Get Schooled

By Jeff

July 25, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

Bridget:

I can’t speak for other families, but as far as me and T goes, I doubt our kids will go to Pre-K, even if given that option. Primary reason being that since we are both teachers (or were, at one point) we really don’t need it. She was an ES teacher for a few years, she knows what the kids need to know to be ready. And I’m just an all-around encyclopedia reader, so I’ll probably have the kids far more ready than they need to be anyway.

Point being: School doesn’t start the day they start government-run indoctrination programs. School starts the second they pop out of mommy.

On the flip side, school doesn’t end with graduation (be it HS, BS, MS, or Ph.D). It ends when they are in a pine box 6 feet underground.

By thomas

July 25, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

This is one reason why I thought about Cobb’s decision to eliminate its Pre-K classes. Many of the students served in Cobb Pre-K lived in the south part of the county. The southern portion of Cobb is majority black and Hispanic.

I think about if I were in the shoes of a teacher in South Cobb. Wouldn’t I want my students to have PRE-K? Remember these are students coming from homes where the parents are not “working with their children at home.” These are the most needy children. The people in East and West Cobb are doing well with their children. Pre-K or No pre-K. Even the ones in North Cobb do alright. It’s the ghetto dwellers who are having all the problems. Seriously.

All the problems Cobb is having with its schools came/are coming from the south end of the county. It’s a fact of life that the school must do all the work in these areas. There is no “home support”. They may have cut Pre-K for space and money reasons, but it will probably just be another little thing that will make it harder on the schools in the end.

By Lisa B.

July 25, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

Pre K is invaluable. I think it’s horrible that the promise of Pre K for all Georgia’s children has obviously been forgotten. While some parents may chose to keep their little ones at home one more year, I think most parents would take advantage of Pre K if it was available for everyone.

Let’s face it, poor and working moms far outnumber stay-at-home middle and upper class moms. Pre K programs are far more beneficial to children than being shuttled off to caregivers who let them watch television all day.

By catlady

July 25, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

No big surprise that Cobb decided to cut the program whose primary (initial) beneficiaries are poor and Latino. No sense wasting space on “those children”. Their parents don’t vote much and won’t show up at the school board meetings.

For the schools in “Afluent East Cobb”, how many were impacted by the Cobb BOE’s decision? And how many of those children were the low-SES kids in the area? Affluent parents either don’t use pre-k, or use private pre-K services in tony private schools. Check it out. I’d bet good money I am right. It is a win-win for the Cobb schools, in that they free up space that was being used for “those children” anyway.

Down the road, someone will pay a hefty price, however, in the less-prepared status of the kids who got shut out of pre-k. Maybe Cobb is counting on those families moving off, or being sent home.

By Truth Filter

July 25, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

I live in Atlanta and have a little girl going into pre-k next year. I’ve been pretty happy with the number of slots available WHEN you add in the private entities (churches, etc).

The way Atlanta schools fill pre-K slots is horrific and biased against poor and working families. There’s no lotter, it’s essentially first-come-first-serve. So parents camp out for days waiting for the slots? And who can do that? Families with stay-at-home Moms or Dads, people who can afford to take time off from work, etc. Essentially the wealthier folks.

Cobb has a space issue and I totally understand why they are doing this. The non-public school providers need to step up and offer the slots.

By thomas

July 25, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

Read the AJC article “Cobb gives preschoolers a harsh math lesson.” At the back of the article, on p. B8, it shows a graph detailing where EACH Cobb Pre-K site was and the number of private preschools that have taken up the slack.

Of the 20 sites, only 2 were in what we consider “good” neighborhoods. The rest were in majority black and/or Latino schools. As of this point, over 200 kids are shut out of Pre-K.

You have kids coming from Hispanic homes whose parents DESPERATELY want their children to learn good English (in contrast to what some hateful bigots might think). Now they are locked out. The people want to do the right thing. But, time and time again, some mean spirited, selfish people stand in the way.

Like me and others have said, these are the kids who need Pre-K the most.

What a shame. What a shame.

By Jeff

July 25, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

thomas:

If the parents can prove they are here legally, I have no problem exhausting every resource to find them a spot in Pre-K.

HOWEVER, if they can NOT, I fully support on the spot deportment. We already have to provide their daycare starting in K, why do we need to waste even more tax dollars on them at younger ages???

By Mike K

July 25, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

I have a general Pre-K question. Has there been a study that shows if Pre-K actually gives kids an advantage? Do they have better test scores? Do they have less disciplinary problems?

