Get Schooled

By teach overseas

May 1, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Bridget-

Is this seriously a major issue in your life? Restaurants that may have a few “kinks” in the system? What, your dinner was a little late? Your baked potato not as fluffy as you like? Your salad fork not chilled enough?

I think if this is one of the few hard and fast rules you need to live by, you can sit back with a sigh of relief and count your blessings- life is going pretty good for you.

By JustMe

May 1, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

I would be very wary of sending a child of mine to a new college. There is no established reputation, and for a college diploma, that means a lot. Also, the professors may not be as good simply because of their (supposed) lack of experience.

I think that Georgia Gwinnett College is doing the right thing by taking it slowly at first. They do, however, need to quickly become accredited.

Assumming that GA Tech and UGA are first tier colleges, I wonder how many second tier colleges and third tier colleges the GA system can handle? I would consider GA State, Valdosta, Mercer, Georgia Southern, Kennesaw, etc. as second tier; and Perimeter, Dalton, etc. as third tier.

By Jamie

May 1, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

I enrolled my daughter in a brand new charter school this year. Enrollment is by lottery, so we enrolled early to increase our odds of getting a spot. I knew there would be a risk, but if it was everything they (the charter) said it would be, it would be worth it. I did attend some board meetings, for the opportunity to meet the founders, but the bottom line is you don’t know if it will work until it is tried in real life.

There were a few kinks, but nothing major. And seeing how the school dealt with the “kinks” was very beneficial, because I know where their priorities lie. The risk has paid off in our case, because it is almost impossible to enroll now, because of the demand. I think there were less than five students that did not re-enroll out of 260 plus students K-5.

It can be applied to the restaurant situation, too. If the restaurant turns out to be a smashing success, it may be hard to get a reservation in the future…

By mmm

May 1, 2007 2:18 PM | Link to this

As with ever choice, it depends upon what the other choice is. It also depends upon the confidence you have in the competence of the leadership, and your own tolerance for the unknown. The both the highs and lows can be greater, and you should go in expecting some bumps.

That being said, starting anew can be extremely empowering because all those unwritten rules and expectations in established schools have yet to be written.

For me and my children it has been a success. I have enjoyed being empowered to create new traditions.

But it is also extremely hard to create and maintain anything truly different in public education.

By Curious Observer

May 1, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

I must disagree with JustMe’s assumptions. Writing as a retired college professor, I can say with some confidence that the best teachers are in the Tier 2 and Tier 3 colleges she lists, along with others like them. If I want to be assured of good classroom instruction, I want instructors who are hired to teach, not to conduct research and slough off their classroom responsibilities to graduate assistants.

I fail to see what a student gains by being placed in a lecture hall filled with 120 students, as is most likely to occur in one of JustMe’s Tier 1 schools. There is little individualized attention and little opportunity to interact with the instructor.

True, the lack of accreditation is a major drawback for a new college. But as one who has endured numerous accreditation visits, I can tell you that accreditation is seldom about the quality of instruction. The focus is largely on finances, the size of library resources, planning, and other factors. In fact, an accreditation team usually does not even visit a classroom. However, the lack of accreditation will pose a huge obstacle to a graduate’s plans to go on to graduate school or to enter certain professions.

If I want a student to learn to write and really learn the basics of mathematics and science, give me JustMe’s Tier 2 and Tier 3 colleges every time. It’s time that consumers of education drop the preconception that being a “flagship” university or a major user of state appropriations is an indication of the quality of instruction offered.

By HL

May 1, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

I agree with Curious Observer about classroom instruction and the quality teachers.

Also, the accreditation process is not that long. My father went through it. He was the director of Finance for a small school. He did it for the students, so that credits could transfer much easier and they could get student loans which would allow the school to raise the tuition and actually being able to break-even instead of paying $100’s of dollars per student before they even attend one class.

By BBT

May 1, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

My issue isn’t with new schools, but with new methods of teaching. This “Everyday Math” teaching method has proven to be a failure. Kids in California who have taken this method of math fell way behind on test scores. Tried and true math techniques made kids learn their times tables and simple addition equations cold. Kids didn’t used to have “group discussion” over how to solve a math problem.
In reading, we have this new “Whole Language” method which produces illiterates in third grade instead of the tried and true phonics or synthetic phonics. Guess what? These methods are pushed in Washington by the Department of Labor when choices of teaching methods used to be at the local level. Parents used to have a say at the PTA. Now, only Bushee or the Democratic Congress has a say with this Federal No Child Left Behind Act. Good luck trying to get a federal program changed! You used to be able to make changes with a teacher conference.

