posted on July 16, 2001 04:51:41 PM newHow can a child who has never heard English spoken in their home be expected to compete with a child that has always spoken English?
The same way the children of immigrants have been doing it for 150 years or so, and continue today.
Lack of English at age 5 is not a significant barrier to educational success.
Far more important as a barrier: a homelife surrounded by losers.
posted on July 16, 2001 05:01:07 PM newsulyn1950: It is not just kids like the Vietnamese boy you were speaking of that are being robbed of an education! This is true for all of them, regardless of color. Round about 15-20 years ago an educational craze took hold that is, IMO, having a devestating effect on the US: the "self-esteem" movement.
Spelling is not corrected--it is felt that that would "stifle" a child's creativity, and they will pick it up later.
Grammar is not corrected--it is felt that that would "stifle" a child's creativity, and they will pick it up later.
Grading is done on a "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" basis--training kids in effect to do the minimum required to gain the "satisfactory" grade & with no incentives to strive for more. Like it or not, human beings are a competitive species. But why strive when your efforts will be given the exact same recognition as someone who gets "satisfactory" merely for breathing?
Kids are passed "socially" so they won't have their self-esteem hurt hurt by being kept back a grade. So they never master *anything*.
I'd like to string the person responsible for the "self-esteem" education movement up by their thumbs...
posted on July 16, 2001 05:04:10 PM new
That's the point insider I was attempting to make. Why would ALL the letters overwhelm some students? Is that true or is that what some have been convinced is the case? As is, I will agree the program does little to "equal the playing field"!
posted on July 16, 2001 05:12:56 PM new
Bunnicula's comments are right on! And inside's math "problem" a few posts up, is a perfect example. In California, it's called New Math, or Fuzzy Math, or New New Math. The idea being that the emphasis is not on arriving at the correct answer, but rather that the method utilized in arriving at the solution is correct. What baloney!
Teaching ESL children in their native language only widens the educational gap, and actually hurts these kids when it's time to test for college admission. These children MUST be able to read and write English fluently in order to compete for college admission.
posted on July 16, 2001 05:21:15 PM newroofguy: There is a difference between how non-English speakers are taught today and how it was done in the past.
There are actually two types of education for children coming from homes where English is not the first language.
In places where their linguistic backgound is only a small part of the population of their community, the children learn English the way immigrants have always done: by immersion. They receive remedial help, yes, but they are immersed in English & learn it quite rapidly. They still speak their first language at home, but they become fluent in English.
In places where there is a large population of a certain linguistic background it is different. I have worked in two areas like that--in one there was a large Armenian population, and in the other, Spanish. In *those* areas, the children weren't immersed in English--instead they are put into classes where the teachers speack Armenian & Spanish. In both cities, the Children learn to read in Armenian or Spanish *first*. They are much slower to learn English & are often noticebly behind in their education.
I am currently working in Ontario, where a large number % of the population come from various Spanish-speaking countries. I deal with kids every day who, though born in the US, can barely speak English and who have a very hard time reading.
posted on July 16, 2001 05:27:22 PM newbunnicula-I agree all children are being robbed. Well, at least those that are not tagged "gifted/talented" in pre-testing for kindergarten! I worked with my child. I had the time. I thought it was important. I wanted to give him all the avantage I could. I though I was pretty typical. Perhaps only certain "types" of people feel this way?
I also agree with the "self-esteem" thing. Some kids are pretty quick to latch on to the concept and work it to their advantage too! I have know several who readily admited that when the teachers would start in on them for not completing a task or doing something they shouldn't have, they would quickly look down at their feet, apologize profusely and admit they were dirty, rotten dogs that should not be allowed to breath the air on this earth! They said worked like a charm. Not only did they not get into trouble, but quite often they were shown a little favortism!
posted on July 16, 2001 06:16:24 PM new
One of the big problems I see in many schools is in trying to keep all kids in the same classes despite ability. Let me see if I can explain this. Many schools will have children in Title I reading and Math as well was special ed classes for those with attention type problems. This ususually accounts for 1 1/2 - 3 hrs of instruction per day. The rest of the time is spent in a regular classroom. Problem is you have a child that can not read at the age level who is now being asked to learn health, social studies, literature, science and other subjects which are being taught with books and materials at the correct age level. Who thinks these kids are learning? Yet they get passed along year after year as they fall further behind. Usually they become behavior problems because they can't keep up and quit even trying thus boredom steps in.
