Get Schooled

By V for Vendetta

October 3, 2007 8:40 AM | Link to this

Perhaps it’s just the opposite. I have the rare perspective of teaching at one of the schools I attended as a student, and the differences shock me on a daily basis. What was once considered acceptablely rigorous in certain classes is now deemed too tough. What was once a scandalous discipline issue we rarely encountered is now a weekly problem. Sometimes new and improved really means just different and worse.

I’m sure all of these proposed changes will magically alleviate many of Dekalb County’s educational woes. Obviously, right? I’m sure throwing around the words “charter school” makes Jalvin feel all important inside, but does that really mean much to the overwhelming majority of Gwinnett Co. students? Cobbs laptops sounded nice, but look how that turned out.

No, what we need isn’t new and improved, it’s a taste of the “old school,” a taste that’s been lacking for at least a decade or two. We need a backbone back in education, we need standards that aren’t dumbed-down by some @ssinine national curriculum, and we need more educators and less educrats.

I’m tired of new and improved because new and improved rarely works. If they — the educrats, Sonny boy, etc. — want to “improve” education in Georgia, they can start by building more Technical schools, testing kids rigorously in 8th grade to determine ability and competancy, and then sending them on the path that works best for them (similar to many of the European education models).

But that will never happen, because this is Georgia, where every kid is special and can go to college. What improvements we’ve made. Please.

By Jeff

October 3, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this

I think the problem is more that they are trying to use 18th century techniques to teach 22nd century topics.

It just doesn’t work that way.

Eliminate the public school structure as we know it now COMPLETELY.

Replace it with a web-based approach with a tutoring center staffed 24/7. Every 5,000 students gets its own tutoring center. Parents could bring their kids in for help on their own schedule, and the kids that don’t need any help at all could breeze through their lessons. ALL get to go at their own pace, with the caveat that you MUST complete x number of entire subjects in any given fiscal year.

Parents would be forced to PARENT, and the tutors could do what teachers are truly supposed to be doing now: TEACH/ tutor.

To teach 22nd century topics, you need a 22nd century approach.

The time is now, and we have no time to waste.

By Ernest

October 3, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this

I think some programs that were successful in the past (i.e. Vo-Tech, Home Ec, etc.) are being repackaged and renamed then being offered as options for today.

In DeKalb, the motivating factors were to offer more choices that were simultaneously accessible within your neighborhood or region. Many of us in the metro area are aware of some children commuting up to 2 1/2 hours each way every day to get a quality education. This is also being done to hopefully provide relief to schools experiencing student population challenges. Wouldn’t it be great if this result in significant transportation savings that could then be redirected into instructional programs.

By GOB

October 3, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

Parents would be forced to PARENT

Here in the real world we know that there is no way to force someone to be a good parent. Your idea would simply increase the gap between those kids that do well and those that fail.

By DawgHater

October 3, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

While DeKalb may be trying to change things, they are making a HUGE mistake that APS did not make….

DeKalb makes a change and requires that change be implemented to all schools, even if they are ‘successful.’ They are too much of idiots to recognize that if a school is successful to just leave it alone!

The DeKalb school system has some of the top schools in the nation as ranked by Newsweek. But, because there are some low performing schools and when the idiot County administrators want to make changes, they make sweeping changes to ALL schools. This will inevitably screw up those top schools. This process has already begun and the ‘successful’ schools are already morphing for the worst (and the good teachers are fleeing).

APS and Fulton County did the smarter approach. They left alone the successful schools and simply focused on the failing ones.

Why cannot DeKalb do that?

By msbzzy

October 3, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

At first glance, the changes to DeKalb look great. However, just as an example, look at Region Five. I don’t consider offering IB programs as much of a choice, when you must apply for the program. For those that aren’t accepted what other choices are availabe within the region, so as not to have to travel to a magnet program on the other side of the county. A majority of the kids will not participate in IB—so they will be stuck with the same ole same ole.

