Education (22 posts)
9. Then or Now? Now!
Sat, Jan 9, 1999 - 1:36 PM/EST
McRostie
I want to a smalll-town high school where I took all the math offerred (Algebra and Plain Geometry). From high school, I went into a navy officer training program during WWII and found myself competing (with difficulty but successfully) with fellows from a big city high school who had taken Integral Calculus in high school. As an anecdote, when the first grades were read off in our first Calculus class, my grade was the first read. Wow. Turned out, the teacher started at the bottom, an 88.
But, my school was vastly superior to the one taught by my mother out in the country. She was a well-educated women for her time, but the extent of her mathmetics was arithmetic.
Now, my kids have had the opportunity to go so much further, both in secondary school and in college, that I envy them. Some have made good use of the opportunity, some not. For those who didn't when the opportunity was first offerred, they have gone back to school later in life. Another plus. Adult education is quite a new idea and a good one in this fast-moving world.
Now, it has become the fashion to claim that the public educational system is "broken" and that only private education with the aid of vouchers or some other form of financial assistance from government can fix it. I disagree. Our system of public education, flawed thought it may be in any particular case, is still the foundation upon which our success is based. Our job is to improve it using whatever techniques we find acceptable, not destroy it by usng money the government now uses on that facet of society to provide for someone's private education.
I'm really concerned that those who militate so strongly for "vouchers" have other axes to grind than improvement of education. Be the axe the one or pro-religion, or anti-teacher's union, or lower taxes, I find the arguments to be more than a little specious.
Regards, McRostie
10. Wandering Babble Re: Education
Sat, Jan 9, 1999 - 5:36 PM/EST
Gayle
Since our kids have been out of school awhile, we're not as in touch with the subject of education as we once were. We now judge things through the experiences of our granddaughter and our friend's children.
I can tell you that we moved from north to south eighteen years ago, and found our children were academically more than two years ahead of their peers. They had both been in the Gifted Students Program back home, but at that time there was no such animal in KY. The KY system would neither advance the kids nor allow them to sit in on upper grade level classes to help keep their interest . My husband and I volunteered to help start the program, but were bluntly rebuffed: "What? Do you expect us to change the entire curriculum for your two children!?!" Unfortunately, the kids were literally forced to sit through two years of subjects they'd previously studied, and they rapidly became bored. My husband and I had to invent ways at home to keep the kids wanting to learn more, then try and keep their decaying attention span.
Pet Peeves:
1) The constant budget cutting.
2) The rapidity with which teaching styles change in KY public schools. As soon as the kids learn a subject one way, they are subjected to a "better, more modern" method. It leaves them frustrated and confused at a time when they need some consistency.
3) Various school systems within this state are not coordinated in their curriculums, so we still have a range of good, mediocre, and bad. In the last several years we have seen Magnet Schools cropping up. And though they may be just what the doctor ordered, we are back to bussing kids long distances.
Concerning standardized testing, I agree with worker ant. The idea does have possibilities. Unless, as Graham states, "most teachers will tell you that they teach for testing…", and JimP, "…a little hesitant to agree that most, or even many, teachers would use it properly." Do we have a Catch 22 situation?
I also agree with JimP's remark: " lots of data, but no information." We don't seem to be 'rounding' today's students. And you've hit the nail on the head, Jim, about writing skills. But we need to include 'reading comprehension' on the list, too. I have been involved in bulletin board and chat room sites where far too many of the participants appear incapable of understanding what they read the first or even second time around.
JimP: "There doesn't seem to be an effort to instill any mental disciplines that will enable a person to think for himself as the future unwinds before him." I agree with that…to a degree. Thinking for oneself can and should be taught in school. However, parents cannot leave everything up to the school system. Our involvement and encouragement with our children's education is absolutely essential to their self-esteem and learning ability. Until more parents become actively involved we are not going to see a 'good education' for every child in this country.
I agree with McRostie concerning federal financing of private schools. We need to work with the system that has served us pretty well from the beginnings of our nation. Private schools are fine, but they are private because their founders wanted to stress a particular agenda.
As for my education: it hasn't stopped.