Go in a typical classroom during a spelling test or reading test or even a math test and several children are most likely to say "I don't do that in this class."
posted on July 16, 2001 07:07:55 PM new
Where I live, the big thing in the classroom is "Centers". Basically the class is divided into groups (2 or 3), and the teacher gives an assignment to one "group" while she is working on something else with another "group" (say reading). Meanwhile the kids in the "assignment" group who finish early are expected to go to a "center", which is maybe the class tarantula in a terrarium, or some other ongoing classroom exhibit. Basically they are unsupervised since the teacher is with the other "group" and the kids in the "assignment group" who are slower in finishing have to deal with all sorts of distraction due to kids making noise and wandering the classroom. Our district fired the paid teacher aides last year, but still utilizes the "centers" type instruction, which imho was dreamed up to allow the teacher to work with smaller groups of kids at a time. Gone are the days when kids all worked on the same project or assignment at the same time, and if some finished early, they cracked open a book or worked quietly at their desks until the time allotted for the whole class for the assignment was up. From what I've read this "center" based learning instruction came into vogue with "studies" which purportedly concluded that the kids today have "shortened attention" spans largely due to television and other media interests. Even if this were so, "centered" learning environments doesn NOTHING to help children learn to concentrate on specific activities for longer than 20 minutes at a time. Now teachers at the junior high school and high school grades are starting to have problems teaching a whole new generation of kids who do not have the ability to focus on a given subject for longer than 20 minutes at a time.
I put in so many hours a week in real life working for education in the schools and the community that I am usually considered on a roll about it.
The children of today are the leaders of tommorrow and it is an investment in my future and the future of the world to see to it that I do all that I can in my own community to make our schools as good as possible.
The biggest problem I see is apathy on the part of the majority of parents.
KatyD,
Centers are utilized here too. Mostly in the lower grades. I can understand some of the reasons for it's usage but I do think that in some cases it is overused and leads to the type problems you mentioned. You are also correct in that it is rare for children to be taught anything as a whole class. There is usually just such a wide variance in ability levels in a class that whole class learning does not work. Most teachers using the centers method are seriously trying to help each child at their own level.
posted on July 16, 2001 08:56:18 PM newI am currently working in Ontario, where a large number % of the population come from various Spanish-speaking countries. I deal with kids every day who, though born in the US, can barely speak English and who have a very hard time reading.
posted on July 16, 2001 09:09:44 PM new
When I see the dollar figures for the students in our area I wonder what the dollar really goes toward. I could teach most subjects using a couple hundred dollars per student in books and writing materials. A decent computer amd access spread over three or four years and shared by two or three does not use that much. Teacher's salaries are low compared to skilled workers. Can the building itself and administration be the biggest expense? That seems rather the reverse of what should be.
posted on July 16, 2001 09:51:12 PM newroofguy: Nope. It was voted out, but due to protests from Spanish-interest groups the courts ruled it "unconstitutional." So bilingual education continues.
Now, the minute you speak up against it, you are liable to be jumped on & called a "racist." Not at all. It's just that in order to succeed these kids are going to need to know English. Like it or not, that's the language of the US. Proponents of bilingual education (which is, for the most part, for Spanish-speakers) cry that it is necessary for their children--that they would be unable to successfully enter the educational mainstream without it. Which smacks to me of a weird kind of racism in itself--when other non-English speakers (some from languages that don't even share our alphabet)can come here and learn English, the hispanics themselves are saying *they* can't? Why not?
