It seems to me that No Child Left Behind is a dangerously warped incentive structure which encourages teachers at marginal schools to game the system instead of doing their job.
I find it interesting that the small town schoolhouse seems to have been more effective than our huge "factories" of education in this century. If we required older students to help teach the younger ones, we'd (a) improve the effective student-teacher ratio, and (b) give the older students a lot of real-world test experience that's much more effective than standardized tests. Plus, you'd foster a real sense of community.
Is it just me or do our modern schools have a disturbing number of similarities to prisons in terms of how they're constructed and managed?
"modern schools have a disturbing number of similarities to prisons in terms of how they're constructed and managed."
LOL. You're absolutely right! The current school system was designed to produces industrial age line workers...what do we do in this new economy?
Take another look. You'll find that todays prisons actually are beginning to look like schools, not vice versa. Today's schools were designed to beat the Russians in the space race. And you are right: time to turn the page. Time to get the students who just require babysitting out of the schools and into productive jobs so that those who really want to learn something won't be held back. It shouldn't be "No child left behind". It should be "No STUDENT left behind".
Considering how often scholls get put on "lockdown" anymore, there is something to said about schools looking more like prisons.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I think some truth is all the statements I have read here but you forget one big factor most student are taught by repitition this is what you do if you want facts recited but that is not what we need. We need Critical thinking not how things are but the reason they are this way. This will not help with the lock public teachers unions have on the schools nothing will change. They will always present the left side of the coin and ignore the arguments on the other and this leaves you with a distorted view of the world teach both sides and see how each comes to a conclusion and this will end.
If you were, you would know that by now the teachers union is shit, i am a teacher and it doesnt control a god damn thing. I pay dues every year for nothing. if i had it my way i would keep my money and spend it on my students in class. i dont know what you are talking about but maybe you dont either. Money rules everything, we have administrators that make 3 times as us and we shell out money from our own pockets because our budgets get cut, you want miracles in school and think the teachers should be the cure all. There are ever increasing benchmarks to reach with little if any help from home. I am very passionate about what I do and give it my all then to come here and see people bashing the system that cant even spell school! There should be a test for parents, they have to take it to have kids. Parents should take some responsibilty and teach the other side as you put it if you think they need it so bad. But that would be work for you wouldnt it. You cant wash your hands of all problems you know.
Thank goodness for unions. Without them, we'd be earning $10000 per year and have to put up with even more crap from people who think they know how to solve all the problems in our schools.
Personally, I thought all teachers realized that our job was to take kids from where they are and do the best we can with them.
You are right about the benchmarks--it makes no sense to raise standards while leaving all the problems alone.
Reino-
You're right. I was on a school board for 6 years, and saw firsthand the penny-pinching. A neighboring town would regularly fire all new teachers in June, re-hire in August so there would be no tenure. However, having said that, my biggest complaint is the shielding of incompetent or lazy teachers by unions. It is virtually impossible to fire a tenured teacher in NJ. A couple of statements I feel strongly about:
- You cannot pay a good teacher too much, but whatever you pay a bad teacher is too much.
- It is hard to deal with teachers as professionals when they present a union face stronger than the Teamsters.
I feel a big problem is local school boards - there is a huge variation in members - some are dumb, some ignorant, some just want to keep taxes down, some have peculiar agendas - like the anti-science "intelligent design" crap -, most really want good education, but don't always know how to get it.
I've read your posts - I'll bet you're a good teacher. I've known teachers where I knew more about their subject than they did - and it wasn't my major. Teachers who were absolutely boring. Teachers who use the same lesson plans and tests year after year after year. Teachers, who when told you didn't understand something, would repeat what they'd just said, only louder....
A good teacher reaches the student. Makes things understandable. Above all, cares.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
Some policies do need some adjusting. School administrators should be trained in how to deal with incompetent teachers, and I wouldn't be opposed to some top lawyers coming to the aid of school boards that were fighting against bad tenured teachers.
The current law says that problems with bad tenured teachers must be dealt with first by remediation, and then firing should follow only if remediation fails. This is a good idea. The devil, however, is in the details--truly horrific teachers, as opposed to below average ones, don't deserve remediation, and courts have sometimes ruled that whatever remediation was tried wasn't enough. Administrators are often confused about how much remediation is enough, so they just shrug their shoulders and look the other way. (An additional problem is that a lot of administrators are incompetent themselves.
