Conquer Club

BigBallinStalin wrote:You have to admit, woodruff, your post does come off as arrogant. And it's unwarranted, and the Russians have filed it in their human rights abuse records.

It's a good thing he has his air force connections. If the records are in Siberia, he has a good chance at destroying those records. If they're at the Kremlin, I don't think he'll have enough juice.

john9blue wrote:i see no reason why you can't both be right.

This is very correct. In fact, part of the reason why there is often so little agreement is because the actual problems differ considerably in each district. The problems that are major here, in my district are not necessarily the worst problems in Philadelphia or California or Minnesota.

In many ways, this is much more like a biological/ecological problem than a tax or entrepreneur problem. Taxes differ, but everyone follows the same basic federal rules and, within each state, the same basic state rules. Only some local areas have any taxes at all.. and there is a serious limit to how much variation there can be.

In schools, you have multiple state systems, each with very, very different designs. No child left behind was actually somewhat good in that sense, in the sense of setting forth unified standards. The problem was that the standards set forward had little to do with how kids really learn or how kids/teachers really need to be assessed. In fact, it was designed after (said this before) the state with the absolutely WORST track record. Mississippi, etc might have a worse reputation, but that is because of "local" issues, not the state's design. (hurricanes, race issues, etc, etc).

This is also the problem with parental involvement. As I noted in my poor post above to Woodruff, parents have very different goals. A school system that is supposed to meet the demands of all parents will virtually always fail, becuase some of those goals are plain contradictory. Here, far too many parents are quite happy to see their kids NOT learn what I call real science and even real language arts. They see those things as sort of leading to what is stereotypically called "liberal ideas" instead of what they see as hard core, down to Earth values. If your "plan" for your child is to see them work at Walmart or a local factory, or possibly as a teacher/pastor... and only the top few as things like doctors or attorneys or even accountants, then your idea of a good education is very different than if you see the Walmart/factory job as the "fallback" and the other jobs as the real goals.

Let's make a list of things which negatively affects public schools:

1) teacher unions
2) no child left behind
3) ???

Tests that are too "hard" being dumbed down so every kid can pass is pretty much stupid.

thegreekdog wrote:
The problem is that it is difficult for a poor teacher to be fired and replaced with a good teacher (because of teachers' unions). Teaching should be a profession, not a job (similar to lawyer, engineer or doctor). I haven't thought that all the way through, but it might solve some problems with bad teachers.

Except this is not the truth. That is, when I look around... and when I say "look around", I mean not just here, but in 6 different states (where I have contacts), among people with VERY different philosophies (some of my friends are Waldorf devotees, others very conservative young earth creationists, other very "traditional"-minded, etc, etc, etc,), I just don't see unions as holding up the firing of bad teachers.. at all!

Instead, what I see is a HUGE disagreement over what even constitutes a "bad teacher". The teacher whom I have vilified repeatedly for (among many other issues) passing out written handouts that said that amphibians were vertebrates, which means no backbone is one that several of my neighbors specifically request for their kids! They could care less about the science, and whereas I see her heavy-handed discipline as being uneven and poor, they see it as just what they want. Their kids, after all are learning in church that the Earth was created in 6000 years, so what do they care if some stupid scientific ideas are "wrong". "All of science is just open to question anyway!" (direct quote!). And, its not just the teachers, its the entire system.

When the school cafeteria head is bragging about how wonderful her food plans are.. never mind they are high in simple carbohydrates, feature limited poor vegetable and fruit offerings, etc, etc... oh yeah, and her "answer" to too much sugar is just to offere desserts with artificial sugar ... then how can I expect my kids to learn decent nutrition? When kids are being told over and over by school nurses and teachers to use antibiotic soap, not just to scrup well with regular soap, then how can I expect them to really be taught about the serious problems of bacterial drug resistance...

