patrick.net

EMan says

Thats just how you government officials in big places work, they steal from the poor to provide themselves a lavish lifestyle.

I don't know Marcus, but I believe that I can say with absolute certainty that he isn't stealing from the poor to provide a lavish lifestyle for himself.

I can go you one better: Teachers aren't "government officials." They are often government employees - but then again, so are janitors, IT people, office staff, etc. Some of these people might have better job protections due to their affiliation with a union - but they're far from being influential people with the power you described.

Bap33 says

how do you feel about the reduced use of english in California? I mean, if public schooling is soooooooo great, where do you place American culture and lingo??

If you're asking me, I'd be thrilled to see better use of the English language amongst the posters on this forum. But that wasn't your point... I believe that you were attempting to link "American culture & lingo" with the English language. We don't have a national language (we have so many other "national" designations, but not a language), so I'm more than a bit curious as to what your perceived reduced use of English in California might have to do with the downfall of our American Culture.

I also found it ironic that you were complaining about the ramifications of the reduced use of English on our culture by using a Spanish word. Seriously, Bap - if you can't use the King's English, with words that are only rooted in Anglo-Saxon language, you negate your argument.

The English language itself evolved out of many different languages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_language

Bap33 says

And speaking of that, when you suggest that all members of a society are responsible to behave in a manner that is best for the society, that means you are suggesting we toss out all deviant behavior .. as deviant behavior flies in the face of all-in-it-together meritocracticness. Right?

Unless it's a society of S&M freaks. Kinda blows your theory all to hell, huh? And "meritocracticness?" Wow.

elliemae says

I don't know Marcus, but I believe that I can say with absolute certainty that he isn't stealing from the poor to provide a lavish lifestyle for himself.

Teachers in CA for most part are complacent and lazy. I've been to these schools. Their union has done it all to lower quality of education.

EMan says

Teachers in CA for most part are complacent and lazy

He's trying to come up with something. You have no idea Chris. It's a burnout job, where one never feels they are doing enough, even if they work 70 hours a week. Especially when there are 45 students in each class.

EMan says

Their union has done it all to lower quality of education.

We get that you want that to be true, and that that is all you need for something to be true for you, but it's easy to argue opposite. Pay and benefits would probably be worse without the unions. I know that you fancy yourself as someone who understands markets and economics. Are you saying that if teachers pay and benefits were worse, that somehow higher quality people would be attracted to the profession ?

We aren't hired by buddies in the union. We are hired by Principals, who choose the best applicant. And then there is the evaluation process by which someone becomes permanent.

marcus says

We get that you want that to be true, and that that is all you need for something to be true for you, but it's easy to argue opposite. Pay and benefits would probably be worse without the unions. I know that you fancy yourself as someone who understands markets and economics. Are you saying that if teachers pay and benefits were worse, that somehow higher quality people would be attracted to the profession ?

I would say that the system enshrined by law is devoid of many positive free market influences, and is hindered by too much union monopolization from reaching the ultimate goal of delivering the highest-quality education at an affordable price.

In that context, I'm no fan of treating all teachers as equals primarily by credentials and tenure. I've experienced exceptional teachers in public schools, and horrible teachers. The former should have been paid above what they were being paid, and rewarded for their ability to replicate what works by becoming teachers who lead / groom other teachers. The latter should have been fired, but were tenured and protected.

I've also been extremely fortunate to have had one year of private high school. I can tell you that across the board these teachers were all like the best teachers I experienced in the public schools. Moreover, few of them were officially certified to teach in the public schools. Two who I consider the best were young, brilliant, and fairly recently out of college, and exceptionally motivating with their passion for the subjects being taught. It is universally understood that private schools pay less than government run schools.

All that said, wages are a bit of a distraction from the deeper systematic problems of the U.S. school system in general, which by and large are one-sized-fits-all centers bureaucratically forced into a state-neutered mediocrity and structured primarily to meet the lowest common denominator of regional and national political-education demands, offend the fewest residents possible, while satisfying to the greatest extent possible the demands of local organized labor so to meet the political aspirations of politicians at all levels. Operating in this framework of institutionalized mediocrity, the discussion of wages is, well... facile.

To entertain it, nonetheless, pay for teachers should be market determined just the same as in any other industry. But so, too, should the structure of education, vs. the system currently fossilized into place by state mandate. Education could be innovative, purposeful, and dramatically more effective in meeting real world demand if freed from the shackles of mediocrity. In such an environment, the most effective and entrepreneurial educators at delivering an end-product that satisfies the consumers' desire for purposefully educated children at an affordable price would win out. That would mean the best in education (in its new, highly varied and innovative form) world would attract most of the revenue, and therein the teachers who were most effective at delivering a quality education would be rewarded the most. Those less effective would work for less much like any other industry where experience and quality pay the most, and those that suck would be washed out of the system into a career more suitable to their abilities / efforts.

marcus says

We aren't hired by buddies in the union. We are hired by Principals, who choose the best applicant. And then there is the evaluation process by which someone becomes permanent.

