Radio Paradise

Recently Active Forum Topics:

Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 19, 20, 21 Next

Post to this Topic

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Nov 6, 2011 - 7:31am

BlueHeronDruid wrote:

Good ideas. Would like to see some way to raise folks out of the inner city. Nothing above begins to deal with that problem. It involves language differences (not even talking about foreign languages) and the whole "is education seen as valuable in the home" issue. If you don't know someone who is a product of the inner city, you can't begin to imagine the challenges there.

I think that my emphasis on home ec is a way to actually address some of the inner city problems in several ways.

Firstly, it creates an awareness of things that may not or more than likely do not exist in inner city households, which is good food and healthy nutrition. Secondly, it teaches skills, self worth and confidence in just knowing how to cook. The second is the byproduct of the first.

Since we are talking about remaking the educational process, somewhere along the way, wouldn't it be reasonable to rethink class scheduling as well ? This would help facilitate expanding things like my home ec proposal above. Since we are already redefining the traditional set up of schools K thru 6, 7 to 8, 9 to 12, at least that was my experience, perhaps the scheduling of classes should change as well.

Once upon a time, Kindergarten was 5 days a week, either AM or PM. My kids were subjected to a M, W. F all day or something like that. Its probably different everywhere. I am a firm believer in structure and routine and think that it should be maintained through the elementary level up to 6th grade. After 6th things can change ? M. W, F academics, T, Th, home ec and arts or shop stuff ? A 50 minute period is not long enough to teach how to plan. prepare. cook, eat and cleanup a whole meal.

And let's consider the big picture. Doesn't the kitchen involve chemistry, physics, math, hygiene, decision making, eye / hand coordination, reward, success / failure, cause and effect and all in real time ? Mostly, doesn't the kitchen require organization, planning, time management and real world applications of ideas taught and especially patience ? Eventually field trips to the grocery store.

Then there is the benefit(s) of the students eating a balanced meal at least a couple of times a week and being exposed to other choices for food besides fast food and cafeteria food ? This would require a whole new paradigm. Teachers, buildings, curriculums, yada ... It would make inner city kids aware of something different and better to aspire to. Knowing that there is something really different out there, and not seeing it on television. Its a baby step kinda thing, yet I see it as building and encouraging curiosity, independent thinking and self sufficiency.

I can also see all the things stacked against such an approach. The teachers who would no longer have a M thru F gig. The fast food industry who would suffer as a direct result. Junk food manufacturers. I could go on ... Its a teaching how to fish kinda thing as opposed to here's your fish.

Eh, ?

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male

Posted: Oct 31, 2011 - 9:28am

kurtster wrote:

Adapting education goals to the future realities of frequent career changes in one's life or how to survive while reinventing yourself.

Unfortunately it takes about 25 years on average for a baby to fully mature, at least physically. Meanwhile, the age of 18 means that you should have a plan and have a clue on how to move out and live on your own. Where this is headed is that education in K thru 9 (?) should start to focus on teaching skills that focus on the basics, the 3 R's. The goals of this basic education should be how to think for yourself and how to educate yourself. In the 60's in Calif. when you got to 7^th grade, most schools had classes in logic. Now you do not see it offered until you get to secondary levels after HS. Its never too late, but it should be encountered much, much earlier, when it has a chance of influencing good habits rather than breaking bad ones.

And everyone should get 2 to 3 years of home economics. Much more than but including how to do laundry and how to wash dishes properly without a dishwasher. How to take care of things, maintain things. Teach the logic behind preventative maintenance. How to shop, plan and prepare a meal, budget and proper food handling. (Jessica Simpson anyone ?) How to stay out of fast food restaurants. It needs to be taught that we are what we eat. It needs to be beat into their heads. I do not want to labor on this idea.

HS would take a different tact and broaden the scope of things, like how to utilize resources and educate yourself and make decisions. Somewhere around 3^rd grade, history was introduced. At about that time ethical dilemmas should be posed, but not during a history lesson at that level. English would be more appropriate building on the process of history rather than part of it. Teaching or presenting the ethical dilemma of stealing the loaf of bread. I forget the proper name of that dilemma, but one is not too young to begin dealing with this subject in 3^rd grade ?

