Get Schooled

By decaturparent

December 27, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

The problem with really small schools is that they are expensive. We spend somewhere around $15K per student.

I think we get excellent results and one reason that we moved here is b/c of the very small schools (300 in K-5, about 500 middle and about 700 high). One big benefit of small schools is that it is impossible for a kid to fade into the background and fail without being noticed.

There are also a ton of fringe benefits to small schools that people don’t think about … such as kids are able to walk/bike to school. In the morning that means that they can burn off some steam and/or wake up before they arrive. In the afternoon - it means social time with their neighborhood friends. It also means a good bit of exercise. A kid that lives a mile from school walks 10 miles a week.

I would love to see smaller schools statewide, but I don’t think that most taxpayers are willing to pay the premium to achieve small schools.

However, there is no way that the majority of taxpayers are going to be willing to spend that much money per pupil.

By holdingAJCaccountable

December 27, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

I think the idea has merit. But I would caution that I have seen schools with less than 300 students where the behavior was absolutely awful.

As much as big, monolithic schools are the problem, so are big, monolithic school systems.

Anything to address this monolithic nature from the micro (smaller schools) to the macro (charter schools, vouchers, converting the entire educational bureaucracy to Soylent Green LOL) will probably help. All good things come in time right?

While I’m sure most people who have no moral qualms with converting the entire educational bureaucracy into Soylent Green, it might not do so well in the marketplace. But if we could convert them to biofuels, we may have a “win-win” :)

By Jeff

December 27, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

I think holding may actually have a point for once.

I don’t think it has to do with the size of the school so much as the size of the system.

Of course, even then you have Hades-holes such as Randolph that only have 3 schools in two buildings.

But the system that T teaches in has only 6 schools (2 PS, 2 ES, 1 MS, 1 HS), her school is classified AAAA, and EVERYBODY in the area wants their kids in this system.

Back in Cartersville, you had a system of a couple dozen schools (Bartow County) and you had a system with 4 schools (Cartersville City). Rivalries aside, when it came to ‘getting the best education’ - placing all blame/acclaim on the system (NOT where it should be, but that is a topic for another day!) - parents wanted their kids in the City system rather than the County.

I’ve heard that this is true of most City Schools/ County Schools situations in the state, though I am by no means an expert on the subject.

By holdingAJCaccountable

December 27, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

Re “I think holding may actually have a point for once.” For once LOL! Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Given our oil dependency and declining state of the public schools, I still say that the educational bureaucrats conversion to biofuels option may become politically viable sooner that you think!

By Between The Walls

December 27, 2007 4:20 PM | Link to this

Holding AJC Accountable,

While I agree this could happen I perceive several potential advantages to smaller schools and feel discipline issues would, on the whole, be reduced since as a rule it is easier to deal with and maintain discipline with 100 students rather than 1000

Below are what might be considered other advantages to smaller schools.

1) Principals wouldn’t be able to demand several hundred thousand dollars a year in salary and benefits.

2) Students would be less likely to fall between the cracks.

3) Administrative staff could be reduced.

4) Everyone would know everyone and everything and no one would get away with anything.

5) Shrinking school size and increasing class sizes and number of schools could reduce the number of teachers within the system.

6) Parents would be more likely to be involved.

7) Shared athletic facilities could reduce costs to taxpayers.

8) Students could walk to school—saving in transportation costs

9) Smaller tracts of land could be purchased for school construction (saving millions)

10) Traffic problems in school areas would be reduced

11) The teacher / student / parent bond would be strengthened.

And I suspect there may be many more.

By Racebaiter

December 27, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this

No, the problem isn’t the size of our schools. The problem is lack of discipline. The teachers and administrators are too PC to instill discipline and remove unruly students. The military is larger than the largest school, and there are very few problems there. Some middle ground would be the catalyst for change.

By SET

December 27, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

I’m still of the opinion that the problem is not the size of the school but rather the attempt to educate disparate cultures side by side.

Simply put it is unreasonable to try to house and educate university bound alongside the proletariat alonside the prison bound underclass. What you get is anarchy - which is bad for the staff and bad for the proles. The professional class simply leave and take care of themselves elsewhere.

You can’t fairly maintain standards for each group in the presence of the others. They groups require their own culture free of class conflict. That doesn’t mean you won’t set and maintain standards - just that we won’t have the “I’m stupid and proud of it” mentality that comes with fully IQ integretated schools.