11. More of Jim's Ramblings
Sat, Jan 9, 1999 - 11:33 PM/EST
JimP
Education, statistics, accountability, and the government. Each of these can become symbolic of all that we think is wrong in today's society.
Quoting Graham. "For example, if the local paper reports 50% of the 4th graders are reading below grade level. Local officals are called to task. Of course it really means is the population is average. Which actually might be an outstanding job if the populations abilities are below average."
Sure, you're right. I see that as our education has not equipped us to understand what the 50% statistic means, so we jump in demanding that our kids be taught better. If we had a better grasp on the meaning, we might not be so quick to criticize. It's also accountability. As Gayle says, parents must accept some accountability for the education of their children.
Along that line, where is the accountability for administering the schools? Is it the local school board, state department's of education, or at the federal level. Hernick seems to be stating the case for a completely private education system. He has some good points, and I think they're stated quite well. I don't agree, but I can see his point.
I think society has a responsibility to provide equal opportunity for education to everyone. That does not mean that all education will be equal, but the opportunity to receive it would be. That, at least to me, converts to some societal unit, (could we call it government?) that has the responsibility to execute the requirement. That, to me, is a legitimate function of government.
I lived in San Antonio for a while. North San Antonio and a suburb named Alamo Heights, had well financed school systems. West and south San Antonio did not. There is beginning to be a recognition that districts should have more nearly equal funding per student. Tyler points out above some of the difficulties with implementing what seems to be a sound, logical decision.
So, once again, we have moved to a point in which there are more than one valid point of view. When we do so, the form of governing ourselves says that the majority rules. That's fine, except as Tyler points out, when the majority rules impact on the rights of the minority. I'm 59. My daughter is 28 and has no children (yet). Should I vote to increase my taxes so that my schools can be better? Who determines what level is better? Is that another legitimate function of government?
So education isn't as easy to solve as that is it? If it were, I am sure that we would have solved it by now.
Jim
12. Local Funding vs. Equality
Sun, Jan 10, 1999 - 5:23 AM/EST
Tyler
A "solution" to the school funding issue would be a lot more complex than the hypothetical I'm about to describe, but here is one possibility:
1) Change the funding system back to local control. Individual communities should have the right to choose through a popular vote (tax levies) how much money they give their schools. The whole concept of equality is great in theory, except that the equalization point always seems to be at the lowest possible level - not the highest. What happens in practice is that the money that is taken away from "richer" districts does little to help the "poorer" ones. Let's say that a small 1500 student district spends $7000 dollars per student. Let's also say that the "equality amount" set by the state is $3500 dollars per student. The state then has another 5.25 million dollars to spend. The problem is that the state must spread that money out among every other district in the state that gets less than $3500 dollars per student. The end result is that the "poorer" districts have just a little more money per student (not much, however), the "richer" district has lost HALF of its funding. The other thing is that these figures are not a surprise to people. It's the whole, "If I'm going down I'm taking you with me" philosophy, and it does nothing more than add to the problem by destroying what already works
2) More of a social point than a logistical one, communities need to take pride in, and be willing to pay for their schools. Pardon me if I sound bitter, but I don't care whether you have kids in school or not. Everyone must take responsibility for the education of the youth of America today. If the current, selfish attitude of tax cut after tax cut continues, a society will emerge in which those who can afford it will send their children to private schools, while those who cannot will be stuck in the ever deteriorating public schools.
Alas, due to size restrictions, my third suggestion will be in the next post.
13. Local Funding vs. Equality, continued
Sun, Jan 10, 1999 - 5:24 AM/EST
Tyler
Continued from previous post:
3) Finally, and this point depends on the first two happening first, we must implement a school voucher system. I’m going to disregard the whole establishment clause / government supported religion argument in opposition to vouchers while discussing this issue because it is an argument which I reject completely (just look at government college scholarships which can be used at religious colleges). Note that I am not suggesting that everyone should use vouchers to bail out of the public school system. I agree with McRostie that the public schools are the foundation of our success. What vouchers will do instead is force the public schools to constantly better themselves and improve the quality of the education that they provide. While this could happen as a result of competition with private schools for students, this does not have to be the case. To quote Peter Schwartz and Peter Leyden in “The Long Boom: A History of the Future, 1980 – 2020” : “Public schools [would] reluctantly face up to the new competitive environment and begin reinventing themselves. In fact, private and public schools [would] maintain a symbiotic relationship, with private schools doing much of the initial innovating, and public schools concentrating on making sure the new educational models reach all children in society.“ This can only happen however, if the funding situation of public schools is first resolved. Public schools cannot reinvent themselves unless they have the money with which to do it. And believe me, McRostie, when I say that I have no pro-religion agenda or low-tax agenda or anything resembling one. I personally believe that religious schools do nothing more than force students to accept a dogma that the student should instead decide for him or herself. I, however, do not speak from personal experience on this matter as I have never attended a religious school.
