. Not even an exaggeration. Even state mandated curricula ( written in accordance with federal guidelines) pretty much skip the basic essentials of writing- you know. Like grammar.

[chris v]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Hold on, there memento.
Forgive the tone of this in advance. THIS topic gets me going like NO other.
TEACHERS are not the ones at fault here.
The Teacher's UNION is the LAST thing that needs reforming. It may need reforming, but it is the last item on the list.
Look at how society treats teachers. Look at how they are paid. Look at what they DO. I am not particularly Pro Union, but I will DEFINITELY say that the unions are NOT the problem, here. I'd say that teachers are one of the few professions that still NEED a union- still need protection. Protection from town and state governments. From Parents (ever been sued because a kid failed an exam? DOn't think that does not happen. It does. And I have personal experience).
Tenure does NOT encourage mediocrity. Not in the majority of teachers. And how will you guage a teacher's performance? Based on the students that pass? Sure- that may be how the Feds want it done, but that is ABSURD. The results of the teacher's job are not that tangible. I think you may be missing something. You seem to be blaming teachers for this mess. How esle should we guage? Retesting on the cores? FIne. Another waste of taxpayer money. ANy fool can learn the information. Any fool can map out the procedure for doing a quadratic equasion. But can any fool TEACH? Can anyone truly shape a life and mind? NO.
Are you a teacher? Ever been one? Know one WELL?
No one goes into teaching for the money or "summers off". In fact, "Summers off" is a monster misnomer. Any GOOD teacher will be spending a fairly large amount of the summer doing any number of professional advancements- not to mention prepping for the next class year. They sure as hell don't teach for the money. The days are VERY long and do not end at the office door. The job is thankless. ANd you kow what? Most teachers accept that. Teachers teach because they need to. The teach to help make a better world. They do it because they love students and want a better life for them. They are DEDICATED to the whole concept of education.

There are as many lousy terachers out there as there are folks who are substandard in any job. We pay our politicians pretty friggin well. What are they doing for us? Answer: SHYTE.

SOME teachers do a bad job. But it is not the terachers who need to be vilified here. It is the society that cuts funding to schools- the society that allows some schools to be badly equiped and over crowded while others enjoy much more than they will ever use. It is the society that finds all of this acceptable that is to blame and I have friggin HAD it with people blaming teachers. Only reason I see for that is that they are convenient. They are the front line target- and they are easy to hit.

You'd best take a really good look at that private school you think wiull do so well for you. You think there are bad teachers in the public school? What makes you think things will be better in private? You don't even need a BACHELORS degree to teach at a private school. The freedom one has in the classroom- I was evaluated ONCE in 8 years. ONCE. As an intern, I had a full course load. 6 classes. I didn't even have 4 classes in my 8th full time year. Don't think that is out of the norm. It is COMMON. I was never trained. I was never background checked. Hell, they didn't even get my transcripts.
Want to fix it? SCREW private school. That's hiding in a little box. Make the public- the government, the citizenry, the teachers, school boards and the FEDS accountable for the system- because I'll tell you this: the PUBLIC is to blame for the state of public education today. Parents don't care. Not their job to teach, right? Money needs to be cut, what's first? Education. So. We'll throw another billion at the Big Dig or a rotary overpass to the Cape... but we are cutting Arts funding and no raises for teachers this year and professional development is out of pocket. Sorry. "No Child Left Behind" is the biggest crock of shyte going. What gets the MOST money in our society? Right. Military and DoD. Why? Because that is what we have decided is acceptable.
And it fvcking sucks.
Apologies for my tone.
Yeah, it is personal.

Maxelson for fvcking President.

CV

[funkboy]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Hold on, there memento.
Forgive the tone of this in advance. THIS topic gets me going like NO other.

Me too. But I'm holding back right now.

"No Child Left Behind" is the biggest crock of shyte going.

Yes.

I didn't read the rest of your post, I just read the first sentence, and hit reply, and noticed your NCLB comment at the end... this about saying it for me.

Schools will no longer exist in the same way they do now after NCLB... and that does not mean they are going to better after it.

I'm holding back, though, and will first read what everyone else has to say. I want your thread to end with some actual action, max. I want a group of us to do something to stop NCLB. I don't want this topic to just end up destroying schools, I want to stop it before it does.

[maxelson]

Actually, I have just decided course of action. I'll have the first part of friday off. I'm hitting the town hall and finding out about school board elections. I'm starting there. I have already decided that, as soon as it is economically feasible, I'm going back into education. Aside from that, I'm attending school board meetings- I'll run when a slot is open.
It opens my festering sores more to sit and talk about it. I have to do something.
I want my thread to end on action, too. Suggestions welcome.

[andi*pandi]

Go for it max. Be involved. Private schools don't solve the problem.

Someday I'd like to see you and Danny debate on the public school system. It would be entertaining. I'd bring popcorn.

[fireside]

Originally posted by chris v:
Maxelson for fvcking President.

CV

[maxelson]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
Go for it max. Be involved. Private schools don't solve the problem.

Someday I'd like to see you and Danny debate on the public school system. It would be entertaining. I'd bring popcorn.

I'll bring whiskey. I get WAY too fired up about this topic. I need sedatives.

[Demonhood]

growing up, most of my friends' parents were teachers. nowadays, a lot of those friends are teachers themselves. hell, in high school i started an underground newspaper that was in support of teachers and against the administration (we published their exorbitant salaries in our second issue).

so, what i'm basically saying is: give em hell max.

and i'll be looking into what i can do to help. because things are getting quite sad.

[andi*pandi]

I say this with all knowledge that I might just light the powder keg, but... get this. Danny's solution?

Get rid of public schools. Go all private, all the way. That way if Junior is good at arts, he can go to art high school. Somebody somewhere will start a football league--er, school. And if junior don't know English, well then, it's his problem!

Silly libertarians... Danny has friends who send their kids to the Sudbury Valley school.

All kid-motivated learning. If the kid don't wanna read, they don't. Nothing shoved down their throats. Which all sounds mellow and such, but this friend's daughter only just learned to read at age 9. And he's proud of that.

Wacky. Very wacky.

[Superchicken]

I've had some really awsome teachers and I've had some really lousy teachers. The sad thing is, in Canada it seems the only ones who really get screwed by budget cuts are the good teachers. The bad teachers don't give a crap.

But I will agree administration is just grr...

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Hold on, there memento.
Forgive the tone of this in advance. THIS topic gets me going like NO other.
TEACHERS are not the ones at fault here.
The Teacher's UNION is the LAST thing that needs reforming. It may need reforming, but it is the last item on the list.
Look at how society treats teachers. Look at how they are paid. Look at what they DO. I am not particularly Pro Union, but I will DEFINITELY say that the unions are NOT the problem, here. I'd say that teachers are one of the few professions that still NEED a union- still need protection. Protection from town and state governments. From Parents (ever been sued because a kid failed an exam? DOn't think that does not happen. It does. And I have personal experience).
Tenure does NOT encourage mediocrity. Not in the majority of teachers. And how will you gauge a teacher's performance? Based on the students that pass? Sure- that may be how the Feds want it done, but that is ABSURD. The results of the teacher's job are not that tangible. I think you may be missing something. You seem to be blaming teachers for this mess. How else should we gauge? Retesting on the cores? FIne. Another waste of taxpayer money. ANy fool can learn the information. Any fool can map out the procedure for doing a quadratic equation. But can any fool TEACH? Can anyone truly shape a life and mind? NO.
Are you a teacher? Ever been one? Know one WELL?
No one goes into teaching for the money or "summers off". In fact, "Summers off" is a monster misnomer. Any GOOD teacher will be spending a fairly large amount of the summer doing any number of professional advancements- not to mention prepping for the next class year. They sure as hell don't teach for the money. The days are VERY long and do not end at the office door. The job is thankless. ANd you know what? Most teachers accept that. Teachers teach because they need to. The teach to help make a better world. They do it because they love students and want a better life for them. They are DEDICATED to the whole concept of education.

There are as many lousy teachers out there as there are folks who are substandard in any job. We pay our politicians pretty friggin well. What are they doing for us? Answer: SHYTE.