I may not agree with every detail, but overall I am proud to be a member of the NEA.
Incompetent administrators are indeed a piece or the problem. They can dismiss a new teacher before tenure - if they pay attention. A teacher rarely starts out terrific and becomes bad, they usually are consistent from day one. We are becoming top-heavy with administrators, too, who I feel contribute very little to education.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
May have had more community and familial oversight in the successful cases.
You want to require older students to teach younger students and suddenly the need for high skilled well educated, trained and dedicated teachers has vanished.
There is no reason a student adept at spelling with good social skills can't assist a student struggling with vocabulary but a requirement for older students to teach the younger is not wise.
I suppose 'teach' in that position was too strong a word. What I had in mind was more like tutoring. You'll still need truly qualified teachers to direct the class and keep an eye on what the kids are telling each other during the study sessions.
I agree that we need more critical thinking and less rote memorization. It bothers me that in recent years our school curriculum has been subtly manipulated by people who want students to be told only 'correct' things instead of giving them the ability to think for themselves.
Training students to think for themselves is what made this country great. Being able to question our traditions gives them more strength when we conclude they are good traditions. As far as I'm concerned, excessive fear of teaching kids the wrong things has already led to a real decline in their ability to compete globally. We're doing it to ourselves, people...
Is there anyone out there who still believes children learn in a vacuum?
How a family ranks their children's education in their list of priorities is the very best indicator of how well their children will succeed in school.
No parent wants their child to fail, and every parent was once a student. We have set our sites on the wrong target in "No child left behind." In my opinion, schools can only be, at best, 29% of the solution. The other 17 hours of the day (minimum) are the responsibility of a child's primary caregiver.
We need to have a "No family left behind" initiative before we even consider a "no child left behind." Who is asking whether or not a child is given a quiet place and sufficient time to do their homework? Who is responsible for showing a child that the corner dealer driving the big black Escalade with heavily tinted windows is not the guy to emulate? Who is telling their daughters that beauty is in the way they treat others, not in what they may see in the mirror?
Children walk into their schoolrooms with ideals formed in the crucible of the family dynamic--be it functional or non--and teachers can only work with the result thereof.
We need to be getting to children before they are even born, not after it is way too late. In an ideal world, every expectant mother would be given information on how to help their baby grow their mind along with their bone structure, and assistance as required to show them how best it is done.
It has got to be universally accepted that to have no child left behind in the school system than the formative years at home have got to be dealt with and you should not be anonymous in your posting but be proud to own the words/ideas you present to readers. Besides parents having their children for all the time outside of school time the parents have 100% of pre-school time of their child's life....and it TRULY IS NOT OUT OF OUR SIMPLE REACH TO MANIFEST AN IDEAL WORLD concerning educating for it is quite easy to have every State in the Union with unifying directives from federal government to print and distribute in hospital to parents at time of newborn's birth, a Check-off Lists of childhood development milestone abilities, skills, that parents in their parenting must/will make sure that they are including in their interactions with their kids so that when child enters mandated schooling they are not behind from the start, simple things like knowing how to tie a shoelace or knowing colors and shapes and to be able to write their first name clearly, to be able to sit still and follow directions are not hard to nuture...parents need to step up to the plate and do an honorable job with their kids, they must treasure them for the gift that they are and not be lazy/neglectful or State should take children from such parents as unworthy...build facilities in every town to house these kids so they get a structured environment, will get to school, and can still be near their families and let them go home as a privilege for growth and cooperation
I was with your arguement until the last part. Sure we have neglectful/lazy parents that do nothing to help form the babies into children with manners and make good citizens. But to build a facility to house these "orphaned children" would be detrimental to them. For one, as bad a we perceive these parents to be, they are still the parents. They have every right in the world to have these children and raise them how they seem fit, after all, we do live in America. WE are a democracy not a socialized government. Unfortunately, we have individuals in this society that do not care what government does or even how they think. They will rebel and scream to the top of their lungs an injustice, but still won't take responsibility for themeselves or their children. This is America! Not a communist country. They do have rights even though WE have to suffer because of them.
