Get Schooled

By LJ

June 4, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this

What about “increasing the rigor of classroom lessons” will increase the graduation rate? I’m going to go out on a limb and guess it will work something like getting rid of the vocational track. Or requiring four years of science.

By WFC

June 4, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

Why don’t more students graduate? Let me count the ways:

There are more reasons but that’s a start.

By lyncoln

June 4, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

Yeah, I don’t quite see how “increasing the rigor of classroom lessons” will increase the graduation rate. If the graduation rate is low because lots of students are failing the Graduation Tests (but passing all required classes), then increasing classroom rigor might help the situation.

On the flipside, increasing the classroom rigor will bring some grades down and may cause borderline students who are already struggling to choose to drop out entirely rather than attempt graduation. So maybe increasing rigor will just result in no change because the number of students who learn enough to pass graduation tests will be offset by students who give up.

The best bet would be to try and learn what differences allow Cobb county to get a 71.6 percent graduation rate vs. DeKalb or other low performing counties. Change the weaker counties to be similar to the currently successful counties and try some changes on successful counties to see if they improve.

By Ernest

June 4, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

lyncoln, I wish it were as easy as you suggested. It’s definitely not ‘PC’ to say it but you have to take a long look at the mix of students along with the ‘family structure’. We’ve historically been able to correlate student success with those variables.

Can individual students succeed in spite of their socioeconomic status and/or family structure? Of course! I’m sure each of us can point to examples of that. Unfortunately the data suggests that when there is a high concentration of poor children in a school and/or district, there will be greater challenges. Look at the housing policies in higher performing districts also as a measure.

By denise thornton

June 4, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

The kids can’t afford to go to summer school,therefore they fall behind the schools think the children doesn’t care but basically they don’t have the money to afford to go.The kids fall behind and never get to the grade they need to be in.

By Joy in Teaching

June 4, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this

If you look at the numbers of students in the prospective classes in any high school, you will immediately notice that the number of freshmen almost double the number of seniors. It’s not because there has been a sudden influx of freshmen who have moved in the community: it’s because the failure rate in the ninth grade is so high.

When I taught ninth grade, I thought it was because middle school teachers were sending us students who were not prepared for high school. Now that I’m teaching middle school, I’m starting to see that the elementary schools are sending us students who can barely read, write, or do simple math.

The real problem? We are so PC as a society that we are looking at student’s social/emotional needs far more than we look to address their academic needs. So…when little Johnny fails the first grade because he cannot read…he is sent to the second grade by a compassionate well meaning adult who doesn’t want to hurt his self esteem.

And thus the cycle begins.

The big reason? Kids aren’t graduating from high school because the school systems either aren’t giving them the tools to graduate or the teachers within those systems aren’t being ALLOWED to give them the tools to graduate.

By dragonlady

June 4, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

Joy in Teaching has hit the nail on the head. For years I taught nothing but 11th and 12th grades. Now that I am teaching middle school grades additionally, particularly 6th, I see students all the time who don’t do work and expect to be passed.

These students never fail a grade. They are passed from year to year, never learning to be responsible for actual learning, and then they hit the 9th grade where F’s count.

They bunch up in the 9th grade, having failed to pass on to the 10th, until finally they quit out of frustration. They can’t read and they can’t do simple math.

So there you are—low graduation rates.

By Tony

June 4, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this

There is so much to say on this question I don’t know where to begin.

I don’t know what formula was used for this “study” but it can’t be any worse than the formula currently used by Georgia. We currently do not have in our state a reliable method for tracking all students all the way through high school for the entire state. This means the best we can do is estimate our on-time graduation rate.

Another set of data that has been completely ignored in the debate is that of the national census. According to federal government statistics over 80% of people 25 and older had a high school diploma or higher! This rose from 75.2% in 1990.

For Georgia, the numbers are 78.6% (2000) with high school diploma or higher. This rose from 70.9% in 1990. I would suggest that since Georgia has experienced a high growth rate from people relocating that part of the increase results from that influx.

So, when there are claims that Georgia has a 58% graduation rate yet other data suggest differently, I must hold this report in suspicion. What agenda is being pushed? Who sponsored the study? Bill and Melinda Gates, I see. Well that says quite a bit about the agenda.

Georgia’s own skewed calculation emphasizes an on-time graduation rate. This is nothing more than an efficiency statistic. It has nothing to do with actual learning nor does it work together with the cause of raising standards. Logically, if we raise standards it will take longer for some to graduate.