SOME teachers do a bad job. But it is not the teachers who need to be vilified here. It is the society that cuts funding to schools- the society that allows some schools to be badly equipped and over crowded while others enjoy much more than they will ever use. It is the society that finds all of this acceptable that is to blame and I have friggin HAD it with people blaming teachers. Only reason I see for that is that they are convenient. They are the front line target- and they are easy to hit.

You'd best take a really good look at that private school you think will do so well for you. You think there are bad teachers in the public school? What makes you think things will be better in private? You don't even need a BACHELORS degree to teach at a private school. The freedom one has in the classroom- I was evaluated ONCE in 8 years. ONCE. As an intern, I had a full course load. 6 classes. I didn't even have 4 classes in my 8th full time year. Don't think that is out of the norm. It is COMMON. I was never trained. I was never background checked. Hell, they didn't even get my transcripts.
Want to fix it? SCREW private school. That's hiding in a little box. Make the public- the government, the citizenry, the teachers, school boards and the FEDS accountable for the system- because I'll tell you this: the PUBLIC is to blame for the state of public education today. Parents don't care. Not their job to teach, right? Money needs to be cut, what's first? Education. So. We'll throw another billion at the Big Dig or a rotary overpass to the Cape... but we are cutting Arts funding and no raises for teachers this year and professional development is out of pocket. Sorry. "No Child Left Behind" is the biggest crock of shyte going. What gets the MOST money in our society? Right. Military and DoD. Why? Because that is what we have decided is acceptable.
And it fvcking sucks.
Apologies for my tone.
Yeah, it is personal.

OST OF THE DAY:

Funny thing is most of what you have said there is true for the educational system in the UK at the moment.

How about they invest in our children's education rather than investing in actions that will kill them? <--- is that really an overstatement? because hell that is exactly what I see happening.

[Xaositect]

Ok, max, we are going to disagree on a few things, but overall I think we will see the major points the same.

First, my educational history: K-6 in public schools, 7-12 in parochial schools. College - well, that's not relevant to the topic, but I'm way overeducated for what I do. I will mention college as an anecdote later.


My view on education process:

pre-school, K, 1st: Mostly on getting along with other people, teaching the basics on which education will grow (reading, basic writing (spelling, sentences), basic math (addition and subtraction)), penmanship and colors.

2nd to 5th: Take writing to paragraphs, then full page, continue with spelling and penmanship. Take math to just before pre-algebra (multiplication, division, fractions and how to perform all basic math with such). History and sciences start flowing into the curriculum in larger doses than before. Arts and music should be explored in these years. These years will be difficult because you will need to get several core skills taught, but must also keep the exploratory spirit alive in the student. These years often lay the base that ends with students who don't want to learn.

6th to 8th: Writing should be taken to multi-page reports, reading beyond newspaper level. Sentence diagraming in 6th should be mandatory for normal progress students, which will pave the way to making the longer reports readable without going crazy. Math should finish pre-algebra by eighth. History and sciences should now be more exploratory - the student has all the base skills, find what they are interested in and allow them to do a little extra along that path. These years will be the most difficult to teach because it is still one teacher hitting all subjects (in most schools), but students will be going in many different directions. Arts should be one way to do a report, as well as used just for fun. Balancing the required stuff with some stuff being student directed (or at least assisting the direction) will be a challenge.

9th to 12th: High school, as formatted now, would work well if the student is motivated. If the student is not, strong scripting of required classes in the early years at least get the basics covered. If the balance from the previous two sections were met, most students would be motivated.



What I see in many students today is a disgust with the process. I also see a school system that finds it acceptable to pass 12th graders with 3rd-5th grade reading levels and unable to write a cohesive sentence. Math, beyond adding and subtracting, with maybe one or two variables, is not viewed as a needed skill. I remember talking to my niece when she was in fourth grade, and she was doing a paragraph on George Washington Carver, but could not tell me who the George Washington he was named after was. I remember going to my freshman college english class and being shown sentence diagramming, and seeing over half the students not comprehending (I was taught such in seventh grade). I am constantly being asked by co-workers how to spell something (I am a good - not great, but good - speller), and was the only one - of fifteen - not written up for turning in illegible reports required by one of the service contracts we have.

Worse, I see people actually hating to learn anything because the school system they went through beat the idea you could like to learn new things out of them.

Also, the teacher's union around here fights any attempt to do anything to correct problems. All they want to hear is, "Yes, we will give you more money." The more money has resulted in fewer passing students and more disgruntled parents. So, in some areas, the teacher's union is a block to getting reforms (maybe not in yours, max, but it is here). A union is a two edged sword, watch for the backbite (again, not everywhere).

And a last note on the parochial or public school choice - public teaches the "three Rs", while parochial schools teach four, with the fourth being resentment. Look at any graduate of a parochial school and you will see they have a world-class education in how to resent everything (more so than your average teenager).

[dencamp]

Originally posted by Xaositect:

Also, the teacher's union around here fights any attempt to do anything to correct problems. All they want to hear is, "Yes, we will give you more money." The more money has resulted in fewer passing students and more disgruntled parents. [/B]

Can you explain what happened? I feel like the above may be really simplified due to space concerns. What were the issues involved?

[iNub]

I went to school in a poor area, and I'm going to let you in on a little secret. The teachers are not at fault, and neither are the children. It's the taxpayers and the government. The taxpayers vote on how the money gets spent, and the government misappropriates the money to buy stuff for themselves.

Run for some stupid city office once. Make a flier about how you will fix all the potholes in your roads, at a 5% tax increase. See how many votes you get. Next time, run for that same office, but make education your primary goal. You're gonna give the schools much needed money, at a 5% tax increase. 100% of the time, you will get more votes to fix the roads, because people simply don't care about their children as much as they care about themselves. When I say "their" children, I don't mean just the people that gave birth to a child, I mean the people that raise them and teach them their values -- the community.

The community is ****ed up in America, across the board. People are too concerned with their own freedoms to care about the freedoms of others. People are too stupid to realize that most of the problem in a school that's lacking money (teachers back me up on this one) is not a lack of inflow. It's the administration, with 3, 4, and 5 secretaries per official, air conditioning in every window of their office, and brand new $80K cars parked out back. They are the real problem. In my area, the ratio of teachers to administrators/administrative staff is about 2:1, in favor of administration. That's not right.

They're shutting down schools while the Ad. is considering tearing down their building to uild another one. They don't mention that it's the newest building in the entire district by at least 30 years, they don't mention that their electrical intake is greater than all of the schools in the district as it is. They don't mention that Central High and Whittier junior high (next door to each other) share a heating system-with the LIBRARY-because they don't have the money to run or maintain their own.

About 5 years ago, the GISD got a grant of $2 million from GM to modernize the student computers. The sum total of what the students got were a couple hundred donated computers and some ethernet. The administration got brand new computers in every room. Hell, even their toilets are automated. Half the toilets in the schools don't even ****ing work.

OK, I'm ranting.

Let's just put it this way. The American sense of community and civic responsibility sucks ass. Ask any real civil servant. Teachers, police, firefighters. Yeah, teachers are up there with them. Deal with it, hypocrites. Now, back to your regularly scheduled gluttony.

[todrain]

It is sad that we can spend billions to blow up other countries, and yet we keep cutting money for education.

[fireside]

i never realized that school admins got so much money. when you say admins do you mean principals and stuff or superintendents and stuff?

[Spliffdaddy]

The NEA is one of the biggest obstacles to school reform. When job performance is not tied to salary, there is no reason to achieve. Besides, being affiliated with the AFL-CIO simply means that most of your union dues go directly to the DNC. Over 95% of AFL-CIO political contributions go to the Democrats. A union today is nothing more than a branch of a politcal action committee.

Increased spending yields no obvious improvement in student or teacher performance - so throwing more tax money at won't help.

Between lazy parents and the NEA there is no hope for public schools.

[Arty50]

Actually increased spending will help education. But all of the increases need to go towards teacher's salaries. Frankly, that's the biggest problem now.