Although I believe children are better off with their parents than in an institution, I don't agree that parents have every right to have children. For every right there is a corresponding duty. The duty that corresponds to the right to have children is the duty to feed, clothe. shelter, and teach their children. If a biological parent fails in their duties to their child, I believe their right to have more children should be taken from them. The world has too many human beings as it is. We don't need more. This would allow every couple to have one child, and more if they planned carefully and could afford them.
This policy would also bring more child support to single parents (if the other biological parent failed to support their child, they would not be able to have more children).
Once there are consequences to parental abuse, misuse, or neglect of children, people may think more carefully before having a child. Everyone would benefit.
Government has no right to tell anyone how many or how few children they can have. It also has no responsibility to support them. You would see a lot more families stay together if not for the government's inane, purposefull malicious intervention.
The line about your post that most upsets me is "This policy would also bring more child support to single parents (if the other biological parent failed to support their child, they would not be able to have more children)." Child support is not a government responsibility, it is the parents responsibility. Why should I be taxed to support someone else's children. We are supposed to have liberty and be responsible for our own actions but when someone who is irresponsible starts making demands on me for something I am not responsible for they are treading on my liberty.
The family should be the first source of help for someone in true need, the community should be next, including churches and civic organiztions. The biggest reason for a single parent needing "child support" is divorce. The biggest reason the divorce rate is so high is because so many parents are so selfish and irresponsible that they think more of themselves than they do of their children. If they didn't they would in most instances stay married at least for the sake of their children. The children of irresponsible parents and especially divorced irresponsible parents grow up to be irresposnible adults in most cases.
This entitlement attitude that someone owes me something or that I am entitled to anything from the government (other citizens) beacause I am too lazy or irresponsible to take care of myself or my family must end. Children raised in a two parent home where the mother stays home with the children generally turn out to be much more productive, responsible and successfull adults. It is not politically correct but it is a fact.
You state "The line about your post that most upsets me is 'This policy would also bring more child support to single parents (if the other biological parent failed to support their child, they would not be able to have more children).' Child support is not a government responsibility, it is the parents responsibility"
I agree with you. I suppose I was unclear. I meant that if a parent failed to support his or her out of wedlock (or in wedlock) children, the parent would be sterilized. Facing sterilization, and perhaps no children forever, many if not most people would choose to pay support. (I assume that most children that one parent refuses to support are children the parent had early in life - perhaps as a "mistake.")
Hope's solution to our society's failures is scary. We don't even have enough social workers to protect all the children in foster care and you're talking about putting them in institutions? Children NEED families to bond to, not visit. Back in the "good" old days, Mom stayed home with the kids, neighbors looked out for each others' kids, a lot of these stay home mothers did a lot of community service. That is, there was considerable adult supervision in the children's lives. Not so now. I think we should have a living wage and flex hours for work so both parents can raise their children (taking turns at work if they choose). Anonymous thinks parents have their kids 17 hours a day? Not hardly, with both parents working and chores on top of that. The babysitter (America's lowest paid worker) sees more of them. So we've got someone making $2.50 an hour raising our kids. And if she's got multiple kids plus her own, how much attention and guidance do you think they're getting?. And at age 12 they turn into latch key kids, and raise themselves, with the help of MTV. They are the treasure of our future, but we treat them like they're worthless.
My grandson's school district saved money by scheduling his kindergarten class from 11am to 2pm with no time for lunch or even a snack. Add in the bus trip and he went from 10:15 am to 2:45 pm with no food at all. Obviously his well-being didn't even make it on their priority list. Just getting the junk food and soda pop vending machines out of the schools was a huge fight. This is what our country has come to.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Be kind, for everyone you meet
is fighting a great battle.
- Philo of Alexandria
I teach introductory science courses at a small college. The ashtonishing lack of knowledge of material I know was covered in K-12 schools has led me to conclude that 3 problems top the list of why students are not learning.
First, the curriculum in our schools is essentially pre-collegiate for all our students, even though only one in four will get any college degree. In other words, most of the curriculum is not designed for most of the students, and they rationally REFUSE (not fail) to learn this useless information. Let students have more choices in the curriculum, encourage more specialization, and make the curriculum more relevant. We dont teach students how to read body language or spot liars, useful to everyone, we ask all to learn quadradic equations, which almost no one uses.