AND... that gets back to my original argument. The problem of poor schooling doesn't start today. This demise of science .. and yes, history, creative writing, etc, etc... all go back decades. Now we have a generation of adults who just don't even know that other things are available or care that they are. And, no, its not all about creationism. A LOT of it goes to misguided attempts to cut school budgets. Why on Earth would education be somehow cheaper when what kids need to learn today is many folds as much as was needed earlier AND when far more kids are there to be educated.. and I mean kids that are now much harder to educate than in the past!

The truth is that good education costs money.. there is just no way around that, and all this talk about blaming unions for raising prices, teachers for "demanding too much", administrators for wasting money have only a very small amount of truth. The REAL truth, as I have said before is that there are just too many people in real power in this country who see a good public education as a threat.. they don't want another 60-'s and 70's style-revolt. They don't want a new generation that sees the problems with society and is willing to go out and march to fix it, not really. They want a bunch of spoiled brat "occupy" folks, and for their kids to quietly go to the elite schools, along with the small contingent of "others" "allowed in" so they all can feel good about "offering opportunity" to the "less advantaged". The top, elite schools will NEVER serve everyone. They are not designed to do that! We need a good, base of public education that is available to all so we can move forward as a nation. We don't need every student to become a doctor, no. However, we need every student to understand enough of ecology and the world around to know that Global warming is NOT a giant hoax perpetuated by some elitist scientists. We need kids to know enough about economics to understand how loans and credit cards work, roughly. We need kids to be literate and to know basic geometry, trig and algebra. AND we need kids to know enough about world history, world cultures that hey don't think Islam is equal to terrorism. Then we need opportunities everywhere for the top kids to move on to various types of "professional" type positions and skilled trades. But, even the kid who just wants to go work at the local gas station needs to know as much as possible of the above just to be a reasonable, voting citizen. Those are not the goals for the elite, those are the goals for the average students. yet.. that is not what we are seeing, at all. In fact, we are seeing many, many intelligent folks arguing absolutely against all of that because they don't happen to like or agree with some piece of it. And THAT is the real problem.

Right now, there are too many people who have more to gain by NOT educating the majority of kids than have to benefit from them being educated... and somehow they have been able to convince a large swath of he average American public to buy into their "arguments" for why public schools are a "failure" and should not be supported.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Let's make a list of things which negatively affects public schools:

1) teacher unions

Show real examples, not fiction, of how you feel this is the number one impediment to education...

not isolated examples, but real pervasive problems.

Here's my list:

(1) Parents - 75%
(2) Teachers (including teachers' unions) - 25%

That's pretty much my entire list.

thegreekdog wrote:Here's my list:

(1) Parents - 75%
.

Except here is the thing. Schools are meant to serve parents, bow to their wishes, so how, then can it truly be said that the parents are the problem... unless its just that the parent's views of what is needed disagree with your own views. (which is what I feel is the case.. that parents are making poorly informed choices due to their own lack of education).

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Here's my list:

(1) Parents - 75%
.

Except here is the thing. Schools are meant to serve parents, bow to their wishes, so how, then can it truly be said that the parents are the problem... unless its just that the parent's views of what is needed disagree with your own views. (which is what I feel is the case.. that parents are making poorly informed choices due to their own lack of education).

I believe that many parents don't place a high value on education; thus, their children don't place a high value on education. Whether that's because parents are poorly educated isn't really relevant.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Here's my list:

(1) Parents - 75%
.

Except here is the thing. Schools are meant to serve parents, bow to their wishes, so how, then can it truly be said that the parents are the problem... unless its just that the parent's views of what is needed disagree with your own views. (which is what I feel is the case.. that parents are making poorly informed choices due to their own lack of education).

Theres your answer in bold, to be mostly blamed on is really the parents.

Because Mommy feels that Jimmy can pass the WASL (Or whatever state test required to graduate) but Jimmy can't seem to pass it the third time, instead of studying and what not, good ol' Jimmy just smokes pot out back, skips class and does what he wants. Parent disciplinary is pretty much laughable, so Mommy just decides to get a little crowd going and make said tests easier so Jimmy can pass and do nothing with his life.

Pretty much just sums up how my generation is going to shit.

DirtyDishSoap wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Here's my list:

(1) Parents - 75%
.

