Post by cookiemdough on May 22, 2012 15:37:46 GMT -5
I think schools that would do well under local control are likely already doing so. I am having a hard time seeing a failing school miraculously doing better once the DOE has loosened their iron grip. In fact, if I were to use my own circumstances, local control is a big part of the problem. At most I could see it helping borderline schools.
Anyway, I would like to see public schools operate very much like college. You apply, they like certain kinds of kids, certain kinds of kids like certain kinds of schools... They're competing with each other to get your tax dollars, you're competing with other kids to get a space at your preferred school. When I talk about schools choice, that's more what I'm thinking of.
Hmm. That's interesting. But how do you deal with the issue of disadvantaged kids who are behind academically for a variety of reasons? How do they compete to get into the best schools? I think you still end up with poor kids at crap schools and rich kids at good ones.
This isn't an easy issue. Education is all fucked up.
LOL, I'm glad I'm not the only one. I'm ridiculously open to being swayed on this topic since I think both sides have good arguments.
The biggest question I have is - so what does the DOE do now for places that are instituting things like teaching creationism as science?
Are we testing on science and history? Or is that all just reading, writing and math?
Are schools actually teaching creationism as science? I went to Catholic school my entire life and that did not happen there. Creationism was taught in religion class. Science was taught in science class.
No, I don't think they are currently. It's come and gone in several places, but AFAIK every time it comes back up, it is stoppped by lawsuits brought by the parents. Not by the DOE stepping in.
It was just an example of something "bad" that states or local districits have tried or would like to try to do to their curriculum.
So that brings me back to my question...what does the DOE have to do with actually enforcing a reasonable curriculum? Is it all just tied to test-result dependant funding?
ETA: I stand corrected. See whitewolf's post below. So, yes, it's an ongoing issue, though the established legal precedent is that it's unconstitutional to explicitly teach it in public schools.
Are schools actually teaching creationism as science? I went to Catholic school my entire life and that did not happen there. Creationism was taught in religion class. Science was taught in science class.
Wow. That is really disturbing. I didn't know this could happen in public school. As far as I know, this is NOT happening in Christian schools (at least Catholic). You would think if anyone would be teaching this it would be Christian schools.
AFAIK this is not happening in Catholic schools. My H attended Catholic school growing and said that there was a pretty clear dividing line between the two subjects. Likewise, my DD's school maintains that boundary, and the school that my son will be attending (different but also Catholic) maintains that boundary.
I've spoken with administration in both schools about the importance of science and in both cases, I not only met zero resistance but learned that both schools are huge proponents of a solid foundation in science.
Yes, every subject is tested, wawa. I'm proctoring our state test in chemistry tomorrow, then biology on Friday, and then world history on Tuesday.
As for the voucher system, I hate the idea. The real problem is that private Upper Crust Academy doesn't want Caden, Jaiden, Aiden, and Braiden attending their school. And frankly, they shouldn't have to. They can continue to operate however they choose without any state money.
I would love it if the DoE would adopt the national standards and make states adhere to them. I hate it when we don't properly give a program a chance and then claim it doesn't work. I could cry tears of joy for the way we have free public education in this country.
I'm not really convinced that "poor schools" is a systemic problem in this country anyway.
Thanks for the info. Are those tests part of VA's RTTT plan?
Anyway, I would like to see public schools operate very much like college. You apply, they like certain kinds of kids, certain kinds of kids like certain kinds of schools... They're competing with each other to get your tax dollars, you're competing with other kids to get a space at your preferred school. When I talk about schools choice, that's more what I'm thinking of.
Hmm. That's interesting. But how do you deal with the issue of disadvantaged kids who are behind academically for a variety of reasons? How do they compete to get into the best schools? I think you still end up with poor kids at crap schools and rich kids at good ones.
This isn't an easy issue. Education is all fucked up.
I agree with this. If kids are just applying to go to the best schools, the best kids will be in the best schools. Your neighborhood school might still be fucked.
Buffalo has a city wide school choice system for high school. The honors school, which you apply to between 5th and 9th grade (it's a 5-12 school), is the best public school in the county. The rest of the public high schools? Suck. Towards the bottom of all schools in a multi-county area. And they do specialize - vocational, technical, performing arts. The top performing schools are the private schools - and they're a mixture of co-ed, single sex, Catholic, non-denominational, etc. As long as there's a better choice... well, there's a better choice.
And hey, what are they doing in Massachusetts? Why can't we just do that everywhere?
I think it's weird that states have different requirements for what students have to take. NY requires 4 years of English and Social Studies. Other states only require 3 years. I'd think it would be a nightmare to try to compare student achievement nation-wide.