Getting back to the main idea, primary education is presently based on educating for a career, not careers. The days of 30 and out are long over, yet we still seem to be educating with that in mind. That goes back to learning how to educate yourself. How to size up a situation. Learn to see a dead end before you start. Companies open and close in the blink of an eye. Its ok to enter into a family business for example, but to expect growth and advancement is unrealistic. Teaching how to approach life as a series of stepping stones and navigate them correctly so you are ready to take the next step, voluntarily. Timing is everything as we know, and I believe it can be taught. But timing is very dependent on ones overall self awareness and decision making skills as well as common sense. Can common sense be taught ? I really do not know the answer to that one. But I am still reminded of these words painted on an old barn nearby that said, common sense comes from stable thinking. That barn has been painted over now, but those words were visible for at least 30 years and across the street from an elementary school my kids attended.

Another thought is time management. I had the luck of catching a math logic 160 course about 4 years ago taught by a prof who had a PhD from Columbia at our local community college. One of the things he presented us to do was make a schedule for an entire week built upon half hour increments for a whole 24 day. Block out the obvious first like when you sleep, prepare yourself in the morning, meals, commute, class or work, study, shop, laundry, everything you need to do and see what blocks are left over for extras. Its pretty amazing when you look at the finished product. If you have excel or some spreadsheet program make one up, print it out and give it a try, it might surprise you, too. This guy also taught calculus on excel. He stressed that he really didn't find it necessary to know how to actually work the formula but that it was more important to properly identify the variables and correctly plug them into the equation and let excel come up with the answers. I agree. The logic teacher I had at the same time also had a PhD. I was extremely lucky to have encountered these two people when I did. One should not have to wait until post secondary education to learn these things. The sooner these principles are learned, the better.

So here are some thoughts (the above) for critique or further development. Lots of big brush strokes and opinions but you have to start somewhere.

Thanks for listening.

It seems you are advocating the concept that good education involves both pragmatic stuff (learn how to cook and maintain a house, for example) and loftier goals, like learning how to educate yourself/adapt to changing surroundings. Man's capacity for self-learning is perhaps one of his best talents. Do we waste it a lot these days?

I think in general I agree that someone attaining adulthood should have some basic pragmatic skills (time management, knowing enough math to manage a budget, being able to cook and do laundry, etc.), and I'd add learning to be a skeptical consumer. You don't have to know how to fix your own house and car, but you have to be careful not to be taken advantage of by con men. This was a theme that Dickens had in some of his books; young married couples lacking the savvy to run a household efficiently, being taken advantage of by clever servants and merchants. Being able to learn about unfamiliar subjects on your own without a professional "teacher" to guide you is a very useful skill, as well. Wisdom, seeing the big picture, etc. are all things we wish we had, and maybe they are skills that everyone could potentially cultivate?

But how much of one's "education" should or could happen in public schools? Homemaking skills, at least according to conventional wisdom, were things a young girl learned from her mother and grandmother. Chores around the farm taught young boys and girls some of the skills needed for keeping up a household. I actually took a course in "bachelor survival" in middle school where I learned basic sewing, cooking, etc. but this was the exception. Schooling was mostly "academic" learning, although we did shop or home ec in middle school, but it was probably a vestige of days when many students were not being groomed for college, but for careers in hands on jobs or being a homemaker.

How much of the job of "education" should fall on the shoulders of parents? We spend more time with our parents (usually) than with our teachers, right? When people ask me if I'm a teacher I say "yes, but not a professional teacher." I am my children's primary teacher because, for good or ill, they probably have learned many things from my wife and I.

BlueHeronDruid

BlueHeronDruid Avatar

Location: Заебани сме луѓе

Posted: Oct 30, 2011 - 12:59am

kurtster wrote:

Adapting education goals to the future realities of frequent career changes in one's life or how to survive while reinventing yourself.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Oct 29, 2011 - 11:27pm

Adapting education goals to the future realities of frequent career changes in one's life or how to survive while reinventing yourself.

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male

Posted: Oct 28, 2011 - 10:10am

kurtster wrote:

I like that goal, so I'll let it simmer awhile and get back on this thought shortly.

I really enjoy being educated and attending classes. But my Pell is all used up and I've got my loans to handle from my 2007 BBA and living on SS. I just counted the reinventions of myself since graduating HS in 1970 till present and I've done it five times and picked up an AAS and a BBA along the way. I'd go for a masters but at 59 yo and at 6 to 700 a credit hour, I doan thin so at this time. But if I hit the lottery I sure as hell would then.

I'm getting ready to start looking for work again soon. Unenjoyment will run out at the end of January, so I'm not going to sit and wait till then. I think I'm healthy enough to give it a go now, besides, I have to.

