A bad way to address underperforming students?

[truethat]

That's right. And unfortunately, if you don't master grades and scholarships, you won't be able to participate in any of those potential jobs and careers and paths. Because there are too many people who want to participate, and if you're too much of a prima donna to show you can play nicely within the rules of the academy, you're probably too much of a prima donna to play nice within the rules of my job site.

Congratulations. You just talked yourself out of a potential job.

If you don't master grades and scholarships? So people who have low grades in High School and don't get scholarships wind up flipping burgers?

It's not a prima donna attitude, it's called boredom.

I think you are generalizing tremendously as do most educators I've encountered and it's sad. There are as many different kinds of jobs out there as there are people.

In fact my girlfriends hubby is a millionaire right now with a high school education and started out on a Boar's Head Delivery truck. I guess actors and musicians are SOL when it comes to having any sort of future. And so are entrapreneurs and yoga instructors, make up artists, business owners, real estate agents and a whole lotta of other lines of work.

You've shafted yourself down a bottleneck where the only standards you understand are the ones you agree with and impose on others. As I said Narrow Minded.

http://www.education-reform.net/dropouts2.htm

 

[drkitten]

So "Bringing Money In" is more important to a high school than "Education"?

It is when we're discussing cost-cutting measures. As a reductio ad absurdum, cutting a program that brings in more money than it costs -- a cash cow, if you will -- would result in a need for even deeper cuts. ("Let's see -- we can cut three science teachers, or we can cut the football team and then we'll need to cut FOUR science teachers.")

Even if the programs under discussion are net-but-small money losers (if the school play costs two thousand dollars a year, net), that's not necessarily worth the political capital it would take to cut if you're looking to free up a million dollars a year.

 

[drkitten]

If you don't master grades and scholarships? So people who have low grades in High School and don't get scholarships wind up flipping burgers?

It's not a prima donna attitude, it's called boredom.

No. Boredom is universal. What makes it a prima donna attitude is unwillingness to deal with boredom. You don't need an education to succeed -- but you do need a work ethic, and if boredom interferes with your work ethic, you lose.

Every job has its boring bits that nevertheless need to be gotten through. If you can't handle boring paperwork in high school, why should I expect you to be able to handle boring paperwork on my work site?

 

[truethat]

Because you'd be surprised how little school plays and prom night actually cost (and much of the cost gets picked up by user fees, such as tickets to prom.) I doubt that cutting the prom would save as much money as firing a single science teacher would.

Now, you're certainly right that sports can be a major cost sink -- especially the equipment-intensive sports like football. On the other hand, football is usually tremendously popular with the community, which makes it politically difficult to cut, especially for an elected body like the school board. Smaller sports, though, are usually fairly early casualties of budget crunches; I'd be surprised to learn that there was still a volleyball team (despite the fact that volleyball costs almost nothing to run).

Just thought you all might interested in this number.

I work for the head start program here in NYC working on helping the teachers get certified as one of my lines of work.

While I was waiting in an office I got nosey and notice a paper on the director's desk that had the figure for the "Apple farm trip" that I believe they took about 13 classes from different schools.

The cost of the trip was $46,000. I was like

 

[332nd]

So "Bringing Money In" is more important to a high school than "Education"?

Are we turning our high schools into workhouses?

Nope.

You made the argument that "extracurricular sports, school plays and prom night" were expensive thus they could cut those too. Until we know if those programs bring in enough money to pay for themselves through ticket sales, sponsors, and/or donations, it's an argument from ignorance.

 

[Fnord]

It is when we're discussing cost-cutting measures. As a reductio ad absurdum, cutting a program that brings in more money than it costs -- a cash cow, if you will -- would result in a need for even deeper cuts. ("Let's see -- we can cut three science teachers, or we can cut the football team and then we'll need to cut FOUR science teachers.")

That makes sense. It would be like getting rid of a fleet of delivery trucks to save on maintenance costs, when in doing so a company loses customers because their products can no longer be delivered.

But why cut science? Why not choir? So what if Maria von Trapp must say her lines instead of singing them? Cut out the froo-froo classes and focus on subjects that are actually useful later in life!

 

[truethat]

No. Boredom is universal. What makes it a prima donna attitude is unwillingness to deal with boredom. You don't need an education to succeed -- but you do need a work ethic, and if boredom interferes with your work ethic, you lose.

