Public School Horror Stories

[divemaster]

My mom is a grade school teacher (usually 2nd-5th) in an inner city school. Over the past 5 years or so, she's told me some of the policies she's seen in action. She keeps track of these things because she may try writing a book once she retires. I'll relate a few here:

1) Teaching vs. Facilitating
Under no circumstances is a teacher supposed to "teach" in the classic sense of the word. If a principal comes into the room while kids are listening attentively to the dissemination of material, the teacher can get written up.

Principal says: "A teacher is supposed to facilitate children 'choosing their own learning.'"

2) Spelling/Memorization
Under no circumstances are spelling, math tables, or handwriting to be taught. If a principal catches anyone teaching handwriting, all pencils (teacher's and students') will be confiscated on the spot. No workbooks are allowed in the classroom.

Principal says: "You know spelling doesn't work; computers are actually better teachers." Computer spell-check is okay. Surfing the Net is okay.

3) Recess/Library
There is no recess. PE is once a week.
"Library Day" is every other Friday.
"Library Day" entails watching movies or film strips. Once, my mom had a couple of bright young girls who really wanted to read. They had no books at home (no computers either, see #2 above), so my mom went to the librarian about getting permission for them to come check out books.

Librarian says: "Absolutely not. I've got better things to do with my time than have a bunch of kids in here looking at books."

4) Child Can't Read
The policy depends on where the child came from.

Principal says: "If the child came from another school, tell the parents the previous school failed to teach the child how to read. If the child came from this school, tell the parents that we taught the child, but that he/she forgot how to read over the summer."

5)Grading Policy
Through 3rd grade, no 'D's or 'F's can be given and no child can be held back. 4th-6th grades, a child can be held back, but then skips the missed grade the next year. So, if a child fails 6th, he/she repeats 6th, then automatically gets promoted to 8th. There is no truancy policy, nor is there an absentee policy.

There are more examples I could post. If there is interest in this thread, I'll do so.

My mom has had parents threaten to shoot her for such egregious things as sending a child to the back of the line. She gets no backing from the administration in these cases.

If anyone else has any examples (from real life, not the Web), I'd love to pass them on to my mom.

[Gr8Kat]

Oh my God. <--Not taking the Lord's name in vain, but an actual prayer because I'm scared for our children's future. These are the most horrible things I've ever read. No workbooks? No handwriting? No spelling? Am I the only one who has the feeling that the kids who hated school are now in charge?

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Please, Divemaster, tell us your mother is making up these things.

[tomndebb]

What city/school district?

------------------
Tom~

[tracer]

If the librarian at this school doesn't allow kids to check out or read books, who are the books in the library FOR?

------------------
I'm not flying fast, just orbiting low.

[Mister_RogersAWC]

That principal and librarian both fall into the "If The Parents Had Known They'd Turn Out This Way, They'd Kill the Little Jerks When They Were Infants" category. I personally would crack that principal over the head with a bat. No D's and F's? I vote that anyone who makes all F's or all D's on their report card gets thrown out of school. It would make the classes at my High School a lot smaller.

But, you mentioned it was an inner city school. If it is a school with a large African-American (I hate that term! Too bulky and makes people seem like foreigners) population, then the librarian and principal my be racist. That would explain why they want kids to cruise through school without an education.

------------------
"No job's too small, we bomb them all."
-Ace Wrecking Company

[Momotaro]

Is this a joke? If you tell me it isn't I still won't believe you.

[nayaran]

Please, please, please, tell me this isn't true, Divemaster! Until now, I thought it couldn't get much worse than here, but I was wrong, obviously.

Please say this is some awful joke!

------------------
"Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong."--Dennis Miller

[Persephone]

No BOOKS out of the library? No SPELLING? What the (sputter spit sputter sputter) is going on there?

Excuse me while I go spit & sputter some more. Then when I'm done, I think I just may cry.

[Cessandra]

Seriously. Tell us what school district these idiots are in. Not only do I never want to teach there, I want to make sure that my future kids are educated several states away from that kind of nonsense.

[Momotaro]

I wouldn't go to Kansas either. Evolution is heresy after all.

------------------
Only humans do inhuman things.

[WallyM7]

I'm not bragging or anything. Just stating a fact: I am not easily frightened.

This really, really, scares me.

I mean that in the most strict literal sense.

[Satan]

DIVEMASTER - Sounds like bullshit to me. But as a master media manipulator, please feel free to get in touch if this is indeed true and I will take it upon myself to get this the publicity it deserves.

If it is bullshit... Well, please don't waste our time!

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan

[divemaster]

These examples are not bullshit. (I only post from work, so I apologize for the delay in replying). This is a very specific school district in a very specific city, under a very specific administration with principals and assistant principals that my mom works with every day; not things that I saw on the Web or read in the paper.

This has been an ongoing topic of conversation between my mom and me for the last 5 years or so. We both agree that there are terrible policies in force. On the bright side, this summer my mom finally got the transfer she wanted to another school. Same city, same school system, but with a principal and staff that is not quite so bad. She feels like a new woman, actually able to teach the kiddos a little.

Last week, I told my mom that I wanted to post these examples on the internet. She asked me not to mention the city, given the fact that thousnds or tens of thousands of people could be reading this, most certainly in her city (it's a big one). Given her tendency to challenge policies and not sit by quietly she said that they would know in two seconds who was behind the spread of information that has to be extremely embarrasing to the school district and the administration. She's already walking a tightrope with the system, and still has 10 or 20 years before hitting retirement age. She could easily get fired or "reassigned" (public education can be very political). I will keep my promise to my mother. If that causes some to disbelieve me or think that I am exaggerating, so be it.

My mom was only one of a very few white teachers/staff at this school. I don't know offhand the exact number, but we're talking less than five. I don't think racism is a factor. Except when aimed at my mother by parents.

And yes, the rules against teaching in the classical sense of the word are strictly enforced. No spelling, no handwriting, no workbooks, and no math tables. Math is supposed to be taught be playing 'math games,' not by memorization. They do get a six-week course in civil rights, so they can learn all about MLK, Malcom-X, you name it. They may not be able to actually learn to read the material, but they certainly hear about it over and over again.

Overall, teaching becomes sort of a cat and mouse game with some of the teachers trying to teach the 'forbidden' subjects on the sly, so that higher administration doesn't find out. My mom does this a lot.

Here's some more policies to chew on:

1) Teaching to the Test
Whenever a city or sytem-wide evaluation is coming up, the teachers are supposed to prepare the students by using the actual test. My mom actually has the test in her hand for a month in order to get the students ready to pass. If they don't pass, the teacher gets blamed (but the students can just take it again until they do pass).