Good luck, my friend. {#Cheers}

If you have a technical background you can always come and work in my "shop;" we're always hiring.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Oct 27, 2011 - 5:03pm

aflanigan wrote:

As far as I know the only way to retrieve older posts is either by search engines such as google (will work if you know a keyword in the post) or by scrolling back through your individual posting history.

I think the initial post that I started this topic with was trying to prompt a meaningful discussion of the topic, "what does it mean to be well-educated?" We'd been having some interesting discussions, but I wanted to get back to fundamental things, and getting at the issue of how do we judge schools and how well their doing hinges on the question of what do we expect them to do? The short answer is, "educate students properly". So the fundamental question that I think really needs to be addressed, before you can delve into education reform, is the one posed above. Things like "critical thinking skills" and "decision making skills" that you mention are common ideas cited by people who try to answer this question.

And it's really hard to get a consensus answer on this. The more specific you get, the more you get disagreement among people about what being "well-educated" means.
But it doesn't mean that it isn't entertaining and enlightening to try and answer the question.

{#Wink}

I like that goal, so I'll let it simmer awhile and get back on this thought shortly.

I really enjoy being educated and attending classes. But my Pell is all used up and I've got my loans to handle from my 2007 BBA and living on SS. I just counted the reinventions of myself since graduating HS in 1970 till present and I've done it five times and picked up an AAS and a BBA along the way. I'd go for a masters but at 59 yo and at 6 to 700 a credit hour, I doan thin so at this time. But if I hit the lottery I sure as hell would then.

I'm getting ready to start looking for work again soon. Unenjoyment will run out at the end of January, so I'm not going to sit and wait till then. I think I'm healthy enough to give it a go now, besides, I have to.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Oct 27, 2011 - 3:43pm

Prodigal_SOB wrote:

If you look at the URL in the little window at the top of your browser it will look something like this:

http://www.radioparadise.com/content.php?name=Forums&file=search&search_type=user&search_str=kurtster&total_count=XXXX&start=YYYY

XXXX is what is what it is using for the total number of posts you have made and YYYY is the post the page is going to start on. All of the old posts were recently restored but for some reason my profile and many others the XXXX number is set to a number less than your total number of posts. Change the URL by adding a thousand or two to the XXXX number and you should be able to get some extra pages or you can just add something to the YYYY if you just happen to remember how many posts back it was it's not going to check it against the limit.

Edit:
Here try this.

Thank you, very much.

Sheesh, I sure typed a wee bit. {#Lol}

This will give me an opportunity to go back and cull some things and save them off RP. It will be interesting to go back and see where my head was at and how my views have changed.

Prodigal_SOB

Prodigal_SOB Avatar

Location: Back Home Again in Indiana
Gender: Male

Posted: Oct 27, 2011 - 2:08pm

kurtster wrote:

My forum post history doesn't go back past 2010 for some reason and I don't know how to go back deeper. Some say it is possible, but I haven't figured it out.

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male

Posted: Oct 27, 2011 - 10:29am

kurtster wrote:

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male

Posted: Oct 27, 2011 - 10:22am

Lazy8 wrote:

We may only be able to improve it one school (maybe one classroom) at a time, but we can sure screw it up all at once.

School reform will have to include undoing a good many of the past attempts at reform. In my experiences teaching I learned that one-size-fits-all approaches to teaching don't fit anybody. The most useful skill in teaching isn't having some superior method but in realizing when your method isn't working and adapting in real time.

I agree with you 100 percent.

(wait, did we just step into an alternate universe??)

{#Cheers}

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Oct 26, 2011 - 7:43pm

aflanigan wrote:

We've got a good discussion going, and I'm definitely interested to hear from kurtster, imnotpc, or anyone else who wants to chime in. Take a break if you have subject fatigue; the topic isn't going anywhere (hopefully).

One of the points I think that Diane Ravitch made in her recent book is that we delude ourselves into thinking that meaningful and lasting improvement in education can be accomplished fairly easily, by sweeping policy changes. One of the wisest things I think I ever read or heard on the topic was the idea that meaningful school reform happens one school at a time. Numerous attempts have been made over the last several decades to improve education and schools on a wholesale basis (region-wide, state-wide, nationally) both here and in other countries, and none has ever achieved the hoped-for results.

There are some other skills I would like to add to the list of teaching priorities, critical thinking and decision making skills. I remember a few years ago we discussed decision making somewhere. I wish I had saved it now. My forum post history doesn't go back past 2010 for some reason and I don't know how to go back deeper. Some say it is possible, but I haven't figured it out.