Every job has its boring bits that nevertheless need to be gotten through. If you can't handle boring paperwork in high school, why should I expect you to be able to handle boring paperwork on my work site?

You shouldn't. I'm not interested in working on your work site. So there we're all settled now.

Work ethics are different for different people. I value energy and creativity and being a team player more than I value grunts that sit there pushing papers through and being obedient.

Your world view sounds like a life of working for the DMV.

ETA

I have a lively job at which I'm never bored. I really feel sorry for you that you think "boredom" is a given in any line of work. That is a sad testimony.

Yoga instructors don't deal with paperwork. Actors have agents for that.

As a self employed teacher who works for the local college along with my own work I have not had to deal with paperwork that someone else insists I deal with. When setting up my classes I have a secretary to handle the paperwork I find annoying. I have an accountant to deal with my finances. I have a web designer to set up my web site. I wouldn't work for a company like yours, wouldn't want to, and I'm quite happy with my career. I feel sorry for drones chained to desks doing other people's work and living in boredom because that's what they thought they needed to do to make it in this world.

I think you are trapped in your world view my friend. And sadly teachers like you continue to trap young people as they come along.

 

[drkitten]

There is also the overhead to consider. How much does it cost to maintain a baseball diamond, a basketball court, a football field, a production stage, an assembly hall and a swimming pool?

Surprisingly little, especially as most of those also used for the (state-mandated) physical education program. Of course, we can certainly cut the swimming pool in particular (and cut swimming out of the phys ed curriculum as well), but there is a certain level of facilities, like the gym, that the district is required to maintain.

How about pay for a coach for each sport? If they're regular teachers, then do they get paid overtime during sporting events?

About $2000-$3000 a year, typically (nationwide averages). See for yourself.

Compare that to how much overtime would have to be paid to a laboratory science teacher.

Salary for a full-time lab science teacher? Full-time teachers typically average in the $50K/year range. So you could hire (or fire) twenty coaches -- the entire high school coaching staff -- for the cost of a single lab science teacher.

 

[Fnord]

As a self employed teacher who works for the local college along with my own work I have not had to deal with paperwork that someone else insists I deal with. When setting up my classes I have a secretary to handle the paperwork I find annoying. I have an accountant to deal with my finances. I have a web designer to set up my web site. I wouldn't work for a company like yours, wouldn't want to, and I'm quite happy with my career. I feel sorry for drones chained to desks doing other people's work and living in boredom because that's what they thought they needed to do to make it in this world.

It's good to have pity for one's subordinates. Such sentiments will surely keep them out of prisons and workhouses, not to mention off the street.

At this festive time of year it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute.

 

[drkitten]

That makes sense. It would be like getting rid of a fleet of delivery trucks to save on maintenance costs, when in doing so a company loses customers because their products can no longer be delivered.

And depending upon how many customers want delivery and how many customers are willing to pick up the goods themselves, this may make good business sense. I know a number of restaurants locally, for example, that have stopped offering delivery; if they were only making $50/night on delivery orders, it makes no sense to pay the delivery drivers $75/night.

But why cut science? Why not choir?

Because choir doesn't cost very much, so cutting it won't solve the problem.

It really won't even begin to solve the problem. Choir typically costs relatively little in terms of equipment, and the space is already built and there more or less for free (maintenance costs are minimal, especially since you typically need to maintain the entire building whether a room is in use or not). The only costs involved are the hiring of a music instructor ($50k/year salary) and perhaps some sheet music rental, which runs a thousand or so per year for the entire curriculum, and even less if you're willing to use public domain stuff.)

A chemistry instructor costs the same as a music instructor, sometimes more (because chemistry instructors are harder to find), plus a substantial amount of money for consumables and breakage (not to mention replacement of equipment as new stuff becomes available). A chemistry class at a university will typically carry a lab fee of something like $50/student. Even using a conservative figure of $25/student and 30 students per class that's another $750 of direct costs that a chemistry class incurs over a music class.

And, of course, this would greatly underestimate the actual costs of the chem lab, because most of the actual equipment is paid for either via equipment grants (such as from the NSF) or from the university's capital fund.

 

[fuelair]

I think you're misunderstanding the proposal.

They're not concerned about too few non-white students in the science labs. They're concerned about poor performance by non-white students across the board, which will require major overhaul to address.

Unfortunately, a major overhaul takes money and resources to carry out, money and resources that need to come from somewhere. They could just as easily find the money by cutting new book purchases from the library or eliminating the computer technology department -- what they can't do is simply conjure the resources out of thin air.