Wow. That is really disturbing. I didn't know this could happen in public school. As far as I know, this is NOT happening in Christian schools (at least Catholic). You would think if anyone would be teaching this it would be Christian schools.
AFAIK this is not happening in Catholic schools. My H attended Catholic school growing and said that there was a pretty clear dividing line between the two subjects. Likewise, my DD's school maintains that boundary, and the school that my son will be attending (different but also Catholic) maintains that boundary.
I've spoken with administration in both schools about the importance of science and in both cases, I not only met zero resistance but learned that both schools are huge proponents of a solid foundation in science.
This has been my experience during 12 years of Catholic education and in researching Catholic education for my children. Science is entirely separate from religion in Catholic schools, and Catholic children are taught not to take things from the bible (esp the Old Testament) literally b/c they are meant to be stories that teach us something, not stories to be taken literally. I honestly can't fathom a Catholic school teaching religion and science together based on my experience.
Also, I think what SBP is saying has some value. It reminds me of the community atmosphere I've found in my Catholic schools growing up - if people didn't like something, they took a stand and argued their position. Sometimes they won, sometimes they didn't, but the entire community was invested in making the school successful. Even people whose children were no longer attending were involved and wanted success for the school. Sure, there were assholes who weren't involved and their kids were failing, but that will happen anywhere. I think replicating a community atmosphere and community involvement in the schools is necessary for success and maybe what could turn around some schools. I think that is what is missing from a lot of schools. Community support, involvement, etc. People were invested in the success of the children and the school I went to - that is definitely missing from a lot of districts these days. Or at least enough investment is missing - some people are still invested, but not enough, I guess. Or so it seems to me.
I would love it if the DoE would adopt the national standards and make states adhere to them. I hate it when we don't properly give a program a chance and then claim it doesn't work. I could cry tears of joy for the way we have free public education in this country.
They were hoping to, but 4 states didnt want to adopt them (VA is one, which is odd to me. Those crazy commonwealths )
I feel local control would benefit education. Management by a large federal bureaucracy just isn't responsive enough to needs for reform.
"Anyhoo, local control does equal a better chance at keeping families and educators accountable for the education of their community's children. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of states and communities going rogue and teaching their students lies (i.e. slavery wasn't so bad, kids!) just because they can."
I disagree with the idea of rogue teaching in the second part of this quote. Kids are already being taught various views about slavery, the holocaust, creationism, etc at home by parents who believe it. Maintaining a morally sterile learning environment would no longer be something anyone could expect once government is no longer responsible for education. Communities would be free to select their curriculum, which I feel is a good thing. If your kid goes to a school that teaches creationism in this new situation, you can do what creationists have to do now...tell your kids it's not true.
Local control of education would help, but the true problem is not with the education system but with the kids and parents. Those of us who've attended public schools may remember that each teacher is not equally skilled at teaching nor is each kid equally successful at learning. Regardless of the lecture quality, some kids would get A's and some F's in the same class learning in the same environment from the same teacher. I would say that the difference in the grades was not the fault of the teacher or school. Some kids are just dumb or lazy and some parents just don't work to motivate and help their kids succeed in school. Government runs schools now so everyone seems to only think of reforms in schools and government. I think we need to reform parents instead.
They could fine parents whose children fail to improve failing grades by the end of the year or fail to pass the final standardized tests for the year. The current trend is to coddle failure, throw money down a hole or attack the teachers/schools, though the parents are the true problem. Some sort of penalty for parents that hold teachers solely responsible for their kids' failures would make a real difference in getting parents involved. Stupid, disrespectful, lazy, entitled kids eventually become adults that burden society. Parents that foster this burden should pay back the society they are bringing down. The fines could be reinvested in the affected school system to provide tutors or special help for kids whose parents aren't equipped to help them or just don't care.
Those families that live in poverty may feel the fines more greatly, but those are the families that could benefit the most from investing seriously in education. And whenever there are negative consequences for one's actions, one has all the power over those consequences by taking the proper actions.
Also kids need a more structured learning environment with discipline and consequences for inappropriate behavior. I think we need to give teachers back the paddle. If the parents won't slap their child after telling the teacher to shut up or threaten them with bodily harm, let the teachers teach respect for authority again.
National standards for education across all states should be made law though federal government would no longer be administrating/funding the system anymore. I think this standard should include reading, writing, math, government and physical education. Some kind of art (music, performing arts, visual arts, etc) and history would be nice too, but perhaps not as critical as the others for a minimum national standard by which the fines would be assessed. I haven't figured out how I'd define the proper history that needs to be taught across the nation. There is a lot of history and a lot of versions of history.