By catlady

May 1, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this

Great posts, everybody!

BBT, get ready for Singapore Math! We have so many more “miracle cures” to be stuck down our throats! More slogans! Less local control! Less real educator say-so! (more failure)

By JD

May 1, 2007 3:43 PM | Link to this

JustMe,

Not that I really care that you consider Mercer to be in league with Valdosta State, Georgia Southern, and Kennesaw State but I just thought I’d let you know some facts about Mercer:

It’s considered to be in the top 10% of colleges and universities in the country according to the Princeton Review. Our school is also ranked as the No. 9 University in the Master’s Category in the South according to U.S. News and World Reports.

Mercer’s not as low as you think, just look for yourself.

By JustMe

May 1, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

My dear CuriousObserver,

Why so sensitive? I never, even once, eluded that the schools I listed as “tier 1” were any better or worse than “tier 2.” It was you that made the assumption of that….

I wonder why you are so senstivie to the topic, however?

By JustMe

May 1, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

BBT -

I agree. Our society is so desperate to find some miracle teaching method to solve our dropping scores and our drop out rates. However, IMHO, this is a symptom not of the teaching but of the home life and of society itself (what is valued, etc.).

Schools and teachers simply cannot become surrogate parents or a home facsimile. Schools cannot fill the void for societies ills. Schools are meant to educate - plain and simple. The sooner everyone recognizes this, the better.

By decaturparent

May 1, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this

BBT - NCLB, and specifically the Reading First section of NCLB do not push whole language at all. In fact just the opposite is true. The Reading First program has pushed Direct Instruction, a McGraw Hill program that is scripted and phonics based only. They also push DIBELS an assessment system that is also strictly phonics based, decoding based and measures speed at decoding nonsense words rather than comprehension.

Teaching reading using only phonics doesn’t work. Teaching reading using only whole language doesn’t work either. A combination is necessary, and the specific mixture of what works depends on the class that a teacher has in any given year or even on the individual student.

NCLB/Reading First pushes towards a solely phonics approach at the expense of developing reading comprehension and a love of reading. It takes away teacher discretion. It is also chock full of favoritism for companies owned by Bush friends and supporters which is why it is currently under investigation by the Justice Dept.

I have a good blog topic, btw. Hilary Clinton just came out strongly against NCLB, particularly the way it makes it difficult if not impossible to teach creativity and critical thinking. She gave a speech to a teachers’ association slamming it. How about a blog about whether you would vote for Hilary (or any other politican)if she promises to get rid of NCLB as we know it.

By erica

May 1, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this

The problem with public education is that stupid people breed more and create stupid kids. High IQ people think ahead, use birth control and have careers and life interests that encourage them to have children much later and to have fewer of them.

As a result, we have a heck of a lot more stupid people around than we did a few decades ago, and this problem will continue to get worse. It’s hard to teach them, and everyone blames public schools for it.

By high school teacher

May 1, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

Good question, decaturparent. However, universal health care scares me even more than NCLB, which is why I wouldn’t vote for Hilary.

By JustMe

May 1, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this

erica -

What you suggest is not reality. There are many very smart students born from very dumb parents…. and visa versa. I currently have a student that scored near perfect on the SAT - born from parents so dumb they never even got them a social security number (they didn’t know how and honestly didn’t know why it would be important). So now the kid cannot apply to colleges because they don’t have a social.

The point is that there have always been dumb people and smart people and I don’t think that this ratio has really changed much at all.

What has changed is what people value. Kids see rich rappers with million dollar homes driving Bentley autos - these rappers have dropped out of high school and can barely speak English. The publicity of successful people (in terms of money) without education has misled kids into thinking that education is not needed and so it is not valued. And, the parents have become such bad parents they don’t even bother to correct that misconception.

Schools cannot “fix” this problem.

By 30YearsIn

May 1, 2007 4:24 PM | Link to this

New schools are only as good or as bad as the faculty and staff that opens the new facility. Most teachers hired for a new school are excited about the opportunity to begin a new school history and traditions. Usually they put a very strong administrator at new schools, so they are going to be very picky about what kind of teachers they hire. As far as new colleges are concerned, there is the issue of accreditation. Just because the college is new, doesn’t mean the professors aren’t any good. In fact, many folks are looking for a pure teaching situation and don’t want the hassles of research, publishing, etc. My husband wanted just that when he started teaching college chemistry many years ago. He was tough but fair, and seemed to be well liked by his students.