Think about it. You've just graduated from college, spent all that money and time, and now your ready to enter the world. Well, what are you going to do with your life? Let's see, the Widget Corporation has granted you an interview and the position carries a salary of $40-50K/year with the potential for nice salary increases. But you've always wanted to teach. So you interview with a local school and find out that you could go teach for the whopping salary of $30K/year. Which also won't go up much over time. Tough decision. Yeah.

Basically, the pool of smart, talented individuals that should be teaching our children are skipping the profession because it just doesn't pay enough relative to most of the stuff out there. So the quantity and quality of the teacher base is shrinking.

But it's also not as simple as paying new teachers more. You have to appease the unions and the current base of teachers that are out there, despite how qualified they may or may not be.

One of the better proposals I've heard recently was to pay newer teachers much higher salaries and only grant tenure in exceptional circumstances. With older teachers, raise their salaries slightly and give them the option to work under the new system. So they can either keep their tenure at their normal salary, or opt into the new system and get paid a lot more but give up some job security. Naturally, the older teachers that are standouts could still opt into the new system and keep their tenure.

Forgive me, I've been a bit overly simplistic in this post. But I'm just trying to sum up an article I read that addressed the issue of a serious lack of talent headed into the teaching profession.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I don't know what the situation is where some folks are, but here in the golden state it's almost laughable when the state pretends it doesn't have money for crayons and construction paper, and that the schools are the *only* thing they can cut- meanwhile contrast that with $38 billion in overspending- at least $10 billion of that out-and-out, documented FRAUD spending. No, not even the usual waste spending (and oh boy is there plenty of that) FRAUD spending.

Yeah sure, but of course the problem is there's not enough money. Right. It's not that the money we DO have gets pi$$ed down a rathole. No way.

And by all means, everyone fail to notice those custom tailored suit wearing, cigar chomping local politicians with their $1000 a week cell phone bills stepping out of the limo into their new marble inlaid palaces.. err, uh, that is offices they just got finished building for themselves. Don't mind them. They haven't got any dough for crayons and construction paper. Nope. Not them. Haven't seen any money come their way. And raise a teacher�s salary? What, are you nuts? Hey, isn�t that the public�s responsibility anyway? Gee, speaking for myself personally, I know that I have just INFINITE sway over what teachers make. Yup. I control it. Let�s see� this year I dictate that teachers shall make�

So don�t blame that politician guy over there. He has no say in the matter.

But wait, the suits can't hang around too long, gotta go 'cut' something- like school budgets, fire departments, orphanages... anything that'll get folks all riled up and yelling "You can't cut spending! Please! Here, take MORE of our money! That�ll fix it!"

"Oh! Okay! Whatever you folks say! The people have spoken! Say... come to think of it we COULD use some new antique mahogany flooring around here..."

What a racket.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The NEA is one of the biggest obstacles to school reform. When job performance is not tied to salary, there is no reason to achieve. Besides, being affiliated with the AFL-CIO simply means that most of your union dues go directly to the DNC. Over 95% of AFL-CIO political contributions go to the Democrats. A union today is nothing more than a branch of a politcal action committee.

It takes a brave soul to poke his head in to this thread with SpliffDaddy's opinion. I don't know whether to congratulate him for having balls, like I might congratulate someone who sticks his head in a lion's mouth, or to tear in to him myself.

Why don't I give it a shot?

For starters, the performance tied to salary issue. Two questions pop in to mind immediately. First, how, exactly, do you intend to measure teacher performance? Keep in mind that teaching is not a job that can be done independently of others. Like many dances need a lead and a follow, and both have jobs to do, teacher performance is not independent of student quality. Also, remember that testing the students is by no means foolproof. Too much testing, in fact, causes problems of its own. Which would you prefer: a teacher that teaches your child how to use what they're learning in real situations, or how to pass a fill in the bubble test? Tie teacher pay to tests, and that's exactly what teachers will have to do. We'll end up with a student population of idiots who know how to find the right answer from multiple choices, but who won't know how to actually use what they've learned to do anything. Saying that student grades = performance is stupid, too, because it will just make teachers even looser with the A, reducing a grading system that held little meaning in to one which holds none.

Second, have you never heard of people taking pride in their work? There are more rewards than money. Teaching, like firefighting and police, is a profession that is meant to help people. Believe it or not, but not everyone is such a heartless money-grubbing freak that they need the threat of loss of pay to keep them doing their job.

Now, for the AFL-CIO affiliation issue you raise. So what if 95% of the contributions the AFL-CIO makes are to the DNC? It is the DNC, after all, that at least pays lip service to defending unions. Secondly, in order for your logic to hold, you need to show that most union dues go to political contributions instead of towards things like rainy day funds for striking, health insurance, etc.

At least you were willing to peg some responsibility on to the lazy @ss irresponsible parents.

BlackGriffen

[dencamp]

Please Spliff, answer BG's questions. How shopuld performance be judged? Let's imagine the world without those naughty unions mucking up capitalism (and education). Don't just point a finger and go on about general union issues, imagine a solution and let us know.

[maxelson]

Wow. Good thoughts. No flaming.
I'm... oh, I'm just so proud of us!!!

Back to business.
One thing I'd really like to point out here is the unifying thought: everyone here thinks the system is limping. Everyone here wants improvement. Everyone here is focused upon the welfare of the students and, in direct relation, the welfare of the society (yeah, I brought it up as a US thing, but of course it is clear that this is a worldwide issue- please forgive if I focus on the US, folks. You know. Think globally, act locally). Let's hold on to that unifying thought.
I want to start with Xao.
Xao, what you have listed there as a "roadmap", a general set of goals per grade level, is fairly traditional. Of course, since becoming involved in education, I have to note that "traditional" is not really what we have. Lets take writing. The actual mechanics- the techniques and structure of writing as a specific method of clear communication- are shuffled aside for fear that they might stifle creativity.
At any rate. I'm off track. Sort of. THis will go to point eventually.

One of the most evident problems as I see it is the identification of the scapegoat. As I have said, the teacher is the one out front. They are the easiest target and the least likely to be able to defend themselves. This is one of the biggest reasons I have for defending the existence of the NEA. See, Spliffy, teacher performance has NOTHING to do with parental or political reaction. It is STUDENT performance that triggers parental and political reaction. Today, we teach that one does NOT have to be accountable for one's actions. Failure on a math test is seen as a failure of the teacher- or curriculum. Or ANYTHING but a failure of the STUDENT. We cannot really make broad sweeping generalizations here- every student is different- but we can point toward a trend which, I think, is undeniable. We see it everywhere.
Before I left teaching, I was involved in a lawsuit. THis little action began with the student failing a test. A student who had done SHYTE all (senior) year. Well, the issue with the failing test grade was that it kept him from passing a class. A class he needed to graduate. Instead of taking his lumps and going to summer school, he and daddy hired a lawyer.
Think this is uncommon? In a very cursory internet search and perusal of some ed publications I still get, I discovered I could fill a book with these cases. And this is considered normal
My point is this: the NEA IS a necessary evil. Like war, like politics, etc. I can honestly say that the Union in which I am enrolled (some technicians thing) is pretty much useless. There is no one to protect against. They do nothing I cannot do myself. My employer is pretty benign. Look at what the NEA does. They protect against the public which is manipulated to the HILT by the politicians who consider education a tool. They protect against parents who deny responsibility for their kid's education.

Folks, the key is not in reforming the system. They key is in reforming what society thinks and feels about education. The key is to make it a priority. As CRASH says, throwing more money at it will not solve the problem if the participants treat it so callously. Sending kids to private schools only shifts the issue from one venue to the next- but the same show is still playing.

To simplify: The deal is this: If the parents and politicians don't care, how can we expect the students to care? And, to answer Danny, if we shut down the public school system, privatize the whole shebang, what have we done? Nothing. We have taken the same problem and moved it to another venue. AND we have gone and dropped salaries for teachers again- private pays slightly more than half what public pays. NOT a step forward.
In 8 years of teaching, here's what I found:
Teachers are fighting a battle on three fronts: Apathetic parents, Apathetic or downright misleading politicians, and finally, themselves. Notice I didn't put the students in that list. THat is because they are the easy part. It is, of course, a non trivial effort to get a student motivated and moving. But I'll tell you this: it is easy compared to the Sisyphean effort required to get parents and "those in authority" to focus on the student.

