Get Schooled

By Leia

August 30, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

“Good” schools are no accident! As a teacher, I believe that the parents (community) set the tone for how good or bad a school is. The parents have high expectations and let them be known. Then, the teachers who really want to teach and not be a babysitter or a parole officer, will apply to work at these “good” schools. The screening process is far more intensive because the principals and department chairs don’t want any weak links working in their buildings. So, the good parents in turn beget the good teachers.

By BlindHomer

August 30, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

If all it took were high expectations the good people at Crim wouldn’t be an impressive 468 points below the national average! Success is generally a function of ability, opportunity, and desire. Davidson and Walton students have all three, Crim students one at most.

By Ernest

August 30, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

Interesting to note that 20 of the top 25 schools using this measure come from the metro area. IMO, high expectactions from the parents/community result in high expectations from the school. This type of environment is infectious, hence why many not a part of those districts try to get their children into those schools.

There are many administrators/teachers with high expectations in most of our schools throughout the state. It’s a challenge to ‘expect the best’ when some around you don’t share that spirit. Hats off to those that can fight the urge of settling for mediocrity!

By jim d

August 30, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

Leia,

I somewhat agree. However I think the schools administration sets the tone and actually controls it through hiring teachers that have like goals and are able to work as a team. A good principal can excite both parents and teachers alike and get them to follow his lead.

JMHO, but I believe the karma that creates excellent schools starts in the leadership of the front office.

By jim d

August 30, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

WOW, Coincidence?

I just looked for a common thread amongst the top 10 on this list.

One thing just really jumped out.

All top 10 have a teacher student ratio either at or below the state average.

By lynn d

August 30, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

I think it is the parents — schools in communities where the parents demand excellence are more likely to have the type of administrators that Jim D refers to in his post. Does anyone remember the Lakeside (DeKalb) mess over the principal this spring?

I also think that many of those schools are located in communities where parents are highly educated, know that their kids need to read to succeed and are willing (and do) to pay for tutoring for school courses and for the SAT if that is what it takes. In some of these communities, parents whose children are not over achievers actually put them in private school, because they fear their kids can’t handle the public school.

I also think it is worth noting the number of magnet schools listed, including 2 of the 5 schools not located in Metro Atlanta.

By Janine

August 30, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this

There was a study by a Harvard professor addressing one of your questions, Patti. I believe that he was looking at NCLB failing schools vs. schools that excel. He found that the best instruction was occurring at the failing schools. The teachers worked harder at devising different methods to motivate their students and to find ways to appeal to those who were disinterested and to “get to ” those who were distracted or behind. He found that in the schools where the scores were high, the teachers appeared to be what he called ‘Maintaining”, i.e. the students were already bright achievers when they arrived ..whether it was kindergarten or high schools.

By jim d

August 30, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

AMAZING!!

Everyone of these schools has a student-teacher ratio of 18;1 or less. (state average iss 17;1)

My childs school ranked somewhere in the middle of the pack in the state and has a student-teacher ratio of close to the state limits. Averaaging about 24-28 studnts per teacher.

By Janine

August 30, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

I have always speculated that the faculty AND administration of a high achieving school could be exchanged…totally…with that of an NCLB failing school and there would be no significant change in the scores of either school…or if their were, both might be lower because the faculties would be inexperienced in teaching the different populations.

By SET

August 30, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

Everything starts with the parents. While it’s always possible a parentless child does well, it’s not likely.

It is the Parents that got the child to the school and made it possible for the teachers to build on what the parents created. They both deserve congratulations.

By jim d

August 30, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

Set,

Actually its a partnership. Students, parents, teachers, and administraors all working together.

By HB

August 30, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

Patti, is there a full list of GA schools somewhere? I see a couple of non-metro schools on the top 25 list, but the expanded list is only Atlanta-area schools. Thanks!

By jeff

August 30, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

I want some of the Kool-Aid you are drinking!! Every one of the 25 top scores in this blog is pathetic. You fail to remember Georgia is ranked #46. Georgia’s median scores should be around 1800-2000. I guess to the only place to find these scores in Georgia is a Ivy league type Private School such as Westminster, Woodward Academy, etc. If the school doesn’t have a median threshold, the Administrator should be let go for the lack of performance. That will put some fire in their pants and get the ball rolling. Please stop harping on the scores above, There “TERRIBLE”.

By fed up

August 30, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Actually, I think it is socioeconomics. If you take the more diverse intown schools like Grady or Decatur, and pull out the non free/reduced lunch kids… the remaining kids (upper middle class and largely white (sadly)) actually score higher on the SAT than the same demographic at the suburban schools like Parkview and Walton. SATs tell you little more than the average income of the students at the school. Rich kids at diverse schools perform just as well as rich kids at predominately rich schools.

The real chicken and egg argument is which comes first low IQ producing poverty and disfuncional lifestyles or poverty and disfunctional lifestyles resulting in low IQ.

By MMM

August 30, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

Parents.

BUT it is extremely difficult for parents alone to RAISE the bar because everyone must be on board—so to have just a few parents with high expectations won’t work. It is a prescription for frustration and burn out as they try to carry the load for the dead wood. Ultimately most realize that their efforts, if focused on only their own children rather everyone’s will make more progress and they leave the failing school or system.