It was established in 1993. Those kids should be in high school by now right? How many have dropped out? There should be enough data points for an analysis to be done if it hasn’t already.

I’m not saying we should scrap the system. I’m just curious as to it’s effect on the kids.

By Jeff

July 25, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

Mike:

My disdain for (“revulsion of” is probably a better term) “research” is beginning to be a well known fact, but that aside, let me answer your question:

“Research” shows that by 3rd grade, there is no significant difference between those that went to Pre-K and those that did not.

By nita

July 25, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

What difference does it make if they are here illegally. Children do not make these decisions, their parents do. Can you get just as upset about our state legislature spending millions of dollars on stupid projects. our country is only as good as it’s citizens. Why do we turn a deaf ear to politicians who spend our tax dollars foolishly on nonsense but will cry loud and spare not about teaching a young child to speak english or get a very basic education. Our values are messed up.

By Jeff

July 25, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

nita:

One of the reasons they come is our superior schools. If we deny them access to said incentive, they will either come legally or not at all. Either of which is fine by me.

By catlady

July 25, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

Probably 95% of the kids in preK who are from illegal immigrant families were themselves born in the US and are US citizens. Whether you like that law or not, it stands (I personally think it should be changed immediately, but no one listens to me :)

By catlady

July 25, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this

Jeff, the research you cited: isn’t it on Head Start kids? I am unaware that the state has done any controlled studies on Ga prek.

By Tina

July 25, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

I looked into doing state funded Pre-K in Cobb for my son who is four for this coming school year. I decided against it primarily because of the long hours—I just don’t think my son is ready to be in school from 8 to 3 each day. But, the more I thought about it, I really didn’t want to take the space because I wanted the space to be available for a child whose parents couldn’t afford private preschool.

By thomas

July 25, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this

Most Hispanic children in school WERE born in the United States. In fact, in all of my experience teaching Latino children, the vast majority have spent their entire school career in U.S. public schools (WHICH IS ONE REASON WHY I DISCOUNT THE FALLACY OF A ‘LANGUAGE BARRIER’ AS BEING THE CAUSE LOW ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AMONG HISPANIC STUDENTS).

By the second and third grades, these students speak “good English.” In fact many Kindergarten teachers tell me that, even when they get students new to the country and don’t speak English, “they soak it up like sponges” and “learn so quickly.”

Therefore it must be some other reason why these kids struggle— AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INTELLIGENCE— DESPITE WHAT SOME HATEFUL BIGOTS MAY BELIEVE.

By Jeff

July 25, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this

cat:

Look at my post. I said if the PARENTS can prove they are here legally.

As to the “research”: I thought preK and HeadStart were the same thing…

By Lauren

July 25, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

Remember these are students coming from homes where the parents are not “working with their children at home.” These are the most needy children. The people in East and West Cobb are doing well with their children. Pre-K or No pre-K. Even the ones in North Cobb do alright. It’s the ghetto dwellers who are having all the problems. Seriously.

By Re: FAQ's and AJC blog policy

July 25, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this

Bridget, Since you (and guest hosts) have suggested bloggers submit their own topics, it raises some questions that aren’t covered in the AJC blogs FAQ. Could you please address the following

1) Why does the AJC ask for an email address when blogging?

2) If a school system, or other entity didn’t like something you had to say, would Bridget (on anyone else at the AJC) give the them the email address, or any other information, such as IP address of the blogger who posted, which might compromise their anonymity? Is there a specific policy in place to prohibit that?

4) Has a school system, or any other person or entity, ever contacted you asking you to provide “inside info” on a blogger, such as the email address, because of something they didn’t like?

3) Do you even know the email addresses of those who blog when they submit a post? This would make all this a moot point, at least from your point of view; but I’m sure somebody in the AJC would know. Would the same “off the record” policy apply to them as well as reporters?

4) If a blogger sends you an email to suggest a topic, is that email address considered “off the record”? Or again is there a policy in place to prohibit you from saying “It came from Mrs.Smith@yahoo.com”

5) If there are policies in place to keep bloggers off the record, are the always followed?

Yes, this is a little bit cautious, but I’ve heard too many horror stories about retaliation, so any info you provide is helpful so thank you in advance. I know it’s a lot of questions, but if you could just sum up the gist of it, that would be nice.

And to “Jeff” who doesn’t seem to give a flip about who knows him. You seem to be up on technology. Would you care to venture an opinion on just how “anonymous” a blogger can be. Or more importantly, can’t be?