By HS Teacher Too

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

V, You and I are on the same page entirely. I’ve been saying the same things ad infinitum. I tried to have some rigor —just SOME! I am nothing, if not Fair! — and got run over by the parents and the administration let it happen. Gwinnett, as I have said so many times, is all about saying “look what we do,” and pointing to a list with schnazzy buzz words, without evaluating how well they can actually DO any of it!

By mmm

October 3, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this

IB done properly includes both world language instruction AND studying other cultures. So all three of these offerings amount to different levels of implementation of the same basic direction. With the elementary schools that are presently have the highest populations of immigrant kids getting the last and smallest implementation.

There is very little radical here—-except that the single sex school is a sneaky way of closing Avondale Middle—sweeping it’s AYP record clean—and then opening it to provide AYP transfers widely (how else are you going to fill it with only girls?) But then there is the little problem of what to do with the resident boys. (or whether having the AYP challenged sending schools sending only the girls commits those schools to having even more dicipline and test score challenges.)

By SET

October 3, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

Jeff: Where do you see Parents “Parenting”? They both have to work - maybe more than 1 job. Have you seen the current b******* rates in the US Cities? And with divorce on demand we have made serial pologamy the norm in much of the USA. Children of these “families” are in no way able to be “parented” as we would like because the father is gone and the mother is working or maybe too disfunctional to work or properly raise a child.

Yes there are still nuclear families, but in Large Urban areas of the country, nuclear families have pulled their kids out of the public schools and sent them elsewhere. Where such families are present in the urban public schools you have 2 working parents. More commonly we see blended families.

The public schools cannot exist contngent on good parenting. The schools have to go on the assumption that the environment the school creates is largely going to be “it” for getting these kids ready for work, the military, or higher education.

Which is why it’s too bad the schools jumped into moral relativism and decided it shouldn’t assert right or wrong anymore. The schools fail to provide a base the kids can’t fall below.

We can’t wait for “Parents” to magically appear at the PTA meetings anymore. In my state a good chunk of the public school kids in Los Angeles (half the state’s pop?) are being raised by grandmothers (not “grandparents”) or guardians. The public schools have to do more so that the prisons don’t have to. I’d back corporal punishment in schools but that would mean we really care enough about the kids to correct them. And “we”(the state) most certainly does not care about the future of the public school kids.

So the rising stats on Prison beds, addiction, illiteracy & Herpes/HIV infections keep rising. From my viewpoint this pathology all starts in 8th grade nowadays. I’d really like to see it stopped.

To do this we have to stop waiting for “parents” to do their jobs and start making sure that any product of the public schools is made to function in society at least well enough to be accepted in the US Army - not the Salvation Army.

By Jeff

October 3, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this

SET:

That is why this plan calls for the tutoring centers to be open 24/7. ZERO excuses not to go. Unless both parents are LITERALLY working 24/7, there is an opportunity to get your child the help he or she needs.

Your solution means even MORE Big Government. Which makes the common parent even WORSE.

My solution calls for SMALLER government, and FORCES the parents to do their jobs under penalty of law. It also makes doing their jobs SOMEWHAT easier by allowing them to choose when their child goes to “school” - if in fact the kid needs to.

By DB

October 3, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

SET, it’s interesting that you cited 8th grade as a pivotal year. I had a chance to talk to Truett Cathy, the founder of Chick-fil-A and an Atlanta area resident, a few years ago. One of his passions is teaching 8th grade boys Sunday School at his church — something he has done for over 50 years. He, too, feels strongly that this is a crucial age, especially for boys, for molding a sense of morals and values. (One of his other passions is foster care homes for children — his foundation operates 11 of them in the Southeast.)

I have to nit-pick one point with you, though — when you declare that both parents “have” to work. I don’t agree with you on that. Both parents do not NEED to work, if they are willing to be realistic about the difference between wants and needs, and adjust their lifestyle accordingly. However, most people in this materialistic-keep-up-with-the-Joneses world can’t differentiate between the two.