That is why there are so many requests for transfers in Dekalb. This is actually a sign of rising parental expectations, but unless it can be channeled into a critical mass, it is only so much wasted gas. Why can’t we convert more regular middle schools to Theme schools to satusfy the demand.

By Taxpayer

August 30, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

I wonder how many of these schools made AYP this year. Lakeside in Atlanta didn’t, and it’s #9 on the list. What does that say about NCLB?

By Patti Ghezzi

August 30, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

The full list of Georgia schools and their SAT scores may be found here…

http://www.gadoe.org/pea_communications.aspx?ViewMode=1&obj=1239

To get to the full list, click on the link at the bottom of the news release…

By jim d

August 30, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Right you are jeff,

The only reason we moved up from last place is because everyone else went down

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/30/news/sat.php

By Ernest

August 30, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

Another measure that is used other than socioeconomic status is the education level of the parents. Knowing several of the communities and makeup of the choice schools on the list above, I would say their ‘parent education level’ is higher than most schools in the state. As a result, there is a collective higher level of expecations coming from those parents that we ultimately see in those schools. To paraphrase what Leia said in the first post, higher expectations from the parent begets higher expectations in those schools.

By Leia

August 30, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

jim d - Be careful looking at the teacher:student ratios. If you have a special ed class with 8 kids in it and a regular ed class with 30 kids in it - that averages to a ratio of 19:1!! It looks good, but, it can be misleading.

And, “good” teachers don’t want to work in the ‘hood schools - I don’t care how good the administration is. I still believe that the parents dictate whether a school will be successful or not.

By Leia

August 30, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

jim d - One more thing. I’d rather teach 35 students who really wanted to learn than 6 who just come to school because it’s part of their probation!

By Tom

August 30, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

Garbage in, garbage out.

By Ernest

August 30, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this

Patti, thanks for providing the link. We should give credit to the GA DOE for providing this information in Excel format with filters so citizens can easily perform additional analysis. It’s interesting that the schools with 500 or more test takers all finished in the upper quadrant of scores in the state. It would be interesting to see the socioeconomic status of those communities along with the parent education level.

By Jack

August 30, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this

It looks like there are only schools in the metro area ! These are schools that spend most of their time on SAT study to make a big splash. Who do you think you are kidding.

jack

By sulenyc

August 30, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this

Lets be real, neither the SAT nor the ACT tests are truly the yardsticks that society holds them up to be. I’m sure all of the college grads can agree with me in saying that during their college years, they knew students with SAT scores that equaled or exceeded theirs that did not graduate. Conversely, they probably also knew students with lower SAT scores that went on to score better than them on the GRE, MCAT, or LSAT and excelled in graduate or professional school.

Our schools need to return to the basics and ensure that our students are well rounded individuals that are capable of thinking critically—not just individuals that can perform well on a test.

Also, please note that the correlation between socioeconomic status and test scores does not exist because rich kids are smarter than poor kids; it exits because rich kids are better prepared for the test. Parents of greater means can afford to pay for Kaplan and other aids in preparation for the test for their children. Kapalan’s business model is based on the fact that students that take their course score higher on the test. If poor students have equal access to test preparation as their better-off counterparts, the gap in test scores would decrease. In fact, my personal score jumped by 120 points after taking a test prep course (sponsored by the Delta Sigma Theata sorority). After taking the course, I wasn’t any smarter, I was simply better prepared for the test.

By sulenyc

August 30, 2006 05:16 PM | Link to this

Lets be real, neither the SAT nor the ACT tests are truly the yardsticks that society holds them up to be. I’m sure all of the college grads can agree with me in saying that during their college years, they knew students with SAT scores that equaled or exceeded theirs that did not graduate. Conversely, they probably also knew students with lower SAT scores that went on to score better than them on the GRE, MCAT, or LSAT and excelled in graduate or professional school.

Our schools need to return to the basics and ensure that our students are well rounded individuals that are capable of thinking critically—not just individuals that can perform well on a test.

Also, please note that the correlation between socioeconomic status and test scores does not exist because rich kids are smarter than poor kids; it exits because rich kids are better prepared for the test. Parents of greater means can afford to pay for Kaplan and other aids in preparation for the test for their children. Kapalan’s business model is based on the fact that students that take their course score higher on the test. If poor students have equal access to test preparation as their better-off counterparts, the gap in test scores would decrease. In fact, my personal score jumped by 120 points after taking a test prep course (sponsored by the Delta Sigma Theata sorority). After taking the course, I wasn’t any smarter, I was simply better prepared for the test.

By HB

August 30, 2006 05:20 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Patti!

By The One

August 30, 2006 05:26 PM | Link to this

I teach at one of the top 25 schools listed….. I know for a fact that our average score rose because the councelors stopped recommending students that are not planning to attend college from taking the SAT. Without those scores, our school average took off.

I am not condeming them. I do not see why a student WOULD take the SAT if they did not plan to go to college. Maybe all of GA schools should take this approach!

By Ernest

August 30, 2006 06:22 PM | Link to this

The One, your comment reminds my of a ‘controversy’ from a few years ago. It seemed that a few schools in the Augusta area did not provide the school code to students they did not believe should take the SAT. As a result, their schools were assigned to the ‘other’ school rather than their actual school. If I recall, it seems that one of the school was recognized for their SAT achievements.