Second, every group of students and every teacher is different, the excessive controls (every topic, the schedule on which it's taught, and HOW it is taught put on teachers by schoolboards and school administrators is inevitably going to be inappropriate for most teachers and most students. Schoolboards should specify no more than 1/3 of the material for each course, and not schedule the pace.
Third, fewer courses, more time with a teacher, more depth, less breadth, more explanations, fewer multiple choice/fill in the blanks exams. When a person can explain, in their own words, a concept, they know it. The conceptual frameworks are vastly more important than the 'facts'.
Agreed. The schools act as if having a collegiate education somehow makes you better than another citizen.
Your second point - right on. Very often, the pace is geared so the slower students aren't lost, which bores the quicker students. Couple the normal distribution with the goal of "mainstreaming" "special needs" students, and you slow things further. I understand the goal of "mainstreaming", but I would argue it slows down education. Also - states often mandate special efforts to raise the lowest learner, but rarely have anything for the top learners. I am for helping those that need help, but the reality is that it should be matched by letting the pace be quicker for the top performers. Let's face facts - our furture is more like to be influenced by the top 10% rather than the bottom 10%.
How to do that without "intellectual snobbery" is the problem.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
As a Middle School (6,7,8) Science teacher, I wholeheartedly concur with your assessment...if you'd ever like to open a charter school which addresses head-on the issues your describe, look me up. I'd glady work in an environment which stresses depth over breadth, usefulness over uselessness, offered at a pace at which students can digest.
bravo!
Being a student myself, I really agree with all of that, well, most of it at least. It says you teach college, and even though I'm only in grade school, I still agree. Also, I can really tell when I don't know something. Thats why people like multiple choice so much, is that, sometimes we really don't know what the answer is, and we pick the best sounding one. The problem I see, is that, when I try to answer the "explain" questions, I try to be vague, so I get the question right, because, nowadays, people always strive to be right, rather than learn. If I knew, instead of getting a bad grade on my test, I would get the right explanation, I would simply say "I don't know" and learn the answer, whereas now, when if I did that it would affect my grade, so I end up just dodging bullets and rarely copying off of others. I'm not learning that way, but somehow I still get a good grade. Grades are not a good idea. A person should not have to be based like that. I have a friend who gets not very god grades, and she always freaks out, but I know she knows a lot of stuff I don't, stuff you might actually use in life. Stuff like what the sun burns, and all the presidents, and what material is in a lightbulb, but with our system, she gets bad grades. Grades to not help us learn, so I vote them out of the system.
sounds good but have you studied how other industrial nations teach their children? there is something valuable in the idea behind Puritan work ethics. while we scheduled only 180 school-days other nations have actually increased the number of school days, while we raised more issues of nurturing students, other nations increased more demands on their students. there is no easy solution but it must begin with the idea that learning is difficult and it is not for everyone. if democracy as we invision is to survive, then we must strive for a nation not based on no-child-left-behind, which only force the system to "dumbing" down standard, rather stand the behind the ideals that to be taught is a privilege and must be grasp with humility and determination.
I agree that a Logic 101 course should be taught in 8th and 12th grades so that students will be able to spot specious arguments in their adult life. But I also believe all students benefit from learning basic math, history, and science - how will a child know what he or she wants to do in life unless they are exposed to their options. Without the basics in all fields, the students future is limited.
I think we need to expand the day to allow 1 hour of gym a day (to get away from the overweight child crisis). Healthy body, healthy mind. We had gym every day when I was growing up, with team sports in addition to that hour, and I was horrified to learn it was gone. No wonder kids are out of shape.
Also we need to add history courses for Africa and Asia to the curriculum. (I would also require history for Europe, South America, and North America (including Mexico and Canada)). The history should begin with the dinosaurs and go up through today. Major movements (including major religions) and major ideas should be taught in these courses. They should show that all people have conquered and have been conquered - that there is no pure blood or race. These courses would also be useful in teaching us tolerance for all.