Another problem that will occur is related to the “Law of Decreasing Returns”. This law from economics applies quite well to our educational dilemma. To get more out of the least able students will require huge investments in funding.

Finally, the saddest part about this whole mess is related to the social issues that are completely ignored. Poverty has a huge impact and schools located in high poverty areas are expected to work miracles with the least amount of resources. Go figure.

By just a teacher

June 4, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

For whatever reason, we seem to be eliminating options for our students. I realize that vocational ed programs had a bad reputation, but eliminating them has not made 100% of GA students college-bound. Similarly, requiring four years of college-prep math and science for everyone will not make 100% of high schoolers excel in these areas.

I cannot figure out why we keep closing doors and narrowing the path to success when society seems to be demanding more creativity in problem-solving and responsiveness to change.

(Interestingly, I’ve made similar comments before: once when the curriculum changes were up for review last year and again this fall in an email to a DOE curriculum director. Amazingly, there has been no follow-up.)

By Lisa B.

June 4, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this

Here in South Georgia, students sometimes don’t see any difference in their futures are impacted by a high school diploma. I was talking with a middle school student about the importance of graduating from high school. She said to me that her mom graduated from high school, and her aunt didn’t. They both clean houses. Other relatives graduated from high school, others didn’t, but they all work in the same minimum wage jobs. Many students here don’t see any advantages gained from earning high school diplomas. Diplomas alone aren’t enough to gain employment in more highly paid positions.

I know… that brings us back to vocational training, which I strongly support!

By OldSchool

June 4, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this

just a teacher, I take exception to your comment that “…vocational ed programs had a bad reputation….” I’ve been teaching in our vocational ed department (first Industrial Arts, then/now Engineering Drawing) for over 34 years. It is not so much a bad reputation as a misperception on the part of folks who have tunnel vision where their students are concerned. We in CTAE live everyday knowing that there are parents out there who still think our programs are for kids capable only of “working with their hands.”

Check the Georgia Department of Labor’s website and see what the director has to say. 80% of the jobs (most very well-paying) require some sort of technical training while the other 20% require a 4 year degree or higher. Technical colleges get right to the heart of training and have an amazing record of job placements.

Most CTAE (Career, Technical, and Agricultural Ed) programs in our high school turn out highly skilled, often job-entry ready potential employees. I’d also bet good money that we’ve been the life-saver for many students who would have otherwise dropped out and added to the abysmal graduation rate.

If any of you folks are parents who still see no value in or attach some stigma to vocational/career training in high schools, please check out www.skillsusa.org and take a gander at what goes on in local, state, and national skills contests. It’s simply breathtaking. I think you will see why our programs can keep kids in school and encourage them to graduate.

(Lisa B., I’m also in South Ga. and I’m a TOTAL believer!)

By Not Me

June 4, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this

An elementary school teacher: I used to think elementary school teachers sent us those unprepared students to middle schools, but now that I teach in an elementary school, I see that it is those pre-school teachers who sent us those unprepared kids.

A pre-school teacher: I used to think pre-school teachers sent us those unprepared students to elementary school, but now that I teach at a pre-school, I see that it is those parents who send us those unprepared kids.

A parent: I used to think it was those parents who sent unprepared kids to preschool that caused all these problems, but now that I am a parent, I know it is …

If teachers are “professionals,” they are professionals BECAUSE they can teach those difficult kids. ANYONE can teach those kids who are well-prepared and motivated to learn. In fact, many of them learn IN SPITE OF their teachers.

By catlady

June 4, 2008 5:14 PM | Link to this

Elementary school teacher here (but have taught preschool through college, 34 years). My take: first and foremost we continue to send on kids with minimal skills, but inflated senses of themselves, their abilities, and their entitlements. Now, you didn’t ask how we got these minimal skill kids coming out of primary and elementary schools, so I won’t answer that part. But until we have standards that HAVE to be met (and are willing to live with the consequences of enforcing those standards), we will continue to see poor graduation rates. (Like Tony, I question the stated rates and how they were derived).

By OldSchool

June 4, 2008 5:36 PM | Link to this

Perhaps if more academic courses were solidly grounded in the real world so kids could see the connections and value of the information/skills we are trying to teach them, academic achievement and graduation rates just might rise. How many of us have heard the tired old whine, “How is this going to help me?” or “Why do I need this algebra stuff?”