Ultimately, living life is about making decisions or choices, yet its not much of a leap to say that we live in a world filled with poor decision makers. Yet increasingly we have fewer choices to make, so the ones we have left become all the more important. And then some people just are not wired to make critical decisions, we have leaders and followers, doers and teachers.etc. Even though the two preceding examples compare opposites, they are also two sides of the same coin. A leader must know when to get out of the way and follow sometimes. A doer can teach and a teacher can do. But not everyone is able to change roles in the middle.

This brings up testing, specifically apptitude / assessment / placement testing. Yeah, this is a big can of worms, subject to misreading findings, attempts to make people fit into categories not necessarily applicable, and sometiimes a bad day by the test taker. And it can lead to being told what you are going to do when you grow up rather than being asked. Just because someone is good at doing something doesn't mean they will like it and want to do it. This sorta leads into the wholesale approach as you point out and the onesize fits all approach L8 mentions, that we all seem to agree does not and will not work. This is the trap we need to stay out of somehow.

FWIW ... here's an excerpt of an old rant of mine on decision making, its not the one we had, but it does contain some of my feelings that I have expressed before and gets into how society at large affects decision making. Beware its full of my sarcasm which is not appropriate for this discussion, but it makes a point.

Jan, 2010
...
Can I get serious for a moment ? Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Eh ? Free to make choices. When we lose the right to make choices, we are no longer free, IMHO. A man's word and a handshake used to be enough. Now we have iron clad contracts that are no longer that. Take pro sports. A player, usually with the help of an agent or some kind of representation signs an agreement for X amount of years and then say the player really gets hot, the player wants to break the contract and get a new one that ups their salary. The player whines and does all kinds of stuff to rally the fans for support to get a new deal. And in most cases does. If on the other hand the player does not live up to expectations, the team rarely asks for a new contract saying the player is worth less than expected. It seems to be a one way street.

This trickles down into the fabric of society. People make choices and no longer wish to live up to the responsibility for their choices, citing the pro sports analogy. They changed their deal, I should be allowed to change mine. It has become too easy to walk away from bad decisions, thus impairing the decision making process. Decisions become based upon only what good can happen, the consequences become ignored in the process. On the other hand when someone makes a good choice and really cashes in, there are those that say no fair and want to take away the fruits of success and knock them back down to the place they started from. So why bother trying to reach out and excell any more ? Where or what is the incentive ?

I'm just an old fart now, making plans to retire and live independently are no longer socially acceptable. Building a stash to make that a possibility is no longer in vogue. Wisdom, experience and retrospection just get in the way of progress. What is now in vogue is to look for the gubment to take care of all of our needs. Don't worry, be happy. Hey look, the trains are running on time ! The gubment will always be there for ya. Poor choices, no worry, the gubment will bail ya out. Need money, hell the gubment will just print some and pass it around. Its now obvious to me that I think too hard and worry too much about the future. That's why we have a gubment. They can make all the decisions, they know what is best for me. Time to go to my corner and drool now. My new gubment bib claims to be leak proof. It must be a good bib, it was made in China afterall ...

imnotpc

Location: Around here somewhere
Gender: Male

Posted: Oct 26, 2011 - 2:47pm

kurtster wrote:

I have thought a lot on this subject over the weekend. Plus there has been some shows on vouchers I saw as well. The more I saw and considered, the more I came away with the feeling that this is almost a case of throw out the baby with the bath water, it is that bad. I just got done reading aflan's links, too.

I am perplexed. My overall conclusion is the same as yours, culture is probably the most important factor. The times we are living in are also a major component as well. We are living in an era where we have basically accomplished all the heroic leaps that we can ever accomplish, save the development of warp drive where we can think of leaving our solar system. We are stuck on this rock and have to make the most of what we have. Gone is the last adventure of putting a man on the moon. We have discovered our limits and must live within them. That is boring, to be blunt. Gone is the hope for unlimited change and exploration.

So what is the new motivation for achievement and success ? What is the glory of flipping burgers and selling things ? Yet that is what we end up with at the end of the day. We are now in the end game of the civilization on this 3rd stone from the sun. Sure we can still pursue the warp drive that will allow us to once again undertake the most human of instincts to explore and go where no one has gone before. And we can pursue medical breakthroughs that will give us a longer and healthier life span. But these endeavors will be limited to a select few who are capable of achieving these worthy goals.

What about the rest of us ?

We are left with the dilemma of introspection. Very few have the capability or desire to undertake this task. Instead, there are time sucks to avoid this process. That seems to be the plan, avoid contemplation and self awareness. Upward mobility is no longer a realistic goal, yet that is the false hope today's educational process provides.