I am a parent who was extremely involved in my childrens' education all the while trying to hold a needed full time job, care for aging parents and deal with a child with major learning disablities and mental illness. I do not have a college education and in fact, did not need one to get ahead. My common sense, hard work and intelligence was enough. I gave up two good jobs because my son needed more of my time and I could not have provided that and hold a job. We cut back so far, that eggs were dinner many a night but my child was worth every bit of hardship. Yet, I have had teachers blame me for my childs' behavior problems. Other teachers have worked with us and those years he did much better. However, there were too few of those years. My son struggled with a new teacher every year. He did not FALL through the cracks, he was PUSHED through. Today, my son still struggles in society. He has no hope of ever making more then a dollar or two above minimum wage and no chance for a better life. There are no real jobs for people like my son and there are a lot of kids like him. In fact, there are a lot of adults like him. Most are either in jail or on welfare. Society has decided that their not smart enough to a useful person in this society and their the reason for our problems. Remember a time when a person could support a family by working in a factory. We need good jobs for people who are not college matterial. Yes, there are parents out there who do not care, but there are a lot who do but circumstances do not allow them to participate more. Some do not even understand what it is their child is learning and therefore, unable to help them. Sorry for going on and on, but when I hear people say it is all the parents fault, I get worked up.
So here's my ideas and please tell me what you think.
First, reduce class size and hire aids.
For grades K to 5, a student will have one teacher for three years in a row. This way a teacher will know the child, weaknesses and strengths, and the child does not need to adjust to a new teaching method every year.
Grades 6 to 12 - Middle and High school - have eight classrooms near each other, each classroom has the same teacher, each teacher has the same homeroom class for three years. The student will have the same teachers for three years. Have two math and science teachers, two reading, writing english teachers, two history and geology, and two for maybe a second lanuage and home-economics. This way, a child will have the same teacher for reading, writing and english since there all related to one another, etc.
The teachers will not need to change classes every 45 minutes.
They can combine subjects in a way that would make more sense.
Part of each year will not be decaded to learning whose who and what level their on. No time wasted.
A student will not need to adjust to different learning styles every year thus learning more.
Less stress on both teacher and students
Stability, which many students lack at home.
Subject matter, at least in the earlier years, should reflect what will be needed by every person later in life. How many people do you know that cannot balance a checkbook, or shop wisely, not to mention good food chooses. Currently we show a child a food pyramid. tell them you need so much of this and so much of that. Most do not understand or find it boring. We should teach them that corn is a starch, or tomotoes can be a fruit or vegetable, etc.
I think you get my point. Let me know what you think.
Betty,
I think all of your ideas are great, but lack implementation strategies. This is important because over the years our public school system have not lacked for good ideas, but a mechanism to develop good and successful ideas while diminishing failing ideas and programs. As it turns out, eliminating unsuccessful programs has proven to be one of the greatest obstacles to improving public education. As I have mentioned before, and one which I hope you will support as well as an implementation strategy, is the idea of empowering the direct consumers of public education, the student, and, in the case of juevinles, their parents.
Once we allow parents to decide which school will receive their child's state education allotment, competition will develop and act as that missing mechanism of change...getting rid of old, unsuccessful pedagogies while fostering new and successful ones.
ex animo
Davidfarrar
Betty, if we are going to change things in 2024 - it's vital that every concerned parent and person, understand why we have the social and economic problems we have today .. the explanation will equip you to better handle the future ..
Facts : By the end of World War 2. America was the only Industrial Power left in the World, who's infrastructure and manufacturing facilities were intact AND It's Economy was Strong, Future Secure !!
There was a whole world out there that needed our products and services to rebuild their countries, the future was ours to make as we wished !!
We the people became so engrossed in the job of living the good life,
our responsibilities to our families, fellow citizens and our country - got lost in the shuffle !!
We failed to recognize that our system for electing and empowering our Political Leaders - was dangerously flawed : It Makes No Provisions for Vetting The Skills/Experience of Candidates - Or Insuring Their Performance/Accountability and Loyalty to The America People (Voters) !!
THE MISSING LINK IN ALL THIS & THE ROOT CAUSE OF ALL OUR PROBLEMS TODAY - IS FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND AND EDUCATE OURSELVES TO PROPERLY COPE WITH OUR CHANGING ENVIRONMENT & CONDITIONS ..
Our Position in the World and our Economy Was Strong Enough At The End Of World War 2 : Intelligent and Dedicated Leadership Could Have Upgraded Our System Of Government - And Educated/Inspired our Young to Build on their inheritance and their parents to keep the family unit and values strong ..