By cms

August 30, 2006 07:07 PM | Link to this

Davidson, which is the #1 school on the list, is a magnet school that attracts the best students in the rather large Richmond Co. school district (Augusta). It is highly competitive and supposedly a performing arts school (no sports to speak of) Only 88 students took the SAT for this report. They get heaps of praise and recognition for their academic achievement while the rest of the county schools post fairly poor scores. Sometimes it seems like a case of the Emperor’s new clothes - nobody acknowledges that they are like a private school in reality because Richmond Co. desperately needs something good to give them a boost. With only 88 of the best students in the 8th largest district in GA taking the test, the scores should be at the top. Duh!

By Lee

August 30, 2006 07:22 PM | Link to this

First of all, it is the Scholastic APTITUDE Test - designed to enable colleges to normalize and rate prospective students during the college admissions process. Per the many reasons given above (i.e. difference in participation rates, socioeconomic factors, etc, etc), it is a poor tool for trying to compare state education systems.

Just wondering, is anyone else as disgusted as I was listening to Purdue and Cox put a spin on this stuff. Politicians…. ::gag::

As far as who to blame/credit for high expectations, I think parents set the initial tone - especially in the early years. As the student progresses through the elementary grades, the teachers role probably increases as the parents role diminish. By the time the student enters high school, he/she should be ultimately responsible for their education (or lack thereof).

That said, I think the one biggest fault that I have with schools is lack of effective performance management by administrators. They allow too many teachers to get by with sub-standard work and they do not address the p1ss-poor teachers who should have been fired years ago.

By EW

August 31, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

First, we need to look at the overall number of students taking the test to compare, which is only fair. Now, the high expectations SHOULD start at home. Most teachers and administrators have high expectations; it is the parents that assist in the job of making the expectations stick with the parent/teacher/partnership.

Now, if we take the time to really look at the schools that didn’t make the list, you will see overcrowding, a lack of parental involvement, a lack of proper facilities, etc… Yes, it’s great there is a list, however I’m so sick of lists - let’s take the time to do some real investigative reporting and figure out why schools are not succeeding.

Let’s start at Westlake, DYNAMIC administrator who has set the highest expectations possible, however has to deal with third world conditions in her school. I would like to see the AJC staff, not just do a blog or a small article but really get to the meat of this matter. Maybe its just not a popular subject as it affects only a certain population.

By Karen Armsby

August 31, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

Good or great teachers will have more successful students than mediocre and poor teachers, no matter what school or system. But I think that parents are the key factor in the successful education of their children. Parents are their children’s first teachers academically, socially, and spiritually. Parents continue to be the most important influence in their children’s lives when they start school and the school teachers partner with the parents to educate the students. If the parents are not actively preparing their children for school, and do not partner with the school to reinforce good attendance, behavior and learning, then the students will have a lower chance of success. It is reasonable to conclude that the schools with the highest success rate probably have the highest percentage of parents who are training and reinforcing good habits in their children.

By helen

August 31, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

sulenyc according to data posted in the Wall Street Journal yesterday the poorer kids on a whole did better than the rich kids. I think it was 3 point improvement from kids from families making 10K or below and kids 100K and over was a 5 point decline.

By IOC

August 31, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

Karen your comments are really old fashion and do not apply to our individual case. We are a single parent family, atheists , get reduced lunch and high schooler would probably be called by those here antisocial and just tested SAT June and received a 2200 on the first try and this isn’t the first one in the family. It has nothing to do with spirituality or manners or even good habits although they do listen in class, finish homework and are self motivated. I’ve never joined or attended a PTA or open house, gone to any school conference and have little to no respect for those that run the school.

By HB

August 31, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

Actually, Lee, SAT doesn’t stand for anything. It used to be the Scolastic Aptitude Test, but because it does not really focus primarily on aptitude, the name was dropped a few years back. The initials stayed, though. Go figure.

By Karen Armsby

August 31, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

IOC, I am not talking about joining the PTA, but that helps too. I am talking about parents who read to their children and teach them their colors, numbers, letters, music, etc. Parents who teach their kids manners and respect and values. They teach their children to follow the rules in their houses and reinforce the rules, and give the child a sense of responsibility. Then when these prepared and well-mannered children go to school they are ready to learn. My ideas are not old fashioned, just common sense. You prepare your child for success when they are small, to make it easier for them to learn when they get to school. Understand?

By Karen Armsby

August 31, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

IOC, Further, partnering with the teachers to me means that you encourage your child to do his homework and assignments on time, that you encourage reading at home, that you stress good behavior in school. In other words that you help your child to know his responsibilities at home and school.

By Alton Ewen

August 31, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

Sept. 1, 06

There is that notion that students are the ones who make the name of a school… good or bad. Well, in my view it is a combination of factors that placed the name of a school on pedestial or tossed it into the dulgin. The begin, the student must be prepared to learn. The student must go to school ready and prepared; go to school for a definate purpose; have an absolute objective and a strong yearning for learning; attitude and wanting to be something meaningful in society. Then, next, the other factor.The teacher must be fully equipt and ready to teach; conversant with all subject of education;should have the know how to deliver her goods.