Except here is the thing. Schools are meant to serve parents, bow to their wishes, so how, then can it truly be said that the parents are the problem... unless its just that the parent's views of what is needed disagree with your own views. (which is what I feel is the case.. that parents are making poorly informed choices due to their own lack of education).

Theres your answer in bold, to be mostly blamed on is really the parents.

Because Mommy feels that Jimmy can pass the WASL (Or whatever state test required to graduate) but Jimmy can't seem to pass it the third time, instead of studying and what not, good ol' Jimmy just smokes pot out back, skips class and does what he wants. Parent disciplinary is pretty much laughable, so Mommy just decides to get a little crowd going and make said tests easier so Jimmy can pass and do nothing with his life.

Pretty much just sums up how my generation is going to shit.

Yeah, there's that element too (coddling?). I heard it's started happening in colleges as well. I'm waiting for when I get a call from one of the parents of one of the associates working in my office - "Jimmy did a good job and worked hard, you should have given him a better review of his work."

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Here's my list:

(1) Parents - 75%
.

Except here is the thing. Schools are meant to serve parents, bow to their wishes, so how, then can it truly be said that the parents are the problem... unless its just that the parent's views of what is needed disagree with your own views. (which is what I feel is the case.. that parents are making poorly informed choices due to their own lack of education).

I believe that many parents don't place a high value on education; thus, their children don't place a high value on education. Whether that's because parents are poorly educated isn't really relevant.

Except, is the first part REALLY true, that is it really that they don't value education or that they see education as supposed to be something other than it is.

For example, the parents at a local meeting here who insisted that they wanted schools to teach their kids to be "good people" first.. and that "technical stuff" was "secondary"

Also, from the perspective of politicians who just want people to vote per their wishes (the wishes of those really funding them, supporting them behind the scenes), why doesn't matter. However, it very much does matter for society.


To put it another way:
If you see all these new environmental rules as the major impediment to your profit, then you don't really care if people vote no because they want more businesses to succeed/believe that things like mining will provide more jobs OR if they vote "no" because they are young earth creationists who don't believe most of what those liberal idiot scientists say anyway.

thegreekdog wrote:

DirtyDishSoap wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Here's my list:

(1) Parents - 75%
.

Except here is the thing. Schools are meant to serve parents, bow to their wishes, so how, then can it truly be said that the parents are the problem... unless its just that the parent's views of what is needed disagree with your own views. (which is what I feel is the case.. that parents are making poorly informed choices due to their own lack of education).

Theres your answer in bold, to be mostly blamed on is really the parents.

Because Mommy feels that Jimmy can pass the WASL (Or whatever state test required to graduate) but Jimmy can't seem to pass it the third time, instead of studying and what not, good ol' Jimmy just smokes pot out back, skips class and does what he wants. Parent disciplinary is pretty much laughable, so Mommy just decides to get a little crowd going and make said tests easier so Jimmy can pass and do nothing with his life.

Pretty much just sums up how my generation is going to shit.

Yeah, there's that element too (coddling?). I heard it's started happening in colleges as well. I'm waiting for when I get a call from one of the parents of one of the associates working in my office - "Jimmy did a good job and worked hard, you should have given him a better review of his work."

There is certainly truth here, and it is nothing new. The only thing that is new is that more middle class parents believe this. Before, it was mostly the elite, the powerful in any community who assumed their kids ought to do better than other kids simply becuase they came from the "better family". (now note, there is some truth to that... as my dad used to say "blood does tell"... I would certainly expect Donald Trump's kids, barring birth defects or such, to come out better than the local drug dealer's kids.. simply because of where they come from. However, that also gets into a complex mix of biology versus environment). Also, as much as the wealthy dad might "pay off" a teacher, he might also just go and hire a tutor or send his kid to a different, stricter school.


But, more importantly, this is also one of those things that gets distorted a lot.