No doubt, that the way it works. But principals are handcuffed within / are the byproduct of a severely shackled system.

marcus says

It's a burnout job, where one never feels they are doing enough, even if they work 70 hours a week. Especially when there are 45 students in each class.

I can only imagine the frustrations.

And in the "worst" school districts, teachers are expected to accomplish miracles with students whose parents have zero involvement, with many teenage students being warehoused by law who are not the least bit cooperative / interested in being educated. Systematically, this comes at the expense of the truly reachable students / involved parents.

The system, as is, does not solve this problem. Throwing money at the problem seems to have only made it worse.

As a related tangent, I ran the numbers here in Pittsburgh once, where the cost per student was $13000 back then, and the average class size was at about 30. At $390k per classroom, that's a lot of coin especially when the average teacher was only getting about $80k-$90k of that (when adding all benefits to wages). IMO, too much coin is being wasted. (One area was in the janitorial department, where janitors were working the union contract so that they could load up on overtime, and where some were making 6 figures for cleaning the school. I'm all for a fair wage... but Houston, we have a problem.)

Although, I guess to tie this back to my initial point... What's the point of blowing cash on a large part of the student population that wants nothing to do with working along with the system?

More to the point, what's the best incentive to get kids to embrace education? The current system is a failure for all who attend only until the point at which they immediately (are allowed to) drop out.

Ronnie Honduras says

More to the point, what's the best incentive to get kids to embrace education?

A visible goal at the end of the process.

Troy says

A visible goal at the end of the process.

10 points for vagueness! Such as?

Implies defining a value proposition that can be embraced. Wealth and value are very relative concepts. Hard time envisioning a universal that resonates.

Ronnie Honduras says

10 points for vagueness!

you're one to fucking talk.

Such as?

a j-o-b.

Troy says

you're one to fucking talk.

Ok, I was being a bit of smart ass... (not intending to be an ahole to you, though... sorry if it came across as such.) But in my defense... you kinda threw out an uber-broad, nine word statement open to a myriad of interpretations...

As for my vagueness, I covered a ton of ground -- I kinda kept it broad to hit a wide variety of issues. What detail can I provide?

"a j-o-b"

Boy, you like to keep me guessing. (Is this a game? Ok: We've knocked out kingdom. And now genus... How about species? )

Seriously -- can you please elaborate? I seriously doubt you mean the status-quo, carrot / stick arrangement (Jobs best to worst = Advanced Degree > College Diploma > HS diploma > drop out)... works for some, passable for others, fails many.

or Are you talking about guaranteeing them a job? Or do you mean changing the system to direct towards specific jobs? Really, a creative imagination can frame"a j-o-b" in a dozen plausible interpretations.

Or you can shoot a quick-triggered, one word, smart-ass comment back at me again.

If a diploma is economically worthless then I can see why young people don't put any effort into their education.

The entire structure of K-12 needs to be changed, probably.

People in general have a problem deferring gratification, putting them in generally failing educational pipelines to nowhere is part of the problem.

Japan has the same problem with their educational systems to nowhere.

I don't have any other over-arching thoughts on this.

marcus says

We aren't hired by buddies in the union. We are hired by Principals, who choose the best applicant. And then there is the evaluation process by which someone becomes permanent.

Yes, but the union protects bad teachers from being fired. I said above, good teachers should be paid far more than union scale. Crappy teachers should get canned.

Teachers being unionized (and given tenure) has two chief problems:
1) a ceiling on pay, which means good performance isn't adequately rewarded -- which encourages mediocre performance
2) it protects the worst members, at great expense to the best -- which doesn't disincentivize poor performance

Troy says

If a diploma is economically worthless then I can see why young people don't put any effort into their education.

The entire structure of K-12 needs to be changed, probably.

People in general have a problem deferring gratification, putting them in generally failing educational pipelines to nowhere is part of the problem.

Amen.

My current thinking is we need to consider how education naturally evolved for thousands of years before the modern system, the origins of which were designed to send a compliant, consumer-oriented work force to the big business workplace / factories.

In the old day you began learning about being a productive citizen as a young teen, your education was first hand apprenticeships, where you learned about delivering quality to an end consumer. Here you learned from other adults how the world worked, and the rewards of honest work. Something like that adds more relevance to education, IMO. Today, kids are warehoused out of the real world, and taught by people whose entire careers are confined to academia which is always segregated from the outside economy. I'd rather see education tied more organically into the functioning economy vs. being it's own entity, IMO often divorced from that reality. It's uber-boring for all but the 15% of kids wired for excelling in academic format education. Most kids grow to be experts at managing indifference to education and the highly irrelevant (and semi dysfunctional) social dynamic game among their peers. Many bright kids merely play the curve to cope.