Parents, yes, is another factor to consider. Parents should start the instilling of value and sense of purpose in the child. But again, this can onle be done when the child is prepared to learn; having the right attitude and mentality. If the child has a warpe mentality, it would only God who can change that child since some of them literally refused to listen and adhere to their parents’ counseling. There you have it, it’s a combination of factors that build the reputation of a school considering the policy set out by the school’s administrators. A system that bears a strong laid-down order and rules which is to be maintained by the school doctrinal principle. Alton E.

By IOC

August 31, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

Karen are you just blogging to see yourself in print? I think I stated that I did none of those things. I’m sure there are many students that have had all those things you stated and they still perform poorly in the SAT (which is the topic not Miss Manners).

By EW

August 31, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

IOC,

Why so hostile, if your child is as successful as you stated then Karen’s post is not relevant anymore is it? Makes me wonder…

By IOC

August 31, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Where do you get hostility? All these ED Blogs seem to ALWAYS gravitate in the same direction. It’s always about Miss Manners and that is not a proven or effective measure of intellect or success on the SAT. Of course until this year my kids were schooled in MA. I tend to think its more about genetics.

By V for Vendetta

August 31, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

IOC, why do defensive? I think what Karen is suggesting is that schools would probably be better places, kids education would benefit, and overall scores would increase if there was more parent teacher communication. I would tend to agree.

You seem to wave your statistics (single parent, reduced lunch plan, antisocial kid) like some sort of badge of honor. True, many people in the South here are holy-rollers and do-gooders, but the question begs: if yall are so smart, then why all the difficulties?

Maybe it’s a little of both — nature AND nurture. Ever think about that? What you seem to be ok with is squandering intelligence, and that’s just stupid.

By Lee

August 31, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

Vendetta, re “if yall are so smart, then why all the difficulties?”

Ouch. LOL, but ouch.

By thomas

August 31, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

I can honestly say, after working in education almost a decade and working in various environments, PARENTS AND THE HOME ENVIRONMENT ARE THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN THE SUCCESS AND HIGH ACHIEVEMENT OF A STUDENT.

I have not only worked with, but have seen other teachers work with students who were extremely “low” to gifted. And in almost every case, those students who were “real low” were still “low” at the end of the year and those who were high achievers left as high achievers. Little I or anyone else did changed that.

What is so, so, so important to remember is that students have to be cultivated and worked with at home, beginning before they enter school. Those students who come from homes that in which reading, education, etc are not valued and reinforced end up being “low”. Those students who come from upper middle class homes end up being “gifted.”

By IOC

August 31, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

You mean different because I don’t see my situation as a difficulty. Single parent by choice, my two that graduated get 40,000 a year full rides at top universities because its better than me going back to work and having to pay, because I chose not to work and we live on govt money the others get reduced lunch, and the kids are antisocial because all there is are stupid biblethumpers or goth kids at their schools. So see no prob here just not your typical southern nuclear family.

By IOC

August 31, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Then why do the stats say that the upper middles did worse on the SATS?

By Lee

August 31, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

RE IOC’s “…its better than me going back to work and having to pay, because I chose not to work and we live on govt money the others get reduced lunch.”

Doesn’t have the money to buy her kids a lunch but can surf the Internet all day.

Typical…

By KA

August 31, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this

IOC, I was just clarifying what I wrote in reponse to your comments to me. I have used my initials, happy now? I was initially answering Patti’s question (the topic of this thread); the chicken-egg debate, which came first; the high expectations of the parents or those of the teachers that contributed to the success of the top ranked schools. I believe it all starts with good parental teaching and training, then in partnership with school teachers. The parent does not relinquish his or her teaching role, just because the child has gone off to school. There is more than one way to succeed, so congrats to you and your children!

By KA

August 31, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this

IOC, And another thing, this topic doesn’t concern class, income, culture, race, etc. IMHO no matter what income, class or culture, the children of good parents will do better in school than those of slacker, disinterested, or absent parents.

By KA

August 31, 2006 05:25 PM | Link to this

IOC, FYI, there is no “govt money” as the government has no money of its own. The government raises funds from taxes that I and millions of other hard working folks pay to run the government and to support your lazy b*tt. You have no standing to criticize or comment on anything here as you are a parasite on our society. Pitiful lesson you are teaching your kids… By the way, you may thank us for your dinner, now, and chew carefully.

By IOC

August 31, 2006 05:54 PM | Link to this

Well KA I disagree because I’ve seen both sides. When it comes to school stuff I would be considered a slacker and not interested. I think you need to be more open minded and less judgemental. Besides it didn’t pay for me to go back to work my kids in college get tons of financial aid, then there is peachcare, free lunch and other goodies.

By KA

August 31, 2006 06:08 PM | Link to this

IOC, I am open minded, and I am entitled to be judgmental because you wrote that us you live off the govt so that your kids could get full ride (need based) scholarships to college. You live off MY tax dollars, money that I earned that could be sent to my three kids in college, but money that is instead supporting your lazy lifestyle. Why do you hide behind initials? Give me your name, I’d like to have the government look into your finances and your kids’s colleges investigate your phony baloney need. Loser.

By IOC

August 31, 2006 06:10 PM | Link to this

KA a bit jealous are you? Yea yea I paid taxes too so get off your soapbox. I get to be a stay at home mom and in your book isn’t the best for kids? What’s the difference between me and all the moms who live off their husbands salaries to stay at home with the kids?