OK, I’m done with my second education rant now.
14. To Hernick
Sun, Jan 10, 1999 - 11:57 AM/EST
Gayle
What you're suggesting for private schools in Quebec is pretty much like the public school turned Magnet School here in Kentucky. I believe ours have been in existence 3-5 years. Each one specializes in a particular area, including that of the Arts, while also teaching the basics. The standards in these schools has been rasised to a higher level than the public schools. The kids are tested for aptitude and personal leanings before being accepted. Classes are limited in size and encompass grades K-12. If the student decides to change his/her chosen school, the process of testing begins again and the child is placed on a waiting list. Parent involvement is mandatory. These schools are working, and the majority of parents/students are thrilled with the opportunity and overall outcome.
The downside is that many students, no matter their age, have incredibly long hours due to bussing and sizeable amounts of homework.
15. Local funding?
Mon, Jan 11, 1999 - 12:09 PM/EST
McRostie
More than one writer has suggested that we should have more local control over the funding of our schools. I'll differ with them if I may.
We are one nation, made up of fifty states which are in turn made up of countless counties and more pervasive cities, town and hamlets. If we are to remain one nation, it seems to me that it is a national challenge to have a nationallly-measured school system which has the capacity to educate everyone to the limit of his or her capacity and endurance.
Should that not be the case, if I happen to be born into a community of retired people where there are very few children, the odds are not with the community spending even the state-average amount of money on education.
If on the other hand, I happen to be born into a community made up of executive and professional parents, I think we can all agree the dollars spent on public education under the local funding theory would be substantially greater than in the average community.
In the long run, the only way in which we can have a nationally successful public education system will be to abandon the reliance on local real estate taxes as the funding method and adopt Federal funding with fedeal tax backing and national testing for results. It seems to me that anything short of that is just bowing to the shiboleth of states's rights to the detriment of the national educational system.
The argument has been made by some that the use of vouchers to assist the private student or system would foster competition, thus improving the public system. I find this argument to be not well-founded. The dollars being limited, I rather think the result would be competition yes, and a gradual reduction to the lowest common denominator as the available funds are spread around further and further. As evidence of the "spread", I have a distinct memory of a plethora of "flying schools" springing up during the post-WWII era of the GI Bill. Vouchers would, I submit, run a grave risk of bringing about the same competition, one for the dollar, not for educational excellence.
Regards, McRostie.
Let's improve what we have, not abandon it for a system which currently does a fine job of educating those exposed to it but which would have all the same problems as the current public system we it expand to take in all students.
16. we're supposed to talk about personal experiences, right?
Mon, Jan 11, 1999 - 12:49 PM/EST
eireann
then i will.
as i said in my intro, i grew up in a conservative (read: wealthy) detroit suburb. there are several private schools in town, populated not by local residents but by detroiters and those from less affluent suburbs where, as seems to be the norm, the public schools are failing. i know of only a handful of locals in my suburb who chose not to send their children to the public schools. why not? because the free education was better than the private. i won't pretend to know much about school funding, but i do know that much of the money for our public schools came from property taxes, and whenever money is needed for expansion, more teachers, more music/art/athletic classes, etc., the millage passes. the community is almost 100% in support of whatever the school system says it needs, because the education and opportunities are just that good. we attract the best teachers in the state. 99% of our high school seniors go on to college. dropping out is unheard of.
now move a mile down the road to detroit, where by best friend's mom is an elementary school teacher and deals with juvenile violence, drugs, absent parents and kids with no shoes on a daily basis.
she spends the majority of here time in the classroom discipling, rather than teaching. many teachers are only there waiting to get an offer from a better school system - they rarely actually TEACH. the drop out rate is enormous.
what's the difference? obviously, money. but rewording what mcrostie said, taking away money from the good schools to give to the poorer ones is not a solution. inevitably it will mean we have a chunk of mediocre schools, and then only the rich kids, those whose parents can afford the private schools, will get a good education. what's the solution? i don't know. but it's hard not to feel guilty looking at what i got just because i lived across an unmarked city, and racial, border.