Better were more kids integrated in society through apprenticeships and productive education via local businesses, etc. However, sooo many barriers exist to small business development these days that big biz dominates the landscape / has an unfair legislated advantage, which means those sorts of opportunities are gone. Also, labor laws prevent kids from deriving value from their abilities until they reach 16, when they're now supposed to go work for big corporate fast food.

corntrollio says

Yes, but the union protects bad teachers from being fired. I said above, good teachers should be paid far more than union scale.

True, but this is a greatly exaggerated issue, and more so all the time, as districts constantly get better at getting rid of bad teachers. The stories you hear are exceptions. Even without unions, there would surely be a few bad teachers, who are well connected or who contribute in other ways to the school (excellent coaches for example), and are kept for those reasons in spite of marginal teaching.

Troy says

If a diploma is economically worthless then I can see why young people don't put any effort into their education.

The hard part is motivating them around the ages 0f 9 - 14. Not that the very early years, and staying on track then isn't also important. If they develop some decent habits, reading, and doing key work and practice, then by the time they are in about 10th grade, when college hits their radar, they then know that the degree is not worthless.

There is still PLENTY of financial aid available to students from financially strapped families, if they just do at least above average in school. And they will by then be learning the differences that a college degree will likely make in their future earnings.

I'm not even talking about those students who truly excel, for whom full scholarships are available to the very best private schools. I know that you guys aren't questioning that.

Ronnie Honduras says

The system, as is, does not solve this problem. Throwing money at the problem seems to have only made it worse.

Wrong, although it is true that too much gets wasted on consultants and high level bureaucrats. The truth is that too little is now spent, at least in my district. People don't want to pay for education, they just want to whine about it.

That's really what all of ChrisLa/Eman's crazy anti-union rants are about. His beliefs allow him to argue against paying for education. It's not unlike the way that believing we are still paying taxes so high that even lowering taxes from these levels will increase revenue to the government. That's very convenient belief, since that belief goes happens to be that we should have more money.

Who doesn't want to have more money? Hey, let's believe what ever we want to believe if it fits our own personal self interest.

marcus says

True, but this is a greatly exaggerated issue, and more so all the time, as districts constantly get better at getting rid of bad teachers. The stories you hear are exceptions. Even without unions, there would surely be a few bad teachers, who are well connected or who contribute in other ways to the school (excellent coaches for example), and are kept for those reasons in spite of marginal teaching.

From my experience this isn't the case. And whenever there are budget cuts because economy is crashing the entire union goes up in arms if they have to take pay cuts because they are special and better than everyone else. Taxpayers aren't the once who support the idea of teaching children of illegal immigrants, while increasing class sizes and dumbing everything down to lowest common denominator. It's the unions who get paid for attendance, not for education.

I've seen people that graduated high school with no ability to do basic arithmetic. I think now there are some federally mandated tests being rolled out to prevent that, but thats how it was for a long time because unions wanted to pass everyone just to make their education look better on paper. To much extend that crap still happens. This isn't public service, this is an abuse of the public.

EMan says

From my experience

The only basis for any Eman argument

EMan says

And whenever there are budget cuts because economy is crashing the entire union goes up in arms if they have to take pay cuts because they are special and better than everyone else.

Total 100% made up bullshit as usual. I can show you the multiple cuts we have taken since 2008. Can you show me the so called "up in arms." I think what you refer to was mostly fighting actual lay offs and class size increases. Why is it that you make up all of this bs ?
EMan says

To much extend that crap still happens. This isn't public service, this is an abuse of the public.

Could you please maybe just one out of 20 times document or show some evidence to back up your made up bs. By the way, I still say that you are on public aid. There is no way that a guy making any kind of a decent living would rail against schools the way you do. I get that your schools let you down. Sorry, if you had some bad teachers, or if you blame them for your terrible performance in school. You should have worked harder. Sometimes, when students have the kind of learning handicaps you obviously have, it takes extra help. If you had asked the right people, I'm sure they would have been happy to help you.

Still, I am very sorry that you had such scarring experiences in school.

marcus those little passive aggressives aren't going to prove your point. rat is still a rat.

marcus says

There is no way that a guy making any kind of a decent living would rail against schools the way you do.

lol .. care to back up some of your bs with evidence?? lmao.

You have no logical reason for us to continue to over-pay for crappy schools other than "that's how we do it, so it must be right." I'd like to see some competition for the tax dollars between private and public, and then we'll see. Ofcourse, we will need to watch over the public teachers to make sure they are not getting together to change test scores, or other liberal ways of gaming the results like that. WHere is the outrage Lord Master?

Bap33 says

You have no logical reason for us to continue to over-pay for crappy schools other than "that's how we do it, so it must be right."

But where's the proof that public schools are generally crappy ?

The annual Gallup poll about education shows that Americans are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the quality of the nation’s schools, but 77 percent of public school parents award their own child’s public school a grade of A or B, the highest level of approval since the question was first asked in 1985.

I have toyed with the idea of teaching in a private school. Because then it would just be about the Math (minimal behavior distractions), with class sizes maybe as low as 15 ! That would be so nice. I would have to take a bit of a pay cut probably, but with 1/3 the students per class, and students who all want to learn and do well, it might be worth it.