By old-db

December 27, 2007 4:57 PM | Link to this

Smaller schools are definitely a step in the right direction. I went to a public school with 24 students in my class, yes 24. It’s definitely more close-knit, but that, too can have it’s problems. There were absolutely no opportunities as far as higher level courses and sports were concerned. I guess the question we need to ask is what is the perfect size. I think from 500-800 kids in a high school is just right.

As for it being more expensive, I don’t think all the numbers prove that in the long run. I think it would be much less expensive to have smaller schools that truly instill work ethic and hope into our kids, which will pay off in many ways. A higher percentage of graduates may be more productive members of society saving money through less welfare and less spending for incarceration, not to mention all the other costs like medical care and entitlement programs, which may decrease with a better-educated society.

For all time we’ve been throwing money at the problem only to find out things still get worse and worse. For once, I think throwing money in to make schools smaller would actually make at least some improvement. That’s the only way in which I agree more money will actually make a difference.

Also, with smaller schools and more local control, things will be much easier to manage, i.e., problem parents, problem teachers, problem administrators, etc.

By Lee

December 27, 2007 5:09 PM | Link to this

On the other hand…

I live in a small, semi-rural area that has two high schools and two middle schools in the county with attendance in each school ranging between 750 - 1100 students.

According to many, this would be the ideal size school, right?

My daughter goes to private school - primarily due to our middle school which I lovingly refer to as the “Black Hole of Education.”

While I agree that larger schools can become too unwieldy and there seems to be diminishing returns once a school’s attendance exceeds a certain point, the problems with public education are pervasive and cannot be explained away just by school size alone.

By old-db

December 27, 2007 5:20 PM | Link to this

SET: To me the whole problem lies in bad parents and pushover administrators, which are growing exponentially in number these days. Size shouldn’t matter under the right conditions, but decreasing school size is the only way to start improving things in our society full of overbearing helicopter parents that threaten lawsuits with every breath. With the conditions the way they are, the only option is to decrease size because everything else that would work is impossible because of a bunch of ridiculous laws. We started out with small schools back when the average person was more cooperative, but after the chaos started, the size of schools increased as well. Now we have a HUGE problem. Also, the small schools are spinning out of control as well, so you’re right in that it’s not the sole answer, but things are easier to manage when smaller. So I think it is a step in the right direction.

I think it’s fine to have all kids together altogether as long as there’s enough discipline to put them all at the same level, i.e, school once again becomes a place where students have respect and go to learn. By discipline, I mean that those that don’t abide by the rules get REAL consequences, something their parents never panned out. Repeat offenders should be sent to schools that focus solely on breaking them down and showing them there is benefit to acting in a civil manner. The military model works well in that sense. Then the college bound will be in the class with other college bounds. And a few of the proletariat may actually think about going to college, or they may just settle for being happy with their menial job later in life. As for the prison-bound, I honestly don’t think there’s much hope for them, but this system would hopefully create fewer of them as time progresses by making the norm more civilized. Now the norm is being a moron and being proud of it.

At any rate, what we need is to stop coddling every student with chance after chance and start failing the failures and punishing the non-compliant, just like real life. Our schools have been sheltering our kids from real life when they should have been exposing them to it.

By old-db

December 27, 2007 5:28 PM | Link to this

I agree with Lee in that school size is not the only explanation. But school size limits can definitely help in urban areas if you ask me. The problems in public education are extremely diverse. The only thing I know is that for every problem, the system has gone the opposite direction as needed in order to solve it. There are no more expectation for kids. It’s all a big game for them.

By Ernest

December 27, 2007 5:56 PM | Link to this

JimD:

Happy holidays to you and good topic! As I read the post by Between the Walls, I felt as though they were from DeKalb. Small neighborhood schools was their philosophy and remnants of that are still in place. When the school population decreased in the late 70’s to mid 80’s, they had a large inventory of buildings that were not cost effective to keep open. Correct me if I’m wrong but cost is part of the reason Gwinnett is using the ‘large and few’ model over ‘small and many’.

There are additional personnel costs associated with smaller schools, primarily in the area of administration. The obvious concern would be how to serve the growing number of ‘special needs’ children many school systems have. Would you segregate them into separate facilities since smaller building might not be able to provide the necessary services?