One of my ED&D students told me recently that he never really understood the importance of algebra, geometry, and trig until he started working last summer drawing mouldings at an area mill. Suddenly, he “got it!” because he was applying the math in a very practical manner. I get the same reaction when I teach land surveying. The students “see” the math and when they write their reports, they understand the importance of clear communication.

They may not find a job where MacBeth is an integral component but at least when they make those real connections between school subjects and the real world, their efforts are no longer “…full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Technical writing and business communications can be as valuable as an essay on “How I spent my summer vacation” because the student knows it’s the real deal. They can learn to measure by measuring; to communicate clearly by instructing others or explaining what they are doing; to think critically by trying, failing, figuring out why they failed, and trying again.

It is my opinion that we need to do a better job of connecting instruction to the world out there so students see the intrinsic value in that instruction. Then let’s let them apply it in live work situations.

Maybe that’s how we’ll get more kids graduating.

By V for Vendetta

June 4, 2008 7:41 PM | Link to this

Not Me, That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Where do you think kids receive their fundamental views towards education? Where do you think the most important developments in reading and counting take place? Where do you think they are first introduced to books and learning? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not in school.

I agree with much of what many others have said—in regards to better vocational training, higher standards, etc. But what concerns me more than the pathetically low number of GA students graduating is what the state’s inevitable response will be. I think after the past ten years we can all wager a guess. As per usual, middling standards and tests will be used in place of actual assessments and objective/subjective classroom evaluations. The passing rates will rise. The graduation rates will rise. The number of kids FAILING OUT OF COLLEGE will rise.

When will America learn what much of Europe already has: Education is NOT A RIGHT and it never should have been; vocational education is NOT a bad thing—not everyone needs to go to college; and the government SUCKS at running education (although a switch at this point might be logistically impossible).

Why don’t we improve vocational/technical training and start graduating a bunch of VoTech and College Prep kids of which we can all be proud instead of these lame half-a*******ed excuses for students we have now. What say you, Kathy Cox?

By lyncolntonlisa

June 4, 2008 7:56 PM | Link to this

I am from so far in South Georgia that we are considered North Florida. Have you ever heard of Boston, Georgia — near where Jackie Robinson was born? Well, you are right. Many of the kids do not see any distinct advantage to graduating. Kathy Cox, the Legislature, and the brilliant educrats took out virtually all vocational courses in the State. They did not help on the standardized test scores. But, they sure did help the students who were not planning on becoming an academic scholar (most of them) to develop a marketable skill — a skill by which the student could feed his/her family one day. I think MACE is the only educational organization which pushes for the vocational courses and programs to return to our public schools. www.theteachersadvocate.com

By jim d

June 4, 2008 8:14 PM | Link to this

there are actually two items that explain this phenom. quite well.

NCLB

High Stakes testing

Nuff said?

By Not Me

June 4, 2008 8:55 PM | Link to this

V,

So, what are teachers getting paid for? Are they just glorified baby sitters?

If they can only teach those kids ANYONE can teach, then what’s so special about them? NOTHING.

By Tony

June 4, 2008 9:55 PM | Link to this

Old School’s remark about making things more relevant is vitally important. One of the fears that I have about the new math standards is the focus of analysis with little attention to application. Although I am highly in favor of the new standards for many reasons, most students need to explore math in terms of the real world in order to make sense of how numbers work all around them.

Then, we expect all the kids to take literature based English courses. Again, a mistake. No offense to the English teachers, but not every student needs to understand the intricacies of Shakespeare in order to function effectively in the world.

Science classes are another area where upping the load to for units to graduate is misguided. This will serve to water down advanced courses for our brightest and best. Teachers will be forced to teach to the middle and lower students. The content is so important to science teachers, they will have a very hard time reaching the students and making things relevant. (I taught chemistry and physics, so I know.)

And then Not Me expects teachers to actually teach. V, I must agree with not me’s stance on this. Good teachers can take on the most difficult students. Teaching new material to inexperienced minds takes talent and skill and determination.

By lyncolntonlisa

June 4, 2008 11:33 PM | Link to this

I noticed that there was a typo in my previous post about the standardized tests. I meant to say that these tests do not help those students who are looking for a skill by which he/she could take care of their future families. These students are not interested in trying to fake it in becoming an academic scholar. There is nothing wrong with this. Someone has to do the “vocational” jobs which can be very lucrative. These are needed jobs, and they contribute much to our country’s well-being. You guys need to listen to jim d and his colleagues on this board. I find him to be very insightful and informative. jim d and associates have more insights in their little fingers than Kathy Cox (and Stuart Bennett) and Company have in their todos corpos. jim d for State Superintendent of Schools. Selah.