But I'm in a decent school in a middle class area, where it's not too bad. Usually just one or two of my 5 classes are super difficult in terms of managing behavior.

The fact is, more than anything, what makes a bad school bad, is "bad students." When parents send their kids to a private school, its because of who the other students are. Generally the other students are children who at a minimum know their parents are paying 15 to 20K per year for this. That affects their attitude. It makes teaching FAR EASIER.

By bad students, I mean students who are not fed well, maybe have bad dysfunctional or criminal influences, or are depressed because of their poverty. MAybe even they are in a neighborhood where trying and caring about school gets you beaten up, for being so "uncool."

It's also true that the reason the very best colleges are so desired is because of who the competing students are. It's not because of the professors. Many undergrad classes at Harvard for example are taught by grad students.

I have thought a lot about vouchers and the charter school idea. The attraction for me to vouchers, is it makes school another consumer item, and increases awareness that it's worth something. This could over time improve the attitude of students. Motivating more kids to want to do well.

Here's the downside: Similar to republican proposals for what people under 55 would get in place of medicare, over time it would get to where good schools would cost a premium. Parents in lessor neighborhoods would send their kids to schools where the cost is voucher plus (some premium maybe a few thousand per year or more). Now, in these neighborhoods, the students left who will going to the default free public school, that is for those who can't swing the better private school, are left with a really bad option.

What you think of as competition, would be competition for the best students (the ones willing to pay a little more), and in turn for the best teachers. Like now, but worse. The default public schools in these areas then become even far far worse than they are now. With a very high percentage of unmotivated uncooperative children (far worse than now).

Hopefully you've considered what I'm saying here enough to understand it. If not, maybe others will get a little insight. Often things aren't quite as simple as they seem.

marcus says

What you think of as competition, would be competition for the best students (the ones willing to pay a little more), and in turn for the best teachers. Like now, but worse. The default public schools in these areas then become even far far worse than they are now. With a very high percentage of unmotivated uncooperative children (far worse than now).

Sir, in the quote above you wrapped up the entire issue. As with most liberal actions, the plan for public school is the spread the pain evenly and bring all areas to the lowest common denominator. You actually said that having any option other than the current public option would (likely) result in only the crappy students and teachers being left in the public school system. Marcus, my dear sweet friend, we finally agree 100% on something. The only trouble is, I would rather see the possibility for greatness to be achieved by those willing to do what it takes that do not have the funds, so vouchers (with the checks and balances that Troy pointed out) would be good. You seem to be willing to hold back the best and brightest to spread the misery - and while that is common in the liberal mind-set, it just does not seem like a teacher would have that frame-of-mind. You give your fellow teachers more credit than they deserve. How do you know that they have the same heart and soul to do their job with desire and purpose. When we read the way Sim describes how his dad did his job there is no doubt, none, that his fellow teachers knew he was special. I bet Sim's dad could tell when a fellow teacher had the heart for the job or not, and I bet you can too. Wouldn't you love the chance to shine as bright as you can, in a class room full of kids that were supported from home, or personally motivated, ready to work as hard as you want them to at gaining some knowledge? I know you would. But, just as you correctly pointed out, opening up the distribution of tax-dollars for parents to find schools that offer things like discipline, and Bible based education, and strict behavior guidelines, and no tollerance for anti-social, anti-American, anti-productive behavior ... would result in the public schools being left with teachers that could not cut it under the spotlight, teaching THE SAME KIDS THAT ARE MESSING UP SCHOOL NOW FOR EVERYONE ELSE THAT IS FORCED TO ATTEND. Allowing bad students to stay in school is just as bad as allowing bad teachers.

Anyways, I am glad we found a common agreement point. Have a great day. Support vouchers.

Bap33 says

You actually said that having any option other than the current public option would (likely) result in only the crappy students and teachers being left in the public school system.

You have to read more carefully. I was only talking about the terrible low socioeconomic areas, where public schools are already bad.

In good areas, like where I teach, where people move or cheat to get their kids in because it's such a great public school, it would be more or less the same after vouchers were instituted, because we are already competitive. Then again, it's hard to know for sure that private schools wouldn't spring up to siphon off many of our best students.

There are pieces of this very complicated puzzle that you don't get.

Truthplease says

Troy says

Public schools are a foundational element of a meritocratic all-in-it-together society. The intermixing of social classes is critical.

Agree completely.

Just try to understand, before looking to justify your point of view. I agree with the following too.

Bap33 says

Allowing bad students to stay in school is just as bad as allowing bad teachers.

Really ? It's their fault ? Let's say a kids dad was shot, and he was so distraught that he's now a few years behind. Maybe he's surly and has many bad influences. This kid doesn't deserve to be in an environment where he's around other kids who want to learn ?

You're right that we are closer to agreement. That is that the problem is one of values. Why don't more poor people in this country value education ? How do we turn that around ? Especially in those key early years, when parental involvement (ideally educated parents who know the value themselves) is so important.