Students disgusted with the process? Of course they are- and beyond the normal, "I HATE school" kind of stuff. Well, with the way we treat education, how do we expect them to respond? FOr many students- I would even go so far as to say MOST students, the most positive attitude they encounter IS from the teacher.

To say that it is the fault of the teacher is, forgive me, just plain feeding in to the hype the pols are feeding, and yes, that DOES include our present administration.
How are they helping? By feeding this "Teacher at fault" thing. It is a fun bus to board because it DENIES RESPONSIBILITY.

Next up in out little debate: "Standardized Testing" or "Hey, my kid can do an algebraic equation! So why is he still stupid?"

Oh- money for Principals. I'm only lightly defending their salaries here in this way: spend one week in a Principal's shoes, and you will see WHY they get paid what they do (which, BTW, ain't all THAT great).

I don't fault folks for blaming the NEA or teachers. That is what we do here. I am not putting a halo on the NEA. I am not saying that there are not those things which are insulting and harmful that come out of the NEA (more money, I hear someone say? Well, if you got paid what a public school teacher does, you'd perk up whenever someone said it as well). I'll site the teacher who got FINED repeatedly by the union for tutoring kids on school property after 3:30pm.

To me, it is all in the motivation- because folks see and learn from that.
Is the primaty focus on the student? The system? The physical plant? The politics? The gain?

I don't think there is ANY doubt about where it NEEDS to be, and not just in the lip service way.


Must make coffee.

[DigitalEl]

As always, the government isn't without blame. Our nation's policies and attitudes are a major part of the problem. But from my perspective, as the husband of an elementary educator, it's the parents who need rounded up.

My wife had to go door to door in the week before school started to "remind" parents school started Monday. How is it that parents are so uninvolved?

Many kids come to kindergarten without basic skills. When the first half of the school year is spent on how to tie your shoes, colors and shapes, how will these kids ever catch up with kids in more affluent districts? Kids in the "good" suburbs are battling it out at the Little League World Series. Kids in my wife's district couldn't read "Louisville Slugger" if you spelled it phonetically.

It's so not fair, because these kids aren't to blame. If you come to kindergarten and don't know the difference between a circle and a triangle... Or the difference between red and orange... Chances are you're going to be behind for the rest of your life.

Shame on parents.

[Xaositect]

Ok, let's go at this step by step....

1. For the most part, it is not the teachers. While everyone here can think of a teacher that shouldn't be teaching (or hasn't looked), you will find it is usually the same teacher for any given area. I would say less than 2% of teachers are the problem.

2. The system is the problem. When they allowed "charter" schools in my area, one of the local districts openned a charter school and did wonderful for four years until the NEA got the laws changed to disallow such. Same people get better results if NEA is removed from picture. By results, I mean students who can read at their grade level.

3. Core - reading, writing, math - are needed to be able to go into all the other parts of education. You have to be able to read a history book to learn from it. You must be able to compilate the results of the experiment to progress in science. For years, these were taught with importance alongside the other topics. Yet now, students are not learning these. We (nationwide, USA) are seeing better than 20% of inner city students being functionally illiterate (unable to read and write to fill out a job app, or read a newspaper). McDonalds has gone to putting pictograms on the bottom of bags designating what can go in the bag before it is overloaded because so many of their employees couldn't read the list (in most areas now). Why could previous instructors achieve the "3Rs" but now you cannot? If these topics were being taught correctly, then "teaching for the test" would not be neccesary. Again, teachers are not the problem so much as the system being forced upon them.

4. These charter schools are teaching students at almost half the cost per student. If you take the public school budget, remove bussing and regional management costs (which the charter schools do not have), and divide by number of students, then take the charter school budget and divide by number of students, they are teaching with better results for only 57% of the cost of public school. Of the 63 charter schools in this area, I have been to 41 of them for printer/computer repairs (get a good reputation, you're everywhere). All had arts. Over half had music. Public schools dropped music years ago, less than 25% have public funded arts, and less than half even have toilet paper all the time. The students coming out of charter schools are doing well on college placement tests. They are passing the state's testing, at or above grade level, and have a more rounded education than public school students.



I have more, but must do some work now. I will post more later.

[tooki]

American schools have huge administrations in order to remain in compliance with federal and state laws they have to comply with in order to receive funds. I just wonder whether they're not spending $2 in administration to receive $1 in funding...

Anyway, if we got rid of the administrations (e.g. had one or two administrators in a school, total), we'd have plenty of $ to pay teachers the salaries they deserve. This would involve shifting a lot of discretion and responsibility back from the office to the teacher; that's not a bad thing.

As for teacher's unions -- I've gotten the impression that the good teachers don't bother with unions. It's the lousy teachers who would lose their jobs in a heartbeat if anyone found out how incompetent they are. Those are the teachers who push for unionization that makes it almost impossible to fire a teacher, even for egregious offenses.

tooki

my background: I've been through several school systems -- private elementary school in USA, public middle school in USA, public middle school in Switzerland, and high school in Switzerland. (I'm in college in USA.) And my mom is a teacher, having taught in grade school in the USA, and in colleges in USA, Guatemala, and Switzerland, as well as in private language schools in the same places.

[maxelson]

Good teachers don't bother with unions? Untrue. Completely and utterly.
Private school teachers tend to be non union members, unless that school has its own in which case one usually must join.
Tooki, I gotta tell you, I find that statement to be a little on the offensive side. I KNOW why teachers join unions. Remove the absurd threats teachers face (as I have already outlined) and the Union membership would probably go slack. This reputation Unions have for protecting those who do not deserve it is not ill gotten. We've all seen it. Just as Spliffy says that the vast majority of people out there are good, hard working and conscientious, I know that the lazy ass desk propper is the exception. Set up any system and it will be abused. You're a public school teacher, you're an NEA member. That's it.

I'm going to stop now before I really get angry at that statement.

[Xaositect]

Ok, to continue.....

5. Parental Involvement. Charter and private schools require parental involvement. Public schools do not. In several public schools, they don't want parents involved because they don't have set roles for them to play! This is again a system/administration problem, and does not reflect the teacher's views. However, teachers (or at least their union) then come forward and say that parents not getting involved is the parent's fault, without correcting the turning away of many of them. It is usually the same schools turning the parents away who get in trouble, who then lead to the non-involvement claims. Again, system/admin problem, not teachers. And not all schools.

6. Reading. When I was in school, starting with the third grade, teachers required we read one book from the library each month. Four were student chosen, four were teacher chosen. We then wrote a paragraph (more in later years) on each book. This continued to eighth grade for me. To this day, I read prodigiously. Students today are not required to read beyond the textbooks. This one thing, so simple, teaches so much. It makes many basic communication problems obvious, to let the teacher correct them. Why was it discontinued?



I could list more examples, but I think I've come to where my main point returns - the system of education needs to be corrected. Having 20% or more of inner city/ghetto students functionally illiterate guarantees ghettos remain. Almost half cannot read - and comprehend - a newspaper. Children growing up see TV with it's no effort easy life and think that's normal. Gangs/drugs seem the only viable option. Self-fulfilling cycle - each pass guarantees another group to go through the cycle. Most parents realize the opportunities they missed due to lack of education, but the children won't listen. And the children are the ones who need to hear it. Inner city/ghetto has a higher percentage of single parent homes, also at lower pay so they must work more hours to earn the money needed to live. They cannot be in both work to make that money and home to teach these lessons, so TV becomes the expected reality. Each piece of the puzzle claims it's not their fault, and they're right - but until one part stands up and corrects itself, the cycle will not be broken.

So, let's change the tone of this topic. Metropolis City Schools has just fired it's Superintendent and appointed you to take that place. How will you, within existing laws, make this situation get better? If you don't have specifics. what would you study to try to emulate? What would you do?