I'm running out of energy on this subject, but wish to throw out the possible and necessary goals education should undertake in acknowledging this endgame scenario.

The Three 'R's'

Teaching self worth.

Personal responsibility and recognition that everyone has to pull their own weight given their capabilities.

Teaching efficiency and recognition of limits of resources and opportunity. (how to live within one's own means)

Manual labor will continue to exist and someone will still have to do heavy lifting, clean toilets, etc. (not everyone is college material)

How to manage time (idle hands are the devil's workshop)

Add your own but this is my overall drift.

How do we do this without attaching ideology and avoid entering into an era of enslavement by the administration of all this without an elite is the greatest challenge.
{#Cheers}

There is so much to talk about here, but any useful point or observation would take more time than I have right now. I do want to continue on this topic, so if I don't post anything in a week or two, give me a poke.

Lazy8

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male

Posted: Oct 26, 2011 - 1:02pm

aflanigan wrote:.

One of the points I think that Diane Ravitch made in her recent book is that we delude ourselves into thinking that meaningful and lasting improvement in education can be accomplished fairly easily, by sweeping policy changes. One of the wisest things I think I ever read or heard on the topic was the idea that meaningful school reform happens one school at a time. Numerous attempts have been made over the last several decades to improve education and schools on a wholesale basis (region-wide, state-wide, nationally) both here and in other countries, and none has ever achieved the hoped-for results.

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male

Posted: Oct 26, 2011 - 12:35pm

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Oct 24, 2011 - 8:58am

imnotpc wrote:

Thanks to you and Kurt for these good posts. This is not an area I am an expert in, but I do live in within 25 miles of some of the best schools (Thomas Jefferson, Fairfax, VA for example) and probably the worst schools (Wash, DC). All other things being equal more money will generally lead to better education. But as you've pointed out, all other things are certainly not equal. This is much too big of a topic to fit into one post, but it's my observation that there are many things that are greater factors than money in making one school system better than another. For Example:

Culture - Probably the most important factor. Bringing up kids in an environment where education is the goal and not just free daycare.
Safe Schools - Children who are scared will not learn and are likely to join a group that "protects" them instead.
School Management - In this respect schools need to be run like a business where educated kids are your "product".
Teachers - Things like tenure and unions prevent good school management from doing their jobs. Good managers keep good teachers without these things and bad teachers need to be fired quickly.
Curriculum - Even good teachers can't succeed it the text books are crappy or if there isn't a well thought out path for all the students, not just the smart ones or special needs ones.
Facilities and Equipment - This one is related mainly to funding, but it also involves the location of schools and the wise use of money on equipment and non-core curriculum

I'd like to hear your thoughts.

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male

Posted: Oct 24, 2011 - 7:45am

kurtster wrote:

These stats refer to the population at large, not the graduates of the SH schools. The point being that this is a highly educated community in itself and is highly involved and knowledgeable of the education process as a whole. The residents hold the school system to some of the highest standards achievable, yet regardless of the high standards and commitments, not everyone succeeds and money is not the universal answer to the problem. If money was the answer, then the Wash, DC schools would be the best in the world, where the real dollar spent per pupil is nearly $25K per year. I do not have a source readily available, but I read that some years ago.

The whole point of my argument is that spending money does not guarentee an outcome. As you suggest, this is a social issue, but it is more than that as well. Not everyone is college material. The jobs we are teaching for no longer exist.

I have yet to click on your links, but I did wish to respond to let you know that I caught the thread shift and wish to continue this discussion on a responsible level.

I think most anyone would agree that simply throwing money at a problem does not guarantee that things will improve.

This certainly holds true in many areas, not just for education spending.

DC Schools have been perceived as troubled and its students underperforming for 50 years. Their local governance has been plagued for many years by political infighting and the mismanagement and ineptitude that typically results from unclear boundaries of control and funding authority.

Here's an interesting history of the local governance of DC schools (including the 1996 takeover of control of the school system by a Control Board; the takeover was driven by a consensus that the elected board overseeing DCPS was incompetent to manage schools).

Recent local reporting and commentary on DC public schools can be found HERE

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Oct 21, 2011 - 6:58pm

aflanigan wrote:

cross posting from another forum:

Kurtster wrote:

Shaker Hts, Oh. is not exactly a poor community.

So if this wealthy district has high school completion rates (90 plus percent) and college attendance rates (roughly 90 percent) that are well above average for the nation (both national figures are around 70 percent*), I'd say they are a good indication of how wealth and resources can provide educational advantages to public school students, wouldn't you?

