# How are our students faring?



## Everness

This question appeared on the 10th-grade MCAS (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System). By the way, you can't graduate from high school if you don't pass this test. More information here  

Here's the question: 

''Of the people in attendance at a recent baseball game, one-third had grandstand tickets, one-fourth had bleacher tickets, and the remaining 11,250 people in attendance had other tickets. What was the total number of people in attendance at the game?"

The four choices: A) 27,000, B) 20,000, C) 16,000, or D) 18,000.

Which is the correct answer and how long did it take you to find it? (I'll post the answer later on.)

While you try to figure this out, let me tell you that there are serious concerns in the US about elementary, middle-school and high-school students underperforming academically. For instance, Bush launched his initiative No Child Left Behind. More information 

This is my question. Is testing the solution? How "tough" are these tests? How reliable and fair are they? Do they take into account diversity (different learning styles, different socio-economic backgrounds, etc.) or are they "one-size-fits-all." What is your country, state, province or city doing to improve the academic performance of its student population?


----------



## pajarita

I arrived at A) 27,000.  Took me minute or two.
The questions you pose reflect the concerns of many, many critics of education in the US.  I find standardized testing to be a biased, ill-suited attempt at gauging the nation's students and I believe that they encourage compliance and promote mediocrity.  I am very new to the state that I currently live in, but I can tell you that the only thing that the states in which I have lived for a significant amount of time have done to improve performance is to implement more standardized testing.  By and large, the state of our education system is abysmal--there is no incentive for teachers.  The pay is terrible; teachers are faced with apathy, disrespect and in some cases violence.  Who but the most devoted would choose to subject themselves to such punishment?


----------



## Everness

Congrats Pajarita! The correct answer is A) 27,000 and it only took her a couple of minutes to reach the right answer. Half of the roughly 72,000 test-takers got that question wrong, making it the toughest on the exam. 

Pajarita let me inform you that you did better than Charles Steinberg, the executive vice president of public affairs for the Red Sox. He took seven minutes to solve the problem! (Well, he's a guy, what can you expect!)

Here's the complete article. 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/08/25/familiarity_may_not_breed_mcas_success/

By the way, thank you for your thoughts. I agree with you 100%.


----------



## pajarita

Interesting (and disturbing!) article, Everness. What is the point of making such tests requisite for a degree if the requirements to PASS them are so low (only 54% to pass the English portion and a stunning 33% to pass the math portion!!!!)?! And to state that "no question on the 2005 math test stumped a large number of students" is not to applaud the students on their aptitude--the questions were made EASIER (or "less obscure" as the article puts it). Yikes! We may "leave no child behind," but it seems that we're not doing them any favors in advancing them, either.


----------



## VenusEnvy

I wish I were at my apartment right now. I have loads of interesting articles about this *&%#* Act and how US students are faring academically compared to the rest of the developed world. On the whole, US students aren't doing too well. 

I'm not a fan of standardized tests. They ignore diversity and (in my opinion as well) promote conformity and mediocrity. 

In one article I have on how Texas has adopted these standardized tests, it mentions how the format of the tests has had an effect on students. Because the tests focus on reading excerpts, and answering several question on that excerpt, the students are "drilled" on how to perform well on these tasks. This, obviously, leaves little time for creative reflection, or the reading of longer novels. 

Teachers are also under the thumb of these tests. Their students are expected to perform. And, their underperformance is a reflection of their ability to teach. In fact, according to this NCLB Act, schools who don't improve performance in a two year span are cut (federal $$$, that is)! 


Ahhh, it's better I stop now before I begin to see red.


----------



## Edher

Saludos,

       The answer is "A" and if you were to ask me how I'd got that answer; a little bird told me. 

      I guess I'm a little rusty in arithmetic. It took me over all like 5-7 mins. I was too busy trying to apply geometry and calculus to simple algebra problem. Either that, or it's simply because I'm a guy. 

      I like this type of problems. You should post them more often. 

I'm not really depending on the public school system to instill good knowledge in my nephews' minds, therefore I'm taking the initiative to teach them on the side. Such is the case with my oldest nephew, he just started elementary school, all they have taught him by now is his name. I'm glad that I already showed him how to add and subtract, so now he's ahead of his class. And what's even better, he takes addition and subtraction as a game. He says 

"can we play that addition and subtraction game?"

Truly makes me proud whenever I hear that (tear, tear)

I believe that anyone can learn virtually anything at any age. It is simply a matter of explaining things as simple as possible and of course, it wouldn't hurt to make it fun. Parents and relatives are the ones that know the child more than anyone, so they know the child's individual interests and how they take in information. Thus, they have an advantage on how to educate their children. In other words, parents should not only depend on the teachers, they should get more involved and team up with the teachers.

I hope my nephews are the ones that are always ahead, and the annoying brats that say

"Are you sure that's the best way to explain it teacher? My uncle told me...."

hehehe

Edher


----------



## cuchuflete

It took about a half minute to add 33 +25, determine that ~11,000 was about 40% of the total, and then look at the choices to see which was between 25,000 and 30,000.

I learned arithmetic with a stubby red pencil, so this is really not too threatening.

As to how our students are faring....most teachers are expected to do tons of bureaucratic nonsense, which leaves little time for teaching.  Parents expect schools to do the parenting, and the socially trendy demand that diversity be inculcated, to the detriment of basic reading and writing and math.  So naturally most teachers are depressed and exhausted, and students are faring poorly.   

My father graduated from a public high school many decades ago, with an education the equivalent of today's college programs.  Why?  The teachers focused on teaching, the parents expected their kids to work at school, and the students knew what was expected.  The heavy hand of government was not present, either ideologically or financially.


----------



## meili

I came up with A. 27, 000 and it took me a minute or less.  (Perhaps because I'm a girl  ).

The system of 'sizing-up' the students to fit them to a higher level of education, or even for landing people positions on jobs, questions as such are included (especially for office and/or Engineering positions).  Based on the different examinations that I took, from NSAT (National Secondary Achievement Test) - exam to determine if you qualify for College - to CET (College Entrance Examinations) to Aptitude Exams - they all contain volumnimous (is there a word?) amount of English Vocabulary/Comprehension, Philippine Constitution and Math Problems (Algebra, Trigonometry, and the like).  Of course, there would also be other problems/categories depending on the position you are applying.

The truth is, once I am already inside the job or the position I applied for, I can't help asking what were the significance of mind-torturing entrance examinations.  I am almost always asking - is this the only way for them to initially measure a child's or a person's ability?  By measuring his or her IQ through these exams?  

Perhaps in some ways - yes, as I think that people who are able to answer these questions are more versatile (?) and flexible (?).  But still, before, I have an office mate - we were hired together, and his IQ is higher that mine as a matter of fact, but he lacks people relations.  He did not mingle with our other co-staffers, he even told me once that we (two of us) do not need them for we can dive our way through the arena (of work) on our own.  Of course he is true, as I can work independently - but we are working as Human Resources Personnel  and we always must be with people.  

After one month - he was gone, and I was retained.


----------



## blue

It took me about a minute as well... one third + one quarter = seven twelfths, so the remaining five twelfths must come to 11,250... then just a bit of arithmetic from there.

I don't know much about the education system in the US, but when I've chatted online with Americans who have graduated in Spanish or other language subjects (and supposedly been studying them since high school) I've been pretty surprised about the (low) level of their knowledge.

The thing about exams being continuously watered down is also a big issue in the UK. They've just given out the exam results for secondary school students, with an increase in grades for the nth year running, although no-one really thinks that it's because the students are getting cleverer...


----------



## BasedowLives

i think it depends on what you're interested in and where you want to go in life.

i gave up after 4 seconds of looking at it.  i am a sophmore at a university but i don't see that it makes me any dumber.  I stopped with math as soon as i could because it was consuming too much time that i could be dedicating to what i'm interested in which is international affairs. 

while the aformentioned math problem may seem like basic knowledge to some of you, we spend little if any effort educating generations about what's going on in the world and the effects on the world of how we live.  like the economic system that we fight so hard to instill in other countries has 250,000 children dying a week around the world because necesities like food have been turned into a comoditee rather than a right even though there's enough food in the world to feed 120% the worlds population  (i just got done with anthro homework)....

high school history doesn't do much because it's not engaging, it's memorizing dates that probably seem like arbitrary 4 digit numbers to a 10th grader.


----------



## jacinta

Edher said:
			
		

> Saludos,
> 
> The answer is "A" and if you were to ask me how I'd got that answer; a little bird told me.
> 
> I guess I'm a little rusty in arithmetic. It took me over all like 5-7 mins. I was too busy trying to apply geometry and calculus to simple algebra problem. Either that, or it's simply because I'm a guy.
> 
> I like this type of problems. You should post them more often.
> 
> I'm not really depending on the public school system to instill good knowledge in my nephews' minds, therefore I'm taking the initiative to teach them on the side. Such is the case with my oldest nephew, he just started elementary school, all they have taught him by now is his name. I'm glad that I already showed him how to add and subtract, so now he's ahead of his class. And what's even better, he takes addition and subtraction as a game. He says
> 
> "can we play that addition and subtraction game?"
> 
> Truly makes me proud whenever I hear that (tear, tear)
> 
> I believe that anyone can learn virtually anything at any age. It is simply a matter of explaining things as simple as possible and of course, it wouldn't hurt to make it fun. Parents and relatives are the ones that know the child more than anyone, so they know the child's individual interests and how they take in information. Thus, they have an advantage on how to educate their children. In other words, parents should not only depend on the teachers, they should get more involved and team up with the teachers.
> 
> I hope my nephews are the ones that are always ahead, and the annoying brats that say
> 
> "Are you sure that's the best way to explain it teacher? My uncle told me...."
> 
> hehehe
> 
> Edher



Sorry, I didn't bother with the math.  I'm too old to do something I don't like.  But I love your post, Edher.  I couldn't agree more with you.  I'm afraid that most parents now hold the school systems accountable for their children's education.  They really don't get involved enough.  Teachers can only do so much.  Bravo to you for helping your nephews be successful!


----------



## modgirl

Perhaps this is a reason many do not depend on the schools to teach their children and instead, the children are educated at home.  I know many families who have chosen to do this, and their children have fared extremely well.  My guess is that we'll see more children home-educated in the future (at least in the United States).


----------



## GenJen54

Admittedly, my math skills continue to be sub-par. After the required Algebra and Geometry, which I had in eighth and ninth grades, respectively, I have had a total of three math classes since. One of those classes was college accounting, so I don't know if that really qualifies as true mathematics. I did deduce the correct answer, albeit only after several minutes of head-scratching and playing around with fractions! 

I agree with what many posters say regarding the state of education in the United States. It is paltry and lacking, but not because of our teachers. I don't think our education adminitrators (aka "the government") really know what is the best model for teaching our students. They don't listen to what the teachers are telling them, and instead believe the institutionalized testing (aka sham) is the only way to measure a student's true worth - and/or future rate of success. What frustrates me most about the institutionalized testing is that they do not measure a student's knowledge or his/her education. Instead, they measure the student's ability to _take standardized tests_. 