How do we make schools in bad (poor) neighborhoods a place where behavior has to be good, and where everyone attends ?

You see simple solutions to this. That's fine.

marcus says

Just try to understand, before looking to justify your point of view.

Is that to me? I do want to understand. I don't believe in cutting anyone's opportunity for a good education.

marcus says

Similar to republican proposals for what people under 55 would get in place of medicare, over time it would get to where good schools would cost a premium. Parents in lessor neighborhoods would send their kids to schools where the cost is voucher plus (some premium maybe a few thousand per year or more). Now, in these neighborhoods, the students left who will going to the default free public school, that is for those who can't swing the better private school, are left with a really bad option.

Like I said above, Sweden has vouchers but schools can't charge more than the voucher.

It seems to me that the Scandinavian countries actually understand economics much better than we here, who are alleged champions of economic thought.

Or maybe the champions of the free market do understand economics, and how in this case vouchers would just funnel MORE money into education, and desire this for their private gains -- the idea of a stupendous amount of tax money going into Christian youth indoctrination centers gives these people woodies no doubt.

So much of this voucher stuff is really back-door price support to private industry. Same damn thing with Medicare Part D. Back then I was too naive to see that it was just a price support for the drug companies -- the big companies could afford to lower their damn prices to seniors, instead they got government to pay them to keep prices high here.

marcus says

There is no way that a guy making any kind of a decent living would rail against schools the way you do.

It's called patriotism marcus.

EMan says

It's called patriotism marcus.

It's possible I'm wrong, but then that means I'm not wrong about the other. Or you just listen to too much of the right wing propaganda. That is selfish people who want to justify not paying in to the education of other peoples kids. That's the opposite of my kind of Patriotism.

Truthplease says

Is that to me? I do want to understand. I don't believe in cutting anyone's opportunity for a good education.

Yes, I agree. That's one of the things that Bap can't see. Let's say for the sake of example, there are only three kinds of students, good students (well motivated, with above average aptitude, and attitude), neutral students (average aptitude, so so motivation, and very influenced by the types of students they are surrounded by)., and bad students (poorly motivated, often disruptive and needy for any kind of attention, and in many cases below average aptitude - (sometimes just from being so far behind)).

So:

Good, Neutral and Bad

(note: in actuality it's a more complex continuum).

Bap says, if you are in a bad neighborhood, get the bad students out of the picture, let them all attend one school together, a school where almost nobody succeeds. They don't even have hardly any examples of what being a successful student looks like at that school.

What he is missing is exactly what you say, many of those bad students, are in their situation for reasons mostly that they were born in to. Why don't they deserve to be surrounded by cool kids setting a good example, or at least not segregated off to being only with others like them or worse.

Typical decent to good public schools have a lot of "honors classes" and many of those students are "cool." Often some of the coolest, the kind of kids that many in the neutral to slightly bad category would want to emulate.

Students in the "bad" category, deserve a chance to grow and become better students. Many studies have shown that the best opportunities for that is in a diverse school. Ones like the one I work at. We have many students that go to 4 years schools, a little less that go to UC schools and fewer still that go to the Top tier private schools with scholarships. We have hundreds of student who take at least a few AP classes (college classes) before they graduate.

The example that those students set for others is worth far more than any lecture an adult can give at a low perfoming school that has almost exclusively unmotivated "bad students."

The other thing that Bap and Eman miss is how good the typical public school is, if it's in a middle class area or upper middle class. Many of the best high schools in the country are in this category, and yes, public !!

The annual Gallup poll about education shows that Americans are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the quality of the nation’s schools, but 77 percent of public school parents award their own child’s public school a grade of A or B, the highest level of approval since the question was first asked in 1985.

Sorry to repeat this so many times, but I'm pretty sure that Bap and Eman don't comprehend the implications.

MY public school is in LA, and we have graduates from recent years that went on to Harvard, MIT, CalTech, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Columbia, and many other great private schools. If that can be done as it is at thousands of public hgh schools in the US, and they simultaneously serve a significant number of relatively unmotivated and lower performing students, then how do you logically argue for revamping everything? I know the answer behind your puppet masters. They don't want to pay for it, and they really believe that relative to tax dollars thay can get a better deal with private schools.

They want to dismantle one of the greatest things about this country. I thought conservatives were supposed to be real smart about the risks they take.

I'm the conservative on this topic, if you have any clue what it means. You are just listening to the noise coming from your corporate overlords. Amazing really, the way they get you to do their bidding.

marcus says

Bap33 says

Allowing bad students to stay in school is just as bad as allowing bad teachers.

Really ? It's their fault ? Let's say a kids dad was shot, and he was so distraught that he's now a few years behind. Maybe he's surly and has many bad influences. This kid doesn't deserve to be in an environment where he's around other kids who want to learn ?

You're right that we are closer to agreement. That is that the problem is one of values. Why don't more poor people in this country value education ? How do we turn that around ? Especially in those key early years, when parental involvement (ideally educated parents who know the value themselves) is so important.