Right now, I am likely seen as one of "those parents" by many in my son's school. Why? Because I am telling them to forget the tests, and just place my son where I feel he should go. Note.. I am saying this because I see that he is having testing issues, but is learning and that keeping him back to his "testing placement" is impeding his learning. But... from the school's perspective, it is hard or impossible to distiguish my demands from the many "my kid's ass doesn't stink" parents and how dare you criticize MY kid attitudes. In fact, that we are up there, saying "sure, we know our kid is not perfect, but..." actually seems to have given the school a ready excuse to blame him for causing every problem he encounters.

This is a big part of what is wrong with no child left behind. It is not that these tests are "too hard" or whatever, its that they just do not properly test kids, particularly elementary age kids. We CAN do better, but schools are essentially forbidden to do better.


The Magnet/Charter schools are given more freedom, but the good ones (some are experimental failures), all have huge waiting lists. Even when these schools are very, very successful, they are not seen as models for changing the traditional school or improving other public schools, they are just seen as ways to either give opportunity to a lucky few or to siphon off some kids with particular wants.

I would like to see regular schools actualy learn from the successful magnet schools.

One of the best policies I saw when I worked in Japan was the way that they moved around teachers between schools every few years. After four or five years working in a school, a teacher was up for rotation to another school in the locality. Practically, what this meant was that new teachers got to see a wide spectrum of school communities, but the most interesting part was what they did with the discipline teachers. That's pretty much how they were referred to, by the way, the discipline teachers.

These were the teachers who were hard, strict, and the teachers who gave assemblies when some student had done something bad and the student body needed a talk.

They had a tough time- they tended to get moved to schools with serious problems, but oddly enough, after a few years (I was mostly in JHS) those schools weren't problems anymore. Of course, other problem schools emerged, but they were dealt with in turn.

The problem seems to me to be that a school can develop a very static culture and once that's in place it's very hard to change.

Symmetry wrote:One of the best policies I saw when I worked in Japan was the way that they moved around teachers between schools every few years. After four or five years working in a school, a teacher was up for rotation to another school in the locality. Practically, what this meant was that new teachers got to see a wide spectrum of school communities, but the most interesting part was what they did with the discipline teachers. That's pretty much how they were referred to, by the way, the discipline teachers.

These were the teachers who were hard, strict, and the teachers who gave assemblies when some student had done something bad and the student body needed a talk.

They had a tough time- they tended to get moved to schools with serious problems, but oddly enough, after a few years (I was mostly in JHS) those schools weren't problems anymore. Of course, other problem schools emerged, but they were dealt with in turn.

The problem seems to me to be that a school can develop a very static culture and once that's in place it's very hard to change.

I agree that schools can be static, but that's partly because some communities themselves are static. Schools in CA tend to change, becuase the entire population often changes. Here... well, most of these kids' grandparents went to the same schools, and many of the teachers were raised in this area. "Non-local" here means "in the next town." That said, we have gone through 2 superintendents and 3 principals in the past 12 years... and multiple teacher hirings and firings.

Anyway, it is an interesting idea, but I am not sure it, alone is really a solution. We seem to have a heavy rotation. Also, that would require a more unified approach to hiring, instead of it being essentially up to individual school boards and administrations.

One idea I like, is to have the kids do more of the basic work of maintaining the school themselves.. be it sweeping and cleaning windows or even having older students do basic repairs. It actually might not really save money, since the kids will likely require more supervision, but it would help instill more respect over the long term. And... in time, might be self-perpetuating enough to actually save some money.

BigBallinStalin wrote:You have to admit, woodruff, your post does come off as arrogant.

Why hello there! My name is Woodruff. Glad to have just met you.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Let's make a list of things which negatively affects public schools:

1) teacher unions
2) no child left behind
3) ???

So many things that I could list separately all seem to fall within the purview of NCLB.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Here's my list:

(1) Parents - 75%
.

Except here is the thing. Schools are meant to serve parents, bow to their wishes, so how, then can it truly be said that the parents are the problem... unless its just that the parent's views of what is needed disagree with your own views. (which is what I feel is the case.. that parents are making poorly informed choices due to their own lack of education).