I futher believe parents are partially to blame, yet many of them do not want to deal with or get involved in their children's education. I'm not trying to make a blanket statement, because there are many parents that do want to get involved, but over the past three decades, there seems to have been a paradigm shift in where the assumed resposibility of the _full and proper_ education of a child now rests squarely with the teacher, instead of at home.  

Parents seem so pre-occupied with their children's success on the baseball field or soccer field, or in any other "outside" activity that education, and the support thereof, takes a backseat. 



> Originally posted by *modgirl*Perhaps this is a reason many do not depend on the schools to teach their children and instead, the children are educated at home. I know many families who have chosen to do this, and their children have fared extremely well. My guess is that we'll see more children home-educated in the future (at least in the United States).



This is a growing trend in my state, as well. I have met several home-schooled students who seem to have an extraordinary knowledge of things that go beyond the basic HS education. They seem to be better prepared for the academic challenges of college, as well. 

In my state, however, the majority of parents who choose to home-school their children do so because of their relgious beliefs. (Ah, neo-conservatism, you've got to love it.) They do not want their children exposed to the "societal evils" that allegedly pervade the public schools, and thus choose to home-school them to "save" them from the "sins of the world!" * 

I've personally thought about home-schooling any as-yet unconceived children I plan to have, but my intentions would be to ensure they have an education that is well-rounded and grounded in culture, sociology and history, in addition to the "three R's." Sadly, I doubt it will happen. 

* This is a direct-quote from a home-schooling parent I have had multiple conversations with.


----------



## VenusEnvy

I'm confused by this issue of home-schooling. In many households, both parents have to work. How is home-schooling possible for so many people? 

Do most parents do the teaching, or do they bring in teachers from the outside? This would seem awfully expensive, no?


----------



## GenJen54

In most, if not all of the cases that I am aware of, it is the parents (usually) mother who does the home-schooling. Again, in my state, the belief (often religious) is that the father's traditional role in the family should be to take care of all material needs, while the mother should stay home and raise/educate the children.  

Home-schooling parents also form their own coalitions so they can share curriculum ideas, teaching activities, as well as plan field trips and social events to provide their children with the "soceity" they lack by being home-schooled.

_Edit:_  I want to emphasize the idea that I am only referring to home-schooling in the state where I live, which is very (*coughs*) conservative.  Home-schooling as part of a religious education is certainly not the only reason parents choose to home-school.


----------



## fenixpollo

meili said:
			
		

> By measuring his or her IQ through these exams?


 Meili, these exams do NOT measure IQ. The IQ test is _supposed_ to measure your ability think abstractly (let's save _that_ debate for another thread). Standardized tests measure is your ability to *memorize* -- dates, grammar rules, mathematical formulas, etc. 

The thing that irritates me most is that, before the whole "Now Chilluns Lern Beter" (NCLB) debacle, the trend in the U.S. was to get _away _from standardized tests! Teachers and teacher colleges were beginning to use alternative methods of assessment, like portfolios and other tools that tested children not on what they know, but on *what they can do* with what they know. 

So now, we can all calculate how many people are at a baseball game.... So what? Does this help us make change at our low-paying service-industry job, or to calculate our gasoline consumption at three dollars a gallon, or help us plan and budget our expenses once our credit cards are maxed out? 





			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> My guess is that we'll see more children home-educated in the future (at least in the United States).


 But it doesn't matter, because the people who actually care about education, like modgirl, GenJen and Edher, will abandon the public schools. If you thought that the Bushies were worried about "standards" _before_ NCLB, just imagine their worry as larger and larger numbers of students leave the classrooms -- supervised by overworked, underpaid, yet professionally-trained career educators -- and enter home schools that are supervised by parents with various (and unknown and unregulated) levels of education, experience and ability as teachers. Meanwhile, the public schools will become factories of useless wrote learning. That's the legacy of NCLB.

I have a solution, by the way, but that's a different rant altogether...


----------



## meili

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Meili, these exams do NOT measure IQ. The IQ test is _supposed_ to measure your ability think abstractly (let's save _that_ debate for another thread). Standardized tests measure is your ability to *memorize* -- dates, grammar rules, mathematical formulas, etc.


Oh, I am sorry, Pollo.  I know that these _particular _exam that is talked about here is not the one to measure IQ.  It's just that when I was answering this thread I was also thinking about that school where students are not allowed to enter high school when their IQ is below 100!  And to think that 90 is still average.  (That same school also will only hire employees with average and above average IQ - and they would let you pay for the exam!!).


----------



## modgirl

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> I'm confused by this issue of home-schooling. In many households, both parents have to work. How is home-schooling possible for so many people?


 
It's been my experience that people live as simply as possible. One redefines what true necessities are. I've heard people argue that two incomes are necessary at the same time that the family lives in a large house with two new vehicles. It all boils down to priorities. Brand-new clothes, salon hair services, brand-new vehicles, and many other items really are "nice-to-haves" and not necessities. One parent at home means one less professional wardrobe to buy, less transportation costs, and all of that.  The book market is flooded with ways to make the most of one's money.

I've also known families where two parents do work outside the home and each works different hours so that money doesn't go to babysitters.

We really have a lot of options at our disposal. How creative and resourceful we are is up to us.



> Do most parents do the teaching, or do they bring in teachers from the outside?


 
I don't know officially, but a good guess is that full-time tutors are not hired. And then, each state has different regulations. And there are many philosophies of home education, as well. Some follow strict curriculums, some have their children attend some classes, some believe in child-led learning and so forth.


----------



## Swettenham

As regards NCLB and similar measures, I think it was Newsweek's Anna Quindlen who said (I am paraphrasing) that the repeated use of standardized tests will improve our education system as much as repeatedly standing on a scale will help you with your weight problem.

As regards my experience with education, I am enormously devoted to education, but my needs were never met in public school.  It seemed like most of what I was learning was how to sit quietly and wait patiently for a bell to announce that I was free again.  I think of high school as the place where I had to ask to use the restroom.  I remember it as the place where my peers were clearly divided into distinct cliques, and everyone knew who was better than everyone else.  I think of high school as everything but education— an oppressive experience, as opposed to the freedom of learning.  So I guess I agree that we can save our children's souls by keeping them out of high school— though for my own reasons. 

I don't know what to do about it.  I love the idea of homeschooling, but what about people who are working two, three jobs, just to _feed_ their children?  Now they have to worry about Physics and Grammar, too?  I wouldn't like to be part of some elite, and just worry about my own children (assuming that I will even have the means myself).  Of course, wealthy neocons are happy to live that way, saving their children's souls, then sending them to Ivy League schools, leaving people like the impoverished citizens of Washington, DC (not a Republican town) to struggle with schools that are literally falling apart, not to mention failing.  If asbestos and mercury contamination are what they mean by "societal evils," then they are absolutely right.

But what to do?  Is there a particular society/nation/culture whose educational practices/system/philosophy could be upheld as an example?


----------



## Phryne

My two cents:

Some people DO need the double income, mainly in inner cities.

Also, my biggest concern about home-schooling is that schools are not just a place were your kids gets "formally" educated, but it's also an important place for socialization. How are these kids finding friends, learning how to create bonds with their peers or gaining experience on how to deal with the outside world if they are constantly pampered and shielded by their parents?

saludos


----------



## modgirl

Phryne said:
			
		

> Also, my biggest concern about home-schooling is that schools are not just a place were your kids gets "formally" educated, but it's also an important place for socialization.


 
All home-educated children are thrown into closets with only bread and water.  They are never allowed to play with other children at any time of the day.  They are never on any sports teams.  They never attend any social or religious functions with children their own ages.

On the other hand, children in school are allowed to freely socialize with each other in class, speaking whenever they wish, especially during their leisurely lunch hours.



Sorry, but the socialization issue has been debunked and it's now been found that negative socialization is what often occurs in school.  Case in point:  Columbine.


----------



## VenusEnvy

modgirl said:
			
		

> Sorry, but the socialization issue has been debunked and it's now been found that negative socialization is what often occurs in school.  Case in point:  Columbine.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. Been debunked??? By whom?!

"Bad events" happen in every social institution. It doesn't mean that those instutions have failed. It simply means that we don't live in a perfect world.

Sociologists around the world are having heart attacks!


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *Phyrne*
> Also, my biggest concern about home-schooling is that schools are not just a place were your kids gets "formally" educated, but it's also an important place for socialization. How are these kids finding friends, learning how to create bonds with their peers or gaining experience on how to deal with the outside world if they are constantly pampered and shielded by their parents?



Hi Phyrne, 

I think many home-schooling parents are very aware of the need to "socialize" their children/students, but they want, in many instances to "socialize" them with people who share their beliefs. Home schooling, in fact, is very highly organized.

As I stated in my earlier post:



> Home-schooling parents also form their own coalitions so they can share curriculum ideas, teaching activities, as well as plan field trips and social events to provide their children with the "soceity" they lack by being home-schooled.



You can find examples of these coalitions/associations here, here and here.


----------



## modgirl

Swettenham said:
			
		

> As regards my experience with education, I am enormously devoted to education, but my needs were never met in public school. It seemed like most of what I was learning was how to sit quietly and wait patiently for a bell to announce that I was free again. I think of high school as the place where I had to ask to use the restroom. I remember it as the place where my peers were clearly divided into distinct cliques, and everyone knew who was better than everyone else. I think of high school as everything but education— an oppressive experience, as opposed to the freedom of learning.


 
Ah, but you were "socialized," right? 

First, I'm very glad that finally did become educated -- in spite of your, um, "education"! Seriously, that's fantastic.

Second, there's a book which may interest you: *Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling *by John Taylor Gatto. He was a public school teacher for 26 years and won awards for his teaching. And then he quit. He felt that _schooling_ was an entirely different concept than _education_ and he refused to quit harming his charges any longer. What you wrote in the paragraph above that I quoted is exactly how Mr Gatto thinks of _schooling_.  I recently read the book, and it's absolutely fascinating.


----------



## Swettenham

Phryne said:
			
		

> Also, my biggest concern about home-schooling is that schools are not just a place were your kids gets "formally" educated, but it's also an important place for socialization. How are these kids finding friends, learning how to create bonds with their peers or gaining experience on how to deal with the outside world if they are constantly pampered and shielded by their parents?


Phryne, your concern is very rational and worthwhile, but I would answer that the social skills we learn in public school are not entirely healthy.  In my experience, the real world seems to be rather different from what goes on in those halls.  Also, pampering is definitely a problem, but it can happen whether the child goes to public schools or not.  Just a thought


----------



## meili

> Originally Posted by Swettenham
> As regards my experience with education, I am enormously devoted to education, but my needs were never met in public school. It seemed like most of what I was learning was how to sit quietly and wait patiently for a bell to announce that I was free again. I think of high school as the place where I had to ask to use the restroom. I remember it as the place where my peers were clearly divided into distinct cliques, and everyone knew who was better than everyone else. I think of high school as everything but education— an oppressive experience, as opposed to the freedom of learning.


This is at public schools, right?
So children are more free at private schools?  (Then that makes the 'society' more evil?).


----------



## Swettenham

modgirl said:
			
		

> Ah, but you were "socialized," right?