Thanks

By Jeff

July 25, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this

re:

The reason I really don’t care who knows me is because I have nothing to hide. Anything that can damage me has already been done and I’ve already gotten through it, relatively unscathed. Note, however, that I HAVE been careful with my last name. In other words, since I am as open in the real world as I am here, all it would take is someone to be around me for 6 months or so to be able to reasonably impersonate me here. And I can use that fact as a shield, if it becomes truly necessary.

As far as internet privacy goes: Another AJC columnist can answer it far better than I, as he was involved in this fight during his stay on Capitol Hill, but suffice it to say that there IS NO SUCH THING as TRUE “internet privacy”. The phrase is truly one of the biggest oxymorons out there.

By thomas

July 25, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

Jeff is no longer involved in education, so it really won’t matter if anyone knew who he was.

In a way, he’s a lucky man. To be honest, the public education system sucks. It’s too political. If it were just about teaching students, it would be alright. But the “little Napoleans”, cliques, and fiefdoms get in the way.

By Jeff

July 25, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this

thomas:

You’re wrong on one point in your last:

I’m still HIGHLY involved in education. In fact, you may some day see my name on a ballot for one particular state level job…. (it is an idea I have been toying with for a while…)

By Elaine

July 25, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

How does almost every topic here degenerate to racial arguments?

Instead of berating the Cobb schools for pulling the Pre-K programs in their buildings in lower income areas, how about applauding them for ever offering Pre-K in those areas in the first place?

It’s not that the pre-K programs were pulled out of South Cobb only, it’s that they were offered in South Cobb only. So when they were pulled, that’s where they were pulled. With overcrowding as it is, the schools’ first and funded job is to educate K-12. The state’s plan for Pre-K never addressed space. Yes, it funds teachers and materials, but does not give the entities (public or private) offerring the program monies to construct classrooms.

This is not the Cobb School System’s problem. This is the State of Georgia’s problem. What would be most telling—but missing from the article—is the number of 4-year-old children in GA, and the number of slots that are funded. I would be shocked if it was anywhere near half. One blogger mentioned the “promise” of Pre-k for Georgia’s children. I never heard that promise, and if one was made, it should be recanted.

And honestly, what are we hoping for here? It was only a generation ago that Kindergarten wasn’t public. Now it’s been added and everyone starts school at 5. (Well, not everyone. Kindergarten isn’t required. Some parents do still keep their children home until first grade.) Now that this minimal Pre-K program has begun, folks are feeling entitled to free public education at 4 years old. Is our ultimate goal someplace run by the gov’t to care for our children from birth? Where do we draw the line? Do we really want our children to spend so much of their early years in institutional situations? Why have kids if you’re just going to complain that someone else isn’t taking care of them for you?

I know it sounds harsh…but seriously, where/when do we take responsibility for raising our own children?

By Blueja

July 25, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this

Maybe if we could get just one generation of children away from those parents at birth (24/7) we could stop the cycle of entitlement mentality. If you couldn’t take care of your spawn yourself you should give them up.

By catlady

July 25, 2007 6:24 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Jeff. Actually, I think the MOTHER should have to prove her legal status. Where I live, virtually none of the mothers are here legally, while perhaps 15-20% of the dads are. And since mothers do not HAVE to name the father….

Headstart is a federal program. I believe you read the research on them. They serve a slightly different clientele than pre k (some overlap, to be sure). Headstart targets low income families, provides parenting support, and works with 3 year olds also.

I am not aware that ANY research, other than basic tab analysis, has been done on any of the early groups of pre k. There is some anecdotal evidence from kindergarten teachers that pre k makes their lives easier. Just like our state to spend millions on a program and not provide for analysis of effects/benefits or lack of! We are very, very good at it. If someone knows of a source for unbiased research on the pre k program in Georgia, please blog. Dana, are you there?

By Bridget Gutierrez

July 25, 2007 6:27 PM | Link to this

Re: The AJC does have some policies regarding community bloggers who write for us regularly, but those guidelines mostly cover ethical issues (such as disclosing conflicts of interest), not privacy or anonymity concerns.

As far as Get Schooled goes: You can see from past guest bloggers that I allow the use of screen names, rather than real names, if the bloggers so choose. This obviously provides a level of privacy.

I also don’t publish any personal details about the blogger (for example, what county they live in), unless he or she agrees. But I do try to give people some sense of where the blogger is coming from (teacher perspective, parent, principal, etc.) if it’s not obvious in the post.