I learned something interesting in Glendale, where I worked before Ontario. There, there are bilingual classes in Spanish *and* in Armenian (Glendale has the largest Armenian population outside of Armenia itself). I talked to teachers bringing their classes to the library and learned that bilingual classes can even cause problems--they isolate out kids from the rest of the school & the teachers spoke of *fights* and general rivalry between the bilingual classes and other kids.
edited to exchange "out" for "in"
[ edited by bunnicula on Jul 16, 2001 10:06 PM ]
posted on July 16, 2001 11:33:13 PM new
Nevermind. This thread is about race rather than educational problems in general.
[ edited by jt on Jul 17, 2001 08:12 AM ]
posted on July 17, 2001 01:02:05 AM new
The article I linked to, Inside, is, to me, full of questions, with not many answers, and brings more questions to my mind. For one, the article says that:
"Nearly 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education outlawed school segregation, blacks as a group still lag behind whites in virtually all measures of academic performance, from test scores to graduation rates.
Most disquieting to educators is new evidence that the gap, which narrowed in the '70s and '80s, is widening among African-Americans and Latinos as states put in place strict academic standards."
There's crucial information missing there - In what way has the gap widened? Has one group moved ahead while other groups have moved backwards? Have all groups moved forward, with one outpacing the others? Have all groups moved backwards, one moving backwards less than others? Questions and more questions.
Here's an interesting tidbit from the same article, and one that would seem to fly in the face of conventional wisdom:
"Studies indicate that the higher one looks on the socioeconomic ladder, the greater the disparity between black and white achievement. Children of well-off, college-educated African Americans tend to do little better on standardized tests than the children of white high-school dropouts. No one can say with certainty why."
That information discounts a lot of easy assumptions we could make about how to fix a problem with our educational system. It doesn't lead me to any answers, just leaves me wondering "why?"
Sulyn1950, your recollection:
"Luckily for me, my teachers in school decided to erase my "heritage"! I am not ashamed of where I come from, but I am glad I did not have to stay! Times were different than. Today, I am afraid I would be allowed to remain "culturally intact" especially if I wasn't "white"!"
is interesting, and I pretty much agree with your point. Educators can go too far in either direction, towards keeping culture intact or forcing assimilation. Years ago I talked to a girl in New Mexico who was very angry about the principal of her school. The girl's name was something like Maria Blanca, but the principal insisted on her being called "Mary White," and similarly Anglicized every Hispanic student's name. So when roll call was taken in classes, it was called out as "Mary White." That's too far to go in striving for assimilation, I think. But, rather than coming from a desire to help his students, I think this principal's motivating factor was that he was just a big jerk.
Myself, I had a pretty peculiar and eclectic education. From nursery school to 6th grade, I was one of usually only 2 or 3 kids in the class who didn't come from a bilingual or primarily other-language household. I was an Irish Catholic kid in a private Greek Orthodox school.
The owner of the school was Greek. The principal of our school was Greek, but, with the exception of the lady who taught Greek, no teacher, at least in the lower school I attended, was Greek. As I remember, we were taught the Greek alphabet in kindergarden, in conjunction with the English alphabet, and then, in kindergarden, we began to learn phonics and reading, but only in English, not in Greek.
Starting in first grade, for an hour every day, we would all have a Greek lesson, taught by a Greek woman. In the reverse of what Maria Blanca's principal did to her, this lady insisted on Grecocizing (is that the right word?) my name.
We were taught Greek in a sort of parallel as to how we were taught "English." First you learned your alphabet, then you learned to read, then you learned spelling and rules of grammar, etc., with a little Greek history and stuff thrown in.