By catlady

May 1, 2007 4:51 PM | Link to this

Amen to what Decaturparent said about RF, but it is really a lot WORSE than what she said! The three years of it at our school have RUINED our kids. Boy, they can call words fast, but don’t have a clue about what they have read. We can “read” the CRCT in record time, but don’t ask any questions about it! And it has bred into them that calling words fast IS reading. SPEED KILLS! I’d like one of those old bumper stickers. The thing is, when they start understanding what the words they are calling mean, they SLOW DOWN because they go back and reread, check for understanding, etc. 80% of our kids hate reading now.

RF is based on a number of faulty ideas, besides the “fluency” mantra. It also says that kids have trouble reading because they and their teachers have not worked harder on it, bought the right stuff, etc. AND, as decaturparent says, it is enriching to an astronomical degree, friends of GWB who just “happen” to publish the books, the tests, etc. Makes me sick that we are prostituting these kids’ education for profit. At least, that is how I see it.

By Tony

May 1, 2007 7:24 PM | Link to this

New schools or old schools - it does not matter. What matters is the action on the inside! decaturparent is correct in her points about Reading First. Our system has rejected that bandwagon in favor of maintaining a balance of phonics and whole language.

BBT - Everyday Math has not ruined anyone. Poor math instruction occurs everyday when scripted programs try to cram facts into the heads of children without teaching them how to understand the language of numbers. Rote drills of math facts, rows of problems worked individually, and other strategies do not improve students’ understanding of mathematics.

Good teaching is what makes a difference for children. Not a new school. Not an old school.

PS: Older restaurants with a good reputation are where I like to eat.

By jim d

May 2, 2007 8:12 AM | Link to this

“So tell me: Do the benefits of attending a brand-new school outweigh the risks of not knowing what you might get?”

In short. K-12? yes. I’ve been involved with 2 new start-ups and have been fortunate enough to have found strong leadership at both schools. JMHO, but it is all about leadership - leadership.

College? NO. I guess my problem would be non-accredited. Students wishing to transfer to another college might find the credits were not transferable.

By jim d

May 2, 2007 8:12 AM | Link to this

“So tell me: Do the benefits of attending a brand-new school outweigh the risks of not knowing what you might get?”

In short. K-12? yes. I’ve been involved with 2 new start-ups and have been fortunate enough to have found strong leadership at both schools. JMHO, but it is all about leadership - leadership.

College? NO. I guess my problem would be non-accredited. Students wishing to transfer to another college might find the credits were not transferable.

By JustMe

May 2, 2007 8:16 AM | Link to this

Tony -

I would disagree with what you say makes a difference for children. The primary factor is not good teaching (although it helps a lot), the primary factor is good parenting.

Parents that are involved with their children…. make sure that they do homework, read the textbooks, practice math problems, read other books, teach them good ethics and morals, teach them manners, teach them how to respect adults and other people, etc. THAT is the difference for children.

By jim d

May 2, 2007 8:26 AM | Link to this

Just me,

Not to be disagreeable but I do believe it’s a combination of factors both inside and outside of the school house that makes the difference.

By KA

May 2, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this

Institution reputations are built by faculty and students together. As the students succeed after graduation the colleges use their success each year to attract better faculty and students. The Ivy league schools are prestigious because they have had such a long time to develop their success. Now they are at a point where they can admit the top academic 1-2% of students, most of whom will work their butts off and succeed. Top tier Georgia Tech and Georgia have accomplished faculties and can also limit enrollment to top students who are more inclined to work and succeed as well. As institutions age and mature and enjoy success, then the quality of instruction and students is elevated overall. A student can get an excellent education at a 2nd or 3rd tier college, too, but their choice of studies are limited, and they may not be pushed to compete at a high level if the caliber of fellow students is not as high. It has nothing to do with class size, either. Core curriculum classes may be large for freshmen and sophomores at large schools, but at most schools the large lecture math and science classes have small group study classes that also meet each week where students work problems and interact with an instructor. Once a student is in his major, the upper level classes are usually small classes. I’ve had 3 kids in college over the last seven years at Georgia Tech and UGA, and this has been their experience. No matter what school the student chooses, what matters is the work the student puts into hisr education. Spoon feeding time is over and students must actively pursue their learning. It’s real life, and you get out of it what you put into it.

By high school teacher

May 2, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this

If I may piggyback your comments, KA, I think that’s why those entry level math and history lecture classes at big schools like UGA are so large - it’s weeding out time. Those serious students will seek assistance with concepts they don’t understand, and those not-so-serious students won’t make it more than two semesters.

By KA

May 2, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

HS teacher, I agree, the students have to participate and seek help. However, the universities are concerned about retention, and I know that GT makes an effort to provide small class study sessions and tutoring options for first and second year students that are struggling. It costs the universities to have students drop or fail out.