I haven't read it, and, I think it would anger me: the title is sloppy logic. How can there be 100 years of failed reforms?
Half way through the school year, it is becoming painfully obvious that some of the kids who are being left behind want to be there and their parents are totally happy with the deal.
There are some things that worry me. Smart kids majoring in business for starters.
As Bush bankrupts this country, our educational system has become an institute that increased drop out rates for more of our children, and their science and math skills have dropped to one of the lowest levels in the developed countries making us less competitive in this world. American car companies are being demolished by Japan, and more technology firms are growing their companies off-shore in China, India, and elsewhere leaving American engineers and scientists with less opportunities and jobs.
Bush has succeeded in not only demolishing our educational system, but also made college out of reach for more Americans as tuitions have increased by double-digits almost every year since Bush took over the white house. Bush is also responsible for making student loans more expensive.
It must take a whole lot of blindess to continue supporting America's destroyer.
It certainly does take a whole lot of blindness, but, then, it surprised me when he was re-elected.
Kids today are taught more science then I was back in the 1960s, but, of course, there is a great deal more science to teach. My daughter, who is 11 years out of high school, says that science today is more challenging than it was when she was in school. The problem is that too many of the kids fail to find science exciting. My kids watched Nova from the time they were about 8 or 9 and we subscribed to Discover magazine when my second born, who turns 27 tomorrow. They read it. I thought of Discover as something a child in middle school could handle. Looking through it from the perspective of SPED teacher, I realize that my ninth grade students can't read it.
During academic 2004-05 and 2005-06, it seemed like every school system in MAssachusetts needed a high school chemistry teacher. Why would anyone want to teach chemistry at a high school when they could work in pharmaceuticals, etc?
Consider this: my ninth grader students did not recognize the word swamp. They had the life cycle of the frog in 2nd grade and ecosystems in middle school. Granted, not all frogs live in swamps, but many do. Besides, they live 10 miles from the Atlantic Ocean in the northern woodlands. There are tidal marshes and bogs aplenty here.
I can not tell you how upset I was over this. These kids are just a few years from voting.
Not only sad but frightening that our children of today are challenged more than previous generations, but are limited in their education about the basics of many subjects common during our generation.
Get the parents out of it c.i.
I keep telling you.
Parents are the uttermost pits of the earth.
It's a job for professionals.
spendi, It's the "professionals" that screwed up our educational system. They forgot about the three 'Rs' and reverted to something lost in the translation.
spendi, It's the "professional" that screwed up our educational system. They forgot about the three 'Rs' and reverted to something lost in the translation.
plainoldme wrote:It certainly does take a whole lot of blindness, but, then, it surprised me when he was re-elected.
Kids today are taught more science then I was back in the 1960s, but, of course, there is a great deal more science to teach. My daughter, who is 11 years out of high school, says that science today is more challenging than it was when she was in school. The problem is that too many of the kids fail to find science exciting. My kids watched Nova from the time they were about 8 or 9 and we subscribed to Discover magazine when my second born, who turns 27 tomorrow. They read it. I thought of Discover as something a child in middle school could handle. Looking through it from the perspective of SPED teacher, I realize that my ninth grade students can't read it.
During academic 2004-05 and 2005-06, it seemed like every school system in MAssachusetts needed a high school chemistry teacher. Why would anyone want to teach chemistry at a high school when they could work in pharmaceuticals, etc?
Consider this: my ninth grader students did not recognize the word swamp. They had the life cycle of the frog in 2nd grade and ecosystems in middle school. Granted, not all frogs live in swamps, but many do. Besides, they live 10 miles from the Atlantic Ocean in the northern woodlands. There are tidal marshes and bogs aplenty here.
I can not tell you how upset I was over this. These kids are just a few years from voting.
Just out of curiosity, what are you doing to teach them? If they can't read, how can you expect them to know what a swamp is? Perhaps you should teach them to read.
cicerone imposter wrote:As Bush bankrupts this country, our educational system has become an institute that increased drop out rates for more of our children, and their science and math skills have dropped to one of the lowest levels in the developed countries making us less competitive in this world. American car companies are being demolished by Japan, and more technology firms are growing their companies off-shore in China, India, and elsewhere leaving American engineers and scientists with less opportunities and jobs.