2) Free Lunches
Parents can sign their kids up for free lunches. There is a salary level for acceptance, but it is never checked or enforced. In theory, if a child does not qualify for a free lunch, then the cost is 10 cents (remember, this is an inner city school where everyone is assumed to be from a disadvantaged background). So far so good.

However, the school sponsors afternoon snack time where students can purchase popcorn, chips, cokes, and stuff for 75 cents, of which most kids take advantage. So the policy seems to be if you can't afford the 10 cent lunch, you qualify for a free one, but then you can spend 75 cents for snacks. Go figure.

3) Free Breakfast
Students get a free breakfast. Note I did not say they can get a free breakfast. The policy is that every student gets one whether he/she wants it or not. My mom said she's never seen so much food get thrown away, much of it untouched, by kids who have already eaten at home.

Also, the administration did not want for the kids to have to come to school any earlier, so they took first period and turned it into 'free breakfast' period. One less class period in which to "facilitate learning."

4) Corporal Punishment
For those of you who think corporal punishment is no longer in effect in public schools, think again. It has to be administered by a principal, or witnessed by a principal if done by a teacher. Of course my mom, being white, can not commence to whack on kids who misbehave, but most of the black teachers have a bullshit tolerance level of zero when it comes to insubordination or cutting up. A number of teachers have told my mom just to send the kids needing a whack to them, and they would take care of it.

I, personally, am not anti-corporal punishment in theory (I'm talking a swat on the butt, not a beating). But I suspect I am in the minority, so I put this forth as an example that y'all may find surprising and wrong.

Disclaimers
The instances I bring up only are from lower grades. I have no idea what policies may be for junior high or high school.

These examples come from a specific school system. Other systems may be the same, may be worse, or (hopefully this is the case) much better. I make no universal claims. I do believe, however, that stuff like this goes on much more than what "we" would like to think. We who went to suburban schools, or private schools, or even city schools years ago, I think have no idea what is going on in our inner cities.

My mom went into teaching in order to teach learning disabled or otherwise disadvantaged kids. She has a special certificate (over and above a regular teaching certificate)that took her two years of full-time school just to learn a method for reaching out to 'special-needs' children (I forget the name of the program, I'll have to ask her). What she sees is very depressing for her. Not only on the educational side, but just the situations these kids are in. Fathers in jail or unknown. Mothers are crack whores, and won't come up to the school for their kids sake no matter what. A number of times my mom hasn't called on parents to come get a sick or out-of-control child because she knows the kid will get beaten at home by a mother who is infuriated that she has to be pulled away from her soap operas or such.

This is a whole generation of kids that this school system and administration is throwing away on their ivory tower theories of education. I have tried very hard to be factual and not get preachy. I figure this will start a debate, but I say if a parent wants a child to get out of a situation like this and go to a better school and at least have a chance, then they should be allowed to do so. And if that requires a voucher, so be it. How many parents can sit by and just let their kids go down the educational drain?

[sivancat]

I used to teach middle school in an inner city school and much of what Divemaster says is true. We were encouraged to let kids advance to the next grade whether or not they deserved it--giving a failing grade was pretty much out of the question. And we certainly "taught to the test" so our kids could do well on standardized tests. I couldn't take being made to do what I felt was wrong for the kids, so I changed jobs. Teaching is frustrating as hell--I admire those who can stick with it. I sure couldn't.

[sivancat]

I used to teach middle school in an inner city school and much of what Divemaster says is true. We were encouraged to let kids advance to the next grade whether or not they deserved it--giving a failing grade was pretty much out of the question. And we certainly "taught to the test" so our kids could do well on standardized tests. I couldn't take being made to do what I felt was wrong for the kids, so I changed jobs. Teaching is frustrating as hell--I admire those who can stick with it. I sure couldn't.

[sivancat]

Sorry about the double post. I'm still getting the hang of the system.

[Atrael]

I am really and truly depressed now...(sigh)....But I can sorta see how this came about....In these places, school isn't a place for them to learn, but a baby-sitting service....someplace to dump the kids during the day.....and I honestly don't have any hope that it'll change...the gap between the inner city kids and lucky ones like us that had at least a decent chance to learn will grow larger and larger. Which will breed animosity between the two classes...which leads to hatred and prejudice...and while I don't know what the ultimate end to this will be, I'm fairly sure it won't be a utopian society.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Divemaster:
If the elementary schools were that bad, then I really doubt the junior or high schools could do much with the students.

[divemaster]

Yeah. I don't know what the graduation rate for inner city schools is, but it is not good. And those that do graduate, what can they have learned? There will always be diamonds that make it out and go on to college and respectable careers, but for every success story there has got to be many more lost to the underworld of addiction, crime, welfare, etc...

It's just a shame when schools become part of the problem instead of a solution and a way out.

I'll have to ask my mom and see what she knows about the upper grades.

[Cessandra]

I went to what could almost be classified as inner city schools for about three years (first two years of middle, and freshman high school). I also went to a suburb high school for three years. Both are equally bad. The difference is that suburb schools have very clean, well groomed, and high tech classrooms in which to avoid teaching. Now, none of the schools that I have been to were as bad as the one that Divemaster describes. But they certainly teach to the test (many teachers actually pass out the test to students as "study guides". Another fun thing is to tell the kids, "this is hard and you won't understand it, so don't worry when it doesn't make any sense." That's my pet peeve. These factors plus things like completion grades (where you get credit just for doing it, regardless of whether you get every answer wrong), test corrections (when you get a test back after it's been graded and you get to change all of your wrong answers (by using your book/notes/friends) for partial credit), and social promotion all create an atmoshpere where you really don't have to learn anything to graduate.

[TVeblen]

Divemaster is right. And it's an institutionally structured machine to set kids up to fail.

It's set up to set SOME kids up to fail. If anyone really believes we have a level playing field, and our wonderful public education system gives everybody the same chances...well, read it and weep.

What real chances do the kids have who get shoved into this mess? Makes the drop out rate look not only understandable, but sensible. Those kids know, KNOW, that they were brushed off and thrown away from the very beginning. The real heroes are the teachers who quietly work *against the system* to teach, to pass knowledge along to kids. It shouldn't be nearly this rough or stupid or obscene, should it? No wonder being a mule for a drug dealer looks good, and teachers sound stupid. The kids know that they never stood a good chance. One honest teacher trying to work coverty against their own system, or some good money in an openly dishonest system where at least the rules are laid out? What choice would you make?