[roger_ramjet]

It's simplistic to say the problem is money. I know there's been more to the arguments here but that's a recurring theme. The U.S. spends more per pupil on education than any other nation and gets consistently poor results. I live in Connecticut exactly on the town line of two municipalities. One has one of the very best public school systems in the nation. The other has one of the worst. The difference isn't money. The teachers are paid roughly the same in both districts - not big money but very good money.

So what's the difference? Demographics. One town has a per capita income that is more than twice as large as the other. Students coming into the richer town's school system are more likely to be coming from intact families. They are going to get the support they need to get an education. The quality of a child's education depends on a LOT more than the size of the school budget.

[fireside]

Originally posted by Xaositect:
So, let's change the tone of this topic. Metropolis City Schools has just fired it's Superintendent and appointed you to take that place. How will you, within existing laws, make this situation get better? If you don't have specifics. what would you study to try to emulate? What would you do?

build more schools. i believe it has been proven that schools with a lot of kids do worse than schools with not so many kids. most "ghetto" schools as you put it are extremely overcrowded and understaffed. build more schools, higher more teachers, and there will probably be an improvement in the learning enviroment.

i wasnt aware that they stopped making kids read books. i had to do that throughout elementary and middle school.

[mr. natural]

WARNING: This 3 part post is not for the faint of heart.


I quite understand maxelson's outrage (along with everyone else who so readily agrees and even disagrees with him -- the state of affairs in public schooling plainly sucks), but I happen to think all this fervent feeling is pitifully misplaced.

To begin with, our *public school system* is exactly that: a *system* that is inherently contaminated by a long forged *institutional* logic of so-called rationality that is crazy and grown into insanity.

So, if you refuse to consider the unquestioned "sub-text" of public school as an *institution* whose job is not truly to render *education* but confusion & subservience, you will forever remain outraged and impotent.

As described in vivid detail by John Taylor Gatto (variously awarded as New York City and New York State Teacher of the Year in 1990, 1991, and 1992 -- after which he quit his position with a short essay he sent to the Wall Street Journal) in his landmark book,Dumbing Us Down, and upon the occasion of his first award he gave this acceptance speech:

Call me Mr. Gatto, please. Twenty-six years ago, having nothing better to do with myself at the time, I tried my hand at schoolteaching. The license I have certifies that I am an instructor of English language and English literature, but that isn't what I do at all. I don't teach English, I teach school -- and I win awards doing it.

Teaching means different things in different places, but seven lessons are universally taught from Harlem to Hollywood Hills, They constitute a national curriculum you pay for in more ways than you can imagine, so you might as well know what it is. You are at liberty, of course, to regard these lessons any way like, but believe me when I say I intend no irony in this presentation. These are the things I teach, these are the things you pay me to teach. Make of them what you will.

(For the sake of brevity mr. natural will only post Mr. Gatto's outline which should suffice; for the full force of ideas expressed one will need to buy the book.)

1. Confusion

2. Class position

3. Indifference

4. Emotional Dependancy

5. Intellectual Dependancy

6. Provisional Self-Esteem

7. One Can't Hide


Yes, on the face of it these are rather bold and seemingly spurious claims. But Gatto backs them up with his award winning experience as a teacher. As he said, you can "make of them what you will."

All I can say is that after reading his work I have thought long and hard about our presently arranged school *choices*, and my own schooled experience as well to consider (which includes both public & private schooling at various ages), and I happen to think Mr. Gatto's critique is right on.

Mr. Gatto has further buttressed his critique of *institutional schooling* with several other books of renown, the most recent of which is a historical expose of this whole madness: The Underground History of American Education. If you really care and want to see how we got into this sorry state of affairs, you'll want to read this.

Harper's Magazine upcoming September issue will be featuring as their cover story Mr. Gatto's latest essay: "Against School." It should be out on the news-stands shortly.

Ok, enough about Gatto's published works. Just what does he say should be done? In short, Mr. Gatto does not believe the answer is to be found with *fixing* the school system; this amounts to rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. Rather, he suggests we scrape the whole idea of "institutional schooling" as presently rigged and do the following:

"Look to the congregational principle for answers. Encourage and underwrite experimentation; trust children and families to know what is best for themselves; stop the segregation of children and the aged in walled compounds; involve everyone in every community in the education of the young: businesses, institutions, old people, whole families; look for local solutions and always accept a personal solution in place of a corporate one. You need not fear educational consequences: reading, writing, and arithmetic aren't very hard to teach if you take pains to see that compulsion and the school agenda don't shortcircuit each individual's appointment with themselves to learn these things. There is abundant evidence that less than a hundred hours is sufficient for a person to become totally literate and a self-teacher. Don't be panicked by scare tactics into surrendering your children to experts.

"Teaching must, I think, be decertified as quickly as possible. That certified experts like myself are deemed necessary to make learning happen is a fraud and a scam. Look around you: the results of teacher-college licensing are in the schools you see. Let anybody who wants to, teach; give families back their tax money to pick and choose -- who could possibly be a better shopper if the means for comparison were made available? Restore the congregational system by encouraging competition after a truly unmanipulated free-market model -- in that way the social dialectic can come back to life. Trust in families and neighborhoods and individuals to make sense of the important question, "What is education for?" If some of them answer differently than you might prefer, that's really not your business, and it shouldn't be your problem. Our type of schooling has deliberately concealed that such a question must be framed and not taken for granted if anything beyond a mockery of democracy is to be nurtured."

(continued next post)

[mr. natural]

Here, it is worth pointing out that Gatto is right about several thoughts.

1. For all the hours and effort poured into getting all elementary children to read and write as assigned by grade & age group (i.e, starting in 1st & 2nd grade), it has been shown that by the time they reach 12 years old there is no difference in reading ability -- this goes for those who are labeled "gifted" to those who are more often than not mis-labeled as "learning disabled."

Far too often, especially for the latter what does happen is this: "Kid has trouble learning to read in first grade; starts to hate school, his self-esteem goes to hell; and when he's a teenager, he's pissed off or taking drugs." (This is a direct quote from "Raising Cain," by Dan Kindlon, in which he describes a tongue in cheek comment made by a fellow school psychologist colleague about the thick files filled with all sorts of profiling info they look over before meeting with various aged boys gone bad. Kindlon says about this comment that it "contained too much brutal truth to laugh at," and "This is what we see.")

2. As Paul Goodman, who wrote a similar but older (circa 1960) critique of institutional schooling in his book, "Growing Up Absurd," notes:

"Up to age twelve there is no point to formal subjects or a prearranged curriculum. With guidance, whatever a child experiences is educational... It makes no difference what is learned at this age, so long as the child goes on wanting to learn something further. Teachers for this age are those who like children, pay attention to them, answer their questions, enjoy taking them around the city and helping them explore, imitate, try out, and who sing songs with them and teach them games. Any benevolent grown-up -- literate or illiterate -- has plenty to teach an eight year old... Besides, it has been shown that whatever is useful in the present eight year elementary curriculum can be learned in four months by a normal child of twelve. If let alone, in fact, he will have learned most of it by himself."

3. Also, as renowned Child Development specialist John Holt, in "How Children Learn," wrote:

"The child is naturally curious. He wants to make sense out of things, find out how things work, gain competence and control over himself and his environment, do what he can see other people doing. He is open, receptive, and perceptive. He does not shut himself off from the strange, confused, complicated world around him. He observes it closely and sharply, tries to take it all in. He is experimental. He does not merely observe the world around him, but tastes it, touches it, hefts it, bends it, breaks it. To find out how reality works, he works on it. He is bold. He is not afraid of making mistakes. And he is patient. he can tolerate an extraordinary amount of uncertainty, confusion, ignorance, and suspense. He does not have to have instant meaning in any new situation. He is willing to wait for meaning to come to him -- even if it comes very slowly, which it usually does. School is not a place that gives much time, or opportunity, or reward, for this kind of thinking and learning...

"We do not need to 'motivate' children into learning, by wheedling, bribing, or bullying. We do not need to keep picking away at their minds to make sure they are learning. What we need to do, and all we need to do, is bring as much of the world into the school (or their lives); give children as much help and guidance as they need and ask for; listen respectfully when they feel like talking; and then get out of the way. We can trust them to do the rest."