Bush has succeeded in not only demolishing our educational system, but also made college out of reach for more Americans as tuitions have increased by double-digits almost every year since Bush took over the white house. Bush is also responsible for making student loans more expensive.
It must take a whole lot of blindess to continue supporting America's destroyer.
Year in year out more and more money is spent on our school systems and they never seem to do better, why is this? It can't be because Bush is President because he hasn't been president for more then 6 years. It would seem to be the system itself and no matter what happens it almost always seems to be bad.
It isn't Bushs fault highschoolers can't read or understand what they read, he wasn't in office when they were in elementry school so we know it isn't his fault. What are the teachers not doing when it comes to the children. I know my children can read, we started on that years ago and even my 6 year old is able to read basic books that are his grade level. He is able to tell me what the story was about so I know he understands what he is reading. What did we do differently then what other parents are doing? We started out by reading to our children when they were young and then having them read us the books when we knew they were developing those skills. Now when they go to bed they both grab books and read for about 30 minutes before they go to bed. This is what we have done to make sure our children weren't another # to the "thinking heads" in their class.
I don't think enough parents take their childrens education into account. They need to do more then just yell at the teachers when their child fails in school, they need to sit and do homework with them and make sure it gets done. This alone will improve their childrens grades and understanding of what they learn.
Baldimo, Spending more money that doesn't pay for the federal mandates (training and testing requirements) is not more; it's actually less.
cicerone imposter wrote:Baldimo, Spending more money that doesn't pay for the federal mandates (training and testing requirements) is not more; it's actually less.
The money the schools receive for education has always gone up. My property taxes go up every year and that helps pay for the schools. You can't tell me that the schools don't get enough money.
Baldimo, You miss the point 100 percent. NCLB is under-funded.
McGentrix -- The critical level for reading comprehension is fourth grade. Once kids are able to comprehend at the fourth grade level, the rest of the fight is uphill.
One of the girls reads at the first grade level. Another reads at about the fourth or fifth grade level. I have a recent addition to the class, a boy who should not be in a regular high school due to rather marked and severe mental problems and I have no idea at what level he reads. The final student probably reads at about the 8th grade level.
I have been petitioning to have the lowest level kid put on the caseload of the Orton-Gillingham reading specialist. However, she has only 42 time slots per week and is the sole specialist. Unfortunately, some manipulative and selfish parents -- who have either five or seven daughters -- have gerrymandered within the system and have arranged that their girls each have five session per week with this specialist, reducing available time slots to 32.
It is so nice of you to assume that I am not teaching them to read! However, you should know that the girl with the very level is a recent transfer from what may be considered a inner city system and told me on the first day of school that she was never read to because her mother hates all books.
I hope my inference is not lost on you.
Baldimo -- Put on your thinking cap for minute and figure out where the real cost of education is: in the buildings and maintaining them. Consider what it costs to heat your home, then think about the square footage at the local school and consider how much the heating bill is there.
I heard that the cost of heating the town buildings where I work increased by $200,000 in one year.
So, what to do? Dial down yourself so the kids get used to chillier rooms. Urge the school to dial down. convince parents to use long johns for their kids and to send them to school with a sweater.
Oh, and have fewer kids.
cicerone imposter wrote:Baldimo, You miss the point 100 percent. NCLB is under-funded.
I don't think it makes a difference for people who are against NCLB. Before NCLB the biggest complaint was that schools were under funded. Nothing has changed since I was young and in school.
Nothing has ever changed when it comes to schools and funding. We could throw billions at the school system and people would still complain because they couldn't get classes like gay underwater basking weaving so that all the gay students could have a class together. You laugh but given the chance I'm sure it would be a class. Look at NY. They have a school that if for nothing but gay students. Why do gay students need their own school? How much does that school cost to run? Couldn't that money be better used around the school district instead of a school just for gay students?