By V for Vendetta

June 5, 2008 12:12 AM | Link to this

Not Me, Well, that’s what many teachers are expected to be—glorified babysitters. With all of the tasks schools are asked to perform in addition to education, it only seems likely that the schools (and the teachers employed by them) will fail at some of them.

Tony, I think you’re on point with your comment about literature. It seems silly to waste some kids’ time on in-depth studies of Shakespeare, but then again, the same could be said of Calculus. Where do you draw the line? And, as I said to Not Me, there is a big difference between reaching a difficult student and having to put up with some of the human garbage that comes through our doors. I totally agree with the positive side of your (and Not Me’s) train of thought—a dedicated teacher can reach some kids who might be written off by others. However, I think we’re talking about diamonds in the rough here. I would also argue that the percentage shrinks dramatically with age. It is much easier to turn around a troubled Elem. student than a high schooler. But if you don’t have support at home from the parents, it’s all in vain.

By TheBlogger

June 5, 2008 2:19 AM | Link to this

Oh come on! Does anyone really need to ask such a question as “Why is GA graduation rate so low?”

Students in GA are passed along from grade to grade, from elementary to middle to high school. They don’t have to learn a darn thing.

Don’t blame teachers. The teachers teach. But, you cannot lead a horse to water and if the child doesn’t want to learn then they won’t. Besides, if you knew that you would be promoted even if you failed, would YOU bother learning?

Don’t blame the CRCT. That test was put in place to try and stop this type of promotion. But, there are loop holes and students can be promoted even when they fail the CRCT…. twice! And, when the CRCT does work by failing students that don’t learn, the ajc and general public get all up in arms - so the State says, “let ‘um pass anyway.”

So, the students are promoted until they hit high school. There, reality starts to set in. The end-of-course (EOCT) test counts for 15% of their grade in most core courses - no exceptions. So, a student could still pass even if they fail the EOCT. Some students drop out at this point because they see the writing on the proverbial wall.

Then, the big one hits - the GA High School Graduation Test. This is a do or die test with no exceptions at all. Don’t pass all parts, don’t graduation, period. This test is to test for all 12 years of education.

As a high school teacher I regularly see these students look completely dumbfounded when they realize that they haven’t learned a darn thing in 12 years and haven’t a snowballs chance to graduate. And, as a high school teacher, I have yet to find magic dust that I can sprinkle on the heads of students to force 12 years of learning into their brains.

So then, who’s fault is it? IMHO, it is the parents fault that fought to promote their child to the next grade even though the teachers were telling them that their child was not ready. It is the administration’s fault for promoting the students to make their school numbers ‘look good.’

Teachers can only do so much in this State. We can teach our little hearts out. We can assess as acurately as we can. But when parents don’t want to face reality and when the administration trys to hide reality, what can teacher’s do?

However and as we all know, the ajc and the public will always BLAME THE TEACHERS.

By jim d

June 5, 2008 5:11 AM | Link to this

Oh my, blogger,

Parents don’t need to fight to have their child promoted. The system has become so scewed that a parent must raise hell today to get them held back. So is it the parents fault that the system has seen fit to make it so?

By jim d

June 5, 2008 7:09 AM | Link to this

Blogger,

Here’s the thing: a student can mess up all year long— minimally pass a bubble test at the end of the year by answering roughly 33% of the questions properly, keep in mind they have a 25% probability by quessing, and they are promoted. If a parent wants that child held back they must fight tooth and nail to accomplish that feat in most school systems. (and yes it does happen)

By Tony

June 5, 2008 7:30 AM | Link to this

jim d, not that the new cut scores are impressive, but students must now get at least 52% correct to be considered “meets”.

By jim d

June 5, 2008 8:08 AM | Link to this

Thanks for the correction Tony.

It still doesn’t change the fact that a student can fail all year—minimally meet and be promoted without being prepared for the next grade. I fail to see how anyone can blame parents for this when it clearly is a huge flaw in the promotinal scheme of things.

Here’s another issue that needs discussing; A child pulls A’s and B’s all year—-passes the CRCT and is smart enough to do the math to determine his/her final exam won’t make any difference in their GPA so they just bubble their final and take a nap. My question then is, why even bother making them take the final exams?