I'm doing what I'm doing with my blog www.america-21stcentury.com & Unity08 BECAUSE 2024 may be our last chance to change things for the better,
My posting on Saturday "Warning To - All Americans Of Voting Age" - pinpoints the Core Problem & A Peaceful & Legal Solution ..
Please, read/digest it - if you agree let the Founders Know, the White House Press Corps, The Washington Post & Fox News have copies already - so does Doug Bailey, Steve, Anya, Wil Fogel
AS FAR AS "HIGHER LEARNING GOES" I wish they had courses that taught the value of Common Sense and Street Smarts ; without these the higher learning can be a detriment to progress.
God Bless - Stay Well & Keep The Faith ..
popo
I can attest to what the poster is addressing. I taught the same group of students for three years in middle school, due to the fact I kept moving up a grade. I learned all about them and they learned all about me. The result was that 100% of them passed their end of year exams. There are, of course, two problems to this. My circumstance was rare and only happened due to staffing and structural changes in the school. In most mid to larger schools, this would be close to a logistic impossibility. The other problem is the testing itself.
I was lucky to have my kids for three years, because when they came to me they knew nothing in my subject (social studies). In elementary they were never taught the basics. Pressure is so high on the elementary teachers to raise math and reading scores that non-tested subjects are ignored. I had three years to bring the kids up to par, not many other teachers have that opportunity.
Am I proud of the test results? The test itself is useless. It tested what the kids knew, not what they can understand and analyze. In my class, I tried to get the kids to think, so an exam that just tested what they knew was not much of an achievement.
Thinking is hardly part of the curriculum. Sad, but true. With three weeks, I could have taught all the content on their test, but it took me three years to get them to think beyond their standardized test. This should scare the heck out of most Americans! While there will always be those exceptional few who will innovate and create no matter what, most of our kids are not being raised to progress, but to accommodate. Unfortunately, people who have been brought up in this system are increasingly teaching them. Of course, I would never argue a teacher salary raise, but it should come with increased qualifications. I know teachers who had to take their content test four or five times to pass, but someone who has a Master's degree in the subject area will start only $2000 higher.
When my kids left, I told them I hoped all of them had the opportunity to go to college, but not all of them should. If someone from the district office would have been walking by I probably would have been canned on the spot. Everyone should be able to receive a college degree, but only if they qualify and only if that is what is best for them. This move to have everyone get a degree has lowered the standards of the universities, which has a ripple affect downward. Once they offered the first remedial course in college, they corrupted the whole system. Just as a child will rise to a teacher’s expectations, a school system will rise to the level a college expects. However, college is not for everyone and technical schools and academies need to have their stigma removed form them as being the second choice or "loser's" choice. We have gotten rid of any technical training at the middle school level and society views those who go into these fields as lesser individuals. One result is that we do not make anything in this country anymore, but by golly, we sure have a lot of managers!
I firmly believe teachers should be held accountable, but parents need to share a major portion of their child's education. It is out job to teach the child, but it is their job to raise them. If a house has books in it, guess what? That child will probably be a good reader. If the house has a TV in every room, well guess what...? If the house has drugs then that child is going into school with odds against them. We have parent nights, but it is always the same thing, the parents we want to talk to do not show and the parents with the kids on the honor roll make every one...coincidence?
While in your case the children benefitted by having the same teacher for three years, it would not always be the case. If there is a less successful teacher, who would want their child to continue under that teacher.
My main disagreement is that your statement that it is society's job to teach the children. That is not true!! It is the parent's responsibility. Society helps the parents by offering schools, but parents can choose to home school their children or sent them to other schools.
This also goes to deterinmining a child's learning deficiencies - the parents can always have their children tested without the school's permission.
I think we need to get back to holding parents accountable for their children - for their childrens learning and behavior.
You are right, not everyone is college material. The only way we are going to change things is to have local businesses get involved. They need to let the school know what kind of skills are needed and the schools need to Tailor their curriculum's to the needs of the businesses. That is not to say we should not teach the basics, however, we could teach them in a way that shows the students why those skills are needed, as I said before, teach math but use a check book to help them understand why the math is important and you are also teaching a skill that is needed in life after school.