Given that something must be cut to address the racial gap, what do you propose instead of cutting lab science?

(I should point out that I'm just as horrified as you at the idea of cutting lab science out of the curriculum. But I bet there are no "easy" cuts left.)

and if they cut lab sciences (aren't all science classes lab science ?)
I have a suspicion that the students who have to have those for college will be leaving the school if they can afford to and planning on lower level colleges/programs if they cannot. The school will head even lower because it will, by default, lose teachers in other fields as the students actually qualified to be in high school will be gone/few enough that other Honors/AP classes (non science) will die by that attrition. And the parents who want to do that deserve exactly what they will get. And, as a teacher, I am long past caring on that.

 

[Fnord]

So we're pretty well doomed to becoming a society of well-dressed singing jocks who can't tell the difference between science and delusion.

In other words, a country full of American Idol contestants.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Nope.

You made the argument that "extracurricular sports, school plays and prom night" were expensive thus they could cut those too. Until we know if those programs bring in enough money to pay for themselves through ticket sales, sponsors, and/or donations, it's an argument from ignorance.

My local high school sports are paid for by my taxes. There is no income from ticket sales, sponsors or donations. If they cut science in favor of sports, I would try to do something about it. Luckily I can -we get to vote on the school budget.
This sports thing is so expensive that Hofstra, a local university, just cut out the whole football program. No more football scholarships, high salary coaches, no more football.
I think scholarships for athletes should be eliminated completely.
Scholarships for geeks would pay off academically.

 

[fuelair]

Wait I'm not saying they should do away with the grading system. What I mean is that there are different kinds of learners.

Example My oldest son has never had a problem in school. He excelled in every single class and with very little effort he gets As. He's got a clear idea of what he wants in life, he's 16 now and wants to be an architect and goes to LaGuardia High School (the fame school). He's driven and does well. He however hates to read and never does. He ********s his way through the English classes.

My second son hates school. He's bored throughout it. He on the otherhand loves to read. He'll sit in school and read and read and read. He also is interested in swimming and art. He's always gotten As in art and Spanish. He picks up languages easily and doesn't study but nearly scores perfect scores on each of his Spanish tests. He's bored in school and wants adventure. He'd like to travel and do rock climbing, etc. He's also quite the philosopher and I think will do well in college. I hated school and excelled in college because I was able to learn what I wanted.

I fail to see how a mainstreamed form of education is going to address the very different needs and interests of those two students. My second son doesn't take notes because he's an auditory and kinesthetic learner. My older son needs to take notes to study. Yet the school grades them on their "portfolios and note taking" My second son failed every semester (or to me he failed he got a 60 average) but they passed him through every year. Why? Because on the standardized tests my son is in the 97th percentile. He rocks the exams. So the school passes him. Yet they berate him throughout the year for not doing it "their way"

I have no problem with standardized testing. I do have a problem with the standardized testing being used to "grade" students. To me as you say, the employer will test students to see if they actually know how to program. This sets a standard that if a student wants that job they will need to pass. The idea that we'll assess failure below that mark and slap a grade on it is weird to me. Maybe if they just used pass fail it could change the perspective. Here in NY they have done with grades which I think is a good idea.

Please explain to me how letter grades make any sense in assessment.

Because they are required and we have to satisfy admins and the state that we are grading mostly on how they test in our subjects - here in Florida anyway. We are pretending to do constructivist (which I am not personally big on as it is normally described) but we aren't - because grades/scores on the state test affect us by county/school/teacher. So, to be kind, we cannot, and keep our jobs, be concerned with how the students feel about our classes or methods. We are told what to do and why it is best for our students (wrong on both counts but I am not in charge of anything, including my own classes.

The biggest problem with teachers/classes as I see it, is that teachers have preferred teaching methods and students have preferred learning methods. Why no one has hit on the brilliance of assigning students to teachers based on the preferred style of each, I do not know as it would be by far the most productive method for all (well, except for admins and the upper level flunkies who are supposedly there to help both teachers and students to do the best they are capable of and instead do pretty much nothing but watch costs and complain as the schools continue in or sink to mediocrity. Oh, by the way, our school is in the top 1000 (I believe it is actually 100, but I do not want to overstate us) in the US, so of course, people from the county and the state are coming in semi-droves to teach us all the things we are doing wrong!! Only three years to retirement and almost bullet-proof. Ready to leave at that time (and I actually love teaching - just not thrilled with what is passing for it more and more).