You know what's really obscene? Forget sex, forget all that glitzy stuff; think about the sheer human waste, think about good hearts, brains and lives that are being thrown away. That is my definition of obscenity.

Then think about all the warm fuzzies from all the politicians, from all parties, who are "for education". Forget the patter and the posing. Look at bucks, results and real reform. Not much, huh? Well, until it happens, we'll keep throwing kids away and teachers like Divemaster's mom will keep trying to work, against the system, to teach kids.

(And Divemaster, protect your mom. The world *loves* whistleblowers. They so conveniently stand up so they can get shot, politicians can pontificate and get votes, and the irritant is removed. And nothing changes.)

For the rest, read Savage Inequalities by Jonathan Kozol. He's a teacher who went public by writing. The book was the first to make the cover of Newsweek, with a message to read it. That was two "education presidents ago".

I guess not enough of us read it.

Mad as hell and not apologizing,
Veb

Boy, I gotta say (if someone hasn't, already), that this thread gets my vote for the All-time Scariest, Most Troubling Thread. I just have to be thankful I was educated in the 60s, when the biggest controversy (IIRC) was New Math (managed to escape most of that) and busing for integration (that, too).

It seems to me (in light of these things) that the best course of action for any kid who really wants to get a useful education is to drop out, go to the local 'learning center' and take GED instruction instead of high school and then hang at the local library seeking answers to all your favorite questions, as well as more questions to ask. I say this because my SO just (within the last two months) finally got her GED at 38, and it instantly had a dramatic, positive effect on her life. She'd been self-supporting since she was thirteen, but only in a variety of fairly menial occupations like short-order waitress, unskilled factory worker, domestic maintenance. Two days later a local grocery called her (after the high school graduate they'd previously hired goofed off/up for a week) and hired her as a meat cutter, with those all-important health and pension benefits. It unquestionably helped that she's always been a voracious reader, but her mathephobia was her stumbling block.
From what I saw of her textbooks, the GED is no walk in the garden.

Sorry if this has been a bit of chest-beating, but damn it makes me feel proud to know such a gal . . .

Especially when her 13-year-old daughter gets harassed by another girl at school for being the friend of a third girl, and a teacher tells her,"Well, maybe you shouldn't be friends with {the third girl} and then {the first girl} would leave you alone!"

Can you believe that shit?

[Boris B]

TVeblen
I agree. Look for the bucks. Too many people who claim to support education balk at any suggestion of paying for it. They have plenty of excuses to draw on. One public administration(!) professor I had was always citing vague statistics he had, saying that funding levels had nothing to do with educational results. I asked, "Don't class sizes have a lot to do with results? And don't small classes cost more? More teachers and all that?"

His reply, "Yeah, but there's no guarantee school district spend money to hire more teachers. They'll probably just spend it on driver's ed and all that." I gave up.

I just think there needs to be a real willingness to pay taxes to hire teachers to reduce class sizes. If that willingness isn't there, we're all marching happily towards a collapes of literacy and our civilization.

But it's true, we need a lot more than funding, like a willingness to teach.

[Melatonin]

In the US Education needs to be nationalized. That would help with a lot of the problems of discrepency in funding/ curriculum/ administration- which pretty much sums up the problems in public schools today.

[kknick34]

If parents don't take an active role in their child's education, no amount of funding or small class sizes or national standards will help.

Talk to your kids, talk to their teachers. If you find something you don't like complain. Complain to the teachers, principals, school board and other parents.

Where I live school boards are elected in off-year low turnout elections. An energized opposition can bring change because a small change in vote patterns can swing these elections.

I have a first grade son, and you can bet your ass I talk him to every day about what went in his school.

[NicePete]

I have two primary school students in my family. Both my wife and I are very involved in their education and volunteer at their school. We've been very lucky in that the two schools we've attended -- one urban, semi-inner city, one rural -- have been very good. The teachers, the parents and the administrators have all worked hard to do their best for the students. So while I have no doubt that the horror stories herein are true, I don't think they are a universal condition. There are good schools out there. Unfortunately, they aren't available to everyone.

All I can suggest is that parents should get involved with their schools and with their kids education. If parents devoted the interest and eneregy to academics that they do to atheletics, we'd see a drastic improvement in our schools.

Sorry, I can't agree with federalizing our schools. I have much less faith in the federal government's ability and efficiency than the earlier poster does. I think all that would result in the lowest common demoninator.

[LongHrn99]

Melatonin: Nationalization won't help. It's not funding\curriculum\administration that we need. It's not even smaller class sizes. It's teachers that care, that haven't been hardened by bad experiences. I take it back, we DO need funding. Funding for teachers who don't get paid enough. Who wants to do any job well if they don't get paid enogh? Should we expect them to put up with brats for 30K a year? No. If we paid teachers more then we would see better education levels.

------------------
"There are many sweeping generalizations that are always true" -Space Ghost

[Melatonin]

Yes, I suppose federalization won't solve ALL the problems of our schools, but it would help with a few of them, including that oh-so prominent funding problem.

One of my biggest problems in school was moving a lot, however. In two and a half years of highschool, I switched schools something like nine times. (I'm not going to deny that I was removed/advised/expelled on a couple of occasions, but that's not the biggest issue here.) The problem I encountered on each of these moves was that each new school would completely alter my academic schedule to fit in with their curriculum. One month I would be reading Oedepus Rex (sp) and the next I'd find myself in remedial 9th grade English. Freshmen year I took Biology, but moved across the country for Sophomore year to a school district that decided that, since I'd taken a higher-level (than standard curriculum) science class the previous year, I should be sent back to take the prerequisite course (which I'd done in 8th grade) that year. 10 weeks into the term, they realized this was a mistake and tranferred me to AP Chemistry, where I was given a book, told to read the first 12 chapters and find myself a lab partner. Needless to say, it didn't work out so well. When I moved back to the original school district over winter break, I was placed in a school that *did not have chemistry,* thus I founf myself in some ridiculous class called *Earth Science." I failed tenth grade.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, but I think we can all put on our imagining caps and draw our own conclusions as to what the iceberg looks like. The iceberg is a great big diploma factory: when it comes down to it, that's all most of our highschools are. And many of the administrators of these schools are concerned primarily with getting students to fit in SOMEWHERE (without any squeaking, please) on the conveyer belt as quickly as they possibly can.