How do we make schools in bad (poor) neighborhoods a place where behavior has to be good, and where everyone attends ?

You see simple solutions to this. That's fine.

excellant discourse, thank you for the civility.
From top to bottom:
The first lesson to be learned would be that life is not fair and that the welfare system is producing very poor parents due to them not worring about who is knocking them up as a teen. And if you are honest you will say that the bad kids are raised by a single mom or live with grandma or someone else.

Poor people do educate their young. Bad people do not. I do not equate the two, and I do not think you do either, but I just wanted to be clear. I was raised more poor than middle-class when viewed against my fellow students and area, but #1) I knew nothing else, and #2) my dad had me ready for 2nd grade when I showed up for K because he would spend the evenings playing games that taught me stuff like letters and numbers and writting but I didn't know it because they were just games to me.

Your idea of having a few bad kids sprinkled into the mix that will just follow along with the good kids is not a bad idea, it is just the opposite of the human condition. Tossing a bad dog in the pen full of good dogs results in a pen full of bad dogs. Putting the edgy kid in the pile of obediant kids results in lots of friction. Those edgy kids tend to command lots of attention and gather followers like a dog gets fleas. They will tease the hard working kids, the egdy dudes will enjoy the charms of the less worldly girls. You see, the fact is, the troubled life kids have a TON of education under their belts, but it is not from a book. They are very exciting, know how to lie, manipulate, twist, obstruct, and just mess up stuff -- for reasons that are just and unjust. And now hear this - bad kids come from wealthy homes too. Spoiled ass rich white brat Chad and his sister Starbright, that have never been chastened, and get to tell mommy how to cook their food, they are a pain too and a teacher's nightmare. They are also the most common first drug supply in class. But, life is not about deserves and fair, and those that do not understand that spend lots of money. American life is about freedom ... to try and fail, or try and succeed, or sit on you ass and not even try at all. That last catagory, and their spawn, is supposed to live hungry, in my opinion.

You ask how do we make bad schools good, but you incorrectly tied poor to that question. I do not think the economic condition of the area a school sits in should make any difference in the educational process. It should not be focused or even mentioned. Same for the economic condition of the kids. What has to be taught and learned does not (should not) change based on any student's family worth. I will answer your question, but I just wanted to be clear. The best way to get things right is to fix the family. The good old fashioned (conservative) style family for a kid to enter this world. That is the long term fix. We also need to stop allowing for excuses based on the economic condition of an area or a school's demographic. I have coffee with an old retired man. He was raised in Iowa and graduated the year Japan surrendered. His school was one room with a curtin that seperated the little kids from the bigger kids. He went to that one room school every day that there was no work on the farm during the winter months. He suggests that school be left open all year around "so kids can come in should they get the urge." This man graduated with a perfect 4.0, was the vallydictorian(spelled wrong because I'm lazy and ellie would know I had to cheat to spell it correctly - lol)- he went on to desogn and build rocket engines for missles, then he went to work for GM designing and testing the Corvair and after he retired he went to work for U-haul and designed and tested their cooling systems and large truck auto transmissions. He crashed cars for Nadar. He went to the top of every field and was born stone poor to a single mom and he never seen a college campus until he was asked to speak at one. His mom had his well versed in the Bible when he entered school at "6 or so". This old guy is not a common case, and neither is the kid who had a dad at home that was a good dad that was shot and turned the kid's life upside down. The drive to do something is wired in, and the fact is our welfare system is promoting the expansion of a sect of the poulation that did not get that same wire diagram. The way to make a "poor" school work is to hold that school to the exact same standards as every other school on the planet. Do not let the lowered drive of the demographic change how you do things. You set the pace, you outline the goal. And you do what you say. One EXTRA thing that may help is after hours and weekend school based activities. Less free time is not a bad thing. Remove all gang related everything - bad kids first. This needs to start in 5th grade. Make all junior high's use uniforms in areas with population's over 5,000. Have a school uniform of very basic clothes sourced from WalMart. I say WalMart due to the fact there is one in pretty much every town.
To help poor schools and bad students, change the entire teaching structure and make it more like cops and CHP's. When a person is first hired they should be in a pool that will see them placed wherever the STATE says they need them. The new hires are cheaper and fresher and eager, so they should serve an apprenticship that lasts four years while they learn their trade. They will then be constantly placed in areas where they will have the best impact on kids and lowest impact on schools. So, when a person becomes a teacher they do so knowing that their position will require state-wide mobility for the first 4 years. This one thing will allow bad area's access to good teachers.

Better teacher's may be available by reducing the focus on how well a person performs as a student. This is really important in the teacher profession since a conservative minded person going through college could really have their grades and career effected by a liberal minded bitter professor -- for example. So, I suggest the review boards that accept teacher's into the apprenticship be made up of non-teachers. Have a lawyer, a preacher, a beat cop, and a local military recruter do the reviews. I chose those carefully, can you figure out why?

