Report Card Time

[Occasional Chemist]

I listen to Dub say that he's going to hold teachers accountable and I can only sigh.

Of course he'll say that. He won't get too many votes if he says he'll crusade to get parents to give a d**n about parenting.

I interpret this to mean that, based on a critical analysis of the shortcomings of the educational system in America, he's identified the problem and it lies with the teachers. They're just not doing their jobs, plain and simple. The solution? More testing-- Please.

I'd laugh, but the local politicians say this so often it makes me want to cry. Schools around here are so jumpy about their scores on the standardized tests, they practically teach nothing else. I can't really blame the teachers for this, as they don't want to get laid off if the test scores drop a fraction of a point.

The end result, though, is that I get a class of college students that don't understand how to plot a line on graph paper - or even understand the concept of graphing (just to give an example).

"I'm doing everything possible to ensure that no child is left behind." It's frustrating to see this happening.

It is perhaps non-PC, but I'd like to point out here thay unless they get the basic concepts, some children should be left behind.

Consequently, those of us lucky enough to have had strong familial support as we went through the system received a decent education at their hands.

(Python)That's what I'm on about...(/Python)

But I know that the answer doesn't lie in browbeating and belittling our nation's teachers. They need all the support we can give them.

I read an article on the BBC site a while back about most teachers quitting within 5 years. Hmm ...

 

[Samus]

I'd laugh, but the local politicians say this so often it makes me want to cry. Schools around here are so jumpy about their scores on the standardized tests, they practically teach nothing else. I can't really blame the teachers for this, as they don't want to get laid off if the test scores drop a fraction of a point.

The end result, though, is that I get a class of college students that don't understand how to plot a line on graph paper - or even understand the concept of graphing (just to give an example).

You're right on the money here. Some schools in my area are having trouble staying off of the "poor performers" list. Interestingly, if the school isn't performing, they get funding taken away from them. Kind of like charging a fee for not paying the credit card bill on time (I obviously don't have the money, yet you charge me more!!!)

The issue of poor performing schools is not an easy one, and I agree with the Bush Administration's intentions of trying to get schools to perform. I think his implementation doesn't necessarily address the problems of why any given school is underperforming. And I'm also not a fan of standardized tests, I think their worth is overstated.

I had a professor in college that would occasionally rant about students graduating high school that can't think for themselves. He blamed the over-use of testing and other such things. What has happened, indeed, is that teachers teach to the tests because they are left with no choice.

I don't necessarily have a solution, but I can tell you one thing that won't work is making students take more tests.

 

[Legallee Insane]

Would somebody, or perhaps everybody, care to explain to me exactly how the voucher system works in America. As far as I know we here in Canada have no such thing, and though I have talked about it briefly with someone on another forum I failed to see the benefit of such a system. From what I understood it is giving money to underacheivers in hopes that it might help them acheive, though I fail to see how it would do so.

As I said, please explain the system to me as my understanding is very limited.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

According to the poll we may as well be home skooled.

 

[Occasional Chemist]

Some schools in my area are having trouble staying off of the "poor performers" list. Interestingly, if the school isn't performing, they get funding taken away from them.

In this state, these sorts of "performance funding" issues are compounded with the state being forced to reduce funding all around because they can't balance the budget. So the schools that perform "poorly" simply because they don't have the funds to attract teachers by providing decent salaries and equipment to teach with are doubly hurt.

Another problem is how the money is spent. A lot of money is earmerked for specific things (or is obtained with federal grants that allow only specific things to be bought). You end up with situations such as getting ethernet connections in every classroom but no (or not enough) computers to plug into them. You get money for data projectors but aren't able to install them because the building's full of asbestos and there's no money to fix the building. Want that fuel cell demonstration kit to help your students see how alternate energy technology might work? Forget it.

The issue of poor performing schools is not an easy one, and I agree with the Bush Administration's intentions of trying to get schools to perform.

Most of us - except the loons that want public education abolished - want the schools to "perform" better. I certainly would like it, as it's much easier to teach chemistry to students who have a good background in reading and basic math and (okay, I'm really wishing here) critical thinking skills.

I think his implementation doesn't necessarily address the problems of why any given school is underperforming. And I'm also not a fan of standardized tests, I think their worth is overstated.