Yes, _oustide_ of high school.  I socialized while skipping classes and getting jobs.  Of course, let's be fair, I did very poorly in high school, so it could be that I refused to learn.  Perhaps I'm a special case.



> Second, there's a book which may interest you: *Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling *by John Taylor Gatto. He was a public school teacher for 26 years and won awards for his teaching. And then he quit. He felt that _schooling_ was an entirely different concept than _education_ and he refused to quit harming his charges any longer. What you wrote in the paragraph above that I quoted is exactly how Mr Gatto thinks of _schooling_.  I recently read the book, and it's absolutely fascinating.


I'm very curious.  Thanks for the note, I'll check it out!  There's another one I knew of called something like *The Teenager's Guide to Self-Liberation* (or something, I'm really not sure) by a Grace Llewellyn or something like that, which was all about homeschooling and how to do it well so that they learn about the real world, socialization and all that, on top of R, Wr & 'R.


----------



## modgirl

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Whoa, whoa, whoa. Been debunked??? By whom?!


 
Take your pick of experts. Do a search on Google with the words "homeschool" and "socialization." Here's one article that tells of a person writing a dissertation on the subject: http://learninfreedom.org/socialization.html 


Really, there are dozens and dozens, if not hundreds and hundreds. To my knowledge, there has never been a study showing that not being in school has hurt children, due to "socialization." In fact, many began with those intentions, just to be surprised at the outcome!



> "Bad events" happen in every social institution. It doesn't mean that those instutions have failed. It simply means that we don't live in a perfect world.


 
Of course, but the negative socialization that originated in the school atmosphere has been linked to the murders. It was the situation of "socialization" that created the atmosphere for the murderers. As someone else mentioned, the world atmosphere of socialization is not at all like the school atmosphere.



> Sociologists around the world are having heart attacks!


 
The sociologists are several of the ones studying home-educated children!


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *Swettenham*
> Phryne, your concern is very rational and worthwhile, but I would answer that the social skills we learn in public school are not entirely healthy.



I agree completely, Swett. I just recently attended my (*ahem*)-ieth high school reunion. And guess what, even though each of us has trodded down our own paths of life for more than a decade, everyone was still the same!!!

Cliques were cliques, nerds were nerds, sports were sports and there was no co-mingling. Mind you, I graduated in a class of only 136 people, but I would have imagined that time would have healed some of those wounds. On the contrary, I found out more from people that I did not know well in high school how badly they had been treated by the "in-crowd," as I had been. If only we had co-miserated back then, high school might have been a more positive experience for me.

Back to phyrne's contention,however, it's important to note that the "school" experience is *not* a positive, social experience for many people.  Because of such, I don't think it always fosters a drive to succeed.  

I think there are other means of providing "society" for children that go beyond school walls. I'll stop here because I don't want to venture too OT.

_*Edit:  Added after reading Phyrne's new post, below. 

*_


> negative experiences in high school can help teenagers learn do better later in life because they learn about problem solving abilities (paraphrased from Stephanie Coontz’s book, “The Way We Really Are”).



I can't speak for the other subjects of Ms. Coontz's data, but my negative experiences in high school only led to feelings of dejection, humiliation and isolation.  I don't know that I learned any "problem-solving" skills from being bullied by a group of approximately eighteen other girls.  If anything, I only learned the only one I can reasonably rely upon in the world is myself.


----------



## Phryne

modgirl said:
			
		

> All home-educated children are thrown into closets with only bread and water. They are never allowed to play with other children at any time of the day. They are never on any sports teams. They never attend any social or religious functions with children their own ages.
> 
> On the other hand, children in school are allowed to freely socialize with each other in class, speaking whenever they wish, especially during their leisurely lunch hours.
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the socialization issue has been debunked and it's now been found that negative socialization is what often occurs in school. Case in point: Columbine.


 I agree with Venus. Debunked by whom???

I never said that home-educated children are locked in closets, or that schools are perfect. Nevertheless, I do feel that the school is the best social institution for kids to socialize. Additionally, according to some social scientists, in fact, negative experiences in high school can help teenagers learn do better later in life because they learn about problem solving abilities (paraphrased from Stephanie Coontz’s book, “The Way We Really Are”).

And Columbine is clearly not an example of negative socialization in school. It’s like asserting that road rage happens because of traffic jam. Those children had worse deep-seated problems unrelated with school. They just exploded there.


----------



## meili

I do not know the US Policy in hiring employees for jobs, but, if children are home-schooled or home-educated, where are they going to get their diplomas and/or certificates of completion?


----------



## Swettenham

Phryne said:
			
		

> And Columbine is clearly not an example of negative socialization in school. It’s like asserting that road rage happens because of traffic jam. Those children had worse deep-seated problems unrelated with school. They just exploded there.


De acuerdo.  People must take responsibility for their actions.


----------



## VenusEnvy

meili said:
			
		

> I do not know the US Policy in hiring employees for jobs, but, if children are home-schooled or home-educated, where are they going to get their diplomas and/or certificates of completion?


What they are taught at home is according to the state's standards. So, it's all the same curriculum, basically.


----------



## Swettenham

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> I can't speak for the other subjects of Ms. Coontz's data, but my negative experiences in high school only led to feelings of dejection, humiliation and isolation.  I don't know that I learned any "problem-solving" skills from being bullied by a group of approximately eighteen other girls.  If anything, I only learned the only one I can reasonably rely upon in the world is myself.


You would have learned that anyway.  Life has a lesson plan.


----------



## Phryne

Swettenham said:
			
		

> Phryne, your concern is very rational and worthwhile, but I would answer that the social skills we learn in public school are not entirely healthy. In my experience, the real world seems to be rather different from what goes on in those halls. Also, pampering is definitely a problem, but it can happen whether the child goes to public schools or not. Just a thought


 I know that. Although not all kids go through that terrible experience in high school, I know many do and I do feel for yours. Nonetheless, do you think that home-education is the solution? Are these parents trained in any way? What makes them any better than formal teachers and their curricula? 

 It’s very interesting to see that in other parts of the world kids don’t have as terrible experiences through high school as they do here in the States. Why is that?



			
				GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Hi Phyrne,
> I think many home-schooling parents are very aware of the need to "socialize" their children/students, but they want, in many instances to "socialize" them with people who share their beliefs.


That’s a little scary to me. 





> Home schooling, in fact, is very highly organized.
> 
> As I stated in my earlier post:
> 
> You can find examples of these coalitions/associations here, here and here.


 I'll check them out. Thanks!


----------



## meili

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> What they are taught at home is according to the state's standards. So, it's all the same curriculum, basically.


And the papers, I mean, the papers that were earned for schooling. The state also provides them then.

This is just all so interesting to me because here in our country, all children are asked _to go to school _to get a diploma so they can have a decent job in the future. I have never yet heard of a home-school where the parents educate their children. Of course, many schools sprang up (talking about business) and I can say that not all of them have the capabilities and abilities to instill proper education, not to mention, etiquettes, to their students.

There are also long-distance education where school works are sent at home - by an educational institution - also those in the internet.

Still, if a child did not pass the entrance examination to Rated A High School, then he will be sent to Rated B, and if he did not pass still - he will be sent to Rated C, and so on and so forth.  Parents still send their children to school despite the not-so-competent education they will get from the Not-Rated A school.


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *Meili*
> I do not know the US Policy in hiring employees for jobs, but, if children are home-schooled or home-educated, where are they going to get their diplomas and/or certificates of completion?



Students who are home schooled and wish to "graduate" from high school level education must take the GED (General Educational Development), or high-school equivalency, exam. 



> Originally posted by *Meili*
> This is at public schools, right?
> So children are more free at private schools? (Then that makes the 'society' more evil?).



I'm not sure I completely understand your meaning here, meili.  

Public (government funded) schools are usually considered more "free" than private (tuition paid by parents) schools.  What I mean by "free" here is that students are given fewer restrictions with regard to dress code, rules, etc.  That is not to say that some public schools do not have strict rules, but it is up to each individual school district within each state to define what those rules are. 

Private schools, both parochial (religious-based) and non-parochial, are usually more restrictive.  For example, I grew up in parochial schools.

In the elementary school, we had to attend a church service once a week, on Fridays.  We also had a fairly strict dress code.  When I changed to another school in fifth grade, I had to attend chapel every morning and wear a uniform.  

When I then went to high school, I had to attend Mass once a week, but no uniforms were required.  We also were not allowed off campus during the school day (for example, during lunch) as students of some public schools are.  The high school I attended now requires students to wear uniforms.

The "sins" I referred to in my earlier post were the social "sins" of alcohol, drugs and sex that are common among today's high school youth.  Private schools are not immune to these.


----------



## meili

> Originally Posted by Swettenham
> As regards my experience with education, I am enormously devoted to education, but my needs were never met in public school. It seemed like most of what I was learning was how to sit quietly and wait patiently for a bell to announce that I was free again. I think of high school as the place where I had to ask to use the restroom. I remember it as the place where my peers were clearly divided into distinct cliques, and everyone knew who was better than everyone else. I think of high school as everything but education— an oppressive experience, as opposed to the freedom of learning.


Hi, Ms. GenJen!

This was where I based my questions:


> This is at public schools, right?
> So children are more free at private schools? (Then that makes the 'society' more evil?).


 
(Sorry for the confusion my questions always make  )


----------



## modgirl

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> What they are taught at home is according to the state's standards. So, it's all the same curriculum, basically.


 
It might appear so, but that isn't the case. Each state has completely different laws on home-education. Texas, for example, simply has a law that says if you want to homeschool, you can. No tests are required, and no reporting to the state.

However, on overall tests, home-educated students are scoring significantly higher.  

For Meili's question -- many home-educated students go on to colleges and universities where they obtain degrees, like anyone else. And, for those who do not, there are GED (high school equivalency tests) to take, if they want some record of "achievement."


----------



## VenusEnvy

modgirl said:
			
		

> It might appear so, but that isn't the case. Each state has completely different laws on home-education.


That's what I said. They are taught according to their state's standards. ??



			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> Texas, for example, simply has a law that says if you want to homeschool, you can. No tests are required, and no reporting to the state.


Isn't Bush from Texas?    



			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> However, on overall tests, home-educated students are scoring significantly higher.


I'd really like to see the study that said this. Do you have a source?
(I'm not trying to sound like a I don't believe you. In fact, it sounds absolutely plausable. I just have a hard time believing such "factual" statements without knowing where they come from.)


----------



## modgirl

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> That's what I said. They are taught according to their state's standards. ??


 
Sorry, you're right. According to several states, there simply are no standards! I personally don't agree with that. 



> I'd really like to see the study that said this. Do you have a source?
> (I'm not trying to sound like a I don't believe you. In fact, it sounds absolutely plausable.)


 
Not long ago, some home-educated child won the national spelling bee, which sparked a debate on the subject. But, there are many news sources on the web with results. I'll look now and post in just a bit.


----------



## VenusEnvy

modgirl said:
			
		

> According to several states, there simply are no standards! I personally don't agree with that.


Well, hell, I agree with you there!



