Obama vs. No Child Left Behind

@aidan,

(This is in reply to Thomas' post about POM weighing in on a disagreement we were having. I just clicked on my post to use the quotes.)

I didn't know that I was having a disagreement for anyone to weigh in on, but again- this is what you said:

Quote:

Let principles individually make their own decision for their schools, compare notes after a few years, and see how it works.

That sounded to me as if you'd advocate giving a principal somewhat autocratic licence to experiment and let the chips fall where they may. There's just too much room in the job of principal for that to lead to MAJOR problems.

I've worked in seven public schools. In all of them the principal set the tone, observed the educational climate and needs, and led the way in terms of advocating policy and action that would meet the specific needs of their school. They weren't powerless puppets by any means. But they were also held answerable. Which is how I believe it should be.

Then you said this:

Quote:

(Don't like what your school does to your kids? Put them in a different school!)

To which I responded as follows:

Quote:

That sounds really reasonable and simple unless you're a single mom who can't afford the transportation to and from or childcare afterward because your child can't go to his or her neighborhood school.

Which a few posters tried to turn into an easily seen-through diversion into over-protective parenting. Well that's not the issue at all (for me). Are you advocating that ALL the parents in a low-performing school remove their children and have them ride the city bus to a higher-performing school? What then would happen to the teacher/pupil ratio and classroom size standard in the higher performing school? Do you foresee any negative effects for the students of the higher functioning school if such a glib and reactionary piece of advice were followed by all of the parents of the children in the lower functioning school?
It's easy for people who will never have to see or experience the results of such knee-jerk and reactionary advice to hand it out so freely- but no - that's not the answer.

I stand by my answer which is this:

Quote:

No - the answer is that all schools should provide a relatively equal and appropriate education-

I DO think there should be national standards. As a citizen of the United States, a child who is going to school in rural Mississippi should have access to the same quality of education as a child attending school in Cambridge Massachusettes. Where you live and what sort of house your parents can afford to buy should not determine the quality of education available to you. These sorts of glaring inequities should not be tolerated when it comes to education.

That's the way I feel. Maybe I'm a little bit of a socialist too.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

Too bad none of our politicians agree.

Politicians almost always want more power for themselves, even when they claim they dont. Tis one of the major reasons the tea party exists.

The bitch of it is that the Washington GOP crowd has long sold themselves as the people's champion, the ones trying to shrink government and give the right to decide ones life back to the individual. The whole thing was a PR scheme, they actually went the other way. OOOPS!

In my socialism it does not matter what institutions are used by the individuals to facilitate working together, big government can be just fine. But when we have as we do now a big government which is controlled by a relatively few corporate elites and who are imposing their will upon everyone else....then government is a curse, an oppressor.

0 Replies

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

That sounded to me as if you'd advocate giving a principal somewhat autocratic licence to experiment and let the chips fall where they may. There's just too much room in the job of principal for that to lead to MAJOR problems.

Whether I advocate that or not depends on your definition of "somewhat autocratic." In the case I'd been thinking of, principals in the state we'd been talking about (I think California) couldn't even decide whether to install soda-machines in their schools. If empowering them to do that is "somewhat autocratic" to you, then yes -- I do support somewhat autocratic regimes of principals.

aidan wrote:

Are you advocating that ALL the parents in a low-performing school remove their children and have them ride the city bus to a higher-performing school?

In my experience, the satisfaction of parents with their school usually has much more complicated reasons than "low-performing" vs. "high performing". I think it's unlikely that entire populations of students would just pack up and leave. But for what it's worth, in the high school I went to, a whole class changed schools (in this case, because they disapproved of the classroom atmosphere in ours") and rode city buses to a different school. It worked for them.

aidan wrote:

What then would happen to the teacher/pupil ratio and classroom size standard in the higher performing school?

Under a voucher system, which is what I was advocating, the students who leave would take the funds for their education with them. Consequently, the higher-performing school could hire teachers to accomodate them.

aidan wrote:

Do you foresee any negative effects for the students of the higher functioning school if such a glib and reactionary piece of advice were followed by all of the parents of the children in the lower functioning school?

