Anyone see "Stupid in America" on ABC's 20/20?

[bostonsmama]

I watched tonight's 20/20 with great interest. As a teacher (now part time) who has taught in the public schools and as a student who has studied both at home and abroad (public and private secondary school), I cannot help but agree with the differences between the education of American children and of those abroad. I believe I did as well as I did in school because I had dedicated teachers who wanted to be there...and who could be fired, given a raise, rewarded or demoted for poor performance. In public schools while in the US, more often than not I hated my teachers, and they hated being there. I think that's what inspired me to get a degree in English Education...I wanted to inspire others to have a love of reading and English. Yet, while teaching, I encountered plenty of coworkers (teachers) who didn't want to be there, and the students wore those scars like badges and inflicted their disgruntled pain out on other teachers. And while it's a little hard to imagine "competing" as a teacher for a student's dollar at a charter-type school, as a parent I imagine I would want the benefit of teachers vying for my child(ren)'s attention and doing their best. I can't agree more that monopoly breads mediocrity, so why do we let it happen with our children's education? It made so much sense seeing the South Carolina governor complain of how unfair it is that wealthy families have a choice to send their kids to private school or afford a house in a good school district, yet children of poor families don't have that choice or luxury. And I agree that more money funneled into our schools has NOT increased test scores, behavior, attendance, graduation rates or college admissions. Perhaps Greene is on to something?

But I'm interested in some of your thoughts. We have such a divergence of opinion and experience here that I thought it would be nice to know the thoughts of the parents who have children in school (and perhaps some of the mamas who CAN'T afford pricey Waldorf or Montessori schools...or who feel the pressing burden of sending kids to school in a mediocre school district).

Anyways, for those who haven't read the article or seen the broadcast:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338

I think the moist pressing point to me was the following:
(Quote) ww.abcnews.com/2020
Would you keep going back to a restaurant that served you a bad meal? Or a barber that gave you a bad haircut? What if the government assigned you to "your" grocery store. The store wouldn't have to compete for your business, and it would soon sell spoiled milk or stock only high profit items. Real estate agencies would sell houses advertising "neighborhood with a good grocery store." That's insane, and yet that's what America does with public schools.

Larissa
***Cheers! Here's to better luck in 2006!***

"Children have never been very good at listening to their elders, but they have never failed to imitate them."
-James Baldwin

[kijip]

I think about education quality a lot and I do fully intend to move or send Toby to a private/religious school. Larissa, thanks for bringing this educational perspective to the boards. How long did you teach full time? Do you sub now and thus the pt or do you work in a cool district with pt positions? I know those pt slots are hard to come by so it is great you got one! I did not see the show but as I have a son that I will have to register for in Jan 2007 the topic has been weighing on my mind. I'll admit to having researched this to death, at least in my city.

SOAP BOX WARNING!!!!!!!! My issue with the public schools (in my city- I can't speak for other areas or ALL schools in the USA) is the disparity of $, staff and administrative quality between schools. I would have to be blind not to notice that this breaks down by race. One of the best elementary programs here, that you test to enter, has SEVEN African American students. You can't tell me that in a major city there are only 7 African American students that could go there or deserve a seat. In my city, there are some amazing public schools but they serve to reinforce segregation in the city. The less than stellar schools or the schools with terrible results are most often primarily filled with minority students, even if they are in white neighborhoods. I went to a school (special advanced program with a long waiting list and hard to get accepted to blah) that was in the middle of a largely African American community. All of the students were white. There is a large AP school nearby that has a white floor and a non-white floor. The non-white floor is special ed. I did not read this in a book or hear it on the news, I experienced it with my own eyes first as a student and then later as a tutor in the Special Ed Math. These so called special ed kids (often 17 year old 10th graders) were not dumb and in fact often had no clearly defined reason for having been put in special ed. Some had never had the same math teacher for an entire quarter, ever. I don't care if that was not intentional or plotted, it represents institutionalized racism.