By KA

August 31, 2006 06:26 PM | Link to this

IOC, Not jealous a bit, just sick at heart that you can be so glib about living at the expense of others. I was a stay at home mom for a time, too, and we paid taxes the entire time, never lived on public assistance, and didn’t misrepresent some phony need in order to get megabucks for our kids’ college educations. If you can work, you should.

By TJ

August 31, 2006 06:32 PM | Link to this

IOC, people like you are the reason many of us who want to help others don’t. I hope your children are ashamed of you and grow up to be contributing members of society to make up for their loser mother. If you must use others for your personal gain then find a husband who doesn’t mind like a lot of women do and stop mooching off the rest of us. You are a thief and your status as a “mother” does not justify your actions.

By Taxpayer

August 31, 2006 06:39 PM | Link to this

I think IOC is a crank blogger. Pretty soon she’ll be wanting to know if our refrigerators are running.

By KA

August 31, 2006 06:43 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer, Yes, ma’am, the thought crosssed my mind, but there are people out there sitting around, living off the rest of us.

By IOC

August 31, 2006 06:57 PM | Link to this

My kids think I’m pretty smart because I figured out a way to be there when they get off the bus. The ones in college are happy because they won’t come out of college with large loans. KA what you seem to forget is that my kids actually had to get into a school of high caliber. I’m just giving them the credit for their high grades and SATS.

By Lisa B.

August 31, 2006 07:11 PM | Link to this

IOC, Perhaps “manners” are not on the SAT, however, use of manners help create an atmosphere where learning can take place. All students are not as motivated and intelligent as yours, and most do not need the distractions caused by those who will not follow rules or use common courtesy. Success requires more than intelligence. One must be able to work with others as well!

By KA

September 1, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this

IOC, My kids got into schools of high caliber, too. The difference between us is you conned their way in to get a free ride, and we paid our own way. Success in academics will get your kids only so far. You have taught your kids that it’s OK to live off others in order to misrepresent your need. How will they use that knowledge when they are adults? Will they also cheat others to get ahead? I am waiting for your name. Are you afraid to tell me because you know what you are doing is wrong?

By IOC

September 1, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

Excuse me KA how is choosing not to work in order to stay at home illegal, immoral or conning anyone? And who said I was on Public Assistance? I said I was getting money from the government and that my dear can mean a number of things. It doesn’t mean that I’m not entitled or cheating you or anyone else. I fill out all the forms and I supply all the legal documentation and even do the verification process through the colleges and FAFSA. I meet the guidelines to get all these benefits. Not only do we not pay but they also got some outside merit aid because the colleges they go to doesn’t provide merit aid and used it to buy a big flat screen TV for the dorm. Everyone on the hall loves it!

By SET

September 1, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

I’ve just read the IOC vs the rest posts..

IOC has valid points. Interesting how the readership responds to contrarian views. We learn from contrarian views. We don’t learn as much when we all sit around singing Kumbayah.

IOC’s use of the word “antisocial” doesn’t match the real definition. In my work I review psych reports on actual antisocial individuals (ASPD). That dx means that the person involved has a PCL-R score of 30 or more. You must have pathology - a conduct disorder - seen in the patient before age 16. These patients were markedly different from other children (usually in the crib). - these people will normally spend most of their lives institutionalized in a prison or mental hospital. They will die early. They will have markedly poor health compared to the same person without the Dx. They will not be able to maintain housing or employment. They will not raise their children - others will. They will be highly promiscuous (an understatement), usually substance dependent, and violent. They will have no old friends only short term aquaintances. They will not maintain family ties. The Doctors I work with believe it is mainly a genetic problem passed through the family line - with the patients having a different brain architecture. They believe it is a genetic mutation with a primariy imperative to reproduce. Once we have the Dx we look hard at the family tree and see early deaths, missing people, mental and prison institutionalizations, addiction, etc. Different races currently have different ratios of psychopathy/ASPD in the US. (Not politically correct, am I?)

Antisocial is a term I don’t use lightly because in many ways it’s a death sentence. One can have anti-social tendencies and be a problem child without having the full-blown pathology. When you deal with these people (Actual Antisocials/psychopaths/ASPDs) you will understand the wisdom behind the forced sterilization programs in the US in the early to mid 20th century. It was a mistake to stop them.

As far as IOC’s approach to the world in having and raising her kids - whatever works for her. If the kids do well in school and fit into the economy, more power to her.

Many women with kids realize now that it often doesn’t pay to go to work. I work with a mother of 4 who went from a blue collar job to college and law school when her youngest was 2. She took just over 8 years. Between the grants, scholarships, loans, and tax advantages (considerable) it made no sense to work at that time. The kids would be in day care anyway… School was far less than 40 hrs a week.

Brave New World

By IOC

September 1, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

Lisa B I thought the topic was whether it was teachers or the parents and the relation to the SATS? I say its the kid and what’s inside them. It’s natural selection at work. You’d never believe all the stresses and bad schools my kids went to but they still were able to stay focused. I really don’t know how they did it but that will make them more successful in the long run. You all are just arguing with the stats because you’re emotional. You think if you live “right” it entitles your kids to more than those who don’t live right in your eyes. Hence the jealousy and bitterness to someone like me (i.e. not involved with school, single parent, doesn’t believe in god, doesn’t go to work etc.) who comes along and posts that all the things you believe in just aren’t true all the time.