They are not at all concerned with hearing some kid in combat boots tell them, "Just because I did Trig instead of pre-Algebra last year doesn't mean I need to go back now and make up for it." Hmmm, maybe if I had been wearing sandals, or something like that. . .

One of my Superheros would have to be the teacher at Westbury High School who *snuck* (you read that right) me into her IB English class. See, she had to *sneak* me into the class because this particular crack-headed school district would not permit students to take some classes at sub-grade level and others at supra-grade level.

Pretty much every public school system is screwed up in it's own way, but it would be nice if we could normalize this somehow so punk kids like (I was) would know how to cover themselves when being tossed from school to school. So that schools would not have such an easy time 'losing' records and psychically removing 'off-record' students from their institutions. Oh, I could go on and on.

Let's just say I haven't gone on this particular rampage in quite some time, but back then (at the age of 15) I had pretty clearly formulated the argument that the root of much evil in the schools lays in no one knowing or understanding what anyone else is doing with the kids.

Now I understand that the vast majority of teenagers are, in fact, cynics. But I still think it's pretty screwy that I saw so clearly at such a young age that School- the primary institutional contact of all young people- had no control over nor support for me. I saw this as a result of School's inability to teach me anything from week to week, inability to understand that I had learned something last term, in a different place, and now it was time for me to learn *yet something more,* even if that would put my schedule out of sync with the other 2,000 first semester sophomores.

I am lucky. I am lucky that when I dropped out of school, I lived in a state that permits 16 year olds to take the GED. I am lucky I had the brains to get the scores and the parents with the pockets to pay the tuition so that I could go to college. I am lucky that I got to be the only 16 yr old blond freshman at the frat parties. . .

Probably most of all I am lucky that I was cynical enough at 15 to figure out that the school and the governments they ooze from are WAY more screwed up than me. See, I have a lot of friends who weren't that cynical. They sell you your gas. Me? I teach your children.

Here we go again. . .

[divemaster]

I think the call for 'more funding' is good in theory, but not how it is being applied. Any extra money rarely makes it to the teacher and classroom level.

For those of you in lottery states, how much better are the schools? When my home state (Louisiana) had the lottery vote, people were promised new millions for education. So how much improved are Louisiana's schools in the last 10 years? They still battle it out with Mississippi for the bottom spot.

What we do get is more administrators (which judging from my mom's experience is a major source of the problem). We get more counselors to help the children when they fail or get frustrated with school. The teacher's unions may get more money from various sources, but that goes to politics and working to keep bad teachers tenured (among other things).

Money goes to implementation of more new teaching "theories" rather than the basics. Should kids have to pay for testing out some of the ridiculous ideas in the schools now? What do we tell them after 10 years, when the new method turns out to be crap? Oops, sorry?

[Persephone]

I live in Michigan, a "lottery state." I can say this...I don't know where the money is going, but it sure as hell isn't going to the schools.

[tomndebb]

Generally the lottery monies dogo to education.

Then the legislature says "The schools got $1.4 billion from the lottery? Let's reduce the education money from the General Fund by $1.4 billion."

Ohio played that game. The initial Lotto was "for education" (but they "forgot" to write that part into the law). A few years later, one of our grandstanding legislators (while out of office, briefly) decided to make political capital by claiming that the evil state had stolen the money that he had promised tothe schools. He got a "Lotto money is earmarked for education" referendum going. It passed. He got elected again. The legislature reduced the General Funds money for education. (I didn't pay attention to his vote; I can't vote in his district.) What a farce.

------------------
Tom~

[nayaran]

Amazing. I'm speechless.

In Tennessee, we don't have a lottery. (We're working on it.) What we do have is something called the "path system". Upon entrance into high school, a student must choose a path (University, Technical, or Dual) that will determine what classes are required for graduation, as well as what the student wants to do with their life. When I say "required to graduate", I mean that in the most literal sense. Our principal has told us repeatedly that we will not walk across that stage in May unless we have passed the right classes.

Just in case you were wondering, the University path requires:
4 English credits,
3 math (up to and including Algebra 2),
3 science (2 lab sciences),
3 social studies (World Geography or History, US History, Econ., Gov't.),
1 wellness (PE or ROTC),
2 foreign language,
1 fine art (I failed that on purpose),
and 4 elective courses.

We have to pass these in four years, or else.

The path system above is statewide. Locally, we have (thanks to one Jesse Register, who truly is Satan, IMHO) a system of standards and benchmarks called, jokingly enough, "Success For All Students". This basically outlines the entire curriculum in one huge manual. For every class. In every grade.

Conclusion: If you want academics, move down to Hamilton County, TN. (Graduation: It's not just a good idea; it's the law. :) )

------------------
"Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong."--Dennis Miller

[ChrisCTP]

For some reason, this makes me want to be a teacher more than ever.

------------------
Veni, Vidi, Visa ... I came, I saw, I bought.

[GatewayDrug]

This is upsetting.

1) tomndebb is/are right. Lotteries are a scam. The legislatures just lop off whatever the lottery take is from the budget.

2) Unfortunately, DIVEMASTER's right too--more money would never get to the classroom anyway. Spending per pupil in US public school systems is well on par with the rest of the world...even in inner-city schools. So a funding increase would go...where? the district & local beauracracy? Which brings up...

3) Federalization. Could we really have a national curriculum? With a country as diverse and decentralized as ours, would this work? Never mind that it reeks of statist European thinking; i.e. every kid should read the same book, at the same time, everywhere. Sounds like a good idea until you start asking who decides what gets read. That's a big respoinsibility to put in the hands of the Dept. of Education.

Anyway, scary thread. I'm tempted to say. 'Thank God I went to private school,' but the public schools in my neighborhood were pretty good. BTW, I don't want to start a whole vouchers argument here, but why is it that the Catholic and parochial schools in these neighborhoods are the ones providing kids not just a safe haven, but a real education. I'm not necessarily anti-public school, but what could they learn from the private schools in these areas? Surely something.

Gateway, I'm in full agreement with you on most issues, but I think you miss the point that the major advantage private schools have over public is just that: they're private, so they don't have to take the 'problem students' that the public schools are so often stuck with, which is why (although lately I've been starting to wonder) I'm generally against a voucher system which would only end up with a public school system with even less money to deal with a student constituency composed predominately of the learning disabled, the delinquent, the underfed/inattentive, the emotionally disturbed, and the intellectually deficient. I also think, in the case of parochial schools, that it comes too close to knocking a hod of bricks from the wall of church/state separation.