I could get Toby into one of the "good schools" here academic wise but it would be lacking in diversity, which is really important to me for him, period. He will get a better education coupled with a more diverse environment in some suburbs here or at Catholic school. So that is where he will go unless I see some radical changes in the next 2 years. Which I am not holding my breath for, to say the least! It has been this way to some degree or another since I was 5 at least and it seems to have become worse with the elimination of affirmative action in school assignments. Why does Toby deserve a better public school than any other kid in the city? I would feel pretty odd sending him off to a nearly all white program here in the city but sending him to a crappy school is not an option either. This is why people of all backgrounds leave public schools here. We have low ratio of elementary enrollment as a matter of fact. My friend a single mother with a mixed ethnicity daughter as already signed her 3 year old up for a p-K and elementary track at a diverse private school. And she is not rich either; she makes less than $35,000 a year but is able to get some scholarships. But it is a financial sacrifice she is willing to make, because she sees the state of the school right next to her.

While I tend to agree that more money is not always the solution, I do know that some schools lack basic supplies that I took for granted during my K-12 education. Like a trig text book. To say nothing of the TWO cellos checked out to me while I was in orchestra (1 for home and 1 for class so I did not have to chuck it to and fro). Now a child in my city is lucky to get their name on the list for band next year. Some of the stellar schools do so well due to extensive PTA fundraising, to the tune of 100,000-800,000 per year, funding whole teaching spots for arts and science etc. So additional funds, when used wisely do make an impact. I would like to see less money in my district spent on high level admin (we don't need as many VPs!) and more in the classroom. I don't like the idea of charter schools or vouchers because I don't really have a lot of evidence that charter schools work in the long term and I don't want public dollars going to any sort of ideologically or religiously themed program. If I want to send my kid to Catholic school, it is my job and my church's job to pay for it- not non-Catholic taxpayers. Also the general rule with demand-side subsidies hint that the prices of the desired private programs would rise to equal the level of the voucher plus the existing tuition, still leaving those with just the voucher and no extra personal resources out in the cold. The irony is that the same politicians who scoff at demand side subsidies in other areas for economic reasons often support vouchers. Not consistent.

Most teachers I know impress me and with the right structure and a good principal and environment, most could do down right outstanding jobs. Heck, most are all ready doing a great job- better jobs than I give them credit for doing. But teaching to tests or within otherwise flawed systems with high stress and low pay; teachers are going to burn out. This explains why trained teachers (like J) don't enter teaching or the trend of many teachers leaving after a short stint. Also mandating the same salaries for say math and English teachers leads to shortages of teachers in some areas. Someone with a degree in the hard sciences for example has a lot more options than teaching that pay well as opposed to political science degrees. We need to be able to attract talent away from other possible jobs.

One thing to consider when comparing US test scores to those abroad (or city scores to suburb scores) is that in the US we test a larger pool of people. We include people with academic records that in many other countries would not be in an academic high school being tested, having at 12 or 14 or 16 been placed in a technical or occupational themed track. We need to be able to compare apples to apples and as it is now, we are often comparing apples and oranges. Just food for a thought.

[mudder17]

Hey Larissa, thaks for bringing up this topic, as I have definitely thought about it. I agree with Katie that a big problem is the inequity of $$$ in our public schools. I taught in an Inner City Public High School, but it was also a city-wide Magnet School. It was one of ... 5 I think. It turns out that our high school is one of the top in the state (it was a National Blue Ribbon School), but part of that is that we got lots of funding from the Alumni fund (our school is the third oldest public HS in the US). There was always talk of ending the magnet schools in the city, with the reason that it would redistribute the good students and good teachers throughout the city schools. I'm not so sure that would have been a good idea as the system really was in such poor shape that even as a magnet school, we constantly had to get approval for good programs and such, even if we didn't need the funding. I think our school probably would have the alumni and parental support to go independent if that happened. In any case, we haven't had to make that decision YET.

I taught with some teachers who were totally jaded and cynical about the system and therefore didn't put that much time or thought into their teaching any more and you could tell. But I also taught with a bunch of new and energetic teachers who really did want to be there. I can honestly say that as a whole, our kids got a good education. The combo of kids wanting an education, parents supporting that, and teachers wanting to teach allowed for quality education.