This is always an interesting discussion. There is a HS in Texas, not far from Houston that houses up to 6000 students. I understand the community is resistant to building another school for fear it would negatively impact their highly ranked athletics programs. Imagine that, more concerned about a kids time in the 40 rather than their score on the SAT. Not picking on Gwinnett but I wonder if that is the thought of some in that community….

By JustMe

December 27, 2007 6:03 PM | Link to this

Well of course smaller high schools would benefit education - just like smaller class sizes would benefit education.

The problem (that has already been pointed out) is money. It is more cost effective to have these mega-big schools than to have many small schools. Actually, I am surprised that there aren’t mega-big elementary schools as well for the same reason.

Larger schools mean that it is cheaper in many ways - land cost, building maintenence, administration cost, etc.

Also, I suspect that it is easier to manipulate the data to the State from a single high school that is very large. In other words, it is easier to ‘hide’ the failing students compared to smaller schools. So, it’s a win all around for the school system! But, not for the students or the teachers.

By thomas

December 27, 2007 6:09 PM | Link to this

I am ALL for smaller schools. I went to an elementary school that had 250-300 students. It was a TOTALLY different experience than the schools I see around here now. Almost all of the students at my school walked to school or got rides. Not a single school bus served this school. Yet I lived about 3/4 of a mile from the school.

The reality is that many of the larger school systems, like Gwinnett and Henry, have no problem with having HUGE schools. Gwinnett is the worst. 3000 students at a middle school is absurd. But oddly, these parents like it. If they didn’t, the schools would be smaller. However, shockingly, school is a social club in these circles. As long as the right people make up the school body, everybody is happy. Go figure.

By Ernest

December 27, 2007 6:39 PM | Link to this

thomas, there is a LOT to be said about this statement, As long as the right people make up the school body, everybody is happy. I also like the idea of small schools, moreso for elementary schools. I question whether we have the ‘will’ to be taxed in a way that will enable access to small schools for everyone.

By quint

December 27, 2007 7:08 PM | Link to this

There are many things that can be done to improve schools and student performance. First, having a larger classroom size is not one of those things. If I have my students write in their journals every day, and I have 160 students per day (32 students per 5 classes), that equals 800 journals to read, critique, and grade each week. (I actually have 135 enrolled in my classes.) That doesn’t count teaching concepts of writing, literature, and grammar. Since I teach 11th grade English, I am also responsible for preparing the students for the GHSWT in the fall, and the GHSGT and EOCT in the spring. Our schools are judged on the pass/fail percentages and also the relative success (Pass Plus) our students achieve on these tests. It is tough to teach 30 or more students in class. Reduce the number to 20 and hire competent and energetic teachers to handle all the new classes that are needed.

Second, say what you like about my next comment, but until salaries are increased significantly, you won’t see many of the best and brightest choose teaching as a career. I know that I am not in education for the money (please don’t skewer me for the money equals better teachers comment), but every teacher knows there is some truth there.

I am not saying throw money at teachers. (By the way, I do not work in a system that pays a local supplement of several thousand dollars per year. I get $600 from my district.) I work where I do because of the community and the family I have here. I love the students I teach and I have never had a single student act willfully disobedient toward me. Those are definite benefits. But don’t bring up “cost-of-living” arguments either. A gallon of milk is more than four dollars, a gallon of gas is more than three dollars, and I’ll bet I have to drive farther than most of you do to find decent restaurants and entertainment for my kids. Unfortunately, I teach students from an economically depressed area of the state. (Again, I wouldn’t trade my students for the world.)

By catlady

December 27, 2007 9:09 PM | Link to this

Even a rural system can have small, working schools (but not walk to school opportunities).

The national data (such as NELS 88 gathered by the National Center for Education Statistics, a governmental, non-partisan source) tells us that small schools are most important for at risk students of all types and rural students in general.

That means, for many, many kids, if we want them to stay in school to completion and achieve, we should have them in small schools. Now, Mr. Clinton, we have to decide what “small” is. I hold that many of the bloggers’ ideas of small are not really small, but, again, there is data which could guide us if we were willing to consult it.