By WFC

June 5, 2008 8:19 AM | Link to this

We seem to be constantly butting our heads up against a “Great Wall”: EDUCATION VS. TRAINING. Both are important but they are very different.

EDUCATION is the process by which we become aware of the world and learn how to learn. TRAINING is the process in which we acquire the skills to perform specific tasks. The latter rests on the foundation of the former. We often disagree as to how much “foundation” is necessary.

EDUCATION is America”s key to social mobility. This is why we currently push the concept of “college-for-everyone.” Regardless of how smart you are or how hard you work, you will belong to the “limited success” class unless you get your ticket punched in college. There are a few “entrepreneurial” exceptions, but very few.

We live in a PC WORLD of hazy thinking. Someone please explain to me how the son of a poor unwed mother is supposed to compete with the son of two parents, both with Master’s degrees and a combined income of $150,000? If schools can accomplish this, move over Harry Houdini.

By Tony

June 5, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this

Nice question about finals - I always used a performance assessment at the end of my course. Teaching chemistry and physics made it easy to do that. In chemistry, we used our skills to determine unknowns. In physics, students had a choice of activities ranging from building a hovercraft to staging debates on the use of nuclear energy.

I guess one reason we require the finals is to make the kids come to skill during the two or three days finals are given. It also gives the teachers one more piece of paper to prove their worth.

V - you are on the mark in the differences of elementary and high school students who are “at risk”. As kids mature, the values (or lack of) become entrenched. For many, they see no point in trying to better themselves. Some even view themselves as God’s gift to creation. I have never had a student that I felt was so far gone, but I’m sure others have.

By Tony

June 5, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this

Last post error - skill should have been school

By AlsoTeacher

June 5, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this

My 9th graders are taking their final “test” as I type this. Nevermind that they took the 9th grade literature End-of-Course test three weeks ago, we are still required to give them some sort of assessment on finals day. In my class, it is a performance assessment (Write a persuasive essay). Unfortunately, this final assessment is not going to miraculously save those students who are failing the course and they will once again end up in 9th grade thus inflating the numbers. I agree with the others that the state’s attempt to college-prep every student is misguided and will only increase the drop-out rate. Don’t understand why we can’t use 9th and 10th grade as core classes, then allow students to choose either advanced academic study or vocational training (preferably with apprenticeship opportunity).

By Not Me

June 5, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this

V,

I think there is a huge difference between “being treated like” a glorified baby sitter and “being” a glorified baby sitter. If all teachers can do is to teach kids who will learn no matter what then they ARE glorified baby sitters, and treating them as such is perfectly appropriate, isn’t it?

Quite frankly, the level of professionalism of teachers in this country is deplorable. No wonder they have a LABOR union, not a professional association or board. It is also very unfortunate because there are many teachers who are indeed professionals, but they get thrown together with others who are not.

By RF

June 5, 2008 4:48 PM | Link to this

Quite frankly, the level of professionalism of teachers in this country is deplorable

As a teacher of twenty years with an impeccable reputation and high standards for my students despite increasingly weak curricula, I have to say, as many will, don’t judge until you know the facts. Come be a teacher and then let’s discuss professionalism. Most are very professional, capable, and devoted. Trust me, teaching is a profession that weeds out the ineffective usually very quickly. Some stay, but not many. Don’t judge us all by what you hear about one or two.

Children don’t graduate because they have little support at home, don’t have any desire to do more than just survive, or just simply make bad choices because they come from environments where they don’t have the resources to know that high school graduation is important. Every child I’ve seen drop out in twenty years of teaching was for one of those reasons. Many regret it and go on to get a GED. Someone should check the number of dropouts against the number of GED’s awarded each year.

By MathTeacher

June 5, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this

RF,

I know A LOT of teachers, both in this country and other. Many of them I work closely with are indeed very devoted professionals. However, I have also worked with many who are not much different from janitorial staff at school buildings, who, by the way, are very important part of schools.

The question is the ratio, and, unfortunately, those dedicated ones are the minority. It is too bad because their reputation is tarnished by those who probably should not be in the teaching profession.

If I haven’t had much contact with teachers, I would not have made the statement. I wish it weren’t true.