So it's not just the schools--I've taught in places where the parents are completely uninvolved and it does make a huge difference, no matter what the quality of the schools. Still, I've also taught students who have managed to make something of themselves despite the poor background and almost no parental supervision. In their case, they found role models in teachers or some other responsible adult and they knew that the only way to change their life was to get a good education. But the quality of our school made that possible. If the teachers didn't care and the school didn't care and the students sometimes showed up or not, I don't think the impact on or the success of that student would have been as great, KWIM?

What all this rambling tells me is that it's a much more complicated picture than just $$. It's not so much the money. The teachers that were jaded and cynical were not complaining just about the money, although paying teachers a bit more certainly would have helped. It was that teachers not only didn't get paid that much, but they also had to provide a lot of their own materials, so they had to spend more of what money they had to provide the type of lessons that might be effective. They were also constantly fighting the system about lessons or field trips or whatever, that they thought would supplement the lesson. And finally, the big thing was that they had to do so much paperwork unrelated to teaching that they were spending a large percentage of their time, not on teaching or coming up with fun and effective lessons, or even on grading to help the kids, but on stupid paper work that was required to make sure they were doing their jobs! When I was teaching (I'm a SAHM, now), the first 3 years, I spent 12 hours in school each day, and then I went home and graded papers and created lessons for more hours. I think I was a really good teacher (if you ask my students, colleagues and parents), but that was because I was spending my life teaching and even though I was required to spend hours on stupid paperwork, it meant I just put in more hours to make sure I was prepared to teach. But it's ridiculous to expect teachers to be spending 60-80 hours a week every year to teach. Can you understand why so many good teachers burn out? Oh, and incidentally, this was paper work that was not required by my school, but by my school system.

As I looked around my school, there really were plenty of very good teachers. But most of them lasted 3-5 years and then they got tired of all the bureaucratic crud and they either switched careers, or they went to teach at a charter school or private school. If I hadn't become a SAHM, I would probably still be teaching, and quite possibly at the same school, but I'm not so sure I would have been that happy. I grew up in public schools, and I managed to get a very good education, partly because I went to Magnet schools, but even in the magnet schools, I saw there were good and bad teachers, and it was one of the reasons why I have been such a huge proponent for public schools and why I wanted to teach in a public school. I wanted to make a difference. But it's not easy, as I've already said and burnout is all too easy.

And by the way, it's definitely not $$ in our system. We've put money in our system. It's the mismanagement of the $$ and the people in charge having no idea what it's like in the classroom that has caused many of the problems. I don't know if any of you heard about it, but the Baltimore City Public Schools had a scandal a few years back about where the heck $5 million went. I will tell you one thing--it did NOT go to the teachers, it did NOT go to the classrooms. A lot of us teachers knew that we needed more supplies and money in our classroom, but we also knew we didn't want any more $$ poured into our system until it was overhauled and better managed.

We are planning on sending Kaya to the public schools in our district, although we do happen to be in a pretty good school district. The schools encourage parental involvement, so I'll at least have some idea of what's going on in my DD's school, but I would want that even if she went to a private school. While I still want to support the public schools as much as possible, I also wonder if that's realistic in some parts of the US any more. Oh, I will say that some of the charter schools in our City (still considered "public" in that it gets public funding) have been very successful, so maybe we need to move towards that?

Anyway, enough rambling and ranting. Sorry this is so long. I hope I haven't offended anyone! If so, let me know, and I'll do some editing. :)


Eileen

http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/candle.gif for Leah
http://www.gynosaur.com/assets/ribbons/ribbon_emerald_18m.gif

http://tickers.baby-gaga.com/t/catcatcvi20040222_4_Kaya+is.png
Kaya's a cousin! 10/1/05, 5lb13oz

[bostonsmama]

You both do make some great points. And I wanted to address them and add a conversation I had with my brother, who teaches in Japanese schools.