			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> Not long ago, some home-educated child won the national spelling bee, which sparked a debate on the subject. But, there are many news sources on the web with results. I'll look now and post in just a bit.


Some kid won a spelling bee, so
Yes, I'll wait patiently for the sources.


----------



## fenixpollo

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Back to phyrne's contention,however, it's important to note that the "school" experience is *not* a positive, social experience for many people. Because of such, I don't think it always fosters a drive to succeed.
> I'll stop here because I don't want to venture too OT.


I don't think it's off topic at all. It seems that everyone agrees on the original question... standardized tests are bad. Now, it seems that we're discussing the next step -- what do you do about it? If our current school environment is so negative, as Gen and Joe observe, should we follow modgirl's advice and all go to homeschool?

I think the reason we're in this mess to begin with is that parents do not teach their children to value education, to take responsibility for their own work, and to work hard at school. Students don't do well in school as a result, and the schools are trying to take up the slack. NCLB is just a horribly-conceived attempt to compensate for societal disfunction.

Even if you assume that home school is better than public/private school, not every child can be home schooled. The ones who will be home schooled are the ones whose parents can dedicate the resources to do so. The children left in the schools will be the ones whose parents don't have resources, and the ones whose parents don't value education and personal responsibility.

My opinion: the home schooling movement is an example of rats leaving a sinking ship. Why not act like humans, instead of rats, and work together to fix the ship?


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *VenusEnvy*
> I'd really like to see the study that said this. Do you have a source?
> (I'm not trying to sound like a I don't believe you. In fact, it sounds absolutely plausable. I just have a hard time believing such "factual" statements without knowing where they come from.)



Hi VE, 

I had heard that, too, but wanted some evidence to back up the assertion. Since modgirl's not online, here are a few articles I found on the subject. 

This one is from the Home School Legal Defense Association, but the information was provided directly by the The College Board SAT organizer. The stats are from 1999 and 2000, but I believe are a reflection of a growing trend. The link to that article can be found here.

I've read recently where this statistic has remained steady, if not grown, at the least. I don't remember the specific source, however, and could not find anything about it online.

Others more adept at Google searches than am I can/will probably find more recent articles.


----------



## GenJen54

Hi fenix,



> Originally posted by *Fenixpollo*My opinion: the home schooling movement is an example of rats leaving a sinking ship. Why not act like humans, instead of rats, and work together to fix the ship?



There is certainly truth in what you are saying. In the instance of home-schooling, however, the movement was started not because of a lack of "quality" education (another subject), but because of the "type" of education. 

The home school movement began in the 1980s and its early organizers and practitioners were comprised mostly of people who wanted to provide their children with a home- and strictly _faith_-based education, something they found lacking in the public education system.


----------



## Swettenham

Bush's obsession with standardized testing seems to ring rather hollow when we see what we are really concerned about in our children's education.  And it ain't gonna help them with no algebra, niether. 

So, what's the solution?  Which system is the best?


----------



## fenixpollo

GenJen said:
			
		

> There is certainly truth in what you are saying. In the instance of home-schooling, however, the movement was started not because of a lack of "quality" education (another subject), but because of the "type" of education.


 True, but the motivation is actually the same in both cases -- parents' impression that school does not meet their children's needs. The result is also the same -- pull them out of school.


			
				Swettenham said:
			
		

> Of course, it is only natural for kids to tease each other — kids will tease each other— always have.


Really? Is teasing a sociological phenomenon that has been around since before formal, public education? Is it something that children have always done? Likewise, is cliquing behavior something that adolescents have always done?

I don't have any research to cite, but I sense that the answer to both questions is *no*.





> So, what's the solution? Which system is the best?


 My point, and I think our Phryne's, too, is that the solution is to change the school system. No matter how hostile; no matter how little we think it represents our beliefs; no matter how inefficient we think it has become, we need to fix what's wrong with it, not abandon it.


----------



## modgirl

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Some kid won a spelling bee, so
> Yes, I'll wait patiently for the sources.


 
I'll bet that kid could beat the pants off of nearly anyone here! I certainly wouldn't want to compete against him.


This site has dozens of references and may be easiest to view: http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp


Again, a Google search will yield many studies. I have yet to read one that showed that home-educated students fared worse. Perhaps one exists, but I've never seen it.

Edit:  I hadn't read Gen's reply when I wrote this; I gave the very same link that she did!  Well, it's a good start.


----------



## Mariaguadalupe

Hello everybody,
Just wanted to share a thought or two here. I may come through just a little on the dark side.  

I don't think this problem is restricted to the United States, I believe it's a global problem.  
I taught ESL in grades 7, 8 and 9 for more than 10 years and I saw how each generation changed; how everything affected (i.e., movies, TV shows, lyrics, etc) them and caused them to change their attitudes.  I suddenly had a bunch of Bart Simpsons, prince of Belaire, rappers, etc, inside our classroon.  AND STUDENTS THOUGHT IT WAS OK TO ACT THAT WAY.  I enjoy those shows, but when you have 13 students acting that way....you simply cannot teach anything. Our students demanded their rights be respected and granted to them.  But, their rights were never taken from them!  Not here in Mexico nor in the States!  But then again, they were not respecting the right to receive an education for the other students.  Yet, teachers and parents, are unable to admonish the students because their first response is, "you're infringing my rights!  I'll report you to the police!"  The result is that students are not being taught, academically nor socially.  Let alone, how to live in society.  They are being let run wild.  We have lost our values, respect of others, is the first to have gone.
Are our students doing better now?  One change I have seen is that parents want their children to take perfect homework to school, thus they sit down and do their children's homework.  But, isn't the intention of doing homework a way for the teacher to see what the student understood and what she/he needs to go back and teach again?  This practice has led for many children to be "categorized" in the overachievers when in reality they CAN'T DO A SINGLE THING BY THEMSELVES.  

But I think, I'll stop here before I go any further.

best regards,


----------



## modgirl

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> My opinion: the home schooling movement is an example of rats leaving a sinking ship. Why not act like humans, instead of rats, and work together to fix the ship?


 
Your ignorant statement shows how little you know about the subject. Do you really think that each and every family has the exact reason for home-educating their children?

Many people live in areas where the schools are excellent, and the families have chosen to home-eduate their children. It's wrong to lump all homeschooling families into the very same category, although it's a convenient, lazy way to criticize.


----------



## VenusEnvy

This (The Home School Legal Defense Association) is a popular source; it was cited also by Gen. Thanks, nonetheless.


----------



## modgirl

Swettenham said:
			
		

> So, what's the solution? Which system is the best?


 
I think that there is no *one* system that works best for everyone.  And the best for one individual may be different for another.  Some people fare well in school.  Others do better at home.


----------



## VenusEnvy

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> My opinion: the home schooling movement is an example of rats leaving a sinking ship. Why not act like humans, instead of rats, and work together to fix the ship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> modgirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorant statement shows how little you know about the subject. Do you really think that each and every family has the exact reason for home-educating their children? Did he say that? His statement doesn't say that every family has the same reason. In fact, fenix doesn't even give a reason. He simply says that those who chose home schooling are abandoning the public schools.
> 
> Many people live in areas where the schools are excellent, and the families have chosen to home-eduate their children. It's wrong to lump all homeschooling families into the very same category, although it's a convenient, lazy way to criticize.
Click to expand...


I still don't understand what makes you think that he/I/we are lumping everyone into the same category. Which category are we lumping them into? The catagory of "those schooled at home"?  . . .


----------



## modgirl

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Which category are we lumping them into? The catagory of "those schooled at home"? . . .


 
No, the reason for homeschooling. In the example I gave, it doesn't matter how fantastic the school system may be, some families still choose to homeschool. So, how are these families "rats" leaving a sinking ship? They were never on the ship in the first place! The entire business of "schooling" is the objection of many, so their decisions are not based on how good the schools are.

My impression is that felix somehow feels threatened by people who choose not to send their children to school and that he was trying to take a half-hearted jab at them. I could be wrong, but using the words he did conveyed that feeling to me.

To clarify my own position, I do not think of all schools as evil institutions at all! There are some absolutely wonderful teachers and school systems and many children receive very sound educations. On the other hand, not all schools, unfortunately, are like that. Home education is certainly a good option for many families, but it is by no means always "better" than traditional schools.


----------



## pajarita

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> My point, and I think our Phryne's, too, is that the solution is to change the school system. No matter how hostile; no matter how little we think it represents our beliefs; no matter how inefficient we think it has become, we need to fix what's wrong with it, not abandon it.


 

I agree, but this brings us back to a comment that I made in #2: "there is no incentive for people to become teachers. The pay is terrible and teachers are faced with apathy, disrespect and in some cases violence. Who but the most devoted would choose to subject themselves to such punishment?"  

I see the problem as being twofold: curricula and classroom conduct are being mandated from on high, and teachers' wages are despicably low.  Sadly, money talks and fewer and fewer qualified people are becoming teachers because there is neither financial nor social incentive to do so.  This is certainly not to say that there are no good teachers.  Quite to the contrary, there are many.  But some of them will burn out, they all will eventually retire and who will be there to replace them?


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *Mariaguadalupe*
> Yet, teachers and parents, are unable to admonish the students because their first response is, "you're infringing my rights! I'll report you to the police!" The result is that students are not being taught, academically nor socially.



You have brought up another very valid point, Maria.  I cannot speak from personal experience, but I understand from friends in the teaching profession that classroom discipline is becoming increasingly difficult.  Students have been given, through their parents and administrators, more rights than the actual teachers have.  Teachers no longer have the power to be disciplinarians in their classrooms.  This has been stripped from them by the parents who resent teachers or other people "parenting" their children.  Administrators are too chicken to stand up to the parents, so the children get their way. 

When my mom taught school (in the 1970s), teachers "ruled" over the classrooms.  I'm not saying that disciplinary problems were non-existent, just that teachers had options available to them.  "Students rights" had not yet become a political battle cry, and parents respected the fact that teachers had a right to teach children how to behave. 

It's part of a greater societal problem where children are not taught basic social skills, one of which includes respect for elders and teachers.  Parents, when given reports about children's behavior in the classroom, are too quick to jump to the defense of their child, as opposed to agreeing with the teacher and trying to help forward the child's education through proper social decorum.


----------



## VenusEnvy

pajarita said:
			
		

> But some of them will burn out, they all will eventually retire and who will be there to replace them?


Apparently, parents manned with state-approved curricula.    







  Sorry, trying to make light of another heavy debate....


----------



## Swettenham

I love this conversation.  Let's take it deeper.  

How are children taught, and how do they behave, in a tribal setting?

What can we learn from "nature?"


----------



## fenixpollo

modgirl said:
			
		

> Do you really think that each and every family has the exact reason for home-educating their children?


No, and you'll see that in my previous post, I acknowledged that. 





> It's wrong to lump all homeschooling families into the very same category, although it's a convenient, lazy way to criticize.


 I was only lumping them together in the category "families who choose not to send their children to school." Sorry if that seems unfair to you. Homeschool families' motivations are not the issue, anyway. Whatever their motivation, the end result is that the families who seem to value education most are disassociating themselves from our educational system. Rather than investing their energies in improving the system, they are removing themselves from it. I don't think that's very productive for society.