I have taught for years in a small school (about 320 grades K-7) and it was the IDEAL situation for student growth and acheivement. Students were accountable, in part, because everyone knew them. The size did not scare parents away. There was a sense of ownership of the school.

I now teach in a 630 student school grades 3-5 which is overwhelming to students, does not foster easy accountabilty, and in which parents feel they have no stake.

What folks don’t seem to realize is that we get what we pay for. We have serious problems in public education, and cramming ever-more kids into a school may look good for the bottom line, but it looks terrible for the results we get. In general. Now, this may not apply to “affluent East Cobb”, but for much of Georgia, there is no similarity to EC in terms of student achievement/outcomes/future plans.

Bravo, Jim, for a very important topic. Too bad there is so little political will.

By James

December 27, 2007 9:49 PM | Link to this

Get Real people…the problem is the parents. Every parent wants to be their child’s friend! They are your child—not your friend! Give them some discipline and back up the teacher. Your child is not the center of the universe.

By OTOH

December 28, 2007 2:58 AM | Link to this

I would like the Gwinnett HSs halved to give more kids opportunities in extra-curricular activities. 15 boys or girls will make the Varsity basketball team whether the school has 4000 kids or 300. 6 will get big roles in the play. 20 will get elected to school gov’t. HS is the best - and often the last- time kids get to explore options that lead to vocations and avocations. Kids do not know what careers, even what jobs, exist. They do not know- and academics and academic counselling do not help them know- what careers and avocations they are capable of or interested in. Currently we encourage kids to specialize in 9th grade. 14 years old. when they are ignorant of the possibilities in themselves and in the world. We need to encourage kids to try something new - try Drama, try broadcasting, try Math club all at once. Expand their horizons not narrow them.

By OTOH

December 28, 2007 3:25 AM | Link to this

“Below are what might be considered other “advantages to smaller schools.

“1) Principals wouldn’t be able to demand several hundred thousand dollars a year in “salary and benefits.”

Yes they could. and some school districts would pay. Size of the school does not drive supply and demand of principals. In fact smaller schools means a higher demand for principals, means higher pay.

“2) Students would be less likely to fall between the cracks.” I agree, but how much “less likely” depends on more than the size of the school.

“3) Administrative staff could be reduced.”

No. It would increase. More principals. District wide would increase because the admin per student ratio the union has fixed will remain the same but because the admins are split up in more schools they will require more admins to “co-ordinate” admins. ( cynical? why yes, I am.) plus where we once had 2 counselors at one school for 1000 students a piece, we will now have 2 schools - one of which has 2 counselors because there are 1100 and one which has 1 for 900.

“4) Everyone would know everyone and everything and no one would get away with anything.” How small do we have to get for everyone to know everyone? More importantly, everyone knowing everything will not prevent some from getting away with things. Small schools are no better at dealing with favorites - star athletes, wealthiest family’s daughter, coolest anti-establishment kid - than big schools are.

“5) Shrinking school size and increasing class sizes and number of schools could reduce the number of teachers within the system.” Nope.

“6) Parents would be more likely to be involved.” Parental involvement is dependent on the individual parents and the admin’s attitude, not on school size. The same uninvolved parents - the ones whose kids are trouble - will still be uninvolved.

“7) Shared athletic facilities could reduce costs to taxpayers.” In Gwinnett most athletic facilities are paid for by parents and community supporters, not taxpayers.

“8) Students could walk to school—saving in transportation costs” LOL! they could but they won’t. Just like now.

“9) Smaller tracts of land could be purchased for school construction (saving millions)”

except for it works the other way around. It is cheaper, per acre, to buy the bigger lots. and more efficient and cheaper for the buildings.

“10) Traffic problems in school areas would be reduced” no. see above.

“11) The teacher / student / parent bond would be strengthened.”

How?

And I suspect there may be many more.