4. And last but not least, we come to my all-time favorite but hardly ever considered and mostly unanswered question in all this brouhaha: What is education for?

I have my own ideas, but before I outline them, I think it worth while to offer another quotation, this one from "Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect" by David W. Orr, in which he notes:

"Education is not widely regarded as a problem, although the lack of it is. The conventional wisdom holds that all education is good, and the more of it the better. The essays in Part one challenge this view from an ecological perspective. the truth is that without significant precautions, education can equip people merely to be more effective vandals of the earth. If one listens carefully, it may even be possible to hear the Creation groan every year in late May when another batch of smart, degree-holding, but ecologically illiterate, Homo Sapiens who are eager to succeed are launched into the biosphere."

In other words, Education for the sake of education can be a dangerous thing.

(Especially if it is ecologically illiterate education, which is what most institutional education is. In that to "teach economics without reference to the laws of thermodynamics or ecology is to teach a fundamentally important ecological lesson: that physics and ecology have nothing to do with the economy. It just happens to be dead wrong. The same is true throughout the curriculum.")

But to return to this question of "what education is for" it is worth noting that the goal of education should not be mastery of subject matter, but rather mastery of self. Socrates spelled it out long ago: "Know thyself." Subject matter is just the tool to this end, but we end up confusing the end with the means.

(continued next post)

[mr. natural]

Ultimately I think the conundrum we are in with regard to schooling (whether public or private) is that we have bought into a lot of unquestioned *myths* or blind faith based *religion* of schooling as it is fobbed off on us.

To list just a few offhand: Public schooling is the glue which binds us together; a high school diploma or, better yet, an advanced college degree is necessary to succeed; if you can't read or write you must be a really stupid and/or bad person.

All of these assumptions are sorely lacking in factual basis. And if you can't see this for yourselves, well, congratulate yourself on an institutional education well done.

Critical thinking is one of the best human abilities to be drummed out of us in all our wasted years spent in school. (It is one that is recoverable tho after leaving school, but it may take a while to recognize it and use it well.)

In any event, the school problem we face is inherent in the context of our culture at large too. The best way I can exemplify this is by anecdote. I know a fellow who is married with three boys. He is a good man who works hard as a carpenter providing for himself and his family. They happen to live in one of the oldest and smallest houses in town. One day his oldest boy returns home from kindergarden in a glum mood. Why? Because other kids have told him that he is "poor," and laments that his sneakers aren't good enough -- he has to have the $100 Nike's!

I think you get the picture.

In any event, the New Yorker published an article a few years back (1998 I think) about the fire-storm that had been unleashed by the publication of "The Nurture Assumption" by Judith Rich Harris. Some of you may recall this story (Newsweek ran a cover story too) which suggested that parental influence or nurturing had little to do with how kids turned out; in essence they grow up to be what they are innately disposed to be. That is not a can of worms I mean to open here, but within the New Yorker article was the following quote by a child developmental psychologist about children I found significant:

"Whom do they want to please? Are they wearing the kind of clothing that other kids are wearing or the kind that their parents are wearing? If the other kids are speaking another way, whose language are they going to learn? And from an evolutionary perspective, whom should they be paying attention to?"

Well, to this last, I say: Good Question.

From an *evolutionary* perspective -- which is to say, for the sake of our survival as a species -- of what relevance is it to homo sapiens that our youth, our future, are so caught up in paying attention to what stupid brand of clothes they wear?

Before we made of our culture one of unleashed human vices and now made commercially profitable right on down to our children in order to enthrall them with and turn them into well heeled consumers, they used to pay attention to what adults did so as to enact through practice with their peers in play the cultural And evolutionary significant acts that would ensure their survival; This also lent meaning to our lives, both young and old.

Alas, not so nowadaze. In our culture anything goes, especially if there is money to be made. To hell with the consequences. Indeed, the very idea of considering evolutionary/species significant connections in much of anything we do is laughably ludicrous albeit tragic.

But this is the result of having made out of *education* a minimum twelve year jail sentence in age-segregated institutional schooling. That's if you are lucky; most of our young humans today spend some seventeen+ years if one includes kindergarden, four years of college, and maybe a year or two in day care. (Of course, there is "homework" to consider too, starting now in kindergarden!)

After all this is it any wonder we are reaping what we sow of thoughtlessness or rather lack of critical thought about our "school" problems. It is something to think about.

Alright, I'm done. It is late, and for those of you who have bothered to read this monstrosity of a post, maybe it was worth it. I really wrote it because of and for maxelson, especially his heart felt concern over it all. As if it isn't clear this issue rings my bell too.

He would make a damn fine teacher, but in my mind, and this is where he'll probably disagree with me, school as rigged is a lost cause. Sure you'll make a difference in some kid's lives, but if you think you'll change the institution of schooling for the better you'd better think again. It is a bureaucratic nightmare that will eat you alive. You'd do better to open your own small school with like minded folks -- check out The Sudbury Valley School in Sudbury, MA. for ideas as to how they did it.

If nothing else, check out John Taylor Gatto's ideas fleshed out in his books. Frankly, I don't imagine you will agree with him much to begin with, but he'll challenge you better about this than we all can in this cyberspace cafe.

::mr. natural signs off and wanders off to the whiskey cabinet::

[nonhuman]

Well, if I'm to believe the commercial I just saw for the Oakland Unified School District, things are going so well that kids want to go back to school even earlier (the school year starts early this year for some reason).

[chris v]

I've got to go back and read the posts from yesterday, but wanted to note this:

Who Killed Teach For America?

Apparently, Tom DeLay



CV

[maxelson]

Mr. Natural- forgive the bevity of this post- I'll not have time to elaborate right now, but I absolutely HAVE to put this is in: that post is a very well compiled patchwork of brilliance and bullshyt. Sometimes in the same sentence. Some bits are chock FULL of incredible wisdom. Others are so mired on psychobabble "new wave education" PC edu-speak that is just... I don't know what.
I was big on Gatto my first year or two teaching. I was big on him until I realized through hard experience that he was just. Plain. Wrong- even if you take his goal list as unintended- he's wrong.

Don't just read Gatto. Yes, he has some brilliant ideas, he has some VERY valid points, and then they are dressed and supported by utter BUNK. Of course he is correct about the fundamentals of the three Rs being fairly easily taught. Of course he is correct that, more often than not, those works of the Western Canon that are handed off to kids are, for the most part, lost on them because of a lack of life experience and an ability to sympathize/ empathize. What he forgets is that those early years ARE there to plant a seed- and not one of conformity and carefully dosed self esteem. They are there to implant the beginnings- the foundations of a deeper understanding of all that is. And it is critical.



Read Levine. Read Gardener.

Biggest fault of education? Generalizing. And Gatto does the same- to a criminal degree. It is faddist education that he spits.

More later. Sorry abut the hasty and unfinished thoughts. ANd please know that I don't lash out at you, Natural. I don't mean to be rude. It just seems to me that Gatto is frustrating because he mixes some really great ideas and really FEASIBLE solutions with just pointless gak.
Again, It's cool to see we all have the same thought: got to do SOMETHING.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by DigitalEl:
As always, the government isn't without blame. Our nation's policies and attitudes are a major part of the problem. But from my perspective, as the husband of an elementary educator, it's the parents who need rounded up.

My wife had to go door to door in the week before school started to "remind" parents school started Monday. How is it that parents are so uninvolved?

Many kids come to kindergarten without basic skills. When the first half of the school year is spent on how to tie your shoes, colors and shapes, how will these kids ever catch up with kids in more affluent districts? Kids in the "good" suburbs are battling it out at the Little League World Series. Kids in my wife's district couldn't read "Louisville Slugger" if you spelled it phonetically.

It's so not fair, because these kids aren't to blame. If you come to kindergarten and don't know the difference between a circle and a triangle... Or the difference between red and orange... Chances are you're going to be behind for the rest of your life.

Shame on parents.