I did okay up until about the 3rd grade, but then fell behind and never made much progress after that. By the 6th grade this Greek teacher was so sick of me that, to my relief, I was banished to the chapel during Greek lessons, where I played "The Price is Right" games with 2 non-Greek boys who had joined our class that year, and tried to screw up enough courage to see what was behind the altar with its panel of icons (I actually stepped up there to look once, only to be caught by the principal, who just happened to have made her one and only appearance at that very moment, before I could discover anything. God, or at least one or two of those Greek Orthodox saints, might have been back there, but I'll never know.)
Not being Greek apparently wasn't an insurmountable handicap though, as one of the best students of the Greek teacher was the other Irish Catholic kid that I had gone from nursery school through 6th grade with. It was just me, I sucked at languages, took French from 3rd grade through college, and all I can say in French is "I don't speak French."
Anyway, I think that this method was a pretty good way of not only preserving native language and culture, but teaching it was well, and, at the same time, providing a solid education in English. No Greek student fell behind in the English portion of the lessons at all, though I failed miserably in Greek. From what I could tell, many, if not most, of the parents of my schoolmates had been born in Greece and had emigrated as adults. Many fathers, like my best friend Artemis', were Greek Orthodox priests. Both her parents spoke English, though her mother clearly preferred Greek, and I tend to think that when I wasn't there, most if not all of the conversation carried on between the two parents, and the parents and the children, was in Greek.
"The article I linked to, Inside, is, to me, full of questions, with not many answers, and brings more questions to my mind."
As you say the article was full of questions and offered no possible answers.
If you expect me to give you answers, I am afraid I just don't have them. If you have some possible solutions you'd like to share here, there are a lot of interested people who would probably discuss the pros and cons with you.
posted on July 17, 2001 06:10:12 AM new
The article posted by Donny illustrates so well how our educational system will never be equitable and will always be a failure as long as unqualified educators continue to blame parents and lack of breakfast for their overwhelming failure.
While they put most children on a track to failure or in the case of "some people", on no track at all...the goal of equality is becoming tragically remote.
While they reject programs such as headstart and continue to see no potential in the children in their classes their negative perception will become a self fullfilling phophecy.
posted on July 17, 2001 07:52:18 AM new
No, Inside, I don't expect answers, nor do I expect a discussion of r*ce, the b-l-a-c-k educational experience, how the differences between their experiences and our own might have been reflected in "that other person" (who shall remain nameless)'s life, nor how the (ever-so-gently-named) "soft bigotry of lowered expectations" was reflected in the stated majority opinion here by such utterings that "that other person's" lifetime of little or no education was not only just fine for him, but actually something to feel good about, that maybe he "didnt WANT to be taught," that maybe "he didn't feel the need to learn to read and write," that it's "presumptious to think" that other people should have the wealth of education we've enjoyed, and "snooty," that we must not "presume to dictate what... is best for any individual," that to say that we think it would have been best if that "namelss" perason had had an education is condescending, racist, and a negation of his life, while we happily go on in outrage over today's fuzzy math and make pronouncements about how our children can best be served.
Our delicate sensibilities might be harmed otherwise.
posted on July 17, 2001 08:19:07 AM new
In Virginia students are tested in different grades to measure whether they have met certain standards - or learned to pass tests . I suppose this is an attempt to level the playing field - find poorly performing teachers and schools and direct resources or punishment to those who fail. But now there seems to be a new problem - good teachers leaving the public schools because they feel that "teaching to the test" hampers how they relate to their students in the classroom and poorly performing teachers asking to be transferred to grades that don't take the test. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6128-2001Jul16.html
posted on July 17, 2001 09:01:09 AM newBut now there seems to be a new problem - good teachers leaving the public schools because they feel that "teaching to the test" hampers how they relate to their students in the classroom
The cited reference is very high on the editorial/information scale.
From time to time someone leaves these forums (or changes names). Sometimes they leave "the manifesto", blaming their departure on some beef or another. In truth, when they have left, it is for some other, less glorified reason, but hey, why not pick a point target when you leave. How about those pop-under ads?