I do communicate with guest bloggers through e-mail (and therefore have their e-mail addresses) as that’s the medium through which the guest blogs are submitted. But I’ve never been asked to give up the contact information for a guest blogger.

All that being said, I won’t run guest blogs that are defamatory, have unsubstantiated information or are aimed at settling some kind of personal vendetta.

Just because someone submits a guest blog, doesn’t mean that it will end up being used.

I can’t speak to why an e-mail address is required to post or who in our company has access to that information. Those are technical issues that I’m just not involved in.

You’re welcome to contact our interactivity manager, Lea Donosky, who should be able to answer your more detailed questions. She can be reached at ldonosky@ajc.com.

By catlady

July 25, 2007 6:34 PM | Link to this

Elaine, I believe the public school kindergarten program began in 1972 here in Georgia. And your thesis that those folks should just be thankful for the pre k that they used to have sounds like being thankful that daddy isn’t beating you anymore.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about parental responsibility. In the best world, folks would not have children if they were not mentally, physically, emotionally, and financially prepared to take good care of them. However, we have to deal with reality at this point.

By Greengirl

July 25, 2007 6:38 PM | Link to this

Every child, no matter what status, deserves an education. Pre K is a great opportunity for all children, regardless race and class. These kids will be adults paying taxes in 18 years and we owe it to bring up the next generation the best possible manner. It is our duty.

By Greengirl

July 25, 2007 6:44 PM | Link to this

Every child deserves an education no matter whom their parents are. We have a duty to provide the best education possible to every child in society. We should not judge whether a parent should have a child or not unless they are in danger. Children should be cherished and given all the tools possible to grow into well rounded adults, even if it is not from their parents. Remember, the kids should not be faulted for who their parents are.

By thomas

July 25, 2007 6:49 PM | Link to this

Elaine,

The free Pre-K was promised to Georgians. Former governor Zell Miller used the Pre-K pitch (along with the HOPE scholarship) to help get the voters to approve the state lottery back in the 1990’s.

As for the Cobb Pre-K issue, I take it the reason the Pre-K’s were mostly in the south part of the county was probably due to demand. I sure we can agree that people in the other parts of the county have more resources than those in the south.

The entire point of prekindergarten is to help give kids, WHO MAY NOT GET THE CHANCE OTHERWISE, a fighting chance once they get to school.

THESE KIDS NEED IT— WHITE, BLACK, OR HISPANIC. IT’S NOT AN ISSUE OF RACE, BUT SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS. These are all lower income people, for the most part. People say that this is a largely minority area, but quite a few whites live there as well.

By Southernlady

July 25, 2007 7:06 PM | Link to this

Do kids need to be institutionalized at 4 years of age?

By jim d

July 26, 2007 8:12 AM | Link to this

Stats have indicated that success in preschool often hinges on a child having a very strong parent component.

So urging parents and caregivers to get involved and engage their children in conversation, reading to and with him and building his cognitive skills will enhance anything introduced in preschool. Pre-k programs simply supplement and enhance home experiences and environments.

Now the question: Are the parents complaining the loudest about losing pre-k availability really doing their part or are they dependent upon the state to raise their kids?

By gtfan

July 26, 2007 8:57 AM | Link to this

I wonder how many of these kids are anchor babies, parents work illegally, parents don’t pay taxes to fund programs like these, and then take spots away from ‘legal’ families?

Oh yeah, and they clearly state they don’t speak english around their kids, they expect the teachers to teach them english b/c the parents don’t speek ‘GOOD’ english, aka more tax money for ESOP programs.

By jim d

July 26, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this

gt,

consider also the crack head single moms of ten, with no visible means of support other than the state.

By thomas

July 26, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

One last thing on the Cobb Pre-K issue:

The Cobb School System eliminated their Pre-K because they knew they could get away with it. You haven’t heard one peep from the community about the elimination of the Pre-K program. Not one peep.

We are sitting on this blog talking about it, but it doesn’t directly affect a single person here. The people really affect are silent- as always.

Ok, we can give the Hispanics a pass. But about these other people- the American citizens who have spent generations in this country. People who are TOTALLY LEGAL and are quick to b_h, gripe, try to find fault with others, make excuses, and complain about any and everything else they don’t like about school.

No one went to a board meeting. We didn’t read about protests in the newspaper. I guess it’s just another piece of evidence that shows that, as a whole, only middle class parents really place some value on education and academic achievement.