Not really, no. What kind of negative effects are you thinking of?

aidan wrote:

such a glib and reactionary piece [...]
such knee-jerk and reactionary

Why so testy? If my memory serves -- and possibly it doesn't -- this is the first time we encounter each other in a disagreement. So let me assure you that I'm quite happy to change my mind in response to arguments. (I'm not just saying this out of vanity -- chances are that most people who have disagreed with me on A2K would confirm that.) Your name-calling, however, isn't going to help.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Because I don't want to start a voucher debate here -- they have a habit of turning into Holy Wars -- I'd like to add that students voting with their feet doesn't depend on vouchers. Walking out was possible in the example from Germany I gave, and Germany doesn't have vouchers.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

I agree, but in the normal course of events, in the US, students just don't have the option of choosing their schools. Give them a good voucher system, and let's see what happens.

0 Replies

@aidan,

I'm not certain that anyone is disagreeing with anyone else. I was offering an illustration. I like verbal illustrations and I life fables. The former help people understand what you are saying and the latter help them reason to the point you are at.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Whether I advocate that or not depends on your definition of "somewhat autocratic." In the case I'd been thinking of, principals in the state we'd been talking about (I think California) couldn't even decide whether to install soda-machines in their schools. If empowering them to do that is "somewhat autocratic" to you, then yes -- I do support somewhat autocratic regimes of principals.

Schools and their faculty and staff have one purpose and that is to educate and serve the interests of the children who attend them. Very often, personal beliefs, likes and/or dislikes of the school personnel - including the principal and teachers don't and can't enter into fulfilling that purpose - which is to educate and serve the interests of the children who attend the school.

No, I would not feel comfortable working in or having my children attend a school in a system in which any one person- superintendent, head teacher, principal, anyone at all- were handed the power to unilaterally make decisions and override the consensus of the school community which includes students, parents, faculty and staff.
So, no- I do NOT support somewhat autocratic regimes of principals or anyone else associated with a school system.

Quote:

In my experience, the satisfaction of parents with their school usually has much more complicated reasons than "low-performing" vs. "high performing".

Well, in my experience that is what people who are parents look at FIRST when deciding where to buy a house or live so that their children can receive a quality education.

Quote:

Under a voucher system, which is what I was advocating, the students who leave would take the funds for their education with them. Consequently, the higher-performing school could hire teachers to accomodate them.

Would this voucher system include funds to expand the building- adding classrooms for all these new students and additional teachers in one building- while another school building sat emptied a few miles away?

Quote:

Not really, no. What kind of negative effects are you thinking of?

Overcrowding for one. A sudden and large influx of lesser prepared students from a lower functioning school would invariably have an effect on the classroom atmosphere and performance in a higher functioning school.

But that's not my point or concern. My point and main concern is that every student in the US deserves the same opportunity for a quality education in their school. The answer is not to abandon schools. The answer is to fix them.

Quote:

Your name-calling, however, isn't going to help.

I don't call people names Thomas- not even 'testy'.
I said:

Quote:

such a glib and reactionary piece [...]OF ADVICE
such knee-jerk and reactionary PIECE OF ADVICE.

That doesn't mean that I think YOU are glib and reactionary.

Quote:

(I'm not just saying this out of vanity -- chances are that most people who have disagreed with me on A2K would confirm that.)

I'm the sort who makes my own observations and develops opinions from those- and I don't make those opinions without thought and evidence. And in fact I didn't have the impression that YOU were or are glib and reactionary.

But I think that telling a parent that if their school isn't working for any of the children that the answer is simply to abandon it and go to another one is sort of a glib reaction to a more complicated issue.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

POM - I wasn't even here to disagree for two days - so I was surprised to hear that I was having a disagreement myself (with anyone).

1 Reply

Private schools are expensive. Sending a child to private school might entail having a stay-at-home mother or allowing your au pair to ferry your kids around.

I have some sad news for all of you about private schools. We removed our daughter (now 32) from the public school I had hand picked after a year long search because a kid bullied her. Her mental health and physical safety was more important. The school was in Winchester, MA, which is among the top 10 in a state that leads the nation in quality of education. SO, there are always glitches . . . unforeseen glitches.

We put her into a Montessori Elementary School. She feels Montessori was the reason for her academic success and for her strength of character. I am just glad that we could afford the hefty price.

She returned to the Winchester Public Schools but left them to attend a private school where she was welcomed with open arms.

My former husband demanded I put our son in private school. Well, try to find a private school where the sciences are as well taught as they are in the leading MA public schools. That's my bad news on the teaching of science in the US.

1 Reply

I have some more bad news. Guess what? Much of the teaching in our public schools IS controlled and NOT by government. IT is controlled by the state boards of education of CA and TX through the publishing industry . . . or perhaps through the publishing industry which uses the the state boards of CA and TX.