And yes annie, a parent can have a child tested, however, it is very very expensive. Once the test is done and you find your child has a learning disability, schooling is another issue. There is no way most people could afford the schools designed for these students. The classes that are set up for these kids are filled with kids who have behavior problems. In the end, you kid ends up behaving like them, no matter how involved the parent is in their child's life.
And David, I know there are obstacle to what I have suggested. Getting rid of programs that do not work is one of the biggest, not just in our schools but any government program as well. But that does not mean it cannot be done, where there is a will there is a way. We just need those in charge to have open minds and a willingness to listen to others like akpedrob.
Popo, hello. I am not disagreeing with you on how American lost her way. However, I do think it is vital that we keep our manufacturing base. If for no other reason then for defense. During WWII, we came together as a nation and produced everything we needed to win that war, we cannot do that today. We can't even keep up with the bullets we need for our troops and police. This is, IMO, dangerous. While I do believe we could a lot better at education our people, we need to keep in mind that formal education cannot teach a person to be a decent human being. And a person who cannot learn quickly or out of books does not mean they are not useful and needed. Currently in this country, and others, we treat a person with a college degree like they are special. Why, because they have a formal education? I'll take a person who is a decent person over a smart one any day.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
If No Child Left Behind had actually been funded then it may have had a chance. The problem is that teachers are now being gauged on how well they can teach without being given any extra funding to help them stay above the newly imposed bar. Bad idea all around, Please remove this gov't. Kthxbai
The problem with the funding would be the special ed students, each special education counselor (in my state) cost around 30,000 a year. This does indeed pose a problem because with the no child left behind you are putting this child who has not a snowballs chance in hell of making life work after their schooling. We put these students through 10 to 12 grades with these counselors. And if each counselor costs 30,000 a year then you are wasting 360,000 dollars per special education child that needs a counselor. This is probably even more for states with higher population where there are more of these childeren. Im not saying they do not diserve education im just saying that there are childeren where this money is wasted and since no child will be left behind then we would have to still cator to their needs and this would be a large chunk of the funding.
AKA: Concerned student
Sorry Micky, you are so wrong on this. It is not that these children have not snowballs chance in hell of making it, they just can't learn as a child without learning disabilities can. They need different techniques, more hands on learning and less book learning. For that matter, students without these challenges need different techniques.
For one, there are different levels of learning disabilities, there not stupid. they may never be college material but they can learn. My son has the capacity to learn, just not out of a book. If you show him and let him know why it will be helpful to learn it, he can learn. Besides, what you suggest is exactly what society has done, throw them away, they are not smart enough to be useful in todays society. They can be useful and they can succeed if they are given a chance. You need to learn about the challenges those with these disabilities must deal with and show some compassion. But I must, you are a product of what our society has become since your way of thinking is exactly how society treats those with disabilities.
PS. The funding for these students are not nearly enough. Take it from someone who raised a son with learning disabilities and mental health issues.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
The problem is the ones who cannot function in the school, the school i went to last year had two childeren that did nothing other than walk around the school with thier nurse because they cannot function in the school. These are the kids im talking about, the ones who have severe cases of mental retardation and the ones that just dont function.
AKA: Concerned student
What these kids learn in school is how to help themselves, so that they are not totally reliant on others when they get out of school. Will they be able to hold a job, or take care of themselves? No. But if they can lighten the load of their own care, it makes them a more contributing member of society, which is in essence what the goal of an education is.
I'm a student, and at my school we have a special program designed for autistic children. At all times, we have 30-40 autistic kids roaming our halls, ranging from barely functioning to barely autistic. Some of them can function in some normal classes, but the majority of them participate in classes designed to teach them how to do basic things, like cook, read, work household appliances, understand basic math, and other things like that. This enables these children to contribute in their household, in a way that they absolutely would not be able to without this teaching.
I have to agree with Betty, I think you are completely wrong on this one.
No child left behind always leaves me feeling that we are ignoring the honor and AP students because they already understand so the ones they have difficulty learning can catch up, but what of the honor student wish to continue advancing their education? Do we let them get dumbed down till every student stays at the same level? Raising a nation of illiterate students is what Bush does best.
I myself am an honor student and i believe that too much attention and funding is going to the special needs students. The AP and Honor students are begining to dwindle as the bar is lowered.