But first, to Katie, I'm an employee of VBCPS and I guest teach as needed, so hence the part time classification (as a side-note, part time teachers don't have it so good: they work half a day, but don't get any planning blocks or breaks-as a full-time teacher I only taught one more class/block a day than part timers, yet I got full benefits and full pay....it's just not worth it) . I just like to distinguish myself from "subs" because I have my teaching license, degree and classroom experience, whereas subs only have to have 20 credit hours of college. I taught full time for about a year (6 months under a provisional license before the No Child Left Behind act required all teachers be licensed, and 6 months licensed, both as a 10th grade English teacher). I left full time b/c of health problems with both my DH and I, and I've enjoyed not being so stressed about writing up lesson plans, unit plans, IEPs, attendign after school functions, and the small amt of sleep that caused stress that was affecting my marriage. My cooperative teaching experience was at an inner-city middle school (8th grade Communication Skills/English), which gives me a unique view of our school systems as a whole.

Anyways, I agree with you Eileen in that the number one reason good teachers are leaving the public schools is all the paperwork bull crap. The reason I applied to CPS instead of VBCPS for full time teaching was that CPS didn't require lesson plans every day (we had to submit 5 per semester instead of one per day). At the inner-city school, it was such a nightmare because in English class I had to also create a math objective, so I spent countless hours planning into the night, thinking of how I can turn essay structure into a 2 + 2 equation (ridiculous if you ask me, but some "great thinker" had this marvelous idea that we can increase math test scores by merging every subject a math concept...it was so ridiculous that at the end I knew the kids could just see the frustration in our faces as we tried to explain that poem structure abc has remarkable similarities between pythagora's theorem) ;(.

Like Eileen, I believe I was a good teacher (I see kids in my commnity now working at Target who come up to me and tell me how much they miss me and wonder how I'm doing), but it came with great sacrifices of time and energy. I lived, breathed, ate and slept teaching my students. At times, I told myself it wouldn't be so bad if they paid us a lot, but then the bad teachers or people who weren't "into" it would be attracted to the profession. That's why I believe it's so cool that some schools can give bonuses or raises to teachers who inspire or keep their students excelling at learning. I, too, am sickened by the Jaguars and Mercedes Benzes that superintendants are driving while the kids lack money to go on a field trip, but even when money makes it into the right hands, some schools still can't manage to get their acts together.

A fundamental overhaul of schools and the philosophy of teaching would benefit the schools considerably. I was talking with my brother just this morning (he's in Japan) about schools over there and how much better behaved they are than American kids. So, I asked whether it was because of parental influence, cultural factors, teaching techniques or what, and he said it's 50/50 cultural and teaching techniques, as parents are increasingly a non-entity in Japan. Even "moral schooling" and ethics are taught by the schools there. And while there isn't any incentive for teachers to do a good job, as they can't ever be fired (only moved around like in New York), the majority of them do. They are available to the students at all hours by phone and email, and spend more hours out of the days with their students than the parents. They also give the students responsibilities such as sweeping the lunch room, picking up trash on the school grounds, cleaning the restrooms, and making use of their natural environment for exercise (actually in Japan swimming is huge, but there's only one pool per town and it's outdoor, so in the spring, fall & winter they lie on mats and practice their backstroke on the floor!!). It amazes me how dedicated they are to their school. They have a pride in their school that you only see at those small alternative, charter and private schools in the US (or in Texas-LOL!). My brother said the students cry collectively when their school's team doesn't win and they all apologize to the teachers for losing. *I'd love to see that in America!* The bottom line for me is that I was blown away by the charter school I saw where students were helpful & in nice clothing, teachers were motivated, and money was slim...but everyone was thriving. That has to mean something. In theory vouchers sound bad, but isn't it classicist of the parents who can afford to move or send their kids to private schools to deny poor or low-income families of the opportunity for their kids to get a good education. We've thrown millions of dollars into inner-city schools, and frankly the only ones with results were the ones that promoted accountability, responsibility, private teaching incentives or bonuses, and a good allocation of a small amt of funds.

One more point, Katie has a great point about the comparison between schools of nations around the world and our own. We school everybody, from the children with IEPs to special ed, LD, TBI, etc, and we school them for longer than some developed nations (namely Germany, where after 8th grade some students "graduate" and go to a trade school while scholarly, driven kids go on to Gymnasium (not a workout center) and get advanced baccalaureates. So, it's true that to some degree we are not comparing apples and oranges, but that evidence aside, it's not hard to see that the American students coming out of our schools are not nearly as educated as our European and Asian counterparts. Why is a school in Poland or the Czech Republic (which I've been to and helped rebuild a dilapidated school and playground on a service project) superceding test scores of American children? Lots of big questions.