You only hear from the rest when there is a problem or they don’t like somebody. Then their fat behind comes to the school. Otherwise, you don’t see or hear from these rodents. They do not work with their children in the slightest when it comes to learning or school. Will complain when they have to supply their children with pencils or paper, or other school supplies. You get no effort from them and very little effort from their children when it comes to school.What a shame. It appears that all the motivated people really are in the middle class ‘burb schools- teachers, parents, and students.

By Elaine

July 26, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

catlady,

I believe we agree more than disagree.

To clarify: my poory-made point was simply that we shouldn’t villify the Cobb County Schools as some sort of immigrant-hater, which was the leaning of many of the posts. Cobb clearly identified and sought to fill a need by offerring the pre-K in the southern part of the county. However, when budgets are tight and space is tighter, they had to pull back and use their resources for their primary role—K-12 education. Pre-K, at this point, is the State’s job, not the County’s. The State knew that Cobb was dropping their program, and it was the State’s job to cut through their own red tape and approve some of these private centers in the area in time for school to start.

And as far as “those folks should just be thankful for the pre k that they used to have”: that is not at all what I was implying. I was not referring to South Cobb parents of 4-year-olds, but to the un-related people here again bashing Cobb and jumping to a racist conclusion. Also, Pre-K is a one-year program. There’s no child who was enrolled in pre-k last year, who was expecting to attend again this year.

By Elaine

July 26, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

And Thomas,

Miller’s promise of free Pre-K wasn’t to every child in GA. It was begun specifically to address the school readiness of socioeconomically disadvantaged children. When those in the state legislature decided that was discriminatory and that Pre-K should be made available to any child, regardless of family income, the funding simply wasn’t there to immediately make a slot for every 4-year-old in Georgia. The personnel, training, materials, facilities, etc, are not there and have never been there. Unlike the Cobb Schools, who took the original spirit of the initiative and found the facility space to offer it where they saw their pre-k kids needing it, a significant amount of that $$ is now going to private day-care centers that are offering the program to fairly well-off and/or school-ready children. It’s a gov’t funded program that is great advertising for them.

As a mom of preschoolers, I am regularly shocked to hear so many working parents (in $500K+ homes with 2 or 3 cars) excited that they’re going to get a year of “free day care” now that their child is 4 years old. In fact, at a child’s birth, some people are now choosing day care centers based on whether the particular center offers State Pre-K at four-years-old…because it’s free. And if you don’t get in the center before you’re 3, there won’t be a slot for you in the Pre-K class.

Like him or not, this is not what Zell was talking about. And this is not the Cobb County Public Schools’ fault. This is the State’s waste and mess to clean up. And they won’t, because once a program is started, people consider it an entitlement, and taking it away makes a politician a villian. This situation is a prime example.

By thomas

July 26, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

Elaine,

You are right with the statement that the state Pre-K “was begun specifically to address the school readiness of socioeconomically disadvantaged children.” This is exactly the kind of children that were being served in those south Cobb schools.

And you were right about the parents HAPPY for free daycare, regardless of wealth or income level. Sadly, that is the opinion of many Americans in regards to “education” and schooling- it is free daycare.

By Elaine

July 26, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

Thomas,

You are right on the money. And as long as people hand over their parenting responsibilities to the gov’t or other educational institution, children will suffer.

People are so up in arms about “schools today,” and so many statistics are startling and disheartening. What people fail to figure into the equation is “the family today” and “economics today” and “nutrition today” and “public health today” and the list could go on and on… The problem is so much bigger than what goes on inside the schools. It’s all to easy to lay full blame for all of society’s ills at their feet.

By catlady

July 26, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

Elaine, thanks for the clarification. I think we are in agreement, mostly.

What cooks my grits are the decisions that are made and justified on the backs of poor folks because the wealthy will raise cain. So we have push in ESOL, push in special ed, but, so far, no push in gifted programs, at least in my area. THOSE children are pulled out and served separately and given sleep-over field trips, etc.

Now, I think our gifted program, generally, is a joke. But keep an eye out for changes that are made “because they need the space” or whatever that have an impact disproportionately on poorer families.

By Ernest

July 26, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

Good points, Elaine! This program of good intentions has evolved into another entitlement program. Perhaps if those that will be mostly impacted by this voiced concerns, a workable solution could have been found. Some may argue that it is funded by lottery revenues not tax dollars but the government is the ultimate middle man in this.

Admittedly, I’m not aware of the student housing challenges in Cobb. I thought that was part of the reason for eliminating their program, to get additional classrooms back and provide some trailer relief. Anyone recall the reasons?

By thomas

July 26, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

That is so very true. The “gifted” are mostly students of the middle class. The poor make up ESOL and SPED.