There are other examples around the country. If we live in the US then why do we have schools that cater to non-English speaking students? Many upon many school districts have bi-lingual education for its students. I don't have much of an issue with this except that why spend the money when children have an ability to learn fast and that includes with languages. When I was in 2nd or 3rd grade we had several students that moved to my area who were from South America. I think they were from El Salvador or in that area. Anyways, when they moved there, they didn't know any English and we didn't have a Spanish program for them, this was the late 70's or early 80's. By the end of the school year both boys were speaking English and doing fine in school. In fact they were doing better then most of the native English speakers. They didn't need a Spanish speaking teacher in the class to help them, they did it on their own and it didn't cost extra money in the process. Why can't we still work off of such a system?
Baldimo wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Baldimo, You miss the point 100 percent. NCLB is under-funded.
I don't think it makes a difference for people who are against NCLB. Before NCLB the biggest complaint was that schools were under funded. Nothing has changed since I was young and in school.
Nothing has ever changed when it comes to schools and funding. We could throw billions at the school system and people would still complain because they couldn't get classes like gay underwater basking weaving so that all the gay students could have a class together. You laugh but given the chance I'm sure it would be a class. Look at NY. They have a school that if for nothing but gay students. Why do gay students need their own school? How much does that school cost to run? Couldn't that money be better used around the school district instead of a school just for gay students?
There are other examples around the country. If we live in the US then why do we have schools that cater to non-English speaking students? Many upon many school districts have bi-lingual education for its students. I don't have much of an issue with this except that why spend the money when children have an ability to learn fast and that includes with languages. When I was in 2nd or 3rd grade we had several students that moved to my area who were from South America. I think they were from El Salvador or in that area. Anyways, when they moved there, they didn't know any English and we didn't have a Spanish program for them, this was the late 70's or early 80's. By the end of the school year both boys were speaking English and doing fine in school. In fact they were doing better then most of the native English speakers. They didn't need a Spanish speaking teacher in the class to help them, they did it on their own and it didn't cost extra money in the process. Why can't we still work off of such a system?
All reasonable questions, at least reasonable to the reasonable, Baldimo.
The last time I looked, the average per capita expenditure was about $6000/year in grades K through 12. That is apart from any capital expenditures. For a classroom of 20 kids which is probably the low end of average, that would be $120,000 per classroom. If the teacher got half of that--which they don't--that would leave $60,000 for books, supplies, light, heat, air conditioning, maintenance, etc. for a 40' x 40' classroom.
I think any one of us could manage quite nicely with a budget like that. The fact that teachers pay for supplies out of pocket and there aren't enough books etc. etc. etc. says a whole lot about the administration of the schools. The administration by and large borders on criminal in many places. Government rarely gives the best bang for the buck in most things. No amount of throwing good money after bad will help the kids in any way so long as that situation exists.
Each year of the last six years, the federal education budget has substantially increased and the amount allocated for NCLB is measured in billions.
There is plenty of argument whether teaching to the NCLB criteria is beneficial, though I strongly question whether it is wrong to let the kids know what they are expected to know, and I think any teacher worth his/her salt should be able to teach kids what they are expected to know.
But don't try to make the argument that the schools or NCLB are underfunded. At some point maybe we'll get mad enough to yank the kids out of public schools and homeschool them or get them into good private schools that actually educate the kids on far less money than the public schools use to not educate them.
Or enough will recognize the wisdom of school vouchers that help parents have more choice in their children's education and that will force the public schools to clean up their act.
Limited Cost Study Finds NCLB Underfunded
On March 2, 2005, the Connecticut State Department of Education released a limited study of the state-level administrative costs of implementing NCLB. A study of the related local administrative costs is due to be released in April 2005. The study was admittedly narrow and failed to consider the costs of raising student achievement to the 100 percent proficiency required by NCLB. It found that the total cost of implementing the administrative aspects of NCLB through fiscal year 2008 will be $112.2 million, of which the federal government is expected to provide $70.6 million. Therefore, Connecticut faces a shortfall of $41.6 million.
Specific Costs Studied
The study focused on seven different components, including: standards and assessments; development and administration of the NCLB testing system; transfers and supplemental educational services (SES); and others. The study employed an "activity-based" methodology that examined the costs of specific tasks undertaken by Department of Education employees in order to comply with NCLB. This methodology was developed by the Denver-based firm of Augenblick, Palaich and Associates for the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Connecticut conducted the study in conjunction with a consortium of 12 states brought together by the CCSSO. CCSSO requires that the identity of the other states remain confidential.