Now, a voucher system for public schools, in which parents could decide for themselves which school within a particular city or county they wanted to send their kid (and his/her voucher) to, with entry determined solely on a first come/first served basis for the first year -- I see no real problem with that. Perhaps what we're already flagellating in the vicinity of the shrubbery about ("Hey!" he thinks to himself -- "it does pay to increase my wordpower!") is that we should re-organize high schools nationwide to operate more like universities.

Yeah, tomndebb are right -- same damn thing happened in KY after our lottery went through.

What some of these posts have left me wondering about, though, is -- just what the hell is a principal really for, anyway? Excuse me (as a famous communicator was oft wont to preface his remarks), but the main impression I've always garnered from these people (with exceptions, of course) is that their primary function is to hagride good teachers, run interference for the others, try to intimidate students with the audacity to think/speak for themselves, and generally behave like the commanding general of Camp Browbeat. Couldn't a committee of teachers, meeting for a half hour each day or so, make administrative decisions a lot better? Or even a 'rotating principality', with the teachers taking turns. Just a thought . . . and I do have them, from time to time.

[smilingjaws]

As the parent of a public high school sophomore, I wonder, too, what a principal's job is. As far as I can see they direct traffic at the beginning and end of the day. I guess they fill out paperwork. I've never seen much evidence that they actually monitor teachers or confront problem teachers. Sometimes they deal with problem students although now counselors do this mostly.
One of the problems that is going to have to be dealt with eventually is the reliance on local property taxes to fund schools. You simply cannot have equitable funding if you do this. Rural, low population areas and some inner cities are shortchanged every time. Wealthy suburbs have good support and better schools.

[divemaster]

I don't think that vouchers would drain money from the public school system. I mean, if 10% of the kids leave the system, and take 10% of the funding with them, the amount spent per remaining student doesn't change.

In fact, I think $/student comes out to be between $7000 to $9000/year (it may be higher), so providing a $1500 to $3000 voucher is actually a net gain for the government if the kid leaves the public school system.

What vouchers can do, of course, it take control away from city and state school systems and put into the hands of the parents. The educational establishment, including the teacher's unions, absolutely hates having to give up control or choices to parents. It's a very paternalistic attitude: "We know what's best for your kids, not you. We can educate them just fine."

I think, in many cases, they can't. A lot of inner city parents think the same way. The segment of our society most in favor of vouchers is urban minority parents (not the so-called minority 'leadership' who has sold out to special interests).

IMO, much (though certainly not all) of the resistance to vouchers is from suburban and private school parents who don't want those inner city kids contaminating their "good" schools. This may be a bit harsh, but as you've probably noticed, I have very strong feelings on giving these kids a chance. If we don't, then we as a society will continue to pay for the crime, joblessness, and despair that grips our inner cities. And can we continue to afford that cost?

[GatewayDrug]

Man how I did not want to start a vouchers debate. They tend to get nasty, and a lot of people are really dogmatic. I'm surprised some furious public school administrator hasn't chimed in to rebut. Interestingly, the most adament voucher opponent I know is sending his kid to a private Jewish school.

DIF-- Taking 'problem kids' is but one of the restrictions placed on public schools. School administrators are encumbered by any number of mandates and regulations. Not only do they have to take delinquints, but also the disabled, non-English speakers, homeless, etc. And this is in addition to all the mandates for meals, testing, curriculum, and so forth. My point was that school administrators always pose it as a question of money, and it never is. The question is what could public schools, even with their restrictions, learn from private schools. Again, surely something. Uniforms?

I was wondering...I read somwhere that education was practically universal before the public school system was instituted and that government mandated education only came along with all the social reforms at the beginning of the century. We have these to thank for our current educational bureaucracy. Any truth to this?

[Mojo]

>>I don't think that vouchers would drain money from the public school system. I mean, if 10% of the kids leave the system, and take 10% of the funding with them, the amount spent per remaining student doesn't change.

You're assuming that the money is distributed evenly and spent only on students. If 10% of the $$$ spent on each student is spent on something that all students share (repairs, new classrooms, kiln, etc...) then it makes a huge difference.

DIVEMASTER (and I hope you won't mind if I don't capitalize that from now on), I think you may be overlooking the fact that public school system has a certain level of spending which they must maintain, irrespective of how many kids attend. The public schools would be left with all the oldest, most decrepit physical plants; what new private school is going to rent a rundown storefront, etc., if something better is available? Or even build a new building? Also, the private schools would 'skim' the best students, leaving (as I said, and I think Gateway expanded on) the ones who require the most actual money-per-pupil spending. Then there's the matter of busing -- public schools have to send out buses to collect all the kids in a dispersed district. The private schools can essentially make that a parental responsibility.

[divemaster]

Moving away from vouchers...

I dug up some figures on the relationship of educational funding to what actually makes it to the classroom level:

From Education Update, Fall 1990: "Studies of the Milwaukee and NYC school systems show < 50% of funding actually reached the school, and < 30% went to classroom services. [It's probably worse now].

Also, teacher's salaries have been a declining percentage of school budgets, as bureaucracies and other non-instructional costs absorbed the growing sums being spent on the educational establishment."

Its like a huge monster that feeds at the expense of the youngsters.

BTW, I really appreciate all the comments; my mom will be thrilled when I share them with her.

[HubZilla]

Divemaster said:
Not only on the educational side, but just the situations these kids are in. Fathers in jail or unknown. Mothers are crack whores, and won't come up to the school for their kids sake no matter what. A number of times my mom hasn't called on parents to come get a sick or out-of-control child because she knows the kid will get beaten at home by a mother who is infuriated that she has to be pulled away from her soap operas or such.

I don't think the education system can be solely blamed. My brother teaches at an inner city school and some stories about the students and the parents.

Students who do well in class are harassed by their peers as "acting white". Other students are so starved for attention that it becomes impossible to control them.

If a kid is out of control, the parents don't want to be bothered: "it's your problem". You can't even threaten to tell their parents, because the kids know they don't care. Or the care too much: Parents have accused my brother (white) of racism if he gives a kid a bad grade or disciplines them (try and remove a "racism" mark from your dossier, he says, it's always guilty until proven innocent).

He agrees that poverty may have a lot to do with the problems he deals with. However, he amusingly notes the kids sport the latest Air Jordans and clothing lines that he could not buy on his teachers salary.

------------------
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument" - William McAdoo

This may really belong on the JokeThread, but I just came across it this morning, and since it's on topic:

It's graduation day, and everybody's going to get their diploma but Jon. At the assembly, the entire senior class stands up
and shouts "Let Jon graduate, let Jon graduate!"