I believe that our society needs a system of educating its members with a set of skills that will help them contribute to society. If we can do this through home schooling, by all means, let's do it! I am more than happy to say "modgirl, you are right that homeschoolers have better academic acheivement than public school kids." Home school is definitely the best method for some children, because I agree with you that no one solution will fit every child. However, I don't think that we can educate the majority of society's members effectively by home schooling them.

My point is that our system of schools is necessary and right. It isn't working, so let's work together and try to fix it. I'm not trying to demean home school families, and I'm sorry that you were so offended by my comments that you felt that you had to insult me.


----------



## meili

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Apparently, parents manned with state-approved curricula.
> 
> Sorry, trying to make light of another heavy debate....


Jaja!!  Right you are, Nic!

I still have not seen anything of the similar out here, at least, if ever there is, then _parents manned with government-spproved curricula can replace retired teachers._

Several of my friends are now teachers - some are teaching high school, some college.  And students from private schools are the ones who are _really _practicing their _rights _since, as transparent, they are paying high tution fees and naturally are paying the teachers.  My bestfriend is a teacher, however, she did not allow students to 'boo' her away.  I think that if a teacher really knows her rights and her commands as _the teacher_, then students will follow him or her, not necessarilly because they are frightened, but because of respect, and good manners (because of good education).

But as Pollo and MJ are saying, I don't think schools should be completely closed.


----------



## modgirl

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Rather than investing their energies in improving the system, they are removing themselves from it. I don't think that's very productive for society.


 
Actually, some probably do.  But, how are they "removing" themselves from the system if they had no intentions in joining it in the first place?

People who do not have children or people whose children are grown and out of school are in the same position. They don't have children in the school system, either.

Shouldn't everyone work for a productive society? Perhaps we all don't have the exact same idea on what constitutes the best way. Most of us give both time and money to various charities. However, we have the freedom of choice to pick those societies and political/religious/social entities that we wish.

I don't think homeschoolers are any more obligated than anyone else to improve the school systems.


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *fenixpollo*My point is that our system of schools is necessary and right. It isn't working, so let's work together and try to fix it.



Agreed.  So, what is the solution? 

The government and states don't seem to want to listen to parents, teachers or people who are "in the trenches" with our students on a daily basis.

People have been relying upon our public school systems for decades.  For multiple reasons, it continues to be in decline, because our government (states) cannot aptly decide what is best for our children, nor provide teachers with the necessary tools to get the job done. 

The result?  Private schools are educating those who can afford it.  Some parents are opting to remove their children entirely to school them at home, and charter schools, where parents have more input, are popping up in increasing numbers across the country. 

Despite all of this, the government (states) continues to do little to bring our school systems back to where they once were.  They say they keep spending more, but where does it all go?  To the administrators and bureaucrats, certainly not teachers and students.


----------



## fenixpollo

> People who do not have children or people whose children are grown and out of school are in the same position. They don't have children in the school system, either.


 Yes, there is a difference between those who _can't_ send their kids to school and those who _don't_.





			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> But, how are they "removing" themselves from the system if they had no intentions in joining it in the first place?


 Because the expectation is that children will attend school. The Constitution of the U.S. includes the expectation that local governments will establish and fund schools. Our society has grown to expect that its members will be given a set of basic skills by the schools. Entire universities and government departments exist solely to staff and administer the schools. 

I guess it comes down to whether you think that a system of schools is the best way to impart skills to people. If you think that _any_ means of education is valid, then I suppose you see schools as just one of many equal options. 

If, on the other hand, you think that society as a whole has a *duty* to give an equal and equitable education to all of its members, regardless of who they are, then you might see the government-run school system as *the best way* to educate the majority, and you might want to support it, whether you have school-age children or not. 

I am one of the latter people, and I do not believe that society has the ability to _choose_ to support schools or not -- it's something we *must* do, if we want to keep our society together.


----------



## cuchuflete

So much has been said about home schooling that I hesitate, just briefly, before adding my two cents.

Truth in labeling compliance statement:  I went to superb public schools, got a fine education both there *and *from my parents' conversations and from reading and discussing what I had read with my parents. I then attended a private college, which provided further fine education. Expectations in all of these environments were high...that included the expectation that I would work hard. 

One of my sons went to public schools, learned and worked enough to get by, then went to a tiny private school for the last two years of high school. There he was motivated by great teachers and acquired a love of learning and a self-imposed work ethic. One of his teachers told me that he taught at that school for about half the pay he might receive in a public school, but that he wouldn't trade. Why? Because he was allowed to just teach. In the public schools more than half his time would be required for administrative crap like NCLB.

Now...to my very small addition. As a parent, my first obligation is to the education of my kids. Fixing (!) the public schools is a very worthy objective, but first I want my kids to get a decent education, which is not defined by standardized tests of memorization ability. 

Therefore, I am an ardent proponent of the right of parents to send their kids to public schools, to homeschool them, or to send them to private schools. Nothing earthshaking in this, except that it puts me squarely in the gunsights of the oh-so-very-politickly kerrect teachers' unions. 


As someone said earlier, that's a subject for another rant.   

Public schools may be as good as the ones I attended, or they may be awful. In the latter case, I think a parent has the right to a voucher to send their kids to a private school, or use the funds to help with homeschooling expenses. Am I a rat or a good parent? If the ship has already sunk under the weight of government interference with educators, and the bilge pumps are manned by the NEA and other teachers' (_sic_) unions that demand tenure for both great teachers and illiterate ones pumping water into the ship, I'm a clever rat to choose to go elsewhere. 

A degree in pedagogy does not make a good teacher. Intelligence, dedication, an open mind, and very hard work do a lot more. One of the best teachers I ever learned from had an Ed.D (Ph.D in education). He told me he thought most of what he learned in earning his doctorate was garbage, trendy theories, and fluff. 

One of my best college professors had neither an advanced degree nor any training in pedagogy. In fact, it's worth noting that the large majority of college professors with doctorates in their respective fields have no training as teachers except the ability to emulate other fine teachers. 
Why do we force elementary and high school teachers to study teaching techniques, and leave college teachers free from this requirement? Subject of another thread perhaps? 

Some of my neighbors homeschool their kids. The kids are well-socialized, if you take their happy play with other neighborhood kids as evidence. Many kids in public and in private schools are well socialized. Many are not. I have never seen a study demonstrating a causal effect of the learning environment on socialization. I welcome pointers to one or more. Please note that I said causal, as I am not impressed by statistical coincidence masquerading as causality. 

My 2 cents,
Cuchu


----------



## modgirl

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> The Constitution of the U.S. includes the expectation that local governments will establish and fund schools. Our society has grown to expect that its members will be given a set of basic skills by the schools. Entire universities and government departments exist solely to staff and administer the schools.


 
I could be mistaken, but I thought that the government's role in the beginning was to _provide opportunities_ for education (especially for children who might not otherwise have had those opportunities), not make it mandatory that every child must attend a school outside his home.




> I guess it comes down to whether you think that a system of schools is the best way to impart skills to people.


 
Should parents have a choice? Or, should they all be obligated to send their children to school?   




> If, on the other hand, you think that society as a whole has a *duty* to give an equal and equitable education to all of its members, regardless of who they are, then you might see the government-run school system as *the best way* to educate the majority, and you might want to support it, whether you have school-age children or not.


 

Are you speaking about giving opportunities to those who may not have them or insisting that everyone be schooled?


----------



## modgirl

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> first I want my kids to get a decent education


 
And that is the crux of the entire subject! If only more parents felt like that, I personally believe schools wouldn't be in their current state.

An acquaintance of mine has a child in 8th grade who is really having trouble in math. The mother is furious with the school because she feels the school is not doing enough to help her child, and unfortunately, the child is simply not understanding the material.

My question to her was, "Are you helping your daughter with her homework or with the math concepts?"

Her response, "That's the school's job!"

Quote from Benjamin Franklin: *A child who is educated only at school is an uneducated child.*


----------



## panjandrum

Jumping into very dangerous waters - not being a teacher.
I am picking up, I think, on modgirl's point.
I am now going through primary education for the third time 
First time, my own, family life revolved around conversation, chat.
Friends met and talked, did stuff together.
One parent was always at home.
Second time, my kids, things were different - but there were still many families where one parent did not work, and kids still did stuff together.
Third time, WMPG*, in almost all families the parent, or both parents work.  Much of the child's early experience of the world is not at home.  The result is that the parent(s) are now depending almost entirely (in many cases) on the pre-school and school systems to do all of the "academic" and social skills development.

World's Most Perfect Granddaughter - is an exception


----------



## Alfry

Everness said:
			
		

> Which is the correct answer and how long did it take you to find it? (I'll post the answer later on.)


 
a few seconds



11,250 are less then a half (1-0.33-0.25 = 0.42).

so the only possible solution was 27,000.


----------



## GenJen54

> Quoted by *Panjandrum*
> Much of the child's early experience of the world is not at home. The result is that the parent(s) are now depending almost entirely (in many cases) on the pre-school and school systems to do all of the "academic" and social skills development.



Panj, 

I agree with this entirely, and that is perhaps a great part of the problem.  Parents are putting too much onus on the schools - and the teachers - to "raise" their children.  Accountability at and from the home is dwindling at an alarming rate.


----------



## pajarita

> [b said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> modgirl[/b]] And that is the crux of the entire subject! If only more parents felt like that, I personally believe schools wouldn't be in their current state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While lack of parental involvement (physical and psychological) is a problem, I don't believe it to be THE problem.
> 
> That there seems to be no consensus as to what main the problem/s is/are even among this group of (semi-)like-minded forum-goers, may be telling regarding the US's inability to move, effectually, towards its solution.
Click to expand...


----------



## fenixpollo

modgirl said:
			
		

> Are you speaking about giving opportunities to those who may not have them or insisting that everyone be schooled?


 Everyone has the opportunity to attend school -- not just those students who wouldn't have the opportunity to attend otherwise. 





			
				socratesgirl said:
			
		

> If only more parents felt like that, I personally believe schools wouldn't be in their current state.


So, you're arguing with me and saying that families _don't_ have a responsibility to get involved with schools, but you _really_ believe that families need to be more involved? I give up. Because of our pointless arguing, poor cuchu and panj were nearly scared off from posting in this thread! Sorry, guys!   

Yes, families need to be more involved (article). Educators need to innovate (search results) like these public schools cited by the NASSP (school list). Then we can get the acheivement we want and avoid the social problems that have been detrimental to the psyches of so many of us precociously wordy language geeks (article). In my opinion, the missing piece of the puzzle is for regional governments to change tack: stop shoring up the struggling public schools while allowing a cornucopia of strip-mall high-school reformers to innovate in a vacuum, with lots of freedom but little support. Instead, harness that creativity to develop a comprehensive plan that allows for diversity of reforms, while coordinating these efforts in order to overhaul the public schools in a concerted way.

That's my three cents. Now I'll shut up for a while.


----------



## modgirl

pajarita said:
			
		

> While lack of parental involvement (physical and psychological) is a problem, I don't believe it to be THE problem.