Observing the manifesto "I'm leaving because of the pop under ads", a reporter (who doesn't like pop under ads) writes the story "many of the best AW posters are leaving because of the pop under ads".
======
That said, there is no doubt that there is a downside to "teaching to the test", but in cases where the historic alternative has failed completely, sometimes you just have to try something which seems imperfect.
posted on July 17, 2001 09:03:20 AM new
There seem to be so many more social problems for black kids as a rule that education takes second, third, fourth place. Two parent households with married parents are nearly non-existant here and they are not valued. I will guess that 50% of 18 year old black females in my area have at least 2 children by more than one father. Education is not really encouraged by parents and peers. Role models are seriously lacking or more often distorted. (Just listen to black popular music.)
I can't tell you the hundreds of times I see a black child hit, not just "disciplined" but "hit" by a parent in public...in the grocery, on the street, etc. I hear them cursed at by their parents. I never see a black child wearing a seatbelt or in a car seat. The other day I approached a black police officer standing in a parking lot who had just watched a car drive away with 4 or 5 unbelted toddlers and brought it to his attention. "No", he didn't notice. I see tiny run down houses with 15 (literally 15) brand new expensive cars in the yard. I don't see any of this among the white in my area. Even the very poor ones.
In general, the blacks that get out of this "rut", don't seem to do much to change it. They usually move to the predominantly white community on the expensive end of town, or to another state, get a good job, don't look back.
Schools can NOT fix these social problems just by teaching reading and writing...though reading and writing wouldn't hurt. These problems seriously affect education.
This isn't always the case. There are some exceptions. There is a minority owned grocery chain (5 nice large stores, 4 in very poor neighborhoods) in the Jackson area that far bypasse the other stores in service, community leadership, business ethics in general. They have purchased computers and offering inner city kids the chance to learn to use a computer while their parents shop at one of their stores. They don't have it in my rural town yet but hope to. I have talked with the store manager about teaching a class when they are able to buy computers for this store.
Perhaps those here who are sincerely concerned about minority education could contact the chain and offer to make a small donation toward the purchase of the needed computers and a modest addition to in which to house them. It's called "New Deal" and is located in Jackson Mississippi. The owner's name is Kenneth. He will be delighted to hear from you. Directory assistance.
T
posted on July 17, 2001 09:38:50 AM new
Saabsister, I think I pretty much disagree with those discontented teachers, especially that first guy, the calculus teacher. This teacher complains that teacher meetings weren't about a classroom experience to
"learn something interesting and exciting." Geez, that sounds pretty cheesy to me. "Today, class, an interesting and exciting development in calculus!" Sounds like Dr. Scholl extolling an interesting and exciting development in foot odor control technology.
Then this calculus teacher runs off to the greener pastures of a private school whose website-stated mission statement is to "encourage our students to wonder, to inquire, and to be self-reliant, laying the foundation for a lifelong love of learning."
Uh huh. How about encouraging critical thinking skills instead, using a curriculum that builds on previously taught material and anticipates that presently taught material will be used to build on next year, in a logical progression. How about recognizing that that has a part in teaching children to organize and articulate their own thoughts logically, and that that skill is what leads to the ability to meaningfully inquire, be self-reliant, and lays the foundation for a lifelong love of learning. I think it's so silly that it seems to be accepted that "interesting and exciting" is properly a primary focus.
So what if school adminstration was talking about the tests in teacher meetings? That's behind the scenes, and not visible to students. Unless the answers to every standardized test are A, B, A, D, C, E, etc. and you're spending your days "teaching to the test" by having students memorize a string of unrelated letters so they can fill in the proper circle to questions 1-200, it's not what I would consider "teaching to the test."
So, I think I agree with Roofguy, and as to Terri, well... Wow! is about all I'd say.
Your post illustrates the negative attitude that I mentioned in my previous post. You state,
"I can't tell you the hundreds of times I see a black child hit, not just "disciplined" but "hit" by a parent in public."