The gifted class is ALL day, one day a week. It is essentially a social club for “special” people. They get to do “special activities” that really have nothing to do with schoolwork. Things like making board games and going on “vision quests”.

You see, you can’t “push-in” for gifted and go on wagon trains pretending you’re back West.

I’m all for gifted education. It really does have a benefit (WHEN PROPERLY UTILIZED) for challenging high achieving students. But I would like to see SPED and ESOL students get the best education possibly for them as well. Dump in, I mean push in, is not always best. The “push-in” model is being RAMMED DOWN people’s throats because SPED and ESOL students are thought of as second and third class citizens. These kids are not even worthy of a classroom now. Soon they will not even be worthy of a teacher. They will truly be dumped at that point.

By Elaine

July 26, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

Ernest,

Thanks for the agreement. In my understanding, Cobb’s primary reasoning for eliminating on-site Pre-K was space…but I may be wrong.

Another sticking point as we examine what’s becoming lottery-funded advertising for daycare centers: State Pre-K ends at 3:00. Many of these centers have been taking care of these 4-year-olds since they were babies. They know their parents aren’t going to all the sudden be able to pick them up at 3:00 when they’ve been getting there around 6:00 for the last 3 years…SO, what’s a center owner to do, but charge two to three times the average hourly rate for “after care” for those State Pre-K 4-year-olds whose parents can’t get there by 3:00. The “free” daycare doesn’t end up so free after all…

By Lee

July 27, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this

Thomas, if schools would do the one thing that actually makes sense to help academic performance for ALL students, you wouldn’t have this animosity toward the gifted program.

That is, group by ability and teach at a pace appropriate for that particular group.

Grouping by ability. That is the core function of A/P, Honors, College Prep, Gifted etc, etc, etc. programs out there.

Now, as far as Pre-K. I personally don’t see the need for it. I also don’t think Kindergarten is needed as well. For decades, when common sense was the norm in schools, children started school in the FIRST grade (what a concept). You see, back then, people realized that there was an optimum age when a child’s brain had developed to the point where they could begin formal education.

Of course, then the Phd’s began their onslaught of social experimentation and we wind up where we are today….

By thomas

July 27, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

Here’s the deal: It seems that some people only want the middle class to get an appropriate education and to have their needs met. This includes the “gifted”, since RESEARCH AND FACTS PROVE THAT THE MAJORITY OF GIFTED STUDENTS ARE PREDOMINATELY WHITE AND MIDDLE CLASS. This is a fact. Check the percentage of students served through gifted programs at various schools. You’ll find that the largest percentage served is at schools in Forsyth Co, east Cobb, North Fulton, etc. and the lowest percentage is at schools with high minority populations.

In fact, if you do the research, you will find that as the percentage of minority and lower socioeconomic students increases in a school, the number of students classified as gifted drops. You will find schools with populations of 800, with only 10-15 gifted students. Yet in higher socioeconomic areas, the percentage served can go has high as 20% of the student population. Last year I read about a middle school in Forsyth Co. with 25% of the pop served through gifted. Researchers say that 4% on average is gifted. Yet again- 9 students out of 750 is not 4%. In fact the average percentage of gifted at a school with a significant lower income student population is 1-2%. But we all know that most people don’t consider these kids “smart” anyway.

My issue is not really with gifted education. It’s with the allocation of resources to all groups of people, regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic status, religion, or family status. The middle class represents only about 20% of our population. Yet that’s all anyone seems to care about. Even on this blog I hear people time and time and time again BLOW OFF and BESMIRCH any efforts to provide education and resources to all students. EVERY SINGLE DAY somebody has some comment to make as to why poor and working class students should not have this or that, etc. Look at the whole Pre-K issue. Some people are against Pre-K because they think mostly lower income people benefit from it.

It’s mean spirited and selfish frankly. What any enlightened person would know is that this 60-70% of our population is going to have to have a place in our society once they leave school. If they are not given a good education and hope, they will end up being bums on the street, CRIMINALS, or sitting at home watching Judy Judy or General Hospital and getting welfare, section 8 and food stamps.

Think about that before you cry about “crime”. Oh, and by the way, you WILL NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, be able to bring up “immigration” or “deportation” because these are black and white people I am talking about- AMERICAN CITIZENS. When you read the papers, the majority of criminals are “good ole Americans.” I’ve had more trouble out of “good ole Americans” than any immigrants.

For the most part, our schools and society as failed “ole Americans.” This is why we are in the condition we are in today.