Thanks to everyone so far for their thoughts. I'd never take offense to someone else's opinion. That's what makes this community so great.

Larissa
***Cheers! Here's to better luck in 2006!***

"Children have never been very good at listening to their elders, but they have never failed to imitate them."
-James Baldwin

[kijip]

> In theory vouchers sound bad, but isn't it classicist of the
>parents who can afford to move or send their kids to private
>schools to deny poor or low-income families of the opportunity
>for their kids to get a good education. We've thrown millions
>of dollars into inner-city schools, and frankly the only ones
>with results were the ones that promoted accountability,
>responsibility, private teaching incentives or bonuses, and a
>good allocation of a small amt of funds.

All voucher system----the downside of demand side subsidies.

Scene: You have some exisiting private schools, you have public schools now compteting for voucher $$. Great, now the inner city low income single mom can certainly take her kid to the private school he wants to attend. She takes her say $8000 voucher to the school that previously cost $10,000 but finds that instead of paying $2000 out of pocket the tuition has been bid up by the parents whose kids already went there before the voucher. They now ALSO have an $8000 voucher but since they were already paying $10,000 out of pocket, and since the number of applicants has skyrocketed and the school can't accept everyone, the tuition rises to $18,000. Since the low income mother still does not have $10,000 out of pocket she has to take her kid back the the public school. Which is lacking in students and has fewer resources than it did before to get to excellence.

I am not *always* opposed to vouchers for talented and motivated needy kids, I am opposed to an all voucher system that would raise costs at the desirable schools by increasing the spending power of everyone. I figure we will be able to spend about $6000-8000 a year on Toby's education at a private school (expected income, family money)----give me a $10,000 voucher and I could spend $16,000-18,000 but those with $0 will still have $6000-$8000 less than me and I will still have $20,000 less than well heeled families.

My schooling was highly sucessful (over 90% went to college, large percentage of top tier or highly selective school acceptances (Brown, Princeton, Smith, Harvard, Reed, NYU were popular destinations), top test scores) and honestly my school did not promote accountability, offer private teaching incentives or bonuses, or have a good allocation of a small amt of funds. They just let teachers teach, for the most part. We are often doing way better than we give ourselves credit for---but of course there are a lot of areas that need to be fixed.

In Seattle, subs are certified teachers so I guess the requirements vary widely for area to area. The only teachers here that are not certified are special aids and private schools that have high or low requirements.

[jd11365]

The show demonstrated total extremes...
1. The tenure system in NYC is like no other. In Florida, and many other states, there is no tenure.
2. Most school districts do not receive $10k per student as presented. Here in Florida it's $3,600 per student.
3. Sylvan Learning center does its own pre and post assessments which are not related to what is given in the schools, so we're not talking apples to apples here. Sylvan is a business, so of course they are going to show that the kid improved 2 grade levels in 72 hours. Anyone who gets one on one (or three on one as with Sylvan) help is going to show improvement. If anyone believes a child can improve 2 grade levels in 72 hours, I've got a nice piece of oceanfront property in Arizona you can buy too...along with that load of crap.

The apathy of parents is downright disgusting. "My 18 year old can't read." Well lady, did you read the alphabet with him when he was young? Did you listen to him read as a child and help him? School is not free babysitting.

We have a PUBLIC school system. You can't tag the $ to the child and not the school or it wouldn't function as a public school system, it would function privately.

I, a National Board Certified teacher, with a graduate degree in Educational Leadership, could teach under a tree. I don't need a computer or even textbooks. My point is, the money needs to go to retaining quality teachers, not building state-of-the-art gyms or Olympic sized swimming pools. Why would a highly qualified teacher stay in the profession when he/she can make twice that in the private sector. I was offered twice that working for a publishing house. Others go into sales of textbooks where they want former teachers and pay big $.

So, quite frankly, the whole show was a big joke to me. Scare tactics to freak the public out about our public schools. Do I think some public schools are inadequate? Absolutely. Do I think some private schools are inadequate? You betcha. Especially since you don't need a teaching certificate to teach in private school.