I do not see simple solutions to the current SITUATION, mostly because it not a "school problem", it is a social problem. Most of the issue is caused by a reduction in personal accountiblity in society (along with a host of other social issues). However, I do see a way to motivate the Edeucational Monster to do a better job and a lower cost - vouchers (with restrictions as suggested by Troy)

Bap33 says

You ask how do we make bad schools good, but you incorrectly tied poor to that question. I do not think the economic condition of the area a school sits in should make any difference in the educational process. It should not be focused or even mentioned.

Sounds very liberal.

In theory I agree. Maybe if our world wasn't the way it is you would be correct. But the truth is, that the bad public school are in poor areas. Thats simply a known fact. It's not even close to being questionable.

When I went in to teaching, I thought, I love Math and I think I have insights that can make it easier to learn many topics in Math. That is, I thought "I know how to make things easy to understand." Getting to my point, I also thought that while it would be enjoyable to teach the smartest and hungriest for knowledge type of students, that the real rewarding work would be making a difference with struggling students.

There is a small amount of truth to what I thought, but generally speaking, in practice I was wrong, at least with respect to what I like. But also in the difference I can make with a student that is really "turned off' to school. For many of these students, its just not the right time. Many will be ready at some point to settle down and try, but now just isn't that time. There can be many reasons for it.

Without going further in to it, I am trying to explain why it is that teaching in the really tough unsuccessful schools (and sorry but it is all about poverty), is not attractive to great teachers, and how great teachers alone will not turn it around. Especially not at high school, where the die has already been cast (many students 2 to 5 years behind grade level - but they are going to be tested at grade level).
Being expected to leap several grade levels, for a students who believes that being in school sucks ? That's not much fun, and will be a lot of work (it turns out the rich get richer and vice versa even in school - starts at the age of 5). Why should they try to do that ?

Teachers are not the problem in these schools. It is family and all external influences. All the little influences that a child picks up at home and from friends, and in the day to day living they have done so far. Manners, it turns out are huge.

Speaking of manners, I know I have been rude to you Bap.

Bap33 says

thank you for the civility

I guess what I can say about that, is thanks for not going too over the top with certain beliefs of yours which offend me on a deep level. Not using the term "invaders" (although I saw you are still flaunting this, what I consider very racist view) in other threads. I also appreciate not making over the top ridiculous statements about how everything you don't like about our culture and poverty is the fault of liberal policies.

I see some pretty extreme ignorance with children, but that's one of the beauties of working with children, that they are never so far down the path with their beliefs that many adults are. And outright hate, if it exists, is usually confined to individuals, or a particular gang etc.

Where was I, about schools ? I guess I'm going to work toward wrapping it up for now.

Bap33 says

I do not see simple solutions to the current SITUATION, mostly because it not a "school problem", it is a social problem.

Correct. And it must be nice to have all the solutions to this. As it turns out, just as it is true in the academic world, understanding the question is far more important than many realize.

The single and best first solution would be to improve our economy which in turn could reduce dependence on welfare or other forms of public aid. You would agree with this I'm sure. Considering how that might occur is a topic for another thread.

The other thing you have to realize is that change takes time. We are in the middle of many negative changes that are slowly happening, while many people are demanding quick fixes to problems that don't have quick fixes.

Many don't even acknowledge that a big chunk of the terrible spending that Obama did was bailing out states and their public service workers (including teachers).

Anyway, I find it fascinating that it is at these times when states are broke, that you and others are talking about improving public schools, and the terrible job that public schools supposedly do. Why can't people just admit that they don't want to pay for public schools ?

It's another example of bullshit that Troy refers to in another thread.

It's bullshit !

And you don't even know what the puppet master who has his hand up your ass is doing. It's plain and simple, they want to stop paying for public education, or at least paying as much as we do. That's what this is about.

That would never fly. Oooh, I know, let's say we want to improve education. Yeah that's what this is about.

(Chris should be chiming in now, about how teachers and administrators are completely complacent about test scores and their school's performance. It's the union's fault. Obviously the place to start in improving education is reducing compensation to teachers).

Bap33 says

spelled wrong because I'm lazy and ellie would know I had to cheat to spell it correctly - lol

Really? You think that your spelling is the only problem with your writing?

374 words, one paragraph (in this thread)
537 words, another paragraph (in this thread).

You bitch about public schools and the quality of education. I attended public schools - some in bigger California cities, some in rural towns in several other states. I attended ten different schools in the 12 year period through high school graduation.

Yet somehow or another I learned to communicate effectively - both verbally and in the written form. I can spell and formulate complete sentences - and paragraphs, which make it easier for my reader(s) to understand the content. I also possess the ability to use a spell-check, which was created for writers of varying abilities in order to present a clear message.

Sure, our system needs to revamped, and people need to be responsible for their children's educational process. But every time that you post a huge paragraph, you lose your audience. All I see is blah, blah, blah and I skip it.