* (Accurately comparing high school "graduation" or completion rates is very difficult due to different formulae that are used from state to state to arrive at these numbers, admittedly.)

The advantage that wealth and resources bestow is not limited to school spending. As some of the data you cited indicates, wealthy neighborhoods and school districts tend to have households that are literate and have lots of college-educated parents. These children have early access to books and absorb vocabulary by exposure that helps them do very well on standardized tests used for educational measurements these days, since the teachers who write test items tend to have the same social and cultural background. They would still tend to do well even if you decided to cut school spending by, for example, reusing ten year old textbooks and increasing class size 10 percent (if you did this, for example, teacher to student ratios in Shaker Heights would still be below the Ohio average of 16:1.

The thing that is worrisome to me about school spending cuts, though, is that the students who can most afford to weather belt tightening (the children of college educated, middle class professional parents) are often the least likely to suffer when budget cuts happen. Parents of students like these are the most likely to attend school board meetings and most savvy in applying political pressure to steering cuts away from programs and such that will directly affect their children. Programs that affect the politically less savvy, minorities, special needs students, ESL children, etc, often take the brunt of funding cuts because they have few if any champions to fight for them when the budget cutting process occurs.

Will a ten percent reduction in school funding produce ten percent poorer education? Not if you ask most politicians and economists (who have somehow decided that they are educational experts), because the metric they use for measuring educational quality is the standardized test. Standardized tests, from the SAT to the Stanford 9 to various state tests like TAAS, etc. mostly measure your parent's income and education levels. Cuts to programs that are targeted at the most vulnerable or at-risk student populations often don't get reflected in standardized test score reporting, because administrators and politicians figure out ways to exclude these sorts of students from testing.

Measuring educational quality in a meaningful way is a challenging thing. Calculating the educational costs of failing to do the most we can to give at-risk children a chance to succeed, and break out of a cultural cycle of poverty and lowered expectations, is a difficult thing. How do you quantify something like that? You can give at-risk children chances, you can bus them to a wealthy school, and they may still end up being incarcerated, or dead, before they reach adulthood. I'm not wise enough to have all the answers, but from reading and discussions I've had with teachers and staff who work with at risk kids, and from hearing stories of at-risk kids who overcame the obstacles they faced in childhood, I know that if we focus spending cuts on programs aimed at these sort of children for political motivations, we are taking away what might be one of the few chances they will have to show their true potential.

But the educational reform discussion really needs to be broadened to a social reform discussion. As James Traub and Richard Rothstein have pointed out, there is only so much schools can do by themselves. Do we sincerely want children stuck in poverty to not be left behind? If so, we need to acknowledge and address the deficits in early child care, health care, nutritional, and other disadvantages that these children bring with them to school.

A LOOK AT THE HEALTH-RELATED CAUSES OF LOW STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

imnotpc

Location: Around here somewhere
Gender: Male

Posted: Oct 21, 2011 - 5:59pm

aflanigan wrote:

cross posting from another forum:

Kurtster wrote:

Shaker Hts, Oh. is not exactly a poor community.

So if this wealthy district has high school completion rates (90 plus percent) and college attendance rates (roughly 90 percent) that are well above average for the nation (both national figures are around 70 percent*), I'd say they are a good indication of how wealth and resources can provide educational advantages to public school students, wouldn't you?

* (Accurately comparing high school "graduation" or completion rates is very difficult due to different formulae that are used from state to state to arrive at these numbers, admittedly.)

The advantage that wealth and resources bestow is not limited to school spending. As some of the data you cited indicates, wealthy neighborhoods and school districts tend to have households that are literate and have lots of college-educated parents. These children have early access to books and absorb vocabulary by exposure that helps them do very well on standardized tests used for educational measurements these days, since the teachers who write test items tend to have the same social and cultural background. They would still tend to do well even if you decided to cut school spending by, for example, reusing ten year old textbooks and increasing class size 10 percent (if you did this, for example, teacher to student ratios in Shaker Heights would still be below the Ohio average of 16:1.

The thing that is worrisome to me about school spending cuts, though, is that the students who can most afford to weather belt tightening (the children of college educated, middle class professional parents) are often the least likely to suffer when budget cuts happen. Parents of students like these are the most likely to attend school board meetings and most savvy in applying political pressure to steering cuts away from programs and such that will directly affect their children. Programs that affect the politically less savvy, minorities, special needs students, ESL children, etc, often take the brunt of funding cuts because they have few if any champions to fight for them when the budget cutting process occurs.