17. I don't know either.
Mon, Jan 11, 1999 - 2:24 PM/EST
JimP
Your point is essentially the same I raised about San Antonio.
Is it possible to mandate a certain level of funding that would, could, should provide a solid, meaningful education. The federal government could guarantee that amount of money. The amount may vary by region, but the feds have exsperience in applying different funding by regions now. For instance, DoD provides assistance to local school districts where military installations impact on the number of students in the district. The amount differs between areas of the nation.
Taking that as a base, and then measuring success in by standardized tests, the school districtrs would be able to at least begin at a level that would meet the needs of students.
Some school districts could tax themselves to provide more funding. I live in Chapel Hill, NC not. We have the best schools in the state, due primarily to the proximity of the Research Triangle Park, the major universities, and the large medical centers here. The parents demand more, and are willing to pay for it.
Others may not wish to do so, but their students would still be assured of receiving a basic level of education.
As I started the post, I don't have answers. This one goes against my nature of desiring less government. But some thing MUST be done, and soon. We need to press our legislators and ourselves to put some ideas on the board for consideration.
18. My reply
Mon, Jan 11, 1999 - 3:29 PM/EST
Crispus
JimP, I haven't been around for a couple of days, so as soon as I read your first post on this page, I rushed to the bottom to answer your question of me.
Right: How is college preparing me? I believe that most of the quality of my education rests with my professors and with me. If government doesn't care about my education, that just means that the books in the library are going to be too old for research (which they are). So, I do research elsewhere. I've had a lot of quality teachers, but I've also had a few that were obviously the low end of the standard. Personal initiative plays a big part, I think, in how much one gets out of their education.
I remember, High School was a joke. K-12 in our nation is basically a holding pen. Some teachers tried to give us an education, but they were fighting a lack of funding, a lack of good books, and mincing, fearful administrators who reined them in whenever they actually gave us some truth.
In spite of all this, I don't think American education has declined. I know, however, that it has never been as good as it is in Europe and Japan.
19. Private schools, local control, and vouchers . . .
Mon, Jan 11, 1999 - 8:39 PM/EST
Tyler
Just to clarify a couple of points I made before.
McRostie, believe me, I have nothing wrong with state or federal control over school funding in theory, just in the way it is practiced today. I see two problems with the current implementation of state and/or national control. One, the level that is chosen as the national or state standard for dollar amounts per student is usually the LOWEST common denominator or very close to it. Why can't we take some of that federal budget surplus and raise EVERY school up to the $6000-$7000 per student range, instead of lowering every school to $3000-$4000 per student to give people a tax cut? I recall reading a cartoon in the local paper after this whole equalization thing happened: A man in a suit is standing in front of a classroom of students. The button he is wearing identifies him as the Oregon Legislature. He is shouting, obviously very pleased with himself, "We've finally achieved equality!!!" Every student in the classroom is holding up a report card with a big "F" on it. IMHO, that is the current attitude in the way that "equality" is practiced. Kind of like taking the "quality" out of "equality." (OK, OK, bad pun.)