By Steve

December 28, 2007 4:34 AM | Link to this

There are so many fixes to every problem in our world. So many solutions and nothing seems to improve. Small schools are not the sole solution. I teach science in a middle school so my fixes are based on my little world. First, not every child is interested in going to college when they are in school. I read many different sets of stats that reveal various percentages of adults with college degrees that range from 20-30%. If this is a fact then why do we try and prepare 100% of kids for college? Will smaller schools fix this? This brings on my second point - What do we offer school age kids to excite or interest them? I was told, by a principal I respect and admire, that vocational classes and programs that interest kids were stopped by a myraid of lawsuits. The lawsuits contend that vertain kids were being channeled out of academic classes and into vocational classes thus depriving them and ruining their future. I am ABD on my doctorate, 2 graduate degrees and 5 undergrad degrees and get teacher pay. I have a real good friend who has a 9th grade education and makes 5X what I do working in a vocational field. Will smaller schools fix this? Third, make public schools smaller like private schools? I had a student that had a history of discipline problems and his mother took him out of public schools and enrolled him in a private school believing that the public school environment was the problem. Two days private school and they told the mother they did not take in students with discipline problems and sent him packing. Reality, in public schools we take the best the parents have to give. Parents do not keep the “bad” ones at home and send only the good ones. Smaller schools capable of fixing this? I can go on and on, political decisions in education, poor teachers, bad parents, even the sorry EOCT on previous blogs. I think we should go with the German model for education and make kids decide on their future when they are 12 years old. Vocational or academic and you are stuck with it (yes, I lived and taught in Germany). Maybe the Japanese hard charging, make it or bust system of longer days and more curriculum. Don’t just read and spout statistics, really find out if these systems work. It is not just about smaller schools. This system is designed around second chances. If you did not learn in school (like me) then you can still take classes that will catch you up when you grow up. Community college if you cannot get into a university because of academic weaknesses. Finally, it is not just about academics. We need people performing tasks that do not require intensive AP classes. Road repair, janitorial services, sales and services and the list goes on. I teach 109 7th graders. On a survey (classroom assignment for graphing) I had 4 kids walk to school and we are considered a neighborhood school in a low socioeconomic, disadvantaged area. Are smaller schools the solution? Remember, a lot of studies are designed to provide the answer the researchers are looking for, so use caution when looking for the “cure all” solution. I have to do this. I am happy for all of you that passed the EOCT. A test is designed to evaluate knowledge, problem solving, performance, ability or retention (plus more). Is a dentist successful if the clients are cavity free on 70% of the visits? Maybe a smaller school would help them have cleaner teeth?

By Michael

December 28, 2007 5:21 AM | Link to this

My new 20 yr old office assistant has simple spelling and grammar issues. These are things I learned at Catholic School, oh, probably by the sixth grade. Thanks for the braniac, Brookwood HS (Snellville, GA).

By Jane

December 28, 2007 8:34 AM | Link to this

Jeff: Having attended school in Bartow County - County Schools I can categorically state that the education received there was every bit as good if not better than the City Schools.
We moved to Cartersville when I was old enough to attend High School and our parents CHOSE to send us to the County Schools.
The Rivaleries are a MAJOR issue with the 2 High Schools you refer to during your post. Woodland High School has exceeded expectations under the guidance of their principal Ms. Nettie Holt - (having been taught by her at Cass High School, when I was in school, I am not suprised at her leadership abilities). The graduation ceremonies are wonderful with many receiving scholarships to various schools.
This is a large school - it truly boils down to dedication by every person that comes in contact with our children - people that listen, actually hear what is being said and do what is necessary to a) keep the student interested in school; b) find a solution/help the student find the solution to their specific issue; c) mentor the student body not just specific students that cause issues or are the preceived jewels of the class; d) make the student feel that they can achieve their goals whatever they may be. Yes, it takes a TON of effort and some talented, dedicated individuals to be able to pull this off. Knowing that it can be done - gives me hope for the future.

By ahhh

December 28, 2007 9:06 AM | Link to this

The problem with education today is due to many issues:

1) A total lack of discipline. Teachers aren’t able to discipline for fear of being accused of “child abuse” and the kids know it! Parent’s don’t or won’t discipline.

2) Teachers that are underpaid, underappreciated are leaving and not enough bright new teachers coming in. This leaves us with a LOT of teachers who SHOULD NOT be teaching! If you can’t speak/enunciate using proper English, you shouldn’t be teaching!

3) A school program that “dumbs” down education rather than “raising” the standard. This is not something we can blame on the current administration, this has been going on since the late 70’s early 80’s!!

4) Too many parents are not engaged in what their children are doing at school or otherwise.

5) Too much time spent on “video games” and on the internet and not enough time focused on studies!