Will a ten percent reduction in school funding produce ten percent poorer education? Not if you ask most politicians and economists (who have somehow decided that they are educational experts), because the metric they use for measuring educational quality is the standardized test. Standardized tests, from the SAT to the Stanford 9 to various state tests like TAAS, etc. mostly measure your parent's income and education levels. Cuts to programs that are targeted at the most vulnerable or at-risk student populations often don't get reflected in standardized test score reporting, because administrators and politicians figure out ways to exclude these sorts of students from testing.

Measuring educational quality in a meaningful way is a challenging thing. Calculating the educational costs of failing to do the most we can to give at-risk children a chance to succeed, and break out of a cultural cycle of poverty and lowered expectations, is a difficult thing. How do you quantify something like that? You can give at-risk children chances, you can bus them to a wealthy school, and they may still end up being incarcerated, or dead, before they reach adulthood. I'm not wise enough to have all the answers, but from reading and discussions I've had with teachers and staff who work with at risk kids, and from hearing stories of at-risk kids who overcame the obstacles they faced in childhood, I know that if we focus spending cuts on programs aimed at these sort of children for political motivations, we are taking away what might be one of the few chances they will have to show their true potential.

But the educational reform discussion really needs to be broadened to a social reform discussion. As James Traub and Richard Rothstein have pointed out, there is only so much schools can do by themselves. Do we sincerely want children stuck in poverty to not be left behind? If so, we need to acknowledge and address the deficits in early child care, health care, nutritional, and other disadvantages that these children bring with them to school.

A LOOK AT THE HEALTH-RELATED CAUSES OF LOW STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Culture - Probably the most important factor. Bringing up kids in an environment where education is the goal and not just free daycare.
Safe Schools - Children who are scared will not learn and are likely to join a group that "protects" them instead.
School Management - In this respect schools need to be run like a business where educated kids are your "product".
Teachers - Things like tenure and unions prevent good school management from doing their jobs. Good managers keep good teachers without these things and bad teachers need to be fired quickly.
Curriculum - Even good teachers can't succeed it the text books are crappy or if there isn't a well thought out path for all the students, not just the smart ones or special needs ones.
Facilities and Equipment - This one is related mainly to funding, but it also involves the location of schools and the wise use of money on equipment and non-core curriculum

I'd like to hear your thoughts.

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female

Posted: Oct 21, 2011 - 2:55pm

aflanigan wrote:

cross posting from another forum:

Kurtster wrote:

Shaker Hts, Oh. is not exactly a poor community.

So if this wealthy district has high school completion rates (90 plus percent) and college attendance rates (roughly 90 percent) that are well above average for the nation (both national figures are around 70 percent*), I'd say they are a good indication of how wealth and resources can provide educational advantages to public school students, wouldn't you?

* (Accurately comparing high school "graduation" or completion rates is very difficult due to different formulae that are used from state to state to arrive at these numbers, admittedly.)

The advantage that wealth and resources bestow is not limited to school spending. As some of the data you cited indicates, wealthy neighborhoods and school districts tend to have households that are literate and have lots of college-educated parents. These children have early access to books and absorb vocabulary by exposure that helps them do very well on standardized tests used for educational measurements these days, since the teachers who write test items tend to have the same social and cultural background. They would still tend to do well even if you decided to cut school spending by, for example, reusing ten year old textbooks and increasing class size 10 percent (if you did this, for example, teacher to student ratios in Shaker Heights would still be below the Ohio average of 16:1.

The thing that is worrisome to me about school spending cuts, though, is that the students who can most afford to weather belt tightening (the children of college educated, middle class professional parents) are often the least likely to suffer when budget cuts happen. Parents of students like these are the most likely to attend school board meetings and most savvy in applying political pressure to steering cuts away from programs and such that will directly affect their children. Programs that affect the politically less savvy, minorities, special needs students, ESL children, etc, often take the brunt of funding cuts because they have few if any champions to fight for them when the budget cutting process occurs.

Will a ten percent reduction in school funding produce ten percent poorer education? Not if you ask most politicians and economists (who have somehow decided that they are educational experts), because the metric they use for measuring educational quality is the standardized test. Standardized tests, from the SAT to the Stanford 9 to various state tests like TAAS, etc. mostly measure your parent's income and education levels. Cuts to programs that are targeted at the most vulnerable or at-risk student populations often don't get reflected in standardized test score reporting, because administrators and politicians figure out ways to exclude these sorts of students from testing.