The fact that these poor children are abused by their parents in the grocery store and come from single parent homes is not an excuse to neglect and segregate them from more fortunate students.
How on earth is a new car in the driveway relevant to this situation?
We can't really fault poor people for needing transportation. When poor people do not have sufficient cash or credit to purchase a used car, they sometimes purchase a new car because they can make the payments and credit is easier to obtain.
And music??? Good Grief!!!
Helen
And then we have bunnicula rejecting the self esteem movement. How does this make any sense?
posted on July 17, 2001 10:15:34 AM new
That "new" math and "new" reading and writing methods are a direct result of the technology you're using on this board.
The "new" math that was independent of getting the "right answer" is because of calculators/computers. Setting up the problem was more important than the answer because the computer would crunch out the correct answer. But you have to know the elements of setting up the problem for the technology to provide the right answer. If you don't know how to set the problem up, the technology is useless.
Word recognition was more important than spelling and phonetics because of computer spell checkers, and communicating like we are now rather than the spoken word.
You see, the brain trust of over 30 years ago saw the IT economy coming and lobbied teachers to change curriculum to meet the demands of IT. In an IT economy the ability to find and use information is more efficient and effective than "knowing" information and answers. Our education basis should be how to acquire and use information in an IT economy, not how to memorize information. A PC far surpasses the human's ability to remember and recall information.
In any event, a student has to learn far more now than s/he did 30 years ago 50, years ago, or 100 years ago if we cling to the "old" ways. The US school year is still set up for an agrarian economy.
posted on July 17, 2001 10:22:35 AM new
Actually, the statements about "teaching the test" brings up a very important issue.
In our area, for many many years the California Achievement Test was the test by wich all students and subsequently all teachers and school districts were "judged"! Each school was determined to have it's students score well and they began their "teaching the test" programs. Around these parts that started in the 70's!
Each year the grades that were going to be tested would prepare for the test. Everything taught that year was based on what was known to be covered on the test.
OK, that doesn't sound totally "unreasonable" unless you think of a "natural progression" in education. I have always maintained and even had occassion to argue before our school board that it seemed quite logical to me that the 1st through the 3rd grade were extremely important because the children were gaining the building blocks they would need to become academic "achievers" later in their school careers. There was a natural progression. A child doesn't read until they know their ABC's. They learn to read and then they learn to write. Most children are taught to print before they are taught "cursive". A child learns his numbers before he begans to add and subtract. He learns to add and subtract before he learns to multiply and divide. Seems pretty straight forward to me. If these children have strong building blocks, they will have a better chance to build something lasting.
A number of our teachers would complain that they often left important "blocks" behind and upset the natural progression by jumped around in the books just to ensure the children would be at least familiar with what was being asked for on the test.
We have always had children who are made overly nervous about test and there will always be those that test well. Some things do not seem to change.
What happens to children who are unduly stressed by test? Especially when all they hear is how important the test is! I knew of one child who became very ill and cried and begged his mother not to force him to go to school one day, because they were doing the CATs and he didn't want to mess up and get in trouble! It's my understanding this was not an isolated case!
It's seems it would be very hard to encourage a child to go to school when all they feel is an impending doom! Whatever happened to helping the child acquire a true excitement about learning?
posted on July 17, 2001 10:30:55 AM new
roofguy, I agree that we'll never know with certainty why those teachers are leaving. Perhaps they do feel hampered in their approach to teaching; perhaps they're afraid that their students will fare poorly on the tests and that failure will reflect on them; perhaps they can increase their salaries dramatically in another field.
Donny, your mention of calculus teachers reminded me of my experience in college. I took calculus from a prof whose idea of explaining something that a student hadn't understood was to repeat the same thing only louder. Out of a class with approximately 50 students, two received As, three received Bs and the rest were about evenly divided between Cs, Ds , and Fs. The class consisted of math majors and engineering students some of whom had never taken trig in high school. In the other calculus course with the same make-up of students, only a couple failed and there were many more As and Bs - plus an understanding of the subject. Personally I think the teacher's approach made the difference.