It's a complicated issue - not simplified by the fact that the legislators want sound bites to present to voters to make it look like they're doing something. "Our test scores improved x%" is a good sound bite. "Our test scores aren't improving, so we're passing tough new legislation to improve teacher quality" is another good sound bite (to uninformed voters).

The current system seems to be based on this logic: "All these standardized tests don't seem to be helping. Let's give more standardized tests and see if they help."

I had a professor in college that would occasionally rant about students graduating high school that can't think for themselves.
He blamed the over-use of testing and other such things. What has happened, indeed, is that teachers teach to the tests because they are left with no choice.

I'm sure he also had "social promotion" in the list of reasons poor students make it out of high school.

I don't necessarily have a solution, but I can tell you one thing that won't work is making students take more tests.

I don't think any one of us has a complete solution. I do believe that increasing parental involvement in education is probably the simplest positive thing that could be done - and it doesn't even require legislation. This goes back to the notion of giving teachers something that they can work with.

 

[gentlehorse]

dwb:
I think his implementation doesn't necessarily address the problems of why any given school is underperforming. And I'm also not a fan of standardized tests, I think their worth is overstated.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occasional Chemist:
It's a complicated issue - not simplified by the fact that the legislators want sound bites to present to voters to make it look like they're doing something. "Our test scores improved x%" is a good sound bite. "Our test scores aren't improving, so we're passing tough new legislation to improve teacher quality" is another good sound bite (to uninformed voters).

The current system seems to be based on this logic: "All these standardized tests don't seem to be helping. Let's give more standardized tests and see if they help."

Few seem to be willing to air one of the possible reasons our schools are underperforming, although Occaisional Chemist touched on it in an earlier post. I'm talking about the fact that we in the US attempt to educate everyone. This in and of itself sounds like a wonderful thing, though it creates a lot of problems for our schools, IMO. To require every child under the age of 18 to attend school means, realistically, that there are a bunch of near-adults who are enrolled simply because they have to be. They have no desire to be in school and aren't motivated to participate in a meaningful fashion. At best, they occupy space and recycle groceries, biding their time until they turn 18 and either drop out or graduate with a 1.2. At worst, they set a poor example for the rest of the student body and serve only to disrupt the classroom environment, raising Hell until they turn 18 and either drop out or graduate with a 1.2. But we educate them, by God. And as they sit for standardized tests and make little patterns on their answer sheets, we wonder why our scores are so low.

Clearly, more testing is in order if we're to overcome this problem.

 

[Legallee Insane]

My question apparently got lost in the uproar on this thread, so I'll ask it again.

Could someone explain to me how the Voucher system for schools works in the U.S. and exactly of what value it is?

 

[evildave]

The Voucher System

Umm, you tell the federal government, "I want to send my little Suzie to a good CHRISTIAN school."

... then the government says, "Here's a voucher."

... then you fill out the voucher to the school, register, and $14,000 of TAX DOLLARS that was collected from everyone to ensure your kid would get educated, that would have gone to the public school system goes to this private school.

Eventually, the public schools get even worse, while the religious schools backed by big money religion (that can afford the liability) get a big boost in enrollment and can drive more religious junk into more kids' heads.

As do schools being run by big corporate entities that want to drive commercial junk into the kids' heads. They do pretty well out of it.

On the PLUS side, these same schools can arbitrarily reject kids that don't meet enrollment requirements because their parents are f*ck-ups.

On the BIG minus side, those same kids get even more shafted than they are now.

Poor Performers

On cutting funds to "underacheiving" schools, my take on it is fire the entire administrative staff outright, hire a new skeleton one, and then have the new administrators (with no prior social or emotional attachments) evaluate whether to replace the teachers, couselors, etc. If that doesn't work, go up a level and fire the district administrators, too. Keep the firing heading up. It becomes "very important" for everyone up and down the chain in the district to pitch in and "fix" broken schools. You might have to get transferred to the broken schools to fill in vacancies, after all.

The administrative staff of malfunctioning schools are the most expendable, IMHO.

This policy would also guarantee a LOT of administrators and teachers would be available on the job market to apply for the many vacancies. The "summer break" would be a fine window to fire/reorganize/replace bodies. It also means the teachers or administrators that are consistently selected will find it harder and harder to get placed.