Parental apathy. In the TWO AND A HALF YEARS I've been teaching here at my current school, I have literally seen fewer than 30 parents/sets of parents total at parent-teacher conferences...and that includes repeat appearances by many of them. If I don't count repeat appearances, it's probably less than 15. The only parents I ever see or have communicate with me via email on their own initiative are the parents of successful kids. I can't imagine there's a correlation there, of course. Our parent-teacher conferences are set up to be as parent-friendly as possible, by NOT setting hard-and-fast appointments, but rather having all teachers congregated (at individual tables) in our largest gym, freely available for parents to come visit on a first-come-first-served basis.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Here's my list:

(1) Parents - 75%
.

Except here is the thing. Schools are meant to serve parents, bow to their wishes, so how, then can it truly be said that the parents are the problem... unless its just that the parent's views of what is needed disagree with your own views. (which is what I feel is the case.. that parents are making poorly informed choices due to their own lack of education).

I believe that many parents don't place a high value on education; thus, their children don't place a high value on education. Whether that's because parents are poorly educated isn't really relevant.

Unfortunately, I agree with this position.

thegreekdog wrote:

DirtyDishSoap wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Here's my list:

(1) Parents - 75%
.

Except here is the thing. Schools are meant to serve parents, bow to their wishes, so how, then can it truly be said that the parents are the problem... unless its just that the parent's views of what is needed disagree with your own views. (which is what I feel is the case.. that parents are making poorly informed choices due to their own lack of education).

Theres your answer in bold, to be mostly blamed on is really the parents.

Because Mommy feels that Jimmy can pass the WASL (Or whatever state test required to graduate) but Jimmy can't seem to pass it the third time, instead of studying and what not, good ol' Jimmy just smokes pot out back, skips class and does what he wants. Parent disciplinary is pretty much laughable, so Mommy just decides to get a little crowd going and make said tests easier so Jimmy can pass and do nothing with his life.

Pretty much just sums up how my generation is going to shit.

Yeah, there's that element too (coddling?). I heard it's started happening in colleges as well. I'm waiting for when I get a call from one of the parents of one of the associates working in my office - "Jimmy did a good job and worked hard, you should have given him a better review of his work."

The reason it happens in college is different, though, in my opinion. College these days is aimed precisely at making money. Admissions requirements are slipping massively, every kid is told they need to attend college, many classes are easier to pass...it's all about the almighty dollar at college these days.

Bring back the wood stick and these kids will start learning

Oh and take away vid games like CC

Symmetry wrote: The problem seems to me to be that a school can develop a very static culture and once that's in place it's very hard to change.

I think that's a very good point. It usually takes something fairly major (good or bad) to make that static change (for the good or bad). That's probably true of most work environments, other than the ones that by their very nature are very fluid and dynamic...its' sort of human nature (and I don't mean that as an excuse).

PLAYER57832 wrote:One idea I like, is to have the kids do more of the basic work of maintaining the school themselves.. be it sweeping and cleaning windows or even having older students do basic repairs. It actually might not really save money, since the kids will likely require more supervision, but it would help instill more respect over the long term. And... in time, might be self-perpetuating enough to actually save some money.

This absolutely does help, at least with most kids. We in AFJROTC have an agreement with our school that if one of our cadets does something that gets them suspended or damages the school in some way, they must do a certain amount of "school community service", which basically equates to doing basic custodial work (under the supervision of either a custodian or myself). We've found that not only have repeat offenses gone WAY down in just the three years we've been here, but some of those same cadets will be seen picking up trash ON THEIR OWN in the hallways, because they have a bit more of an understanding of the custodian's point of view.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Here's my list:

(1) Parents - 75%
.

Except here is the thing. Schools are meant to serve parents, bow to their wishes, so how, then can it truly be said that the parents are the problem... unless its just that the parent's views of what is needed disagree with your own views. (which is what I feel is the case.. that parents are making poorly informed choices due to their own lack of education).