 
Actually, I agree and didn't state my opinion very well. The problem of American schools doesn't lie exclusively with parents or with teachers or with administrations or any other entities. I'll bet if we viewed the situation more closely, we'd find both the problem and solution to lie across many components.


----------



## modgirl

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Everyone has the opportunity to attend school -- not just those students who wouldn't have the opportunity to attend otherwise.


 
Well, it's obvious that those who have the opportunity to attend school and have the desire to do so, will!

Perhaps I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that schooling should be mandatory for everyone. 

I am extremely jealous of my personal freedoms -- about education and many other issues!



> So, you're arguing with me and saying that families _don't_ have a responsibility to get involved with schools, but you _really_ believe that families need to be more involved? I give up.


 
You're confusing two issues.  You seem to think that homeschooled families have a responsibility to get involved with schools, regardless of whether the quality of school played a role in their decision to home-educate.  

For children who do attend school, absolutely there needs to be direct involvement between the school and the parent!  That only makes sense.


----------



## cuchuflete

While we are in, on, and around the topic of education, especially in public schools, I'll risk aggravating a few of you by debunking the urban and suburban and rural myth that teachers are paid a pittance.

They are, in my view, underpaid.  In many localities, cops and firemen/women earn more.  That's stupid.  However, in many suburban areas, a teacher with a masters degree and more than 5 years on the job earns a very nice income, more or less in keeping with their educational level and workload.  Big city teachers are badly paid.
Teachers in rural Maine are paid an insufficient salary.  

We really ought to stop generalizing.  Not all teachers are underpaid. Many are.

Unlike the evil empire of commerce, the better teachers are not better paid.  Pay is a function of longevity, tenure, and all the other negotiated trappings that drive everyone towards the divine average.   It's not a merit system.  That's a small but meaningful piece of the mediocrity known as American public education.

Bigger problems are the loads of nonsense teachers must do to 1)enforce discipline; 2)comply with government administrative and record-keeping requirements; 3)pacify uninvolved parents who insist on a meeting to berate teachers and principals for their children's lack of learning, while doing nothing at home to contribute to that learning.


----------



## fenixpollo

modgirl said:
			
		

> Perhaps I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that schooling should be mandatory for everyone.


I'm saying that, wherever you freely choose to educate your children, for whatever reason, as a member of society you should pay taxes to support the school system and you should get involved in trying to improve that system. 





> You're confusing two issues. You seem to think that homeschooled families have a responsibility to get involved with schools, regardless of whether the quality of school played a role in their decision to home-educate.


 There are not two issues here. As far as I know, the only reason that you home-school is because you don't like the quality of the schools. 

If teachers were paid the same as babysitters: They would be paid $3.00 dollars an hour and only for the hours they worked, not for any planning time. Each parent should pay 15 dollars a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Let's say that each teacher has 25 children in a classroom... that's 15 X 25=$375 a day. 

But remember, they only work 180 days a year! That's 375 x180=$67,500.00 

We could pay teachers with advanced degrees minimum wage, just to be fair. Let's round it off to $6.00 an hour. That would be $6 times 5 hours times 25 children times 180 days =$135,000.00 per year.


----------



## asm

I am writing a doctoral dissertation on parent involvement, and I have found this (related to the forum):



1.- Academic performance depends more on socioeconomic status than to any other factor (SES = income, parents’ education, parents’ expectations, family traditions, etc.)



2.- Parent involvement helps a lot, it boosts academic scores. However, there are two main types of PI, one is related to what you do with your kids at home, helping them develop cognitive skills (like reading to them when they are babies, or visiting a museum during the weekend). The second is related to school administration (the most common typology for these activities includes: parenting, volunteering, communication, working at home (helping with homework), school-based decisions (PTA, etc) and finally, community-school relations.



3.- School always focus on the second type of PI, just because it’s their business. They cannot control what is happening in their students’ homes. However, the other type is, by far, more powerful. Educations starts in the crib, I do not have any doubt about it, and in addition, statistics show that the more expensive the crib is, the better education you will receive (I hope you understand my subtle message here).



4.- Home-schooling does work, however, most of the time those kids would do well on the school anyway. The contrary is also certain, if the student is failing at school, it is very likely that he-she will fail at home. I am not saying that home-schooling does not work, it does. What I am saying is that HS and Schooling work with the same pattern (most of the time). Main reasons for choosing HS: religious beliefs (they can read the bible in the classroom!!), socialization (they think schools are bad), they do not trust government and they think they can do it in a better way, they want their kids do something else and school conflicts with their schedule (sports, for instance).
HS students are good if the system works for them, it is bad if the system does not work, no magic formula, but empirical observation says that low-SES are “at-risk” with this system, and finally, the last reason I’ve found: fad.



5.- Schools are subsystems within a more general and broader system. They are not isolated. On the contrary, now, more than ever, schools need to fight for a place in society. Some students (as well as their parents) think schools are in the entertainment business. Schools are OK only if they are fun (I am not against fun activities, OK?), but seriousness is “relative”. This is not because of schools, this is a consequence of our LIGHT culture, not because of schools!!!!!!!!! Schools are more victims in this regard than other subsystems. We want schools solve everything: knowledge, obesity (WE BLAME SCHOOLS FOR OBESITY ?????????????), pregnancy, truancy, drop-out, single-parenthood, violence, etc.) We blame schools for EVERYTHING, it is the most commonly used scapegoat. If I cannot control my child, let’s the school do it!



6.- Do not blame schools for what happened in Columbine; those kids, and others in similar cases, did that in spite of the schools. Those kids had a “social” illness.



7.- The school system will never be able to overcome all adversity it faces without overcoming poverty first. Poverty is the number 1 cause of drop-out, and other things we blame on schools. Poverty is a defense mechanism (could you imagine if they couldn’t protect themselves against everything they face? ). If we want to solve the problem we need a change in our priorities, and poverty should be number one. 

Poverty is an important factor in this formula and I just saw Phryne taking about it (GOOD FOR YOU), if you do not put this variable into the formula, you are setting things for failure.



8.- Schools are not perfect, they receive a lot of pressure to do their business. Programs like No Child Left Behind, instead of helping, they are hindering the process. They force schools to focus on assessment, not on learning. I agree that schools need changes, but not in the way of asking them to do more.



9.- If you are interested on public schools (American) read this: http://www.jamievollmer.com/ next time you eat blueberry ice-cream you might think of public schools.







			
				Phryne said:
			
		

> My two cents:
> 
> Some people DO need the double income, mainly in inner cities.
> 
> Also, my biggest concern about home-schooling is that schools are not just a place were your kids gets "formally" educated, but it's also an important place for socialization. How are these kids finding friends, learning how to create bonds with their peers or gaining experience on how to deal with the outside world if they are constantly pampered and shielded by their parents?
> 
> saludos


----------



## cuchuflete

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> We could pay teachers with advanced degrees minimum wage, just to be fair. Let's round it off to $6.00 an hour. That would be $6 times 5 hours times 25 children times 180 days =$135,000.00 per year.



It may be good arithmetic, but it's lousy logic.  Each time a bunch of kids are home sick with a cold, the teacher's wage drops.  The more students in the classroom, the higher the pay rate, while the teacher's effectiveness drops.

Hmmmm...sounds like something both governments and teachers' unions would embrace in a heartbeat.


----------



## modgirl

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I'm saying that, wherever you freely choose to educate your children, for whatever reason, as a member of society you should pay taxes to support the school system


 
Are there areas where homeschooled parents don't pay taxes -- simply because they homeschool?



> and you should get involved in trying to improve that system.


 
Your (inaccurate) assumption is that people who home educate automatically think there is something "wrong" with the school system. Many don't, so how can they fix what they don't think is broken? For some reason, you seem to think that all homeschooled children are at home because of a faulty school system. That is not the case in all families by any means. There are many reasons that people home educate their children. 



> There are not two issues here. As far as I know, the only reason that you home-school is because you don't like the quality of the schools.


 
When did I even say that I homeschool, let alone have children?! Please read carefully and don't make assumptions. Those assumptions may be why you don't understand that school is not automatically the first place that people want their children. People do not all share the same view about the best way to educate children.

Your message is very strong that you feel most, if not all, children should be educated by either private schools or government schools and that "if only" our schools were better, no one would home-educate their children. Although it's certainly true that many children might then return to school, undoubtedly others would not. Unfortunately, children do not arrive in a "one size fits all" category.


There is a strong sense that you feel threatened or at the very least, strongly oppose anyone not attending government schools (or private schools). Is there a particular reason?


----------



## asm

Cuchu:


I encourage you to read the story about the guy and the blueberry ice cream (I posted it in this same thread). It has the account of a businessman who went to a school to "teach" them how to "do it" the right way. He is now an advocate for public school like anybody I have seen lately.

I used to teach in a private institution in Mexico, maybe the best high school in the country. We had very good students, they learned a lot and were excellent most of the time (with exceptions, obviously). I also thought we were doing a great job (and I still think that way), but now I think those students do not need the best teachers. I think the poor, the "at-risk" student, the outcast, the forgotten, the single-parent family student, they are the ones who need good teachers badly.

This country was founded on the premises of liberty and justices for all; having those kids (you cannot hold them accountable for their condition) in poverty is un-American.

The problem is extremely complex, and I admire what the teacher you talk about is doing for his kids. However, the real great teachers are working for those who, against all odds, are helping the poor. Unfortunatelly, not all teachers are going that far. In this country, to succeed with poor kid you have to have miracles. This is a cultural problem, because other countries, or some ethnicities within the country are doing well in spite of their poverty label.

Who needs the doctor? the one who is healed or the one who is sick? I am sure that if Jesus were an American teacher, he shouldn't be teaching at his home, nor he should work for a private (Christian) school. ELLOS SON BUENOS Y YA TUVIERON SU RECOMPENSA.


Just an additional comment, an Ed.D is a doctor, but not a PhD , there is a subtle difference that some people care about .

Reading your comments is always a delightful growing experience, regardless of the topic.