By KA

September 1, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this

IOC, Let me refresh your memory form your positngs yesterday: “my two that graduated get 40,000 a year full rides at top universities because its better than me going back to work and having to pay, because I chose not to work and we live on govt money the others get reduced lunch and you said “Besides it didn’t pay for me to go back to work my kids in college get tons of financial aid, then there is peachcare, free lunch and other goodies. Your words, remember?

By IOC

September 1, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

SET I’m using antisocial because thats what people around here call people that don’t go to church, think football is the be all and end all, basically the typical GA lifestyle.

By IOC

September 1, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

Yes KA I know what I wrote and government money does not always mean public assistance in other words I do not get food stamps or housing. The programs like need based financial aid, peachcare and free/reduced lunch are based on income guidelines and I met those guidelines.

By KA

September 1, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

SET, I agree with you on the antisocial definition. I agree with what your friend did (not working) while getting herself educated and rearing small children. However, IOC said she is a slacker, chose to not work, and lives off the govt., has no income, so her kids qualified for need based scholarships for college.

By IOC

September 1, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

KA you are just twisting in the wind. I use to work and now I don’t. You view it as slacking off and I view it as a economic sense.

By KA

September 1, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

IOC, Nitpicking terms? If you “qualified” for any money that a government agency gives you, then you’re getting assistance from the taxpaying public (public assistance). Your single parent atheist status has nothing to do with the topic or my opinion of you. Different strokes for different folks. However, I am objecting to your self proclaimed slacker status, choosing not to work, so that you can fill out all of those government forms and qualify for government money and college aid under the low income guidlelines. I call it like I see it, which is conning, scamming, stealing, ripping off taxpyers for your choice not to work. Wouldn’t we all like your luxury of choosing not to work and living off others’ money?

By Taxpayer

September 1, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

Let me see if I have this straight: Karen — I mean KA — taught her kids to say sir and ma’am to everyone and they DID NOT do well enough to get scholarships, but IOC’s “antisocial” kids DID do well enough in school to receive scholarships. Wow.

BTW, IOC, how is Karen’s — I mean KA’s goat? You seem to have gotten it several blogs ago.

By IOC

September 1, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

Well I’m not going to argue with you anymore KA we have a difference of opinion. Nothing I do is illegal its a personal choice based on economics. I have a degree and looked at all my options after I moved and it just didnt pay for me to work at this time. Don’t like it? well tough for you.

By IOC

September 1, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

Taxpayer I doubt that KA’s kid is really all that smart. I think she is jealous of the SAT scores and aid my older kids got because her kid couldn’t get merit aid and their family makes too much money to qualify for need based. If her kid was really all that intelligent he/she would have been offered full rides based on merit alone. Mine were but chose to go to a school that didn’t offer merit - so when I sat down and looked at the options I said not working was the way to get my kids the education they wanted and deserved. It was economic sense for the time being.

By KA

September 1, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

IOC, No, tough for your kids. You are a crummy model to them. And you should thank me for your tax paid “goodies,” but I don’t expect you will.

Taxpayer, My kids are doing quite well in school on the money we saved for them, on scholarships, on money they earned, and on loans that will be repaid. We pay our own way, and don’t rely on you, Taxpayer. IOC is taking money out of your pocket, too.

By Lee

September 1, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

KA, I’m in your corner on this one. I too, have understood the entitlement mentality.

By Lee

September 1, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

…supposed to be “have never understood the entitlement mentality.”

By OldSchool

September 1, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

This has been so very interesting! All the back and forth about a test whose 2 basic functions seem to be 1. getting a kid into college, and 2. bragging rights for states/DOEs/parents/schools/students/legislators/etc.

Bottom line: It’s what happens AFTER the SAT that really counts, right? Success in post-secondary education and on to a happy, successful, fulfilling life? Add your own adjectives if you wish.

(Come to think of it, there’s a evidently a 3 purpose for the SAT: thought-provoking and/or acrimonious blogging.)

By Taxpayer

September 1, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

Many entries ago, a blogger noted that it was the student’s choices, expectations, and efforts that ultimately determined how well the student would perform on the SAT or any other exam. I think that is the most accurate assessment I have seen on this blog yet.

I teach at a local college, and many of my students are “nontraditional” — people who have been out of school for a while and are now returning to complete their education. Their stories vary, but there is one common thread: a moment came when they realized that they alone determined whether they succeeded or failed. Not mom. Not dad. Not anyone else’s expectations. Not the high school. It was only when they accepted responsibility for their success or failure that they did whatever it took to succeed.

One student in particular stands out in my memory as an example of self-determination. He had been horribly abused as a child and then thrown out of the house when he was 14. He lived on the streets, in foster homes, and wherever he could until he was able to finish high school at a rough, huge urban school. He told me that he HAD to do well on the SAT in order to get into college.

What was his motivation? Why did he do well? He had no one to help him at home or at school. He alone decided to make a better life for himself. When students go in to take a test, suddenly it is just the student and the test — not mom, not dad, not the school, not the teachers. It is the student’s own expectations that will determine success or failure.