AKA: Concerned student
I also am an honors student and in that possition I also want more funding. But that is what is wrong in our politics, schools, philosiphy, and country these days; always wanting more for our selfs. There needs to be equality in our school systems and the main purpose of this system is to release educated members in to society. Therefor we need to address every type of student and give the adiquit amount of funding to each.
The answer is not to cut funding from one group to give to another. The answer is to add more funding so that all groups are funded equally. I could not have said it better myself.
I myself do not have a learning disability, but my brother how ever does and this greatly affects his learning. He never did very well in English so we hired a tutor, but that too never seemed to do much good. So we got his vision tested. He tested for dyslexia and it turned out he didn't have it, so no go for the reading disability, but though he could see fine reading was still difficult for him and he was far behind his peers. The school however failed to recognize his problem as a reading disability because he didn't test positive for dyslexia. It took us years and a new school district to discover he had a tracking problem that makes it difficult for him to follow the lines on the page. Certainly not dyslexia, but a reading disability yes. What we need to do is expand the knowledge of other reading disabilities in students. Dyslexia is not the only problem. Under a new school solutions were found to help him catch up to his peers. He's still behind a reading level, but he's a hell of a lot closer to his peers that before. Schools these days play all too much the ignorance card.
I completely agree.
AKA: Concerned student
No child left behind gives money to schools that do well, and pull money from schools that do poorly. Shouldn't it be that struggling schools get more funding, while higher schools get the same amount as previously? Also, I totally agree in that older students should be allowed to help out younger ones, or at least more advanced students to struggling ones. They could take it as a class and get a grade/credit in it, but must have an average of an A in a course (i.e. English, Science, etc.) for at least three semesters.
My biggest issue is that all NCLB does is dumb down the school system. I remember being in high school and having lazy people (mainly jocks) in my advanced classes such as AP classes and advanced math classes, and all they did was disrupt class and slow us down. Now with this NCLB, it encourages schools to be average. It doesn't give bonuses to schools that are above average. So schools only do the bare minimum to get the funding that they need.
Another thing that I can not understand is that the national tests are being given to special ed students. I'm sorry but all that does is lower the overall scores of the schools. I'm not saying that special ed students don't deserve a good education, what I am saying is that you can not classify them into the same category as regualar students.
Also, the teachers are either underqualified or overqualified. That means they either don't have a masters degree or they do, and the degree doesn't even have to be in their field. Just a masters means you are overqualified to be a teacher.
In my opinion if they really wanted to improve the school systems: encourage above average students to do more and give them incentives to be above average, give teachers back the power to really discipline the students, pay teachers a wage that is actually worth it, and last but not least, pust students to excell instead of just allowing them to get by with the average, push them to be above the average.
Get the feds out of the educaion business. If states were competing with each other in the education of their children, they may be a little more focused. With the federal mandates, the states can't be the experiments they are supposed to be.
Ron Paul!
The Revolution is not being televised but it is being youtubed!
Join the Ron Paul Revolution and get the Feds out of indoctrination er education!
No child left behind is a great idea that requires a HUGE amount of funding (almost to the point where it is not plausible). I think we're being to gentle with kids today. Even when I was in elementary school it was to gentle on us, and that was about 10 to 15 years ago. We can not go totally against "Survival of the Fittest" it is to ingrained in our specious mental make up. We should go back to failing students who don't meet the criteria and pushing students forward who do meet the criteria. That's not to say that those who fail shouldn't get extra attention to try to get them that extra push forward, but we can't have teachers saying that they'll teach at the pace of the slowest student in class.
As to HC's suggest of eliminating the DOE, while I haven't looked into it yet, from your preliminary presentation it sounds like a really BAD idea. All of the great empires of history have had SOME sort of public education; Rome, China, Egypt, ect. They all had public education systems, not as inclusive as ours, but they still had them. I'd trust to history first before I trust to one man's ideas, but like I said I haven't done much research yet.
Neither HC nor myself recommended doing away with public education. What we suggest is getting the federal gov't out of it. Leave it up to individual states. School funding could actually be improved this way. Now, state X gives up $10 in taxes to the fed gov't. The fed gov't gives back $4 in funding, wastes $8 in DC, and borrows $2 to make up the differnce. While these numbers may not be entirely accurate, they do describe the current state of affairs.