The principal agrees to give Jon one last chance. "If I have five apples in my right hand and five in my left hand, Jon,
how many apples do I have?" he asked.

Jon thought long and hard and then said: "Ten."

And the entire senior class stood up and shouted "Give Jon another chance, give Jon another chance!"

[Koxinga]

Actually, DIF, that is a true story, though it was college, not high school. It occurred at Texas A&M.

Another true story: an Aggie and a Longhorn went down to South Padre Island for spring break. The Aggie asked the Longhorn how he could be sure to score while they were partying down there, and the Longhorn said that if he really wanted to impress the chicks, he should shove a potato down into his swim trunks. The next day the Aggie ran into the Longhorn, and furiously berated him for telling him to do such a thing--instead of being impressed, all the girls laughed at him. The Longhorn said, "well, show me what you did." Then he said, "you doofus, you're supposed to put the potato in the *front*!"

Was that off topic?

DHR

[divemaster]

I read the potato joke in Playboy's Book of Party Jokes about 20 years ago. And I seriously doubt the entire A&M Senior Class couldn't count to 10; but at least that was one I hadn't heard before.

Sorry to poop your party.

(Boy, this thread really has jumped the track).

[Atrael]

As I was reading down the posts again, something else occured to me. I want to throw this suggestion out there and see what ya'll think about it. What if we re-structure the entire school system. Make the Basic education that all children are due only go to age 16 or so. Anyone that would like to take some of the more advance subjects (Trig, Physics, etc) would have to have the grades and record to qualify. This would grant everyone at least the basics, and allow those that are interested in education continue with perhaps more resources available.

A big problem with this of course is "What to do with the ones that don't choose to continue?" Well, I don't have any great ideas, maybe change some of the labor laws to allow them to work full-time?....Just an idea...

------------------
&lt;i&gt;I haven't lost my mind, I have a tape backup around somewhere.&lt;/i&gt;

[smilingjaws]

I wanted to point out that the idea that before public education, education was universal is just plain silly.

[Shirley Ujest]

I'm not a teacher, but it has always been a secret little dream of mine. After hearing horror stories behind the scenes from my teacher friends and what Divemaster has brought to light, I think I will stick with planning on being a volunteer in school and raise the roof at the PTA meetings.

My sister in law teachs first grade and they are not allowed to teach phonics to the students. (She's at an upper middle class nearly all white school in MI.) Hello, but how in the fuck do you learn how to pronounce anything if you don't learn the basics? A friends wife went to a school where phonics were not taught ( she's 35) and has the toughest time pronouncing big words.

[phouka]

I am considering becoming a teacher. I honestly look forward to the good things about teaching, and I honestly fear all the bad stuff I've heard. I guess I'll see if I can cut it once I do my student teaching.

But one thing does stick in my craw.

I'm leaving a field where - if I got a Redhat Linux certification, an MCSE, or Cisco certification - I could make $75,0000 to $120,000 a year. The best I expect to ever make in public teaching, after a lot of seniority, is maybe $50,000.

Not that it's about the money. It really isn't. But sheesh . . .

[Persephone]

My sister in law teachs first grade and they are not allowed to teach phonics to the students. (She's at an upper middle class nearly all white school in MI.)

I learned phonics waaaaaaay back when in elementary school. What I don't understand is why it's now being heralded as some breakthrough learning tool. It's great, yes, and it does work. But it's not new. But I don't understand why your sister-in-law isn't allowed to teach it. That really sucks.

[Fretful Porpentine]

At UNC-Chapel Hill, TAs in the freshman composition program are not allowed to teach grammar, although they all sneak it in anyhow. The rationale for this, according to the administration, is that "studies have shown that students' grammar doesn't improve from formal instruction." (Well, maybe not, but it sure as hell won't improve from a total lack of instruction EITHER.) Also, the Composition Gods in my department advocate this touchy-feely group-learning method that basically boils down to the blind leading the blind; woe betide the instructor who presumes to actually teach the class. Aaarrghh. Just thought I'd let you know things don't improve at the college level.

[Melatonin]

Snotty linguistic aside:
"Hello, but
how in the fuck do you learn how to pronounce anything if you don't learn the
basics?"
Although I recall learning some phonics myself, I'm not really sure how useful they are, being as English is *the least phonetic* language I can think of. Ex. "The tough coughs as he ploughs the dough" -Dr. Seuss

[Narile]

Shirly, the problem isn't that they don't use phonics, it is that they would try to make phonics the *only* method to teach reading. Phonics is good if the kid doesn't know how to read already, but trying to force a kid to use a phonetic method of reading after they already learned to read is very damaging. It took me a long time to recover from being forced to learn a phonetic system of reading after I had already taught myself how to read using a visual system. They have to come up with a way to engage the kids reading interests in a manner the kid responds to. They go to a phonic method only, and just as many kids will fail because they don't think in terms of sound, but in terms of visual images, or associative methods.
My biggest complaint about reading is that kids are not encouraged to challenge themselves in reading. They still get heaps of praise when they read Clifford the big red dog slobbers all over the place in third grade, and the kid that is reading Asimov is being ignored/harassed because it takes him four times longer to read a book, never mind the book is 20,000 words longer.

------------------
&gt;&gt;Being Chaotic Evil means never having to say your sorry....unless the other guy is bigger than you.&lt;&lt;

---The dragon observes

[tracer]

Narile wrote:

My biggest complaint about reading is that kids are not encouraged to challenge themselves in reading. They still get heaps of praise when they read Clifford the big red dog slobbers all over the place in third grade, and the kid that is reading Asimov is being ignored/harassed because it takes him four times longer to read a book, never mind the book is 20,000 words longer.

Don't tell me they've abolished "gifted" classes, too!


(BTW, Clifford the Big Red Dog Slobbers All Over the Place a GREAT title for a preschooler's book! Have you found a publisher yet? :) )

------------------
Visit the Internet Stellar Database at www.stellar-database.com (http://www.stellar-database.com)

[tomndebb]

Melatonin and Narile, English has strange orthography and I'm sure that a phonics program can be abused as easily as any other. The basic problem is that forbidding phonics reduces the teaching of English to sight reading in which each word is an image that must be memorized--sort of like learning Chinese. (I know, the Chinese can do it, but they do not have an alphabetic structure that allows for anything else and so their teaching is geared to that approach.) Narile, you are obviously literate, but I have worked with the products of sight-reading classes (and at least one self-taught individual) who cannot deal with new words. If they come across a new word in text, they have to write it down and go find a dictionary (not a bad idea--if they bother) when a phonics-trained person can sound out the word and will often recognize the word as one that they know only from hearing it.