Exactly, parents don't give a sh!t about their children's education. When I started kindergarten I could read (the first book I read was The Hobbit at age 4), add, subtract, knew simple geometry, and had a grasp of basic logic. Why? Because my parents were very active in my educational progress duing the first 5 years of my life. Almost no one does that anymore. It's not their "job", the schools are supposed to "teach" their children. Personal responsibility in this area no longer exists.

More on this later... Gotta get going or I'll be late for work!

[olePigeon]

Do you know why people like George Bush and Dan Quail are in polotics? Or Larry Flynt for that matter?

Let's start with how many years our kids spend in highschool studying government... ZERO.

I studied American government for a whopping 5 months, then it's on to economics. For 12 years of school, a measily 5 months is devoted on Amercian government and polotics.

Absolutely f*cking pathetic. Our public University system is the only saving grace in this godforsaken country. Our children are retards.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
I say this with all knowledge that I might just light the powder keg, but... get this. Danny's solution?

Get rid of public schools. Go all private, all the way. That way if Junior is good at arts, he can go to art high school. Somebody somewhere will start a football league--er, school. And if junior don't know English, well then, it's his problem!

Silly libertarians... Danny has friends who send their kids to the Sudbury Valley school.

All kid-motivated learning. If the kid don't wanna read, they don't. Nothing shoved down their throats. Which all sounds mellow and such, but this friend's daughter only just learned to read at age 9. And he's proud of that.

Wacky. Very wacky.

Course, you ignore charter schools, which are publicly funded privately run and rely heavily on parental involvement. Let's consider all the options a parent has, after all. And all-kid-motivated is insane. Learning isn't easy, and it isn't fun. The rewards of a good education can be, but it's WORK friends, work.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Do you know why people like George Bush and Dan Quail are in polotics? Or Larry Flynt for that matter?

Let's start with how many years our kids spend in highschool studying government... ZERO.

I studied American government for a whopping 5 months, then it's on to economics. For 12 years of school, a measily 5 months is devoted on Amercian government and polotics.

Apparently a whole lot of time wasn't spent on spelling. Politics, American government in whole, and Mr. Quayle in brief should have been a year's worth of study in American History at least. If not that, then an ELP overview course that covers economics, legal system and politics, and how all three entertwine.

[Ghoser777]

I don't know if you need to have a formal education to do anything. Abraham Lincoln was mostly self taught, and he was a Lawyer and President of the US. Most of what I know about computer science I have learned on my own, even though I do have several college credit hours in CS.

The dream of universal schooling is that all students will have a chance to excel educationally when they would not normally, whether it be for social, economical, gender, racial, or any other reason. Unfortunately, public schooling works inside a bureaucracy that relies on standardization. It's hard to treat students' individual needs when they are shuffled around from year to year between teachers. Teachers end up fighting an up hill battle where some subdue to formula and others to early retirement.

But there are still a lot of teachers shine, whether it be because they have great support from administrators or because they have unwavering beliefs on how to best educate. Amazing students still seem to graduate and be successful despite a system that is so often decried and compared to other nations (who usually only compare their best versus everyone here).

There is plenty of wrong, some of which is localized and some of which is more widespread. But I wonder sometimes if we're not holding ourselves to a rediculous standard - we're trying to educate people who rarely would get past an 8th grade education over a century ago.

I love educational discussions

Matt Fahrenbacher

[mr. natural]

maxelson:

I am familiar with Gardner's books and his thoughts on the different kinds of intelligence, etc. I also happen to agree with these ideas. Same goes for Levine, whose "Mind At A Time" is also very good.

But what these gentlemen have to say in no way discounts what Gatto has to say about the dysfunctional *system* of institutional schooling. Rather to a large extent they support Gatto's institutional critque.

Just to take a sampling of Levine's suggestions (from "A Mind At A Time") about "What We Should See Within Schools for All Kinds of Minds":

• Teachers who are well versed in neurodevelopmental function and as such serve as lead local experts.
• Teachers who observe, describe, and respond to the neurodevelopmental observable phenomena of their students.
• Teachers who base their own teaching methods on their understanding of how learning works.
• Students who are learning about learning while they are learning.
• Schools that celebrate and foster neurodevelopmental diversity.
• Schools that stress long term projects over rapidly executed activities.
• Schools that help kids blaze their own trails for motor success, creativity, and community service.
• Schools that refuse to label their students.
• Schools where kids can learn and work at their own natural pace.
• Schools that offer a range of ways in which students can reveal their knowledge and their academic accomplishments.

Well, to quote you, this list of *School Shoulds* is "a very well compiled patchwork of brilliance and bullshyt."

It is brilliant if schools did all this stuff; and it is bullshyt because it doesn't usually work this way. Levine's book is loaded with wonderfully authoritative and valuable information (albeit a bit overwhelming for all the multifaceted and overlapping mind traits to account for), supported with first hand accounts of students floundering precisely because the school system is failing at dealing well with all these diverse and unique minds. Of course, with the enlightened guidance of Mr. Levine all is set right in the end. (Luckily I only have two boys to figure out, not an ever changing classroom of kids to contend with.)

So, aside from the fact that this list is a dead give away as to what schools are not doing, the fact of the matter is that try as they might -- and some I am sure succeed better than others -- this list flies in the face of what usually occurs. Based on one of the largest studies of schools ever undertaken, "A Study in Schooling" (which one can read about in John Goodlad's "A Place Called School," 1984) the following was observed:

70% of what went on during instruction time was talk, usually teacher to student. The next most widely observed activity involved students working independently on written assignments (usually directive based workbooks or worksheets). The study noted that "the amount of time spent in any other kind of activity (e.g., role playing, small group planning and problem solving, constructing models) was miniscule."

Overall, most kids spend a high percentage of their school hours from kindergarten through high school focusing on tasks bearing little resemblance to real-life activities, never mind what may prove truly useful to a large number of these unique and diversified young humans checked into institutionalized school systems which can not possibly cater to all their unique needs; more often than not the school system has its own requirements to fulfill if it is to function at all.

(Admittedly, this is a two decade old study and perhaps some things have changed for the better, especially at the elementary level, although with all this standardized testing craze sweeping us up, not to mention funding cuts, I tend to doubt it overall; and conversations I've had with a high school science teacher confirms the fact that the tests are driving what is taught, not Mr. Levine's suggestions.)

In any event, your self-acknowledged hasty reply ignores my primary complaint: School (not all schools of course, but the ol' time *school* religion and myth) as rigged and generally swallowed whole hog is in actuality more often than not a monstrous *institution,* more often than not a bureaucratic nightmare and a very BIG business to boot.

As yourself earlier on said: "It is easy" to get a student motivated "compared to the Sisyphean effort to get parents and 'those in authority' to focus on the student."

I can only assume by "those in authority" you mean the institutional bureaucracy that hog-ties teachers and students alike to its crazy agenda? Correct me if I am wrong.

That I tend to agree with Gatto a lot is because he calls a spade a spade; he also has the belly-in-the-beast familiarity of an award winning career (acclaimed not because he followed the school rules, but due precisely to his inclinations as a human to do right according to his kid's needs -- isn't this just what Levine says teachers should be doing?).

As to your suggestion that his valid notions are "dressed and supported by utter BUNK," I wish you would please elaborate with examples. Nor do I recall him ever suggesting that kids are incapable of dealing with the "works of the Western Canon." But maybe I am wrong and you can show me where and how.

I guess what I find most incomprehensible is your suggestion that what Gatto "forgets is that those early years ARE there to plant a seed - and not one of conformity and carefully dosed self-esteem. They are there to implant the beginnings - the foundations of a deeper understanding of all that is."