[kijip]

They were also constantly fighting the system
>about lessons or field trips or whatever, that they thought
>would supplement the lesson. And finally, the big thing was
>that they had to do so much paperwork unrelated to teaching
>that they were spending a large percentage of their time, not
>on teaching or coming up with fun and effective lessons, or
>even on grading to help the kids, but on stupid paper work
>that was required to make sure they were doing their jobs!
>When I was teaching (I'm a SAHM, now), the first 3 years, I
>spent 12 hours in school each day, and then I went home and
>graded papers and created lessons for more hours. I think I
>was a really good teacher (if you ask my students, colleagues
>and parents), but that was because I was spending my life
>teaching and even though I was required to spend hours on
>stupid paperwork, it meant I just put in more hours to make
>sure I was prepared to teach. But it's ridiculous to expect
>teachers to be spending 60-80 hours a week every year to
>teach. Can you understand why so many good teachers burn out?
> Oh, and incidentally, this was paper work that was not
>required by my school, but by my school system.

Reading Jonathan Kozol's books and seeing him speak really helped me open my eyes to the paperwork plight of teachers. His latest book, on segregated schools is terrific - it is called Shame of a Nation.

>I don't know
>if any of you heard about it, but the Baltimore City Public
>Schools had a scandal a few years back about where the heck $5
>million went. I will tell you one thing--it did NOT go to the
>teachers, it did NOT go to the classrooms.

Here in Seattle we have had the same problem. With an unreachable asst treasurer to boot. Huge deficits and missing $$$. Makes me sick!

I would love to send my kid to a Seattle public school but there are some barriers which make me think we will need to look elsewhere---

-housing in the best clusters is expensive. And it is not where I would choose to live if money were no object.

-excellent schools here are segregated, teaching a powerful and racist message that the smartest kids are white. I don't want Toby thinking that. Whites are the minority in Seattle Public Schools yet the vast majority of the best schools and programs.

-diverse school options exist with a quality education in many suburbs here or at certain private or Catholic schools.

[kijip]

>The show demonstrated total extremes...
>1. The tenure system in NYC is like no other. In Florida,
>and many other states, there is no tenure.
>2. Most school districts do not receive $10k per student as
>presented. Here in Florida it's $3,600 per student.
>3. Sylvan Learning center does its own pre and post
>assessments which are not related to what is given in the
>schools, so we're not talking apples to apples here. Sylvan
>is a business, so of course they are going to show that the
>kid improved 2 grade levels in 72 hours. Anyone who gets one
>on one (or three on one as with Sylvan) help is going to show
>improvement. If anyone believes a child can improve 2 grade
>levels in 72 hours, I've got a nice piece of oceanfront
>property in Arizona you can buy too...along with that load of
>crap.
>
>The apathy of parents is downright disgusting. "My 18 year
>old can't read." Well lady, did you read the alphabet with
>him when he was young? Did you listen to him read as a child
>and help him? School is not free babysitting.
>
>We have a PUBLIC school system. You can't tag the $ to the
>child and not the school or it wouldn't function as a public
>school system, it would function privately.
>
>I, a National Board Certified teacher, with a graduate degree
>in Educational Leadership, could teach under a tree. I don't
>need a computer or even textbooks. My point is, the money
>needs to go to retaining quality teachers, not building
>state-of-the-art gyms or Olympic sized swimming pools. Why
>would a highly qualified teacher stay in the profession when
>he/she can make twice that in the private sector. I was
>offered twice that working for a publishing house. Others go
>into sales of textbooks where they want former teachers and
>pay big $.
>
>So, quite frankly, the whole show was a big joke to me. Scare
>tactics to freak the public out about our public schools. Do
>I think some public schools are inadequate? Absolutely. Do I
>think some private schools are inadequate? You betcha.
>Especially since you don't need a teaching certificate to
>teach in private school.

I did not see the program, which is why I addressed local issues in my posts but your post is a big breath of fresh air- I really don't think we are doing nationally as bad as we think we are. Sometimes we need to focus on the good in order to fix the bad, not scare people about the bad.