Phonics is not the be-all and end-all for teaching reading, but, for all its exceptions, English still has fairly normalized pronunciation.
Look at the preceding sentence. Once the digraphs "th" "ch" and "ph" have been taught, that whole sentence can be "sounded out" by any phonics-trained first grader with only some help needed on the "ea"s and the "tion"s. There is an inner city school in Houston where they decided to try an experiment a couple of years ago, teaching a heavy phonics-based program to kids whose predecessors have been failing state tests at more then 90% for several years. The year they instituted the change, those classes shot up above the 95th percentile for that age group for the whole state of Texas. Project LEARN (promoting reading for illiterate adults) uses phonics and generally helps adults read in fewer than twelve weeks. (And adults do not have the mental openness to language that children below the age of 10 do.)

With those sorts of results, I don't think forbidding phonics is a really good idea.

------------------
Tom~

[White Wolf]

I couldn't even wait to read all the other replies before writing this. Those policies make me absolutely SICK! I'm still in school (Junior in High school), and sure, it may seem like a "Dream come true" to some people, but I would be furious with a system like that. I'd better stop now before I get out of hand.

------------------
-------------------------
White Wolf

"Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense."

"Half the world is composed of idiots, the other half of people clever enough to take indecent advantage of them."

[White Wolf]

About the gifted classes:

Yes they're there, but the people in them aren't all that gifted. I go to a Catholic High School, but I have friends in public school who are at the top of their class,and I don't want to sound like I'm boasting, but, my friends from my school and I could run circles around them. They just don't get challenged. At all. I'd be bored stiff.

[Melatonin]

Tomndeb, I think you're probably right in saying that phonics constitute a valid pedagogical approach for some students. Forbidding the use of a potentially useful teaching technique is, indeed, a bad idea. Really, the most effective approach to teaching any material in the classroom is a mixed-bag of techniques, because not everyone learns the same way.
(Tangent)
It would be great if every student could somehow be guaranteed the opportunity to learn new material in the way most comfortable to him. If students could be guaranteed that they would *learn*. If some local bigwig kook would not have the right to determine phonetics, multiplication tables, 'Diary of Anne Frank,' of the theory of evolution unteachable fables of Satan (hey there, Satan!), well, wouldn't that be great?

[Cessandra]

White Wolf said:

Yes they're there, but the people in them aren't all that gifted. I go to a Catholic High School, but I have friends in public school who are at the top of their class,and I don't want to sound like I'm boasting, but, my friends from my school and I could run circles around them. They just don't get challenged. At all. I'd be bored stiff.


And remember, the teacher's fully expect the kids in "regular" classes to be much slower and not nearly as smart as the kids in the gifted programs. Think they get any challenges? No. They treat the "regular" kids like idiots, and that's exactly how those kids turn out.

------------------
Cessandra

My Homepage (http://www.shsu.edu/~stdmed17/Home.html) (http://www.shsu.edu/~stdmed17/Home.html)
The RHPS: Website For Virgins (http://www.shsu.edu/~stdmed17/RockyHome.html) (http://www.shsu.edu/~stdmed17/RockyHome.html)

[Koxinga]

============================================
The basic problem is that forbidding phonics reduces the teaching of English to sight reading in which each word is an image that must be memorized--sort of like learning Chinese. (I know, the Chinese can do it, but they do not have an alphabetic structure that allows for anything else and so their teaching is geared to that approach.)
============================================

I believe that both Taiwan and mainland China use a phonetic system to introduce kids to reading and writing, though not the same one. And although characters in Chinese don't have any direct phonetic component, they do incorporate a system of "radicals" whereunder almost every character is composed of smaller, more basic characters, some of which are used to at least give a hint for pronunciation.

Nobody's brought up the subject yet, but I feel that any comparison between Asian and American education systems would be a study in extremes that wouldn't lead to any practical conclusions. Kids in Taiwan are much better prepared for standardized tests like SATs, GREs, and the GMAT, but I don't feel that they get enough training in abstract thinking skills--i.e., too much rote memorization. That's not good either.

DHR

[Koxinga]

Another question: Is home schooling an option?

Assuming that one parent has the free time and the dedication, do you all think that a kid might have get a better education by learning at home up through middle school or high school, and then taking a standardized test like the GED? Or would that kill his or her chances of getting into a good college?

DHR

[Contestant #3]

Here's a link to an interview and discussion with author Martin Gross who wrote the book: Conspiracy Of Ignorance. The book deals with the realities of public school systems.

If you have RealPlayer, then go to this link and click on September 23:
http://www.broadcast.com/shows/endoftheline/99archives.stm

I listened and found it to be an eye opener!


------------------
Contestant #3

[Melatonin]

Doghouse Reilly said something along these lines, but it got cut off and I had to fake it:


"Another question: Is home schooling an option?

Assuming that one parent has the free time and the dedication, do you all think that a
kid might have get a better education by learning at home up through middle school or
high school, and then taking a standardized test like the GED. Or would that ruin their chance of getting into a good college?"

I believe homeschooling is set up in such a way that a student needn't take the GED in order to receive a highschool diploma. They receive a 'real' diploma.

The GED itself isn't as highly valued as a 'real' highschool diploma, largely I think because it's not a real brain-strangler. It also doesn't demonstrate one's mastery of new material over the course of several years, as a highschool transcript might. Many four-year colleges will not accept a GED (even when accompanied by ACT/ SAT scores); you can pretty much forget about entering the freshman class at COlumbia without a highschool transcript.

That doesn't, however, prevent a GED student from entering community college and transferring to a university where s/he can pursue further education after garnering a few credits and 'proving' herself.

------------------
Life is short. Make fun of it.

[# 00: The Fool]

We've been hearing a lot about the oppression of teachers in the public education system, but what about the kids? DIVEMASTER, how can you live in Louisiana and not mention the "Respect Law" that requires the students to address teachers and other adults in school "yes, sir " or "yes, m'am"? The High School I went to ( Riverdale in Jefferson, LA! I'm not afraid to say it! ) had some real concentration camp rules for students. ( This probably belongs in the "Another Stupid School Board Decision" thread, but it's found its home here 'cause it's relevant. ) No gathering in groups of more than 3, for instance. And the disciplinarians do really dumb things, too. One kid was forced to relinquish a Looney Tunes t-shirt because Yosimite Sam was carrying guns. And on the middle school side a kid was expelled for carrying a weapon: his keychain had a 3/4" pocket knife!