Measuring educational quality in a meaningful way is a challenging thing. Calculating the educational costs of failing to do the most we can to give at-risk children a chance to succeed, and break out of a cultural cycle of poverty and lowered expectations, is a difficult thing. How do you quantify something like that? You can give at-risk children chances, you can bus them to a wealthy school, and they may still end up being incarcerated, or dead, before they reach adulthood. I'm not wise enough to have all the answers, but from reading and discussions I've had with teachers and staff who work with at risk kids, and from hearing stories of at-risk kids who overcame the obstacles they faced in childhood, I know that if we focus spending cuts on programs aimed at these sort of children for political motivations, we are taking away what might be one of the few chances they will have to show their true potential.

But the educational reform discussion really needs to be broadened to a social reform discussion. As James Traub and Richard Rothstein have pointed out, there is only so much schools can do by themselves. Do we sincerely want children stuck in poverty to not be left behind? If so, we need to acknowledge and address the deficits in early child care, health care, nutritional, and other disadvantages that these children bring with them to school.

A LOOK AT THE HEALTH-RELATED CAUSES OF LOW STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Shaker Hts has a large African American population, and they are not wealthy (for the most part).

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male

Posted: Oct 21, 2011 - 10:50am

cross posting from another forum:

Kurtster wrote:

Shaker Hts, Oh. is not exactly a poor community.

So if this wealthy district has high school completion rates (90 plus percent) and college attendance rates (roughly 90 percent) that are well above average for the nation (both national figures are around 70 percent*), I'd say they are a good indication of how wealth and resources can provide educational advantages to public school students, wouldn't you?

* (Accurately comparing high school "graduation" or completion rates is very difficult due to different formulae that are used from state to state to arrive at these numbers, admittedly.)

The advantage that wealth and resources bestow is not limited to school spending. As some of the data you cited indicates, wealthy neighborhoods and school districts tend to have households that are literate and have lots of college-educated parents. These children have early access to books and absorb vocabulary by exposure that helps them do very well on standardized tests used for educational measurements these days, since the teachers who write test items tend to have the same social and cultural background. They would still tend to do well even if you decided to cut school spending by, for example, reusing ten year old textbooks and increasing class size 10 percent (if you did this, for example, teacher to student ratios in Shaker Heights would still be below the Ohio average of 16:1.

The thing that is worrisome to me about school spending cuts, though, is that the students who can most afford to weather belt tightening (the children of college educated, middle class professional parents) are often the least likely to suffer when budget cuts happen. Parents of students like these are the most likely to attend school board meetings and most savvy in applying political pressure to steering cuts away from programs and such that will directly affect their children. Programs that affect the politically less savvy, minorities, special needs students, ESL children, etc, often take the brunt of funding cuts because they have few if any champions to fight for them when the budget cutting process occurs.

Will a ten percent reduction in school funding produce ten percent poorer education? Not if you ask most politicians and economists (who have somehow decided that they are educational experts), because the metric they use for measuring educational quality is the standardized test. Standardized tests, from the SAT to the Stanford 9 to various state tests like TAAS, etc. mostly measure your parent's income and education levels. Cuts to programs that are targeted at the most vulnerable or at-risk student populations often don't get reflected in standardized test score reporting, because administrators and politicians figure out ways to exclude these sorts of students from testing.

Measuring educational quality in a meaningful way is a challenging thing. Calculating the educational costs of failing to do the most we can to give at-risk children a chance to succeed, and break out of a cultural cycle of poverty and lowered expectations, is a difficult thing. How do you quantify something like that? You can give at-risk children chances, you can bus them to a wealthy school, and they may still end up being incarcerated, or dead, before they reach adulthood. I'm not wise enough to have all the answers, but from reading and discussions I've had with teachers and staff who work with at risk kids, and from hearing stories of at-risk kids who overcame the obstacles they faced in childhood, I know that if we focus spending cuts on programs aimed at these sort of children for political motivations, we are taking away what might be one of the few chances they will have to show their true potential.

But the educational reform discussion really needs to be broadened to a social reform discussion. As James Traub and Richard Rothstein have pointed out, there is only so much schools can do by themselves. Do we sincerely want children stuck in poverty to not be left behind? If so, we need to acknowledge and address the deficits in early child care, health care, nutritional, and other disadvantages that these children bring with them to school.

A LOOK AT THE HEALTH-RELATED CAUSES OF LOW STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 19, 20, 21 Next