 

[daenku32]

So we're pretty well doomed to becoming a society of well-dressed singing jocks who can't tell the difference between science and delusion.

In other words, a country full of American Idol contestants.

They are still going to learn science. And if the case really was that only a small fraction of student used the lab, then those who didn't were still doomed to become singing jocks.

The problem with the schools our kids go to is that the population is so darn tax-cut happy that the schools are constantly running out of money, requiring fund raisers (wasteful IMHO) and significant contribution from parents for student costs. I'd say that anyone who proposes a tax-cut shouldn't complain about a school cutting a program.

 

[truethat]

Because they are required and we have to satisfy admins and the state that we are grading mostly on how they test in our subjects - here in Florida anyway. We are pretending to do constructivist (which I am not personally big on as it is normally described) but we aren't - because grades/scores on the state test affect us by county/school/teacher. So, to be kind, we cannot, and keep our jobs, be concerned with how the students feel about our classes or methods. We are told what to do and why it is best for our students (wrong on both counts but I am not in charge of anything, including my own classes.

The biggest problem with teachers/classes as I see it, is that teachers have preferred teaching methods and students have preferred learning methods. Why no one has hit on the brilliance of assigning students to teachers based on the preferred style of each, I do not know as it would be by far the most productive method for all (well, except for admins and the upper level flunkies who are supposedly there to help both teachers and students to do the best they are capable of and instead do pretty much nothing but watch costs and complain as the schools continue in or sink to mediocrity. Oh, by the way, our school is in the top 1000 (I believe it is actually 100, but I do not want to overstate us) in the US, so of course, people from the county and the state are coming in semi-droves to teach us all the things we are doing wrong!! Only three years to retirement and almost bullet-proof. Ready to leave at that time (and I actually love teaching - just not thrilled with what is passing for it more and more).

Don't I know it. I often teach teachers who move from Florida to NYC and they are blown away by the hypocrisy in the education system in NYC. I teach people how to lie through the exam. They want their job so they do it. But it's a joke. That's why my son got passed through year after year even though he failed important classes like Math and Science. He had a year of straight 50s on the Math section and was passed without summer school because on the State Test he scored in the 97th percentile.

So what exactly is the problem? What you said, teachers play the role and do what they are expected to do to cross the line to retirement. Every teacher out there knows it.

It's why I don't teach in public schools even though I wanted to. It's too controlled and forced. And so these teachers often will dump their burden on the students by expecting them to stifle their individuality and creativity and tow the line doing what they are told.

Instead of closing the labs these people need to get over the fact that not all students will excel in science and we shouldn't expect them to. It's not for everyone, neither is reading or writing. My son who does so well in school tells me he doesn't have the patience to sit through reading a book. It makes me sad as I'm an avid reader, but I respect that he's a different kind of learner. After a while it gets depressing.

Which is why I'm homeschooling the youngest.

 

[mike3]

<deleted>

 

[mike3]

I think you're misunderstanding the proposal.

They're not concerned about too few non-white students in the science labs. They're concerned about poor performance by non-white students across the board, which will require major overhaul to address.

What about poor performance by any students, non-white and white? Also, why does the racial bias exist in the first place, and what could be done to blast that root cause?

 

[truethat]

Racial bias would likely be explained by the students schema. Most minorities don't have family members working in the science fields so it holds little interest for them.

Take my second underperforming son. His father owns four stores in Manhattan. He's giving each of the boys a store when they graduate. So for them, unless they are really interested in science, they won't be drawn to that.

Take a student whose mother is a nurse, that student is more likely to be drawn to the field of medicine than my son.

Unfortunately these are the legacies of racism in this country and we will ultimately have to wait until it rectifies itself over time.

Part of the solution in my opinion would be to add to the schema of the students by engaging them in internships or part time jobs in these kinds of field. Say data processing in a lab or calling in blood test results.

But many young people are simply not interested because it doesn't relate to their life in any way.

Movies like I am Legend and other films that depict the black protagonist as a scientist is also another way. When is the last time you saw a Mexican doctor in a movie?

Creating a new paradigm would go a lot further in making a difference.

 

[bpesta22]

Given that something must be cut to address the racial gap, what do you propose instead of cutting lab science?

They should cut naive empiricism and belief in tabula rasa.

Or, sports. Yeah, I meant to say, sports!