[mudder17]

>So, quite frankly, the whole show was a big joke to me. Scare
>tactics to freak the public out about our public schools. Do
>I think some public schools are inadequate? Absolutely. Do I
>think some private schools are inadequate? You betcha.
>Especially since you don't need a teaching certificate to
>teach in private school.

I also did not see the show, but I'm not surprised by your reaction as I tend to take everything I see on the "news" with a grain of salt. Obviously, they'll report what sells and what sells is the extremes, the scare tactics, etc.

I still think there is much wrong with our educational system, but I also am not in favor of getting rid of the public schools. Instead we need to focus on fixing them, and general vouchers for all is probably not the way to do it. However, I do think that a voucher for a needy, motivated student should be available. In our school system, at least these talented, motivated (and needy) students can attend the magnet schools, so that is an option right now. But that's only with high school. The options right now for elementary and middle schools are not quite as good, even though there is one very good elementary and middle school that accepts students from all over. But I think it's a lottery system. And there are other good schools, but most of them are in upper income areas.


Eileen

http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/candle.gif for Leah
http://www.gynosaur.com/assets/ribbons/ribbon_emerald_18m.gif

http://tickers.baby-gaga.com/t/catcatcvi20040222_4_Kaya+is.png
Kaya's a cousin! 10/1/05, 5lb13oz

[VClute]

Oh, me! Me! We DVR'd it and just finished watching. While I don't have a child in public school, I went to public school here in NC and I saw (and vividly remember) some ROTTEN teachers. There was a proposal here in Fayetteville, NC some years ago to grant tenure to teachers and the school board was going to do it, until the Chamber of Commerce rallied a fax campaign among local businesses to stop it. Really, tenure is just a BAD idea. Anyone who can't get fired has no reason to continue to perform at work.

I agree with a PP that many teachers are lured by the money in the private sector to leave teaching. But there are plenty (good and bad) who stay in teaching for the summers off and the RICH benefits often offered by states and school districts. I think this is often the case for MANY government employees. (Flame away - this is from my personal experience, and is my personal opionion. Thus, the "I think" beginning to my sentence.)

I also agree that parents need to be the primary educators in a household. But the mentality is that government will take care of it. Come on - how are you going to expect a mom to teach her own kid to read if she's been told that that's what public education is for? (It wasn't mentioned - but perhaps she can't read, either.) Should we be as upset if our kids don't learn calculus? (No WAY could I teach that to anyone! :)) Where do we draw the line between parent responsibility and responsibility of the tax-funded and compulsory institution?

I also agree that vouchers to private school could backfire. But I LOVE the idea of attaching the money to the kid and letting the kid go to any public school he chooses. I saw the guy from 20/20 on the View (yeesh - I hate to admit to watching that show) and he had another GREAT analogy. If schools were like grocery stores, everyone would be clamoring to get into the neighboorhood with the good grocery store. Those that couldn't afford the good grocery store neighborhoods would get wilted lettuce and day-old bread. This is what we do with our kids, too. But even many of the "good" schools aren't good enough!

Amy in NC
mom to Dixon, born 2/14/05

[jd11365]

>While I don't have a child in public school, I went to public school
here in NC and I saw (and vividly remember) some ROTTEN
teachers.
Unfortunately, I think there are rotten teachers in NC and elsewhere. I will tell you that NC has the most NBCTs in the country. I also teach an Introducation To Education at my local college. Through knowledge gained from my course, I hope to weed out those that should not pursue a career in education and end up teaching for the wrong reasons. A large reform movement is underway at the college level for preservice teachers. :)

>I agree with a PP that many teachers are lured by the money in
>the private sector to leave teaching. But there are plenty
>(good and bad) who stay in teaching for the summers off and
>the RICH benefits often offered by states and school
>districts.
I hardly think the benefits are rich, though summers off are nice. Unfortunately many teachers work during the summer to make up for the lost paychecks.