By King

October 3, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this

Well the schools have changed. The question is will it help student success? Also will the district help teachers teach the way they want us to teach? For schools to change the teachers and students have to change. I do not know if Jeff’s suggestion would boost student achievement. The reason I say that is because some students do not have the motivation to do web based lessons. Some people do need a person to clarify the lesson. Teachers we have to be willing to change and help our students. I know the school systems expects the impossible sometimes, but we need to be sure we halp our students to the best of our ability.

By JustMe

October 3, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this

SET - Wow! I think that I agree with most of what you said - and for the first time!!!!!

I am still torn about what exactly the role of public school should be (as are many people, I would imagine). Most definitely, one role is to impart content knowledge. Is it really the role of today’s school to teach morals and ethics? What about ‘common’ manners? What about life skills such as how to get a home mortgage fairly and properly?

Can we really expect public schools to fulfill all roles? Can we really expect public schools to replace the role of parents?

IMHO, we already ask too much of public schools and that is a large reason they are ‘failing.’ Content is growing by leaps and bounds, especially with the technology explosion. Expecting schools to simply keep up with content is a large enough task!

Our society must come up with other solutions to these other problems/issues. Our society cannot continue to dump everything on schools.

By JW

October 3, 2007 5:37 PM | Link to this

“They left alone the successful schools and simply focused on the failing ones.”

Now wouldn’t that be an amazing discovery for a politician and educrat.

By SET

October 3, 2007 7:01 PM | Link to this

DB - I’m aware of the claims that the 2nd breadwinner represents luxury and can be dispensed with.

I think that CA is different than many of the other states. We have long commute times and relatively poor public transportation. Auto costs are higher and we drive more than other places.

Women need to keep a hand in the job market because there is no security at all in marriage anymore. That was thrown away when divorce on demand became the norm. People stay in the job market here because the value of our benefits are so important. (Will work for health insurance?)You can’t live safely (with a family) on one income anymore here. I see families getting the health insurance from the lower income wife who may have a civil service job where the higher income husband is self employed and can’t affordably get health insurance coverage.

A friend who was divorced was a private practice lawyer. He was diagnosed with terminal cancer in his early 40’s and his health insurance company terminated his individual policy as soon as he got too sick to work. They actually phoned his Drs and told them coverage was cancelled - don’t see him and bill them. It wasn’t the $$, they refused to accept the premiums payments. They told him when he stopped working the policy lapsed. He died unable to see his Drs anymore. His live in girlfriend couldn’t extend coverage because they weren’t married and he didn’t want to marry on his deathbed and saddle her with costs and charges.

With both spouses working the ability to keep everybody covered is higher.

If they have planned well, women can stay home while the children are very young but normally they go back to work because they feel they must. For one thing, I know many families where both spouses work to pay school tuition for the children. No decent family will send their children to public schools in some of our CA urban areas, but they live there because the job is there.

Working people are not foolish. If so many married women work, it’s because they have a reasonable thought-out basis for doing so. They don’t work for luxuries or to get out of the house. They work for retirement, health insurance, security, and to balance the family budget. And to try to keep the house out of foreclosure.

On topic, everything is changing. I think the US is on the edge of wrenching change. Whether is comes from distructive creativity - the Internet - or whether the chickens are coming home to roost - fiat money problems, or social change broken-home adult children running the country - nothing is going to be the same for our children and grandchildren as we experienced.

I will say that power is being centralized into the hands of the few, who have the makings of a heriditary overclass. They don’t send their kids to public school either.

Brave New World.

By mum

October 4, 2007 3:15 PM | Link to this

The concept of IB is wonderful, in concept, because it takes years to go throught the application process, be accepted (maybe), then implement it. There are only a couple of schools in Dekalb county that actually have the program in use, so easier said than done. It is also quite comprehensive, but classes like band/orchestra aren’t considered a core part of the curriculum, which is something they need to revise if they are working at creating a “well-rounded” student and leaving out the arts component. I sincerely hope though that they have the good sense to keep a hands-off approach when it comes to the schools that are top performers. “If it ain’t broke….”