 

[Guest]

It is up to the parents to make sure the children get a good education. I am quite upset that many people seem to think that single parents are somehow inadequate and unable to educate their children. Many single parents, such as I, make sure that the extended family helps.

First of all, children should be taught early that reading is a good thing. If you can read, you can learn damn near everything you want or need to. The main handicap a child has in learning is problems in reading. Parents should read to children starting at birth and set an example by reading as well, even if it's just the paper. Reading every day shows how valuable it is to a child, and the child will want to learn how to read even more because he/she will wonder why the parent gets so much enjoyment out of reading.

There is no excuse not to have books in the house. Many children (from my experience as a mother with her child's friends) who are poor readers do not have books in the home. I used to go to garage sales and buy books for a quarter or so. I was on Welfare after I left my ex husband, and believe me, money was tight. There is no excuse not to have books in the house. Even when a child is preliterate they can look at the pictures, they can covet them and count them and smell them. Children will naturally enjoy books if they see the enjoyment it brings to grown ups. Often, magazines are also available cheaply. Children seem to naturally recognize that writing means something with the signs all over. Pointing out what all the road signs say also help the child to understand the importance of reading.

Try to teach you children to read by phonics. No one needs an expensive bought from tv program to teach their children to read. Simple reading can come at a young age. Also, with my daughter, I bought many magnetic letters for the refrigerator. We spend a lot of time in the kitchen and she could practice spelling words while we sat. And, of course, computers are a great tool.

After a child goes to school some of the responsibility for teaching does go to the state. After all, they have a child for many hours a day. But, it seems to me, that they only have so much to work with. They cannot perform miracles. If a school cannot teach a child to read by third grade something is wrong, either with they system or the teacher or the child. It is still up to the parent to make sure that the child is teachable if possible. The parent should value education and make sure that the child is attentive and minds the teacher. Should make sure the kid eats breakfast at the very least, which sadly, seems not to happen in a lot of our cities.

I could never hope to compete (nor would I want to) with a specialized teacher such as a high school Science teacher or a high school English teacher. While I think home schooling might be alright in the primary grades, I doubt any parent could match the expertise of most of our high school and middle school teachers in combination, nor the resources available to those institutions.

So, I believe the parent has the primary responsibility for education in the years before a child goes to school. After that, it is a shared responsibility with the parent and the school.

 

[gentlehorse]

On cutting funds to "underacheiving" schools, my take on it is fire the entire administrative staff outright, hire a new skeleton one, and then have the new administrators (with no prior social or emotional attachments) evaluate whether to replace the teachers, couselors, etc. If that doesn't work, go up a level and fire the district administrators, too. Keep the firing heading up. It becomes "very important" for everyone up and down the chain in the district to pitch in and "fix" broken schools. You might have to get transferred to the broken schools to fill in vacancies, after all.

How about we swap teachers and administrators? We take teachers and administrators from school A ("good school") and swap them for teachers and administrators in school B (underperforming school). We look for significant differences in test scores. If there are none, we look for the cause of the problem with school B. My guess is that teachers and administrators in underperforming schools are aware of the causes of many of their problems. I'm not so sure that cutting funds and firing folks is the answer to poor test scores, any more than is increased testing. "Fixing" a broken school may amount to "fixing" a broken culture or community.

 

[Tricky]

To relate what Denise and Gentlehorse have said, yes it is critical to get children interested in books as soon as possible. Read to them even before they can talk. Always have books around and read them with your child. This is, in my opinion, the very most important thing in determining whether a child will be a good learner.

But as Gentlehorse points out, there are cultural problems. How does a parent get a child to read when they themselves are barely literate? Some people even take pride in the fact that they "went to the school of hard knocks", and mark it as a badge of honor that they had no "need" for education. These problems are difficult to overcome, no matter how good the school or the teachers, because if these patterns are ingrained early, it is difficult to reverse them. Not impossible, but it does imply changing the mindset of a whole culture.

 

[Occasional Chemist]

How about we swap teachers and administrators? We take teachers and administrators from school A ("good school") and swap them for teachers and administrators in school B (underperforming school).

You'll often see that "School A"s will cluster around each other, as will "School B"s. The poorly performing schools tend to be located in the poorer districts.