Here is a slightly satirical take on the matter: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/03/17/notes031710.DTL

1 Reply

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

So, no- I do NOT support somewhat autocratic regimes of principals or anyone else associated with a school system.

Fair enough -- we disagree on this point then.

aidan wrote:

Would this voucher system include funds to expand the building- adding classrooms for all these new students and additional teachers in one building- while another school building sat emptied a few miles away?

Yes. And the other school building needn't sit emptied. They can lease out parts of the building to other tenants and use the rent to pay for improving the remaining students' education.

aidan wrote:

Overcrowding for one. A sudden and large influx of lesser prepared students from a lower functioning school would invariably have an effect on the classroom atmosphere and performance in a higher functioning school.p

... at the same time, the teacher-to-student ratio would increase in the school from which the arriving students came, improving the quality of education there. If your main concern is to equalize the quality of education, the overall effect of voting-with-ones-feet accommodates it.

aidan wrote:

I didn't have the impression that YOU were or are glib and reactionary.

Duly noted. And I apologize for the botched-up copy and paste of your phrases.

aidan wrote:

But I think that telling a parent that if their school isn't working for any of the children that the answer is simply to abandon it and go to another one is sort of a glib reaction to a more complicated issue.

You might have a point if that was the only answer to the problem. But it isn't. So what's wrong with giving parents that option? At the very least, it gives them a credible threat to back up any requests that their children's school shape up.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

Quote:

I have some more bad news. Guess what? Much of the teaching in our public schools IS controlled and NOT by government. IT is controlled by the state boards of education of CA and TX through the publishing industry

this has been a huge problem for a long time, The good news though us that with the rise of e-books these parasitic text book companies can be challanged. We should be able to get small companies who are willing to put out a better product than the old line companies who have sold their souls to the two boards.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

It didn't help me explain to you my position on the gun thread. Remember the healthcare/ shattered femur example?

0 Replies

@aidan,

That's not what I said . . .I was just quoting you! Thomas seems to have created a tempest in this teapot by misjudging my illustrations.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

If the right gets control of schools, all children will suffer. On another internet fora, a right winger seriously argued that children who lack an aptitude for science should be excused from science classes.

Now, I have been campaigning for years to increase science teaching in schools. With schools closing in major AMerican cities . . . Detroit will follow Kansas City . . . the likelihood that people with science and not education degrees will be teaching science to kids in schools is diminishing.

The real reason kids do poorly at science? It is not correctly taught and not taught soon enough.

Parents do not provide kids with gardens or nature walks or publications like Ranger Rick or Your Big Backyard. I watched Nova and Nature with my kids . . . it was a ritual that we all enjoyed. I had kids at Arlington HS who never heard of those shows and yet a member of their community was the local president of the Union of Concerned Scientists and their school's physics' teacher is an MIT grad.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Quote:

The real reason kids do poorly at science? It is not correctly taught and not taught soon enough

well that, and the High School requirement for science has dropped. I had to do either 3 or 4 years but my kids have only been required to do 2. The easiest science I was offered was earth science, my kids have several junk science classes to choose from. My kids all take ap level real science classs, but that is not the point.

in the same vein I had to do 4 years of math, my kids could skate out with 2 if they wanted to.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Private schools are expensive.

Public schools are expensive, too. They cost about $10,000 per student and year. The only difference is that the money paying for public schools is called "taxes", while the money paying for private schools is called "tuitions". But what's in a name? A cost by any other name is just as high. It certainly doesn't change the economics of schooling.

plainoldme wrote:

Sending a child to private school might entail having a stay-at-home mother or allowing your au pair to ferry your kids around.

... or you could put them on a city bus. And nothing about this problem is specific to private schools. If you can bus children to remote schools for the purpose of racial integration, you can bus them to remote schools for the purpose of school choice. Whether the buses' destinations are private or public schools, whether the ideology behind the busing is left-wing integration or right-wing voucherization, it makes no difference to the logistics of busing. This is a long-solved problem.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

What state are you from and how old are? Michigan required one year of lab science during the 1960s and most schools choose biology. The math requirement was only two years. The high schools themselves required more and still more was demanded from colleges.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

If there is such a thing as a bus where you live.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

Quote:

What state are you from and how old are? Michigan required one year of lab science during the 1960s and most schools choose biology. The math requirement was only two years. The high schools themselves required more and still more was demanded from colleges.

Illinois class of 1980. I went to the best of five high school in a good district.

0 Replies

Obama vs. No Child Left Behind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know