6) Too much negative external influence from TV, movies, games that continue to propagate a total disrespect for authority. Again, back to parental participation and discipline.

We are so far behind many countries in education that it is ridiculous and frightening.

How can we be graduating students from high school who are functionally illiterate and have no concept of how to function in the real world????!!!!

By catlady

December 28, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this

Those of you who have real, small school experience need to weigh in on this. My definition of small school: elementary under 400, middle under 600, high under 900. The small schools with at risk students (one parent, little parental education, free lunch, etc) consistently outperform their larger counterparts with the same population.

We pay for it on the front end, or THROUGH the back end (crime, dropouts, pregnancy, drugs). Me, I’d rather not be victimized by those folks if they can be saved ahead of time. And I hate “wasting” money paying for folks to sit around a jail while I work to support them!

By blah, blah, blah

December 28, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this

We were fortunate to have a smaller school system for our children and definitely believe it made a considerable difference. It made a difference not only in the quality of education but what they were able to take from that education.

Putting huge public elementary, middle and high schools on a shared campus is a huge mistake. You are subjecting younger students to much older students and this is never good. You open the door for exposure and influences in bad behavior, drugs, bullies, etc.

If you want an example of what not to do in the running of public schools, look no further than Clayton, DeKalb and Fulton County!!

By blah, blah, blah

December 28, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

Hey ahhh, you forgot a couple:

1) dress codes - for God’s sake bring back and enforce dress codes. Uniforms would be good - lot cheaper than trying to keep up with the latest in gangsta or goth!

2) reward academic achievement - make it exciting and appealing to achieve in academia, not just sports.

By Lee

December 28, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

We keep looking for the “magic pills” don’t we. You know, the pill to help us lose weight and give us those six pack abs. The patch to help us quit smoking. The new and improved programs to turn dunces into literary geniuses and math whizzes.

There is one thing schools could do which would probably provide more of an impact than anything.

What is that you ask?

Group by ability and allow each group to progress at a pace appropriate for that ability group.

However, to do that, schools are going to have to abandon the politically correct, equal outcomes doctrine that has poisoned our schools since Brown vs. Board.

Schools try to do this to some degree, especially in the upper grades with A/P, Honors, College Prep, and gifted courses. While commendable, it is too little, too late IMHO.

Segregation by ability needs to occur in the early grades for it to be truly effective.

By SET

December 28, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

Old-DB:

I have to repeat my point - you cannot educate disparate cultures (ethnics or whatever) together without cultural conflict. And what I’m referring to is end-stage cultural conflict. If you want a big-box school - or a large army - you only have once choice. You destroy cultural/ethnic identity and force your clients to take on a new artificial identity, or you suffer the chaos that comes with peverse ethnocentrism & cultural extremism.

The army does it with shaved heads, new vocabulary & regimentalism. UC Berkeley with 30,000 students at a time tried everything they could over the last 50 years and got 8+ out of 10 black students failing to graduate and the ones that did largely taking weak majors.

I’m telling you that all the research in ethnic history and economics says that big box schooling, especially at the secondary level - makes things worse for the left side of the bell curve. The tactics required to maintain and promote the left side of the curve won’t be tolerated by the right side clients, and vice versa.

And it’s not just the left side’s behavior I caution you about. The right side of the curve can be utterly ruthless in the presence of people they quickly come to realize can’t keep up with them intellectually but are physically stronger. The vicious behavior in both directions becomes a lifelong thing. You make this happen by putting the groups in close proximity and have the compete for everything.

Integration of the schools in the 1960’s without corresponding regimentalism was a deadly mistake. We see the results generations later. Those that are the most incapacitated are the left side of the curve. As always, the right side of the curve will take care of themselves.

Oh… the readers should forget thinking that “parents” are supposed to take care of very much. Proletariat and underclass “Parents” can’t even take care of themselves in this Brave New World.

Public Schools are largely for the left side of the bell curve and should do better by them.

By just a parent

December 28, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

I can answer this with one word: BROOKWOOD…one of the largest…one of the best in all areas be it the classroom…the concert hall…the theatre…the sports facilities…the opportunties are endless….I came from a high school with less than 100 seniors…BOY did I miss out.

By luvs2teach

December 28, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

Lee - your 10:35 about grouping by ability? Not only do I agree, but let’s get rid of the arbitrary grouping by age while we’re at it!