Since teachers and administrators are people too, they're not going to want to be told they have to move halfway across the state every couple of years. Frankly, they don't get paid nearly enough for the hassle.

Also, what happens to their kids? Switching schools and moving tends to be hard on kids.

So, nice idea if it weren't for those pesky human factors.

 

[Ladewig]

In some lower income school districts, they artifically raise standardized test scores by expelling poor performing students. They don't define these missing students as drop-outs because that would hurt the school's statistics, so they tell auditors that the students transferred to another school and never sent back the appropriate certification. The students removed from the system don't realize they have any recourse, and even if they did try to complain, no one would believe them because it is their word against the school's word.

I could support standardized testing if it included topics such as writing. Unfortunately, scoring standardized writing tests is time-consuming and expensive.

The current issue of Skeptic includes an article on improving science teaching.

 

[evildave]

There's an idea, though. Rotate the teachers and administrators.

You don't need to MOVE to teach at a couple of different schools. Many school districts have more than one school relatively near each other.

It sort of jives with factory workers changing out their tasks every so often to keep the quality up. They don't fall in a rut from doing the same thing over and over again.

At the very least, move teachers from one grade to another, every so often, within the same school.

 

[gentlehorse]

You'll often see that "School A"s will cluster around each other, as will "School B"s. The poorly performing schools tend to be located in the poorer districts.

Since teachers and administrators are people too, they're not going to want to be told they have to move halfway across the state every couple of years. Frankly, they don't get paid nearly enough for the hassle.

Also, what happens to their kids? Switching schools and moving tends to be hard on kids.

So, nice idea if it weren't for those pesky human factors.

Factors schmactors.

I'm not suggesting that we rotate teachers as a matter of course, although that may not be a bad idea. I'm saying that we test to see if a change in teachers and administration in a given underperforming school yields a significant change in test scores. Schools A and B don't have to be across the state from one another, just across the good/bad divide. Low standardized test scores tell us very little about whether teachers and admin are doing their jobs. They may indicate a problem, but don't serve to identify what that problem is.

Before we start dropping the axe, we need to take a good look at what's going on in our underperforming schools and to respond accordingly. I think it would be unwise to assume that we know the cause of the problem(s) and to further assume that "operation clean sweep" is the cure. Somehow, I just don't think a functional cure is going to be that simple. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Occasional Chemist]

At the very least, move teachers from one grade to another, every so often, within the same school.

You don't think this sort of thing happens already - especially given the teacher shortage in poorer districts?

 

[Occasional Chemist]

I'm saying that we test to see if a change in teachers and administration in a given underperforming school yields a significant change in test scores. Schools A and B don't have to be across the state from one another, just across the good/bad divide.

Maybe it's not true in your state (and not even in all districts in this state), but to cross the good/bad "divide" where I live, you're going to have to travel. Shuffling school personnel from school to school might work if you have a bunch of schools in about the same place.

Also, consider this. You're rewarding mediocre work with this scheme. The staff at the "excellent" schools get transferred to the ratholes if they do well. What's the incentive to do well again?

Somehow, I just don't think a functional cure is going to be that simple.

I think that's what I've been saying all along.

Edited to cut the second quote down so my last statement was clear.

 

[Samus]

Also, consider this. You're rewarding mediocre work with this scheme. The staff at the "excellent" schools get transferred to the ratholes if they do well. What's the incentive to do well again?

Preach on, brother Chemist!

The problem with staff swapping is that you are stealing from a good school to give to a bad one, instead of fixing the bad one.

So, what do you do with an under-performing school? Sending in a "consultant" from the government can create a lot of resentment amongst the faculty. Cutting funding isn't going to make the school any better. Allowing a voucher system doesn't help the school, either. Doing some housecleaning of the administration can help, but that implies that you have an abundance of people willing to be principals, etc.

Someone said (maybe in this thread, or in another) that it was the government's job to educate our children, but it is the parent's job to prepare them to be educated. That is so true, but is it really the government's job to tell people how to parent?

 

[Occasional Chemist]

That is so true, but is it really the government's job to tell people how to parent?

That job falls on society as a whole. Any decline here is "our" fault - not strictly our government's.

 

[evildave]

Could always bulldoze the "bad" schools and spread the kids around. That is, if you believe it's the school's fault.