			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> So much has been said about home schooling that I hesitate, just briefly, before adding my two cents.
> 
> Truth in labeling compliance statement: I went to superb public schools, got a fine education both there *and *from my parents' conversations and from reading and discussing what I had read with my parents. I then attended a private college, which provided further fine education. Expectations in all of these environments were high...that included the expectation that I would work hard.
> 
> One of my sons went to public schools, learned and worked enough to get by, then went to a tiny private school for the last two years of high school. There he was motivated by great teachers and acquired a love of learning and a self-imposed work ethic. One of his teachers told me that he taught at that school for about half the pay he might receive in a public school, but that he wouldn't trade. Why? Because he was allowed to just teach. In the public schools more than half his time would be required for administrative crap like NCLB.
> 
> Now...to my very small addition. As a parent, my first obligation is to the education of my kids. Fixing (!) the public schools is a very worthy objective, but first I want my kids to get a decent education, which is not defined by standardized tests of memorization ability.
> 
> Therefore, I am an ardent proponent of the right of parents to send their kids to public schools, to homeschool them, or to send them to private schools. Nothing earthshaking in this, except that it puts me squarely in the gunsights of the oh-so-very-politickly kerrect teachers' unions.
> 
> 
> As someone said earlier, that's a subject for another rant.
> 
> Public schools may be as good as the ones I attended, or they may be awful. In the latter case, I think a parent has the right to a voucher to send their kids to a private school, or use the funds to help with homeschooling expenses. Am I a rat or a good parent? If the ship has already sunk under the weight of government interference with educators, and the bilge pumps are manned by the NEA and other teachers' (_sic_) unions that demand tenure for both great teachers and illiterate ones pumping water into the ship, I'm a clever rat to choose to go elsewhere.
> 
> A degree in pedagogy does not make a good teacher. Intelligence, dedication, an open mind, and very hard work do a lot more. One of the best teachers I ever learned from had an Ed.D (Ph.D in education). He told me he thought most of what he learned in earning his doctorate was garbage, trendy theories, and fluff.
> 
> One of my best college professors had neither an advanced degree nor any training in pedagogy. In fact, it's worth noting that the large majority of college professors with doctorates in their respective fields have no training as teachers except the ability to emulate other fine teachers.
> Why do we force elementary and high school teachers to study teaching techniques, and leave college teachers free from this requirement? Subject of another thread perhaps?
> 
> Some of my neighbors homeschool their kids. The kids are well-socialized, if you take their happy play with other neighborhood kids as evidence. Many kids in public and in private schools are well socialized. Many are not. I have never seen a study demonstrating a causal effect of the learning environment on socialization. I welcome pointers to one or more. Please note that I said causal, as I am not impressed by statistical coincidence masquerading as causality.
> 
> My 2 cents,
> Cuchu


----------



## asm

I got confused on who said what, but I am amazed on your discussion with fenixpollo.  
I just want to say that in the USA schooling is mandatory, whether the kid attends public or private institutions or he attends "living rooms" and the kitchen, the kid needs to attend school. You do not have the option of not having school (unless you talk to the judge in a very emotive mood, you will get some truble if you do not comply)




			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> Are there areas where homeschooled parents don't pay taxes -- simply because they homeschool?
> 
> 
> 
> Your (inaccurate) assumption is that people who home educate automatically think there is something "wrong" with the school system. Many don't, so how can they fix what they don't think is broken? For some reason, you seem to think that all homeschooled children are at home because of a faulty school system. That is not the case in all families by any means. There are many reasons that people home educate their children.
> 
> 
> 
> When did I even say that I homeschool, let alone have children?! Please read carefully and don't make assumptions. Those assumptions may be why you don't understand that school is not automatically the first place that people want their children. People do not all share the same view about the best way to educate children.
> 
> Your message is very strong that you feel most, if not all, children should be educated by either private schools or government schools and that "if only" our schools were better, no one would home-educate their children. Although it's certainly true that many children might then return to school, undoubtedly others would not. Unfortunately, children do not arrive in a "one size fits all" category.
> 
> 
> There is a strong sense that you feel threatened or at the very least, strongly oppose anyone not attending government schools (or private schools). Is there a particular reason?


----------



## GenJen54

> Originally posted by *Fenixpollo*
> I'm saying that, wherever you freely choose to educate your children, for whatever reason, as a member of society you should pay taxes to support the school system and you should get involved in trying to improve that system.



Playing devil's advocate and being a bit selfish here.   I agree on your first contention.  School funds where I live come out of our property taxes.  I don't have a problem with that.  I also don't have a problem with supporting other local tax and/or bond initiatives to support public schools, whether it's for curriculum improvements, materials, capital improvements, etc.  Any of those are certainly worthy. 

However, if I choose to educate my child by means of:  private school/charter school/home school, shouldn't my _priority_ be towards _my child_ and his/her educational needs, not everyone else's children?

By what other means am I then obligated to "get involved?"


----------



## Everness

Thank you for the lively debate that, by the way, I missed! It's interesting to note that it became almost exclusively an American discussion. It's clearly a hot issue in the States. I continue to wonder what are other countries whose students are faring better than ours doing differently. We might learn from them!

Short story. I once spoke to someone who provided school-based behavioral health services at a large high school in Boston. By the way, the ratio was very interesting: 1 social worker to 1,700 mainly minority kids! This school is unofficially considered a dump in the Boston Public School system. Back to my story. She once told me that she met with a young girl who was failing academically. This clinician probed a little and the girl almost immediately told her that members in her family would take turns to eat...


----------



## fenixpollo

I believe that it is the duty of everyone in society to dedicate their money (taxes) and energy (interest, effort, time, etc.) to support the public schools because they are our society's primary and best method of educating its people -- and because members of society have a duty to make a positive contribution to society.

I didn't mean to suggest that homeschoolers don't pay taxes, that every child must go to a public school, or that modgirl participates in home schooling in any way, shape or form.





			
				pollo said:
			
		

> As far as I know, the only reason that *ONE* you home-school*S* is because *ONE DOESN'T* you don't like the quality of the schools.


 I agree with you parents who say that your first priority is to your own children. However, what I am afraid of is that Americans' self-interest and selfishness will lead those with the means and the motivation to abandon the schools to the horrible fate towards which they are heading. If I feel threatened by anything, it is by the idea that the schools are already, or will soon be, more harmful to our society than they are helpful.

Once again: I believe that putting our children together in a room with a professional educator is the best way for our society to educate children. A person who agrees with this statment would send their child to a (public/ parochial/ religous/ alternative/ charter/ experimental) school, unless all of the school options that were convenient to them were unacceptable -- for whatever reason.

If my logic is flawed, if my assumptions are incorrect, or if I am undereducated on this subject, I eagerly invite anyone to correct and/or enlighten me in a civil and collegial manner.


----------



## Everness

Check out this document published by the National Center for Education Statistics and entitled "Comparative Indicators of Education in the United States and Other G8 Countries: 2004." I think it puts a lot of issues discussed on this thread in perspective. (Aunque se perfectamente que 1) "Las comparaciones son odiosas" y 2) "Mal de muchos consuelo de tontos".)

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005021.pdf


----------



## modgirl

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Once again: I believe that putting our children together in a room with a professional educator is the best way for our society to educate children.


 
Now, we're getting somewhere!

That is your opinion, and although I disagree with it, I certainly respect your choice to have that opinion and to follow it through.

However, here's the big question (that I've previously asked): Do you think parents have the *right *to educate their children at home?

edit:  You did indeed say in one of your earlier posts that you think that it should be a choice for parents.  I apologize for missing it.


----------



## asm

Everness:


Could you elaborate your idea a little further? I am interested in reading your comment, and not to have to assume that your possition is this or that. Your observation is very interesting

What do you think about the problem this girl faces in schools (related to her family situation)?
What are your reactions about it? Does it change your possition on public education?

Thank you,

Alejandro



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> Thank you for the lively debate that, by the way, I missed! It's interesting to note that it became almost exclusively an American discussion. It's clearly a hot issue in the States. I continue to wonder what are other countries whose students are faring better than ours doing differently. We might learn from them!
> 
> Short story. I once spoke to someone who provided school-based behavioral health services at a large high school in Boston. By the way, the ratio was very interesting: 1 social worker to 1,700 mainly minority kids! This school is unofficially considered a dump in the Boston Public School system. Back to my story. She once told me that she met with a young girl who was failing academically. This clinician probed a little and the girl almost immediately told her that members in her family would take turns to eat...


----------



## asm

I back your position. You have a clear understanding of what will happen to American public schools if that "anti-school movement" continues to attack public education. Public schools and education in general are doing not so well, however, attacking them is not the right solution. There is a big difference between attacking and supporting in difficult times.

Not all schools are failing, and statistics say that low-income students are more “at-risk” than wealthier students; I think that most of the time people who criticize public education do not separate in their analysis schools that are doing well from failing schools. When we listen to those critiques we understand “all schools”.

Education needs a big change in this country, but leaving the boat, as you say, is not the solution. If this continues to be the trend, we will have a gap between classes that in the future just few people will be able to cross. In my opinion, that is un-American. If individual families want to send their kids to private schools, that is fine; if they provide education by themselves, it is also good. What is not good is to criticize, to attack and to condemn public education without a positive contribution, or at least having their mouths shut. For many (many) Americans, public education is the only option; lets support them. By support I mean to criticize when it is needed, and to point out things when we think they are not correct.

Fenixpollo, you are in the right track!!!!!!

 

 





			
				fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I believe that it is the duty of everyone in society to dedicate their money (taxes) and energy (interest, effort, time, etc.) to support the public schools because they are our society's primary and best method of educating its people -- and because members of society have a duty to make a positive contribution to society.
> 
> I didn't mean to suggest that homeschoolers don't pay taxes, that every child must go to a public school, or that modgirl participates in home schooling in any way, shape or form. I agree with you parents who say that your first priority is to your own children. However, what I am afraid of is that Americans' self-interest and selfishness will lead those with the means and the motivation to abandon the schools to the horrible fate towards which they are heading. If I feel threatened by anything, it is by the idea that the schools are already, or will soon be, more harmful to our society than they are helpful.
> 
> Once again: I believe that putting our children together in a room with a professional educator is the best way for our society to educate children. A person who agrees with this statment would send their child to a (public/ parochial/ religous/ alternative/ charter/ experimental) school, unless all of the school options that were convenient to them were unacceptable -- for whatever reason.
> 
> If my logic is flawed, if my assumptions are incorrect, or if I am undereducated on this subject, I eagerly invite anyone to correct and/or enlighten me in a civil and collegial manner.


----------



## Everness

asm said:
			
		

> Everness:
> Could you elaborate your idea a little further? I am interested in reading your comment, and not to have to assume that your possition is this or that. Your observation is very interesting
> 
> What do you think about the problem this girl faces in schools (related to her family situation)?
> What are your reactions about it? Does it change your possition on public education?
> 
> Thank you,
> Alejandro



My problem is with standarized texts in general and with the one-size-fits-all approach to education. 

For instance, there are two 15-year-old girls. One is a white girl whose parents, a lawyer and a physician, make $350,000 a year and who lives in a mansion in the suburburs. The other girl is Hispanic and lives with her undocumented mother and her 4 siblings in a 1-bedroom apartment in a very unsafe neighborhood in the city. The girl from the suburbs eats 3 nutritious meals a day and healthy snacks between meals. The other girl, due to the limited income of the mother, eats when she can. She states that she would rather make sure that her younger siblings have something to eat. 

The two girls take the MCAS the same day yet in different schools. When the results come back, the girl from the suburbs gets a great grade and the girl from the city fails. The superintendent threatens to take over the school because of the many kids who failed the test. 

My point? Education doesn't take place in a vacuum.  If you are a poor minority girl --triple whammy-- living in the projects with drug dealers doing business in front of your dilapidated building 24/7 and you can't sleep at night because of the shootings and killings, is it fair  to compare your academic performance with someone your same age but who happens to be white, wealthy, living in a more or less stable home in a safe neighborhood, and who eats healthy foods and sleeps 8 hours each night?


----------



## asm

Read Mt 5, 38-42 and you will have some ideas on how help your public school. Even if your children attend private school, you can volunteer, or you; you can help in many ways, if you cannot go there and help, support it in the most creative way. Your duty is with your kids, but that does not mean you cannot help other kids. The bible says: 
 For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?  And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect. 