And I agree that children should be taught to work through problems logically and build on past examples. Do you think that some people just approach problems more logically than others naturally? Do you think people can be taught to approach problems logically? I think of my siblings. We're all female. I took calculus in high school and college. My youngest sister took trig in high school. And the middle two despised math and always did poorly in it and science. My mother was an English major whose philosophy was hold your nose and get through enough math courses to graduate, but at least my father the Biology major encouraged us.
posted on July 17, 2001 10:31:03 AM new
Actually, Helen, I mostly agree with Bunnicula on the danger of the "self-esteem" movement. I think a lot of our problems were continued or worsened the day that that awful "I'm okay, you're okay." book came out. Here's why -
When we look at someone and say - "you have a 'self-esteem problem'," we can't just stop there and say "and we'll fix it by boosting your self-esteem by telling you over and over how wonderful you're doing!" It's like we're all in the Special Olympics. The Special Olympics uses this technique with the unspoken understanding that those whose self-esteem is being boosted this way really are not capable of a world-class competition, so praising inordinately what accomplishments they do make won't run the risk of glossing over areas that may need attention and improvement.
Sometimes, a "self-esteem problem" isn't a self-esteem problem at all, but a totally justified realization that your own performance and results aren't on a par with someone else's. It might not be that "I"m okay, you're okay." It might be that "I'm a damn mess, and you're doing really well," or it might be that "I'm doing pretty good, and you're not cutting it." First, decide if the self-esteem problem is a problem of personal misperception, or an accurate personal perception, then decide what the solution is.
posted on July 17, 2001 10:34:19 AM new"Actually, as things stand now, it still would *not* mean receiving the same education." -bunnicula-
True. But what I was answering was the question of equality of education, not course curriculum. By that I mean that there is a huge disparity between schools: that schools in rich neighborhoods want for nothing in the way of good buildings, safe air conditioned/warmed, dry environments, the best books and computers, the best teachers, and so on. Contrast that to poor districts, where the kids want for everything: buildings that do not leak when it rains, books so old that they fall apart and are mostly made of up repairs, no computers, no lab equipment, teachers from Hell, and so on. So at a minimum, education must be funded equally, or else not one damned thing that you can point to that would make a difference in the kid's education is ever going to become a reality.
posted on July 17, 2001 10:40:58 AM new
This may be one of the most depressing threads I've ever seen here. Mostly because I loved school from k through college.
What a mess that teachers have to give out meds, take lunch money, retrieve art supplies, etc. What the heck happened to the "art room," the lady who came to the classes to collect lunch and milk money, and the school nurse?
While I normally hate govt intervention, public school is funded by taxes so...
Standardized tests imho would be a good thing starting at the end of grade one. Teach to test? It doesn't really matter if the basic skills are tested. Then, no pass=no promotion. I really don't care if a child stays in first grade until s/he is ten years old.
Since there are parents who won't or can't be of any assistance to their kids educations, then it rests on the schools. And for the parents who can and will help their kids, you have to stay on top of it. My parents didn't even like "B's" when I was in school. I got my first one in fourth grade. My dad (the working parent and sometimes two jobs) sat and read that textbook with me until I raised the B to an A. He gave me mini quizzes on what we read and at night after I'd go to sleep, he'd take the textbook and read it in bed. While I sympathize with couples who have children, and mom and dad both work, because of my parents, I can only sympathize so much.
I had great, good, mediocre, and terrible teachers as I'm sure we all did. What I had as an edge was a father who was going to see me go to college or kill himself trying.
A note to a poster above: We're white, but when "we got out," we never looked back either.
Thanks for that explanation. I was focused on a young child's "misperception" of low self esteem when in fact there may be no basis for that perception other than parental abuse.
Apparently, the program was not applied with that in mind.