>I also agree that parents need to be the primary educators in
>a household. But the mentality is that government will take
>care of it. Come on - how are you going to expect a mom to
>teach her own kid to read if she's been told that that's what
>public education is for? (It wasn't mentioned - but perhaps
>she can't read, either.) Should we be as upset if our kids
>don't learn calculus? (No WAY could I teach that to anyone!
>:)) Where do we draw the line between parent responsibility
>and responsibility of the tax-funded and compulsory
>institution?
Calculus is not a required course. I wouldn't be able to help my child in weight-lifting either.


>I also agree that vouchers to private school could backfire.
>But I LOVE the idea of attaching the money to the kid and
>letting the kid go to any public school he chooses.
It is a great idea, however when all the students want to attend the best school and leave the others, what's to happen to those other schools? Do we close them all? Taxpayer $ pays for the buildings, do they go vacant?

I'm just offering my opinion.

[mudder17]

>campaign among local businesses to stop it. Really, tenure is
>just a BAD idea. Anyone who can't get fired has no reason to
>continue to perform at work.
This is certainly something to consider...I don't think all states have tenure systems, though, do they?

>I agree with a PP that many teachers are lured by the money in
>the private sector to leave teaching. But there are plenty
>(good and bad) who stay in teaching for the summers off and
>the RICH benefits often offered by states and school
>districts. I think this is often the case for MANY government
Well, I definitely don't think RICH benefits is an accurate term, especially these days. If you compare the benefits that a 25+ year teacher had and what we are getting now, there's no comparison. Our benefits are mostly adequate, but they're not great. As for summers off, well, many of my fellow teachers were definitely looking for summer positions (not always easy) because they had to supplement their paycheck. I definitely had a job every summer except the first one when I was so burned out from 13 months of school and teaching + 9 more months of teaching (60-80 hour weeks) with absolutely no break, no vacation, no nothing.

>I also agree that parents need to be the primary educators in
>a household. But the mentality is that government will take
>care of it. Come on - how are you going to expect a mom to
>teach her own kid to read if she's been told that that's what
>public education is for? (It wasn't mentioned - but perhaps
>she can't read, either.) Should we be as upset if our kids
>don't learn calculus? (No WAY could I teach that to anyone!
>:)) Where do we draw the line between parent responsibility
>and responsibility of the tax-funded and compulsory
>institution?
Actually, I probably could teach my kid calculus, but no way I could teach him/her history or politics! :)

And no flames here; we're just having an interesting discussion. :)

Eileen

http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/candle.gif for Leah
http://www.gynosaur.com/assets/ribbons/ribbon_emerald_18m.gif

http://tickers.baby-gaga.com/t/catcatcvi20040222_4_Kaya+is.png
Kaya's a cousin! 10/1/05, 5lb13oz

[emilys_mom]

So glad you posted this. I got my master's last fall in early childhood education, but because of money, couldn't start teaching and will likely have to put it off until DD goes to kindergarten.

Now that I have a child I find myself even more concerned about this. Luckily I'm in an area that follows a lot of best practices for teaching and allows parents to send their children to any school in the district as long as that school has open slots. This does foster competition amongst the schools, and has a positive effect. I've even heard commercials from other districts (and yes-- I wonder WTH did they get money to run a commercial??) to enroll your child in their district if you aren't happy. I think you have to pay, though.

As I watched the show, I found my self agreeing to most of it's points, but had another one to add. Not sure about other states, but in Texas, there is a standardized test given to students at various stages in their careers. The test is meant to prove that the schools are teaching students what they are supposed to know and not passing them through if they aren't learning. Districts stand to lose funding if students continually fail. In every one of my master's classes the students who were already in a classroom complained that several hours a day were devoted to teaching students how to take the test. What a HUGE waste of time. So you have a kid who can't do math, but he knows the odds of picking "a" versus "b" when given a choice. Great! There was even a huge scandal last year when teachers were giving students answers to the test.

I absolutely agree that schools need more money to attract and better pay teachers, but if you aren't doing a good job, you should be let go. We don't have a union here, and I know this will upset some people, but I really think that's good. They are always short on teachers, so I think that if you are good at what you do you will be wanting for a job.

Sorry, this is a bit of a soapbox for me, so I hope I'm not offending anyone.

[thomma]

I just logged on to express my thoughts but Jamie already did that. :)


Kim
t&e 5/03