I'm sorry too if this seems flippant but if there is any mired "psychobabble 'new-wave education' PC edu-speak" to fault, your very own words would be a good place to look: Planting the "seed"(?); and "they" (who? teachers i assume) "are there to implant beginnings - the foundation of a deeper understanding of all that is"!!?? What the heck is all this "gak"? (BTW, what a great word: gak) IIRC, and this is of course according to those that *say they know*: only God is capable of a deep "understanding of all that is." ::mr. natural shakes his head in bemusement::

Gatto planting seeds of "conformity and carefully dosed self-esteem" was far from his agenda, but it is the very one that happens all the time in school classrooms across the nation. I was such a victim until I escaped institutional schooling into self-education. And I don't know about you but I run across similar victims caught up in the system now all the time. Perhaps I'm just sensitized to seeing them due to my own prior experience, but believe me I see them today. If your school experiences were rewarding at every turn it doesn't discount those whose weren't (and you are indeed quite aware of the fact that it isn't great for everyone).

Look, it's perfectly acceptable to me that you think Gatto is butt-plain wrong about the Seven Hidden Curriculum. That you may have done all within your powers as a teacher to diminish these lessons does not mean they aren't imbedded in the *institution of schooling* as rigged. As much as I can attest to their existence based solely on my experiences, I can also attest to occasions whereby an inspired teacher or an unexpected good school experience managed to unshackle the accumulative effect of these hidden wounds. (I could quote Levine to show them in action, but I won't -- it's really not worth it to get hung up on Gatto, but it is worth noting where I think you are off-base with generalizations. I also think it worth noting too that studying literature, which is what I assume you taught, is a hell of a lot easier to inspire student excitement and achievement in than say algebra.)

Anyway, let's turn the page on Gatto.

(continued next post)

[mr. natural]

Moving on to more urgent questions left unattended...

Such as: What is education for?

I'm sure you have some thoughts on the matter, yes? A narrative revelation such as I am attempting with you would suffice. What appalls me is that most people do not ever think to ask this question of themselves. If they did it would begin to expose a lot of chinks in their thoughts about this whole mess. It's as if the answer is obvious. Well, it ain't. And when it comes to discussions I've had with people and ask them this pointed question, more often than not they hesitate, stammer, and stumble in reply.

Sure, it is a big question, a loaded one even. But unless we ask this question of ourselves and give it some long good thought in return, any discussion about education amounts to blind mice trying to describe an elephant; we all assume we mean the same thing but this is not always so.

Furthermore, the question as posed is open-ended. It brings into play all sorts of other unexamined assumptions about this issue. All of which is meant to challenge us to think and speak better for ourselves about this topic. I certainly don't claim there is any right or one way answer, but I do think it would behoove us all to answer it as best we can before one goes spouting off. This thread is loaded with examples of unexamined assumptions. Many of them by well intended folk but if you stuck a fork in them, as you were busy doing, they'd be cooked. I'm certainly open to challenging too, but I know I can defend my POV without looking foolish or getting bent out of shape doing so; I've spent a lot of time thinking through my thoughts.

In any event, you will have hopefully noticed I have said little about teachers that could be directly construed as disparaging of their efforts. So, why not do away with this monstrous institutional system and set free families, neighborhoods, communities, and teachers in an unfettered free-market of locally controlled educational choices to do what ever they want or think is necessary? Just as there are an incredible diversity of minds awaiting intimate (i.e., loving) instruction in order to thrive, why not allow for a cornucopia of locally controlled and inspired educational experiences? Is this such a bad idea? If so why?

Admittedly, this is a radical suggestion, but to not even dare consider it consigns us to dealing with the beast as is; which in my mind is not much of a choice at all no matter how involved as a parent one is; everyone involved still gets hung out to dry. Of course there are other options which the american public seems willing to try -- among them are alternative schools (e.g., Montessori & Waldorf), charter schools, conventional private schools, parochial schools, and the fast growing Home Schooling movement. But most all of these depend on location and money; only homeschooling can be had by anyone so inclined. And if "vouchers" gain a foot hold along the line, more folks with school options in their vicinity but no financial means at present will likely vote with their kids changing schools; what have they got to lose if it means a *better* educational experience?

As it stands, IIRC, the average $1 spent on institutional schooling amounts to @25� actually spent on teaching. The rest gets eaten up in the bureaucracy. (I am looking for a substantive link to back up this claim, but you'll understand if it is not one that is readily flaunted.) Ergo, more money thrown at this institutional beast is NOT the only ANSWER to solving our variously perceived educational shortcomings.

Isn't this America after all, the land of the free where I can choose to experience practically anything? Or do such matters of choice when it applies to educational ideas infringe upon some rather quaint but well established *faith based* notions we'd better not tamper with? If so, what does this say about us? A lot? but perhaps not much which is truly well thought through.

And so it goes, round and round with everyone involved fed up and disgusted. And, oh yes, please, let's not forget the children involved in this merry-go-round charade of pass the blame.

I think if you want to see and experience direct responsibility give people a lot more freedom of choice than is available now. Do away with monopolized schooling and all its inherent bureaucracy, standardization, and waste. Let every family choose how and where they spend their money to give their kids an education. Sure this is risky, but no more so then the educational failures (carried over into societal and cultural failures) we live with now. At least then blame will be a lot more easy to place, if that is all one wants to do. I tend to think that a lot of public elementary schools would probably survive somewhat intact, although experimentation, some good and some not so good, would likely result. Parental involvement for better (and on occasion worse) would likely increase; but isn't this what some of you say is missing today? So how could it be all bad?

The conglomerate middle and high schools that are so prevalent would likely wither away as more suitable local and smaller scale schools opened up to serve the restless educational inclinations of these particular aged individuals. Much of what would happen educationally with this age group would be haphazard to be sure, but it would be largely self-motivated learning and potentially a very creative and inspiring time for them. Success and failure would be their own responsibility and no longer someone else's. Apprenticeships of all sorts would likely flourish and hands on real-lifework experiences gained. Compared to the majority of sultry teens who wander among us like lost souls today we might see an improvement in their sense of themselves and their own unrealized talents and abilities.

What I would hope for and expect from such an experiment is a lot more independently minded and critically capable folk, able to fend for themselves more honorably and virtuously in well established local communities and economies than we seem able or inclined to do nowadaze. It wouldn't be perfect, but I expect it would slowly become a better place for more of us than the Disneyfied land of extravagance and vices we now shallowly experience as meaningful.

In my book, quality education lends meaning to our lives, not facts and figures "about all that is." And such meaning as I experience it can only come from knowing myself not in the abstractions of an institutional school, or even a "job," setting, but one of family, friends, neighbors and well settled local communities sharing the tasks of a life long education. After all, real education does not stop and start with school. It goes on and on...

[memento]

This is quite the excellent thread - good reading. A few points here directed at maxelson

1. You ask "Are you a teacher? Ever been one? Know one WELL?" with a tone implying that I don't. You don't know me, what I do, or who I know. I HAVE insight into the schools here and I know teachers VERY WELL.

2. You "DEFINITELY say that the unions are NOT the problem". I have REAL evidence to the contrary. It may just be localized to my vicinity, but I think it's more general. When people are given raises that are not based on performance and when those same people cannot be fired for incompetance, there is no incentive to work harder or better. I agree that protection for teachers is needed, but the current union system is not working. How do YOU propose that teachers be evaluated?

3. You say "There are as many lousy teachers out there as there are folks who are substandard in any job". But the difference is that in the company I work for, these people get FIRED and we hire BETTER people. That doesn't happen with tenured teachers. They continue in their job AND continue getting raises that are just as high as an A+ teacher. Not fair. period.

4. I think my point was misconstrued. I DON'T think that teachers are the whole problem. I think an even bigger problem is the parents. I didn't address that because I didn't have the time to write about it. I think that, even with a poor teacher, a student that is taught the value of education by their parent can still excel. The parents are the root. THEY instill values in their children. I totally agree that parents share a part of the blame.

5. What did I say about private school? "I am going to seriously evaluate private school." So back off. I'm being open minded and looking at all possibilities to give my kids the best education I can. If private school is as bad as you say, I won't use them. But I will look at them objectively and make that determination MYSELF. I will also objectively look at homeschooling.

6. I agree that gov funding is not properly focused, but you said "This is an education thread. F*ck Politics." so I did not even mention it.

I admire your passion here, but if you act like this in real life, you will turn off more people than you want in your quest. You developed an argument against me based on wrong assumptions about me, misconstrued my post, and contradicted your own initial post (point 6 above).