By KA

September 1, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

Lee, You hit the nail on the head, entitlement… Even if IOC did everything “legally” I think it’s a matter of fairness. Our country was founded on hard work with everyone pulling their own weight as far as they can. I fully support aid for kids that come from truly needy circumstances and whose parents cannot work, or do not make, and will never make enough money to even send them to a two year college. But IOC is not being fair, not pulling her weight. IOC has a degree, is able to work, and chose not to work so that she met the low income guidelines, and her kids then qualified for need based college megabucks. Entitlement, that’s it.

By KA

September 1, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer, You are so right, some people have or find the motivation to achieve success no matter what. I read an article years ago that studied motivation in kids, and the author said that often the worst conditions did not stop and in fact motivated some kids to achieve great success, while others who had life on a silver platter had no motivation and failed miserably. There is that inner drive that motivates some people no matter what obstacles are in front of them, in fact they thrive on obstacles. Successful business people often have lots of failures along the way, but they learn from their failures, pick themselves up and move on to the next challenge.

By OldSchool

September 1, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

KA and Lee, at the risk of being drawn into a no-win blog, IOC has not divulged (and should not) the actual source of funding. I have a disabled friend, a retired-from-the-government friend, and a retired military friend. I guess I could consider their incomes to be government monies.

I just don’t need to know. I look after myself and my family and do what is right for us. We are by no means rich but we are happy and lead very busy lives…it’s our choice and, frankly my dears, our business.

Don’t you just love that we can be anonymous here?

By SNY

September 1, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

KA,

Your comment about motivation coming from horrible conditions is exactly what motivated me. I knew that I wanted kids one day and I also knew that I didn’t want them living that way. Don’t get me wrong, my house was okay and livable, but the neighborhood was horrible. My mother always told me that every generation is responsible for doing better than the last. I made it my mission and goal to do better than my parents and I have. The right motivation is crucial. The problem is, most kids aren’t getting the proper kind of motivation. All motivation isn’t good.

By Leia

September 1, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

Yes, I believe that IOC has a warped outlook on life, but, the bigger problem is a system that would allow him/her to do this!

By KA

September 1, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

SNY, Yes I was thinking of you, too. You are self-motivated and will motivate your kids to achieve, too. How do you trun the bad motivation to positive action?

Old School, IOC said she chose not to work, and lives off govt money, not that she’s disbled, retired, whatever. Yes, this is a seemingly no win blog, but worth the sparring, don’t you think? Winning isn’t the my goal in this blog. As SET said we learn more from “contrarian views” than from sitting around singing Kumbaya.

By IOC

September 1, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

KA I think the more you blog the bigger bigoted judgemental arse you appear to be. It is so obvious that you operate on emotions instead of intellect and I understand you are a teacher? Do I have that right? Why aren’t you working?

By IOC

September 1, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

Actually Leia I have a great outlook on life. I’m enjoying my free time, taking care of projects around the house and of course eating bons bons as much as possible.

By KA

September 1, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

I’m not a teacher, but you sure are a stubborn student.

By IOC

September 1, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

Karen you seem to have just as much time on your hands as me - not working either? Living off the old ball and chain? just another kind of parasite. Think of it this way I’m a stay at home mom and my husband is Uncle Sam.

By SET

September 1, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

SNY: It’s good to hear about people being raised on the notion that each generation was supposed to push the next higher.

Too bad the New Deal and Great Society programs changed all that. Now children are taught - at least in school - that the government is supposed to do everything.

Many parents nowadays behave as though the children can just go raise themselves. Their parents can rely on Social Security.

Would society have been netter off if government policy maintained a hands off approach - little to no social programs - and it was sink or swim? I doubt we’d have kids in school cursing out teachers.

The more you take care of people the worse they behave.

Brave New World!

By KA

September 1, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

I am off work today, getting ready for the Labor Day holiday weekend. What are your plans for the weekend? Taking some time off, too?

By IOC

September 1, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

Actually we are going on a mini vacation but I’ll have my laptop. What do you think about trust fund kids? They don’t earn their money they are born into it.

By KA

September 1, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

Is this a class envy debate? I admire anyone who is successful enough to establish trust funds for their family members. The trust fund recipients have many opportunities opened to them. Some make the most of their wealth, and some squander it, but it all goes back into the economy one way or the other.

By V for Vendetta

September 1, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

IOC, you’re still over here? The vibe I’m getting from you is you’re either a crank blogger, or you are pathetically stupid. No one could, or should, be that excited about living off of the money of others. I hope that your kids ARE smart, because then they might not turn out like you.

By IOC

September 1, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

KA everyone has some sort of entitlement program and everyone justifies - the indians, the minorities, big business so I’m just using what’s available to me. If I was still working my kids would have received a hefty sum of financial aid but now they receive even more. My old company dropped or started making us pay for healthcare and now I have that covered too. It wasn’t worth it anymore for me to go to a 50 hour a work week. I do what I have to as a head of household parent if its using the programs out there then that’s what I do. V for Vendetta that movie sucked.

By Taxpayer

September 1, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

I think I’d prefer IOC’s honesty about entitlements to a situation I see each day. A county commissioner’s kid goes to our neighborhood school, even though they live waaay out of the district. Kid comes to school in the latest designer duds, brags about exotic vacations taken with the family, and tells everyone about the new car forthcoming for the next birthday. And who is footing the bill for all this? I and all the other property owners in the school district and county. Commissioner voted in a raise for the board and our property taxes went up again this year. I’d rather my money went to IOC and her kids than this jet-setting commissioner and commissioner’s spoiled kid.