Basically, the administration sees students as a bunch of feral hyenas, who will erupt in violence and depravity if given the slightest provocation. And this causes lawsuits, which are bad because they cost the administration money. So they don't give the students an inch of freedom.

This prisonlike discipline combines with the aforementioned non-teaching to create a truly horrid environment for public school students. The worst of both worlds: the Iron Grip of discipline associated with military schools, without the educational advantages. Is there any wonder why so many kids hate school? It's obvious to them that the school doesn't care about them, so they don't care for it. They become desperate for attention, they act out, and are treated with no mercy. Finding no freedom in school, they leave its confines. Not learning anything there, they turn to other sources for their education. In the worst cases this means turning to the streets, but more often they just enter a lifetime of menial jobs. This is bad for everyone.

How did things turn out this way? Well, I'd have to say that it started with the shift in emphasis from education to certification. The goal now is to get students graduated with as efficiently as possible. If students don't meet the standards, simply lower the standards. If they can't pass standardized tests, give out the answers ahead of time. Make things easy so that it is no longer necessary to actually learn anything to advance and eventually graduate.

The frustration this causes in the students, who see through the charade, leads to a restless student body who are likely to get into trouble. Stricter rules are enforced, "to protect the students," of course. Then a kid stays after school and climbs on the roof. when he falls off, his parents sue the school for not doing enough to prevent it. This opens the door for Lawsuit Mania. Any time something bad happens to a student on the campus, lawyers come
out of the woodwork. The school board reacts by enforcing draconian laws, leaving nothing to chance.

The worse things get for the students, the less they try. A kid who keeps hearing from teachers and other authority figures; "You're supid," You're nothing but trouble," Etc, will generally believe it. These students will become exactly what the non-educators and the babysitters in the school system think they are. They do poorly in school and cannot graduate. Return to step one.

I've written the extensive rant about public education I've always wanted to. Thank you to all those who read it despite its legnth. I hope this will help to alleviate my newbie status. Just to let you know that I'm not all talk, I will post another rant on possible solutions to the public education problem sometime in the very near future. But now I am TIRED and must go to bed. Good night to all of you on the SDMB, I really feel at home here and would love to have coffee with every one of you.

God, I'm getting REALLY corny! Better go to bed now...

[divemaster]

Yes, #00: The Fool,
I am from Louisiana; however, I have not lived there for about 8 years or so. I had heard about the 'respect' rules you mentioned, but only through the newspaper. My intention for starting this post was specifically to tell of experiences my mom is having in the public schools. I did not want to post things I had read in books, saw on the web, or read in the newspaper. Else, I could have posted a 400 page book.

Offhand, I can think of about 20 subjects pertinent, though maybe tangential, to my original posts; and I'm glad to see that many of those are being debated, your opinions included. That was the whole idea behing posting in this forum.

I think many school systems are no longer allowed to 'track' gifted students, lest it cause esteem problems with non-tracked students. Instead, the gifted are thrown into the general mix. The problem comes in, IMO, when the general mix is taught to the lowest level. The teacher has to slow the class down or 'dumb-down' the material to make sure the slowest kids aren't left behind. I think this does a disservice to all the kids, regardless of ability.

I also know that schools and teachers will often try to group students according to ability, even if it goes against official policy. They just try not to be real obvious about it.

[# 00: The Fool]

It wasn't as long as I thought it was, and that ending clearly shows signs of sleep depravation. Sheesh, I feel dorky! Hope everyone ignores that!

[GatewayDrug]

I’m bummed I never got a response to my inquiry…

I was wondering...I read somewhere that education was practically universal before the public school system was instituted and that government mandated education only came along with all the social reforms at the beginning of the century. We have these to thank for our current educational bureaucracy. Any truth to this?

…with the exception of smiling jaws, who found the mere suggestion that private education was nearly universal "silly." I never said it was true, only that I’d read it numerous times. It sounds credible, though. Someone?

[AzRaek]

The standardized reading/writing scores in Colorado came out this week. Result: BAD. Elem school kids are at about %50 of ability in both sujects, and Jr high students are not doing any better. Shows that they aren't learning more and improving as they get older. Maybe the schools need to rethink their idea that the internet will teach kids and maybe spend some money on the teachers.

[Kat]

Gateway: No, there was not universal education prior to the beginning of the 20th century.
"Educational opportunities were limited. While almost all Protestant religions shared a belief that it was necessary to be able to read the Scriptures for oneself (to avoid being sent to damnation by a priest who, maliciously or unintentionally, misled the soul--the so-called Devil Deceiver doctrine), there was little organized education to make that possible." Everyday Life in Colonial America (From 1607-1783)

"Despite child labor laws, tens of thousands of children could be found working in shops and factories throughout the United States, sometimes ten and twelve hours per day, for negligible pay." Everyday Life in the 1800s (This one doesn't have a section about education, but one can assume that if they're spending 10 hours a day working, they're not spending much time getting educated.)

Now, I admit there's 17 missing years (1783-1800) where the universal education could have been practiced, but I doubt it.

[thirdwarning]

First of all, Phouka, don't despair. I know this is by no means universal, and it still doesn't meet your salary possibilities in your current field, but teacher salaries in this area are definitely higher than what you quoted. In fact, several of the districts around here start in the thirties and go up into the 80,000 range.
Now, on to other things. About 6 or 7 years ago, our local elementary district started using a new remedial reading program (although they never call it "remedial", of course) and spent $10,000 sending a teacher to New Zealand for the summer to learn it. They then regularly put articles in the local paper touting the success of the program on the primary grades. The problem was, when I started seriously looking at the numbers of children who were successfully completing the program, it came out to more than half of the students in those grades in the district. Obviously, the original teaching method they use doesn't work. Why in the world didn't they use that money to fix that program, or start a new one, instead of keeping it and adding a new one on top of it?!? (I know the first one didn't work. I had to teach my son how to read when the school didn't.)
I think the comment about certification was accurate. It isn't as important that kids learn as that they graduate. I also think the "one size fits all" attitude is a big problem. My son's high school handbook includes a statement to the effect that, "It is essential that all students complete a full four years of high school." That's nuts. I might have been more inclined to agree with the idea before I had a boy who would have benefited greatly from getting in, getting the necessary classes, and getting out. Every child doesn't have the same needs, and for our public schools to pretend they do is ridiculous, especially since it usually results in things being set at the low end.
enominator