You might actually have something pertinent to say - you sometimes do. However, your complaints about the public school system don't hold water (hell, they leak like a sieve!) due to your lack of ability to present your message in a readable manner.

In summation, if your writing is directed towards me, Elvis has left the room. ;)

P.S. I forgot to mention that, while I didn't present the need for a spell-check of the previous post, I still used it for the courtesy of my reader(s).

It's called respect, and also the desire for my message to be understood as I meant it to be. FYI.

marcus says

The single and best first solution would be to improve our economy which in turn could reduce dependence on welfare or other forms of public aid. You would agree with this I'm sure. Considering how that might occur is a topic for another thread.

There is a chicken and egg argument here. Sure if you can get poor people to totally change their values and priorities, using religion, or getting them to all vote republican(joke), then maybe their personal economies and also child rearing will improve.

I would argue that it works the other way, and that even now, having an economy where many can get out of those neighborhoods and or where the neighborhoods slowly improve, because of economics, is the route to better parenting and the better values that come with being in a middle class family.

It is truly "chicken and egg." Why does a teen have a child ? In the few cases I have seen they were Mexican Americans. But then my school is 70% Mexican American. But was it because they wanted to exploit our system, or was it more about their culture and their very specific situation? Many early generation Mexican Americans see a woman(girl) as marriageable after the age of 15. The examples I have seen, the girl comes back to school while the mother or others in the extended family take care of the baby during the day.

These are often Catholics and usually with together strong families. It's not happening that much, but when it does, they seem to take it in stride. I see strong family values there (although nontraditional).

elliemae says

Really? You think that your spelling is the only problem with your writing?

no, I was just hitting the easy ones. Low fruit, if you will. Writing skills are on the wrong side of my brain, next to art. lol

marcus says

Not using the term "invaders" (although I saw you are still flaunting this, what I consider very racist view) in other threads.

We have been invaded by the on-pupose moving into our country by people that are not supposed to be here that came from another country. The term "invaders" is much more correct than a term like "aliens", because some aliens are here legally. It's better than "immigrant" because some immigrants are here legally. Invader is a term that has no positive spin available for the loony left to twist about. As for "racist", that is ridiculous. There is no "race" tied to the invasion nor the invaders. Language and culture have been destroyed, but nothing about race is in play at this time. Well, unless you are a negro or asain, then you are being pushed out of the lower income areas. Other than that, no racial componant is part of the invasion that I know of. I almost went with "raider" because that particular team is pretty popular with the sect we are talking about, but "raider" implies someone who takes and then leaves. Invaders stay. But, trust me, I see no race issue in the invasion, just economic collapse and social upheaval along with a very uncomfotable life for those who try to resist the invaders. No race card here.

marcus says

I would argue that it works the other way, and that even now, having an economy where many can get out of those neighborhoods and or where the neighborhoods slowly improve, because of economics, is the route to better parenting and the better values that come with being in a middle class family.

you would be 100% correct if there were not welfare programs like Section 8 and the cash EBT card that allows non-productive people to live in those better areas that some other productive people (like your example) are busting their butts to get to. Hard work should result in a better living situation (absent bad luck), but the fact is, in this state, a knocked up teen is a cash cow and a free ticket to the good side of town. If all of the gangsters came from rich families with a mom and dad and a BMW, folks would be honest about thr corrolation in play here. Gangsters get their girls prego on purpose and that is their support system for food, shelter, and medicine. Cut that welfare off and getting prego as a teen holds less value. Lets try it and see.

Bap33 says

No race card here.

I believe you, it's a difference in definition. They consider themselves other than "white" at least until a couple or three generations later. There is some subtlety and complexity to this. By my definitions you have have a very racist view. I understand that by yours you don't. It's just a word. It implies prejudice, generalizations, erroneous and overly simplified conclusions, and often a lot of inappropriate emotions tied to faulty "logic." It's not so much about whether we are technically talking about another race or not.

But it is something we would probably be best off not hashing out here.
You aren't even going to change my mind about whether it's racist, let alone whether your inferences are generally correct or not.

Bap33 says

No race card here.

Bap33 says

negro, asain, Language and culture have been destroyed, the sect we are talking about, economic collapse and social upheaval along with a very uncomfotable life for those who try to resist the invaders...

You present as racist. You truly do. If that's not your goal, you may want to change the way that you come across.

Food stamps allow people to live in wealthier areas? Really?

copy that ellie

HW, I did not mention WIC or ADC .... that EBT card is cash in hand to spend as wished, so your point may be off mark a bit. But, to a point, YES access to food aide would/should allow a person to spend more in other places, housing being one. If your meals were all paid for it would effect your housing budget too.

Bap33 says

a knocked up teen is a cash cow and a free ticket to the good side of town.

a knocked up teen that just crossed a border is even a bigger ticket. I remember when I was young and our neighbor was living on welfare, government paid their housing, their utilities, their food, and they actually made more money than me because they worked for cash and paid 0 taxes while all their expenses were paid for by everyone who paid taxes.

CA abuses it's labor and working class.