By KA

September 1, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

Our family has no entitlement program, no tax shelters, and no government rewards, rebates, credits or refunds. We are just working and paying our taxes and supporting our children.

By KA

September 1, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer, If the Commissioner’s child is not zoned for your neighborhood school, turn him in. Perhaps his mom teaches at the school? Or is the child residing with his mom in the district (parents maybe separated or divorced)?

By SNY

September 1, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

KA,

I honestly do not have a clue exactly what motivated me to want better. I know that Mr. Ward had alot to do with it, but I don’t know what he said that opened my eyes. I also had a MOTHER! that took no excuses and popped me on the butt when I needed it. I am a big fan of spankings if they are truly warranted and a last resort. My mom had my sister when she was only 15 and me when she was 16. You learn what NOT to do under those circumstances and it is up to you, as an individual, to accept the consequences. My mom didn’t have all of the money in the world nor did she have a lot of time because she was working so much. But, what she did have was a sense of responsibility to my sister and I. She made sure our homework was done when she got home and if it wasn’t, she woke us up and made us do it. She made sure that we were at school on time.

I don’t know what made me so determined, I just was and I still am.

By KA

September 1, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

SNY, You had your own internal motivation, and your mom obviously was a positive motivator, too. She did her job as a good parent to make you responsible and followed up when you went to school. Doesn’t sound too different from the parenting that I got. For the other kids who don’t have the good parenting and don’t have their own motivation, don’t you agree that they need a no nonsense, structured school environment, and they must be taught how to be responsible for their actions and to reject violence and uncivilized behavior?

By SNY

September 1, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

KA,

I do agree, but they need a no nonsense not a zero policy. There is a difference. Plus educators need to understand that they way some of them speak to the students is wrong. A BIG, BIG thing in these neighborhoods is respect. If a student, especially middle and high schoolers feel disrespected, they will come out fighting and won’t stop. Living in the ‘hood is completely different from living in a subdivision. Some of you may not believe me or understand this next statement, but teaching black kids from the ghetto is completely different from teaching other kids. They speak and understand a totally different language and culture. The ghetto is a culture within the American culture. If you are not from there, then you couldn’t understand.

These kids NEED lots of understanding. A person can be understanding, strict, loving and a stickler for the rules all at the same time. You can tell these kids no, but you have to help them understand why. Too many people today seem to think that telling a student no is okay without any explanation. It doesn’t work that way anymore.

By Taxpayer

September 1, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

KA, are you serious? No, mom doesn’t teach at the school, nor does dad. Kid resides with both parents. Hello! This is a COUNTY COMMISSIONER’S kid, and in this county, that’s all it takes. We have far too many administrative transfers for too many wrong reasons! “Turning in” someone does no good; believe me, I’ve tried.

This kid will probably bring down the SAT scores since the kid is not the proverbial brightest bulb. We have enough kids in the school who are struggling. We don’t need to import stupidity.

By g

September 1, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this

I do believe it’s time for KA and IOC to hug and kiss and make up. Hell for that matter, you should ask each other out, go to dinner, then beat the sh*t out of each other! Go to another blog to vent on each other.

By KA

September 1, 2006 06:10 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer, I don’t know where you live or who your commisioner is, so I was just bringing up possibilities. Hope all works out for the best at your school.

By KA

September 1, 2006 06:12 PM | Link to this

SNY, Sounds like your ghetto kids need a class taught by someone like you who had enough self-respect and motivation and who found her path to success. Why don’t you go back to the neighborhood and do it!

By KA

September 1, 2006 06:22 PM | Link to this

g, LOL, No I think IOC is just a troll poster. But I do know people who are choosing not to work so they can qualify under the low income limits for the college need $$. I had my say : ) Now I wish all of you a happy and safe holiday weekend. Be careful on the highways, and don’t drink and drive, and if you smoke think about quitting, and smile at your neighbor, hug your kids and play with your dogs. And remember, if you have a choice between being kind and being right, choose kindness.

By IOC

September 4, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

Karen what exactly is a troll poster? You just can’t wrap you little ol brain around the fact that someone that you consider a “loser” “a slacker” etc. could possibly have smart kids? I have been totally honest about our situation and I really choose not to work in order to get my kids better financial aid and other programs.

By KA

September 4, 2006 05:30 PM | Link to this

IOC, A troll poster is a phony poster. If you are for real, you can reread my posts and see that I said nothing about your smart kids. More power to them. I object to what you said in your posts because you, who have a degree, and had a job, refuse to work because it doesn’t pay for you to work, and you choose to live off the govt., and because health insurance at your former job cost too much so now you let the govt pick up the tab, and because you can have your husband Uncle Sam support you. You refuse to work because then your kids qualified under the low income guidelines for a whole lot more college financial aid, free ride you said. Aid they would not have gotten at their colleges otherwise, if I read your posts correctly. All I am saying is if you can work, you should. Too bad that it’s a struggle, but guess what, it’s struggle for the rest of us, too. As I said earlier, there is no “govt. money” as the government operates on the money raised from all of us working taxpayers. You are living off the rest of us. That’s what I object to. Happy Labor Day……