Why should someone be in a given grade just because of the date their birth fell on a given calendar? Look a two kindergarteners, one born on August 31st, just turning 5, and another born September 2nd, just turning 6 - they’ll both be in the same class, yet there is a wealth of difference in growth in the year.

Steve’s 4:34 - I agree so much with the “not giving them anything they’re interested in” problem. Kids think the classes are a joke and they have no meaning to their lives - well, let’s give them some meaning!

Finally, an odd aside, I was reading a recent Reader’s Digest, and in their advice column a student wrote in about a cheating problem (she didn’t, some fellow students did, and got better grades on a test than she). She quoted one of her cklassmates as saying “It didn’t matter. Grades are just a game.” I know my students feel that way - how the heck did we get here?

BTW - good job, jim d - nice topic.

By 2008

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

In today’s quagmire of political correctness and quick to cry “disenfrancised minority” you will never be able to develop a public education system that works. Separating children classrooms by their learning ability makes too much sense.

We have some students in these classrooms bored to tears because the material is not challenging to them. Yet they must sit in the same class with students who are struggling to get it. We make all of them suffer because we’re afraid we might offend someone.

Don’t you think it might be more motivating to put students in situations where they can actually succeed? All of them!! The current system cheats them all of a good education!

Another poster used the term “dumbing down” it’s true, that’s what has happened in our schools. Everyone graduates (if they graduate) mediocre…..Try getting into the better colleges coming from some of these schools!

To SET’s point, integration of the schools in the 60’s without any real plan was just the beginning of the mess. He/She is also correct in the point that expecting some of these parents to engage when they can’t even take care of themselves, much less their children…..

If we expect anything better for future generations of students, we need to drop the “sameness and overly PC” approach to education and find a better way to educate our youth before it is too late!!

We need to be focused on reading/english, math, science, social studies, etc., and forget trying to accomodate all these cultural requirements and over the top PC mentality in the schools. You’re there to learn how to read and write - in English, do math, learn about the world/cultures, history, etc. Obviously, I am simplifying somewhat here, but you get the point.

You can work on your cultural/spiritual requirements outside the school. It is not the public school or the tax payers (who pay for public schools)obligation to try to be all of these things. That is part of the problem.

By Lee

December 28, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

Luvs, I agree about the age difference. We experienced that with our two daughters - one had a birthday in July, one in September. The one who entered school at an older age seemed to have an easier time of it.

When I entered school in the 60’s, the cutoff date was December 31, which seemed to be a good compromise. Today, the cutoff date is the first day of school (or thereabouts) which contributes to a larger variance in age differentials in a grade.

By luvs2teach

December 28, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

Lee - my brother was a December 29th baby, and entered as the youngest in his class - he was also small. Despite being very bright, he had a hard time, and ultimately dropped out (now at 37, after a sucessful Army career, he realizes that he probably had undiagnosed dyslexia, too).

My son is a September 12th birthday, and I was happy the state made the choice for him - he would not have been sucessful as a 5 year old, but he was very sucessful as a 6 year old - now he is one of the first of his friends to get a license, the age thing seems like a benefit.

Two different experiences that really show me that calendar readiness doesn’t mean acdemic readiness. I think there should be some kind of readiness test, and maybe some in-between classes, like “first and half” (I’ve seen this in some private schools) - when they get older, they should be able to progress faster if they can and want to.

What the calendar says and how the body grows, and how the brain develops are not always in sync - we need to quit acting as though it is.

By catlady

December 28, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this

When the cut off was Dec 31, the state of Ga found that something like 80% of the kids held back in grades 1-3 were fall birthdays (the youngest ones in school), and something like 60% of those who dropped out before graduation were those fall birthday kids! So the cutoff date was changed. This was in the mid 70s as I recall.

Lee, I am a little puzzled about your “large differential in age ranges in a grade”. We still have the late birthday kids, but their birthdays are in July and August. They are still “up against” kids born in Sept and Oct of the previous year.

I had 2 Sept babies, daughter and son, who would have been fine going to school a year “early”. I was content having them start as 6 year olds, however, because I knew they were likely to be the class leaders, rather than perhaps the baby followers. It rang true. They loved being the first to get their permits, licenses, etc. My Aug baby would have struggled leadership wise if she had started a year “early” and it would have had an impact on her achievement probably. I had considered holding her out a year but was counseled out of it by her university-run day care, and it worked out okay. If she had been a boy, NO WAY would I have let her start at 5.