Costs Not Studied
This study does not assess the cost of narrowing the achievement gap, i.e. of bringing students to the level at which they will pass state academic standards. As the report points out, "NCLB does not mandate prevention/intervention/school reform actions prior to a school's or district's failure to meet AYP [adequate yearly progress]." Therefore the costs of prospective programs proven to narrow achievement gaps, such as preschool, are not examined in this analysis. In fact, in the afterword Connecticut Commissioner of Education Dr. Betty Sternberg expressed her opinion that instead of complying with these administrative components of NCLB, the additional $41.6 million would be better spent on programs that would address the achievement gap. She stated that she preferred to use the money in "much better ways - ways that would truly leave no child behind."
Commissioner Sternberg's comments echo the observations of education finance expert William J. Mathis in an April 21, 2004 Commentary in Education Week. There, he remarked that "If we embrace the moral principle that no child is to be left behind, haggling over the costs of program administration is the least important of questionsÂ…Instead, our abiding question should be what it costs to teach the children."
Testing and Technical Assistance Top the Cost List
The two most costly areas were standards and assessments, and technical assistance.
The analysis found that the cost of developing individual grade level standards, previously done in grade clusters in Connecticut, and the development and administration of new tests for NCLB would total $41.6 million dollars through FY08. Connecticut has been testing students for twenty years in grades 4, 6, and 8. Now, under NCLB, the state must develop and administer tests in grades 3, 5, and 7 as well. Under a state law passed in June 2004, Connecticut has prohibited the use of state funds to develop and administer any new tests required by NCLB.
In January 2005, Dr. Sternberg requested a waiver from the additional tests, explaining that additional tests will not tell her something she does not already know about struggling schools in the state. She expressed her preference for fewer and better tests, tests that would be "instructional tools rather than accountability indicators." The U.S. Department of Education denied that request on February 28.
The second highest cost item was technical assistance to those schools and districts judged "in need of improvement." That cost totals $18 million through fiscal year 2008. Connecticut has estimated that as NCLB progresses, more schools will fail to make AYP, from the current number, 93, to 167 in fiscal year 2006, and still more in fiscal year 2008. Most other states have made similar predictions.
Recommendations
The report concludes that NCLB is underfunded and makes two recommendations (1) seeking additional funds for NCLB implementation, especially for the two most costly items, and (2) reallocating existing funds. In the meantime, the report makes clear that Connecticut is investing in research-proven initiatives, independent of NCLB, which it believes will narrow the achievement gap. These programs include: preschool, after-school programs, class size reduction, and summer school or summer leadership activities.
Foxfyre wrote:
The last time I looked, the average per capita expenditure was about $6000/year in grades K through 12. That is apart from any capital expenditures. For a classroom of 20 kids which is probably the low end of average, that would be $120,000 per classroom. If the teacher got half of that--which they don't--that would leave $60,000 for books, supplies, light, heat, air conditioning, maintenance, etc. for a 40' x 40' classroom.
$6,000 per year?!
Maybe in the city of Boston, where the money is spent on infrastructure, but few school systems spend that much.
Besides, my former husband thought per capita expeniture was a good way to judge a school system until I told him to look at the percentage of graduates going to college and the colleges to which they go and the subjects they tend to major in.
If 50% of the kids go to college, your system is underachieving. If 75% go to third tier state colleges and two year schools, your system is underachieving. But, if your school system send at least one kid each year to an Ivy and several kids to respectable engineering schools while a more than few attend state schools at the BigTen/PAC Eight level and a handful eventually practice law or medicine, then the school system is doing well.
There are several of you on both ends of the political spectrum that are entirely missing the point.
Listen carefully.
Kids are being taught more science today than they were 10 years ago.
Yes, there are fewer student poets today (when I was in high school and college, most students wrote poetry) but that has more to do with the fashion for sending kids to business school than with the quality of teaching.
This 3 Rs nonsense is nonsense. If all you taught were the 3 Rs, Bolivia would walk over the US.
Now, there are kids today who aren't learning to read. It probably has to do with the "see it/say it" or "whole word" system and educators have been fighting that since the 1930s. But, guess what? There have always been kids who just can not learn to read.
Kids question more today but that's probably their parents fault for thinking their monsters are perfect.