Parental apathy. In the TWO AND A HALF YEARS I've been teaching here at my current school, I have literally seen fewer than 30 parents/sets of parents total at parent-teacher conferences...and that includes repeat appearances by many of them. If I don't count repeat appearances, it's probably less than 15. The only parents I ever see or have communicate with me via email on their own initiative are the parents of successful kids. I can't imagine there's a correlation there, of course. Our parent-teacher conferences are set up to be as parent-friendly as possible, by NOT setting hard-and-fast appointments, but rather having all teachers congregated (at individual tables) in our largest gym, freely available for parents to come visit on a first-come-first-served basis.

This is one of those things that varies a lot with the district. Here, it is just not the case, though given what parents say/expect at times, I often wish (sort of) more didn't show up. (That is, those that do are going as much at the urge of their pastor as anyone else.)

Still, I would try to look at why parents are not showing up (sure you are, just saying, as a district...). Just saying its "apathy" is too much of a catch phrase, too easy. Is it that parents really don't care about their kids much at all, are of the ilk that basically thinks society will raise their kids for them. (a lot of parents fit that mold, I realize) OR is it that the parents are working 12 hour shifts, have irregular schedules and no childcare, etc, etc. Are the parents themselves just feeling intimidated and not really wanting to deal with a teacher they feel will just be "superior" or even have "unrealistic expectations". Ironically, the fact that you have an open session may be harder for some parents, either becuase they (incorrectly, I am sure) percieve that other parents will hear or think they might be stuck waiting in line, etc. (its always a trade-off.. nothing will work the same for everyone).

Also, remembering you are dealing with high school.. is the attendance higher in lower grades? I don't even remember having parent-teacher conferences at my school in high school, because the school felt that we were more responsible for ourselves by then. Instead, they had "show the curriculum"/open house type "tours", along with advertised times when parents could more readily meet with teachers if they wished. Some of the "speciality" classes, like agriculture and such, had special orientation sessions, but they were mostly to make sure parents knew what was required.. special clothing, other special requirements before the classes really got going.

Could do what my Dad did. Kick me out on the streets and see how much life sucks.

Gives you a broader perspective on things.

DirtyDishSoap wrote:Could do what my Dad did. Kick me out on the streets and see how much life sucks.
Gives you a broader perspective on things.

While there's no question in my mind that this is not the preferred method (and typically causes many more problems), I have seen this work as well. Occasionally, the good old bucket of water in the face that almost drowns you works wonders.

PLAYER57832 wrote: Still, I would try to look at why parents are not showing up (sure you are, just saying, as a district...). Just saying its "apathy" is too much of a catch phrase, too easy.

No...it ISN'T "too easy" and it's no catchphrase. It is reality.

PLAYER57832 wrote: Is it that parents really don't care about their kids much at all, are of the ilk that basically thinks society will raise their kids for them. (a lot of parents fit that mold, I realize) OR is it that the parents are working 12 hour shifts, have irregular schedules and no childcare, etc, etc.

I completely understand 12-hour shifts and irregular schedules from my time in the military...and yet, my wife or I was always in contact with our childrens' teachers. That is not an excuse for lack of involvement.

PLAYER57832 wrote: Are the parents themselves just feeling intimidated and not really wanting to deal with a teacher they feel will just be "superior" or even have "unrealistic expectations".

This defines apathy, as far as I'm concerned. If they actually care about their childrens' education, they'll show up regardless of this (and possibly just to spite it).

PLAYER57832 wrote: Ironically, the fact that you have an open session may be harder for some parents, either becuase they (incorrectly, I am sure) percieve that other parents will hear or think they might be stuck waiting in line, etc. (its always a trade-off.. nothing will work the same for everyone).

Of course...yet they can't discover that there is no line (for ANY of the teachers, from what I've observed) if they don't get off their asses to find out.

PLAYER57832 wrote: Also, remembering you are dealing with high school.. is the attendance higher in lower grades? I don't even remember having parent-teacher conferences at my school in high school, because the school felt that we were more responsible for ourselves by then.

I don't recall having parent-teacher conferences when I was in high school either. But I think that sort of points to the problem I'm stating...it wasn't particularly necessary then, because parents by and large WERE involved in their kids' education (at least to the point where they made sure homework was being completed).