I do not know you, I do not if the bible is important to you, but in any case the help is needed. If those MEAN tax collectors ask for the money schools need, are we going to deny it just because, according to our standards, schools are not doing what they are supposed to do?
Among the many social systems there are in America, I trust in schools more than many others; I do not have any problem with my kids going to public schools 6-7 hours/day; I wouln't allow watch tv not even half of that time; I'd wouldn't trust my kids in other hands.

Just for one month, you can go to a low-income school and read their kids a book in the library. You will see how your perception will change (AND YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CHANGE YOUR KIDS TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL, THEY ARE DOING GREAT IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS).

visit: http://www.jamievollmer.com/ and read the blueberry ice-cream story




			
				GenJen54 said:
			
		

> \
> By what other means am I then obligated to "get involved?"


 
However, you are not obligated at all!!!!


----------



## asm

Everness:

The problem is even worse when you go to cognitive skills; lower socioeconomic status families have more problems setting things for success, not only by economic resources, but also by cognitive skills. There are significant differences between poor families and middle/high families. 

You can read an articles here http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207%2FS15327671ESPR0603_4?cookieSet=1 that talks about only one of those differences. The problem is, as you say, unfair with certain students, however, the help for them is not the same. If at certain age you hadnt received some cognitive training, later in life it will be very difficult to overcome the addversity, even if you had all the will.
Those stories about people who overcome poverty are more the exception than the rule, and they make us think that the transition is simple and easy, but it is not.
If you want to study poverty, read Rudy Payne http://www.ahaprocess.com/




			
				Everness said:
			
		

> My problem is with standarized texts in general and with the one-size-fits-all approach to education.
> 
> For instance, there are two 15-year-old girls. One is a white girl whose parents, a lawyer and a physician, make $350,000 a year and who lives in a mansion in the suburburs. The other girl is Hispanic and lives with her undocumented mother and her 4 siblings in a 1-bedroom apartment in a very unsafe neighborhood in the city. The girl from the suburbs eats 3 nutritious meals a day and healthy snacks between meals. The other girl, due to the limited income of the mother, eats when she can. She states that she would rather make sure that her younger siblings have something to eat.
> 
> The two girls take the MCAS the same day yet in different schools. When the results come back, the girl from the suburbs gets a great grade and the girl from the city fails. The superintendent threatens to take over the school because of the many kids who failed the test.
> 
> My point? Education doesn't take place in a vacuum. If you are a poor minority girl --triple whammy-- living in the projects with drug dealers doing business in front of your dilapidated building 24/7 and you can't sleep at night because of the shootings and killings, is it fair to compare your academic performance with someone your same age but who happens to be white, wealthy, living in a more or less stable home in a safe neighborhood, and who eats healthy foods and sleeps 8 hours each night?


----------



## modgirl

Asm, I hesitate to say this because it will sound awkward, but just to let you know, I am a mentor in our local public school. I am a "special friend" to a little boy whose future scares the daylights out of me. His mom's in jail, and his dad is living with his girlfriend. Together, they have 9 or 10 kids.

One advantage of relative anonymity here is that we can say things that we might not otherwise be able to. My little guy tells me things like, "We're getting a new truck."

"Great!" I say.

"Yeah, my dad's gonna smash in the windows so that the insurance company will buy him a new one."

Talk about a moral dilemma. I can't tell him his dad is a criminal. But we talk about choices and how to make the best ones. My little guy is always in trouble at school. He's already flunked one grade (he's 10 and will enter 4th grade) and he's on the very low end of the skills he needs for the next grade. The teacher frequently yells at him. He cheats and steals and lies. I try to read books to him, and he tells me books are boring. I mention that the fantastic thing about books is that he can be anyone or anything he wants to be -- and he doesn't even have to be human! However, I'm not even sure he has an imagination anymore. He probably puts up with me because I'm rather amusing and am probably one of the few adults who doesn't treat him like dirt.  And I always let him win at basketball.  Oh wait, he naturally wins at basketball!

So, what am I doing there for him? I have no idea.  I really doubt it will make a difference.  He has nearly every strike against him.  He isn't bright.  His home life is not horrible, but definitely not nourishing.  I've met his dad, and it's amazing the kid hasn't been to juvenile court yet.  But I suppose I can selfishly say that I'm making an attempt.


----------



## asm

As far as I understand the US consitution does not contemplate education at all; at that time public and compulsory education were not a priority or a main concern. However, there is something in the law that says that what is not contemplated in the constitution is delegated to individual states. In this manner, it is very difficult to have uniform perspectives related to education in the union. Each state is responsible of funding their schools. 

I am not very familiar with the constitution's content at that level, I think Americans who studied within the country, whether in public or private schools, could have a better understanding on the topic and could shed more light on the topic. In the state of Kentucky, the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) of 1985 set the philosophy, principles and mechanism to fund public schools within the Commonwealth.




			
				fenixpollo said:
			
		

> The Constitution of the U.S. includes the expectation that local governments will establish and fund schools.


----------



## asm

Good for him, good for you. I do not think you will "save" this kid because of the role model he has at home. However, you are doing something that he will appreciate sooner or later. We need more people like you helping schools, and less people like this father who are spoiling their (our?) kids. 

When the time comes for this kid to look for a job, it will be very likely that employers will blame on the school system because "Johnny cannot read", when, as you might know by now, the problem here comes from the family.
Is it clear for you all that more children are abused by their own parents than by their teachers or school personnel? Why then we attack schools for everything?





			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> Asm, I hesitate to say this because it will sound awkward, but just to let you know, I am a mentor in our local public school. I am a "special friend" to a little boy whose future scares the daylights out of me. His mom's in jail, and his dad is living with his girlfriend. Together, they have 9 or 10 kids.
> 
> One advantage of relative anonymity here is that we can say things that we might not otherwise be able to. My little guy tells me things like, "We're getting a new truck."
> 
> "Great!" I say.
> 
> "Yeah, my dad's gonna smash in the windows so that the insurance company will buy him a new one."
> 
> Talk about a moral dilemma. I can't tell him his dad is a criminal. But we talk about choices and how to make the best ones. My little guy is always in trouble at school. He's already flunked one grade (he's 10 and will enter 4th grade) and he's on the very low end of the skills he needs for the next grade. The teacher frequently yells at him. He cheats and steals and lies. I try to read books to him, and he tells me books are boring. I mention that the fantastic thing about books is that he can be anyone or anything he wants to be -- and he doesn't even have to be human! However, I'm not even sure he has an imagination anymore. He probably puts up with me because I'm rather amusing and am probably one of the few adults who doesn't treat him like dirt. And I always let him win at basketball. Oh wait, he naturally wins at basketball!
> 
> So, what am I doing there for him? I have no idea. I really doubt it will make a difference. He has nearly every strike against him. He isn't bright. His home life is not horrible, but definitely not nourishing. I've met his dad, and it's amazing the kid hasn't been to juvenile court yet. But I suppose I can selfishly say that I'm making an attempt.


----------



## Everness

asm said:
			
		

> Everness:
> 
> The problem is even worse when you go to cognitive skills; lower socioeconomic status families have more problems setting things for success, not only by economic resources, but also by cognitive skills. There are significant differences between poor families and middle/high families.
> 
> You can read an articles here http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207%2FS15327671ESPR0603_4?cookieSet=1 that talks about only one of those differences. The problem is, as you say, unfair with certain students, however, the help for them is not the same. If at certain age you hadnt received some cognitive training, later in life it will be very difficult to overcome the addversity, even if you had all the will.
> Those stories about people who overcome poverty are more the exception than the rule, and they make us think that the transition is simple and easy, but it is not.
> If you want to study poverty, read Rudy Payne http://www.ahaprocess.com/



Alejandro,

Thank you for your thoughts and for the links. I think we should open a thread on poverty in the world and/or the US. 

The major problem is organicity in kids' brains due to exposure to sustained hunger or malnutrition. Some of the consequences will have a permanent impact on children's cognitive functioning and therefore on their academic performance. 

In a system that is too compartmentalized and where different subsystems don't talk to one another, this problem requires a political and not just pedagogic solution, e.g.: remedial courses, etc. etc. However, we just keep coming up with programs (e.g.: "No Child Left Behind") that purposedly don't focus on the big picture.


----------



## fenixpollo

asm said:
			
		

> As far as I understand the US consitution does not contemplate education at all; at that time public and compulsory education were not a priority or a main concern. However, there is something in the law that says that what is not contemplated in the constitution is delegated to individual states.


 Thanks for correcting me on this, asm.  After re-reading the constitution, I realized that education is one of the implied powers granted to the states, as you point out.  I'm not sure that this means that education was not a main concern; rather, the founders wanted to leave decisions about education in local control.  





> Why then we attack schools for everything?


 Because it's easier to blame "the system" than it is to blame individual parents or to blame "society" in general.  People know that no-one is in control of "society", but they imagine that their politicians are in control of "the school system."  They think that the problems in the schools can be solved by whoever controls the schools.


----------



## asm

I am not sure if the founding fathers had education as a main concern. If we differentiate education from schooling, I think they did concern about the former, but schooling was not even a regular idea a that time. Schooling was a luxury.

The idea of public education came much later, and became a reality until T. Mann dared to open the first public system in America (not nationally, though)






			
				fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Thanks for correcting me on this, asm. After re-reading the constitution, I realized that education is one of the implied powers granted to the states, as you point out. I'm not sure that this means that education was not a main concern; rather, the founders wanted to leave decisions about education in local control. Because it's easier to blame "the system" than it is to blame individual parents or to blame "society" in general. People know that no-one is in control of "society", but they imagine that their politicians are in control of "the school system." They think that the problems in the schools can be solved by whoever controls the schools.


----------



## fenixpollo

asm said:
			
		

> I am not sure if the founding fathers had education as a main concern. If we differentiate education from schooling, I think they did concern about the former, but schooling was not even a regular idea a that time. Schooling was a luxury.
> 
> The idea of public education came much later, and became a reality until T. Mann dared to open the first public system in America (not nationally, though)


True.  The founders of the US had a different concept of "equality", since their world was one in which only the rich had access to education, and the poor didn't need to be educated; likewise, only rich males (those who owned land) could vote. 

However, I think that the founders still valued education inherently (for the right people), and they valued equality (for the right people).  Now that our society has changed to consider _all_ people equal, I think that a public education system that allows equal access to education is in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution.


----------



## asm

I agree, the spirit of equality is best understood in public schools. Although other systems work for their clients (maybe better than public schools), the only broad solution for most Americans is (and will be) their public school. That is why, I think, critiques should focus on improving our system (which by the way is very flawed), not to destroy it (which by the way, many Americans want to do).



			
				fenixpollo said:
			
		

> True. The founders of the US had a different concept of "equality", since their world was one in which only the rich had access to education, and the poor didn't need to be educated; likewise, only rich males (those who owned land) could vote.
> 
> However, I think that the founders still valued education inherently (for the right people), and they valued equality (for the right people). Now that our society has changed to consider _all_ people equal, I think that a public education system that allows equal access to education is in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution.


----------