Regarding vouchers, I am sorry if I gave the impression that I thought that the sole purpose of vouchers was to provide a way for people to escape the public school system and force public schools to compete for dollars. That is part of it, but it is not the main reason. It is important because at current, only the wealthy have the option to get out of the failing public school systems in this country. No, I am not suggesting that this helps solve the problem with public schools, but why should students be forced to remain in a school system that won' be fixed for years, if at all, while in the meantime they are getting a crappy education. Having said that, I do NOT feel that vouchers will accomplish what I think they should until public school reform has been carried out, mostly on a financial level. It may be that it will take losing all the "rich kids" or the "cream of the crop" students who get financial aid to get the schools and the public to wise up to the problem and start fixing it. When, and only when, public schools have enough money to function well, will vouchers achieve a very noble purpose, that being to give students a choice. The whole "cookie-cutter" model of education today obviously isn't working. Some students obviously need to be educated in different ways than others. Vouchers will allow students and their parents to have a choice in how their child is best educated. Perhaps a system to determine where a child would be best educated should be implemented. The main role of public schools would be to make sure that ALL students benefited from the best educational models and methods. Instead of fostering competition, this system would allow them to maintain a "symbiotic relationship, with private schools doing much of the initial innovating, and public schools concentrating on making sure the new educational models reach all children in society." To repeat myself, however, this can only happen when our public schools have enough money.
To idealistic of an approach? What do you guys think?
20. Y'all are helping me understand
Mon, Jan 11, 1999 - 11:05 PM/EST
JimP
more about my beliefs. I called myself a fiscal conservative, and a social liberal. I guess that's still true, but we have managed to point out to me an area in which I may have to modify my views.
I don't like the idea of vouchers. Basically, I thought that they were a way for people to gather themselves into enclaves even more that they are presently.
So many thoughts are going throuh my mind right now. As I've said, we moved to Ohio from SC in 1950. Schools were still segregated in the south. I remember when I was stationed in Charleston in the late 50's and early 60's. Many private, mostly church founded, schools were sprouting. Some of my relatives sacrificed many dollars and hard work to send their children to one of them. I thought then, and still do, that there were two primary impetusses (is that a word?) were behind that. One was racism, but the other was that they thought that the kids would get a better education in one. Self fulfilling prophesy. The did, because the public schools began to deteriorate.
I see vouchers as a second phase of similar reasoning. I see them as another "gather round the wagons" defense against the changes happening in society now.
Then Tyler upsets all these thoughts, with the idea that vouchers could be a, or even the, method of enabling publec schools to regain some of their strength.
I don't know where this is going, but I'm glad to be on board for the discussion.
21. Vouchers and....?
Tue, Jan 12, 1999 - 11:16 AM/EST
McRostie
Tyler....your message a bit prior to this contained the following question or something close. "Why can't we just use part of the Federl surplus (it doesn't really exist you know but that's material for another thread) and raise the budget for education up to $6-7,000 per student.
You really didn't need to ask did you? Not when we are bombarded minute by minute with the anti-tax and spend rhetoric of the Conservative and Libertarian misers who want to "keep their money for themselves so they can spend it and have it "trickle down", rather than sending it to Washington". Or, not when we are bombarded minute by minute with the "government is best which governs least" or "if it can be done locally, it should be" ideaology of the same groups.....most of which for some reason I haven't been able to fathom seem to come from the South.
As a national society, we are faced with problems which are truly national in scope and which we refuse to recognize as such. We are considering education. We all, all over the nation, seem to recognize that our system is something less than perfection in practice. Yet for the reasons above, we can't, or refuse, to recognize this as a national problem which requires a national solution.
Several other "national problems" come to mind of equal severity with which we can't, or refuse to deal. Social Security. Medicare. The fact that our population is aging rapidly withour much thought being given to the social implications of the fact. All of these are hung up on the shoals of lower taxes and local or less government.
The spector has been raised that the "national solution" will result in the lowest common denominator. That may be right, but does it have to? I think not, at least not if we don't use reduction of taxation as the controlling criterion for making the required decisions.
In my opinion, we have a vast reservoir of highly qualified people who would be more than happy to be teachers given an equal economic footing. Unfortunatelyh, while we bemoan the quality of our schools, we find it more profitable as a society to provide better pay in the private sector. We are currently paying a high price for that decision, and it will become higher unless we have a prolonged rcession where the stability of the teaching profession becomers preferable to corporate downsizing as a way to make a living. I'll leave the problem of facilities for another day.
This has gone on long enough. I only hope I've presented a few ideas for all to chew on.
Regards, McRostie
21. I'm chewing
Tue, Jan 12, 1999 - 11:28 AM/EST
JimP
You've given me a mouthful, or a brain full, to consider.