My granddaughter is an early Sept baby and I am glad about that.

Now, saying all that, I have NO patience for parents who hold their kids out for advantage in sports!

By Lee

December 28, 2007 5:38 PM | Link to this

Cat, I put pen to paper and got puzzled myself. Lol. Nevermind.

Your comment about the failure and drop out rates was interesting. I wonder if the early birthday is still a factor?

By catlady

December 28, 2007 6:53 PM | Link to this

The assumption was that by having 4 and a half year olds who were expected to do more “grown up’ stuff (remember this was an earlier, less driven and competitive time) and 5 and a half year olds expected to do first grade work (there were relatively few public kindergarten programs. Ours was a test site initially, starting in 1972) that that is where the problem lay. Now, you have students who have turned 5 before they start kindergarten, give or take a few weeks, and so presumably more are ready. Of course, kindergarten little resembles what it did back then. I don’t know. Then, you also have many places like the one where I teach where NO ONE is EVER retained in elementary (CRCT results be damned) so I would guess that the only data you could get would be the high school dropout info. Don’t know if they ever break it down like that now. In about 1974 or 5, Cherokee Co had a developmental first grade situation for those who were not ready for the demands of first grade after kindergarten. I think, also, Cherokee may have used developmental tests of some sort to decide about readiness. (Not the old Metropolitan test of readiness, but something developmental.) Remember, this is all based on my (rapidly failing) memory of my early teaching days.

By catlady

December 28, 2007 7:04 PM | Link to this

The assumption was that by having 4 and a half year olds who were expected to do more “grown up’ stuff (remember this was an earlier, less driven and competitive time) and 5 and a half year olds expected to do first grade work (there were relatively few public kindergarten programs. Ours was a test site initially, starting in 1972) that that is where the problem lay. Now, you have students who have turned 5 before they start kindergarten, give or take a few weeks, and so presumably more are ready. Of course, kindergarten little resembles what it did back then. I don’t know. Then, you also have many places like the one where I teach where NO ONE is EVER retained in elementary (CRCT results be damned) so I would guess that the only data you could get would be the high school dropout info. Don’t know if they ever break it down like that now. In about 1974 or 5, Cherokee Co had a developmental first grade situation for those who were not ready for the demands of first grade after kindergarten. I think, also, Cherokee may have used developmental tests of some sort to decide about readiness. (Not the old Metropolitan test of readiness, but something developmental.) Remember, this is all based on my (rapidly failing) memory of my early teaching days.

By catlady

December 28, 2007 7:04 PM | Link to this

The assumption was that by having 4 and a half year olds who were expected to do more “grown up’ stuff (remember this was an earlier, less driven and competitive time) and 5 and a half year olds expected to do first grade work (there were relatively few public kindergarten programs. Ours was a test site initially, starting in 1972) that that is where the problem lay. Now, you have students who have turned 5 before they start kindergarten, give or take a few weeks, and so presumably more are ready. Of course, kindergarten little resembles what it did back then. I don’t know. Then, you also have many places like the one where I teach where NO ONE is EVER retained in elementary (CRCT results be damned) so I would guess that the only data you could get would be the high school dropout info. Don’t know if they ever break it down like that now. In about 1974 or 5, Cherokee Co had a developmental first grade situation for those who were not ready for the demands of first grade after kindergarten. I think, also, Cherokee may have used developmental tests of some sort to decide about readiness. (Not the old Metropolitan test of readiness, but something developmental.) Remember, this is all based on my (rapidly failing) memory of my early teaching days.

By catlady

December 28, 2007 7:28 PM | Link to this

In addition to the rapidly failing memory, I seem to suffer from a rapidly failing ability to send only one copy of a post. Sorry, everyone! Am I to the point of telling the same stories over and over again?

By jim d

December 29, 2007 8:23 AM | Link to this

Thanks!

I’ve enjoyed reading all of your comments.

I researched this issue a bit after writing and sending the topic to Bridget and even i was amazed to learn the amount of reasearch that has been done on this topic.

Rather than post all the links, I might suggest you google the issue if you are interested in learning more.

HAGD.