By RF

June 5, 2008 5:08 PM | Link to this

Here’s a link to see some numbers regarding dropout numbers and numbers of GED’s awarded as of 2000. National average of about 40% shows that close to half of dropouts apparently go on to get GED’s. I suspect the number of dropouts is highly inaccurate since one can’t truly determine how many kids drop out and how many simply withdraw to homeschool or move to another district. How exactly are dropouts counted?

http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?submeasure=93&year=2000&level=nation&mode=graph&state=0

By Tony

June 5, 2008 5:37 PM | Link to this

Very important information about the report upon which this discussion is based!!!!

After digging for more information, it turns out that this report is presenting a PROBABILITY of on-time graduation. It seems that people are quickly taking this out of context and calling the numbers graduation rates. Second, their methods for determining this PROBABILITY have several weaknesses, but most notably they seem to take the grade level populations for high schools and use the numbers to calculate this PROBABILITY. In other words, they are using enrollment data reported through the states and are not taking steps to accurately determine true enrollment on a given day or other types of controls. (Education Policy Analysis Archives)

While graduation rates are not what people are expecting, they are higher than in times past and more people have access to public education than ever before.

By RF

June 5, 2008 8:03 PM | Link to this

MathTeacher- I don’t know where you teach, but I’d seriously consider moving if it’s that bad. I work in a high poverty school (50+% free and reduced lunch) and we have a very dedicated faculty. It’s a small school and system with very caring admininstrators and teachers. I wish I could say the same thing for the parents, but many of them are all but nonexistent. In larger metropolitan systems (Clayton County, Atlanta) where it’s harder to get good teachers, I suppose you may be right. I stand by my assertion though that most teachers are truly dedicated and don’t last long if they aren’t.

Tony- I’d love to see stats from say, fifty to one hundred years ago. I’ll bet the farm that graduation rates are much better than then. I’ve found numbers are all about who’s gathering and what interpretation that person wants to find. One can twist numbers to show anything one wants with enough time.

By Tony

June 6, 2008 8:37 AM | Link to this

RF - Fifty years ago, access to quality education was still limited based on race. Many students were able to drop out and get half-way decent hourly wage jobs. If the formulae of today were applied then, it would be easy to show a high graduation rate. Why? Because many students never entered the 9th grade. The formulae used today use the 9th grade enrollment as the basis of determining graduation rate.

A hundred years ago, high school access was even more limited.

On twisting numbers - “Lies, Dam Lies and Statistics”

By V for Vendetta

June 6, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this

Tony, nice use of the Twain quote. I’ve always liked that one.

RF, I totally agree with what you’ve been saying, but FYI: free and reduced lunch is NOT an accurate measurement of a school’s poverty situation. I teach at one of the “good” schools in the metro area, and we have over 50% of the student population on free and reduced lunch as well. Why? Because they abuse that (stupid) program for all its worth.

Not Me, again, that’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. Making generalizations about teachers’ professionalism is asinine and ill-informed. You’re basing that claim off what you see in the media. Every time a teacher is on the news for something they did wrong, people generalize that behavior to ALL teachers. It’s ridiculous and insulting. I see judges, lawyers, doctors, government officials, etc. every single day on the news because of some crime they committed or some sex scandal or some shady business deal. Does that mean I mistrust ALL judges, lawyers, doctors, and government officials? Of course not. Please be more informed about your topics before making sweeping (and unfounded) generalizations. All that proves is your biting at the hook the media is dangling in front of you.

By RF

June 6, 2008 7:35 PM | Link to this

V- driving around my school system, I’d say the poverty estimate is pretty accurate- perhaps even underestimated actually. Granted, it is easier to see in a rural, small district like mine. I agree with you though on the abuse. There doesn’t seem to be much investigation into applications for free/reduced meals. It’s all about federal dollars, so districts aren’t really investigating claims. They just process the applications and wait for the federal dollars to roll into the coffers.

By V for Vendetta

June 7, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this

RF, Noted. I wasn’t doubting you by any stretch of the imagination. I was simply saying it’s not an accurate measurement.

And you’re damn right about the abuse of the program. It’s pathetic and it makes me want to puke. But then again, so do most wellfare style programs … .

By SET

June 9, 2008 4:48 PM | Link to this

It just a matter of IQ - and occasionally other psych issues getting in the way of graduation. Dull students aren’t supposed to graduate, brights do. So far everything seems to work the way it’s designed to. What’s the problem?

By Tony

June 10, 2008 7:34 PM | Link to this

SET - The problem is that somebody, somewhere has decided that schools are responsible for creating the means for all students to graduate on time. It is one of the most ridiculous decrees by our federal government, but it seems all the big business and media have bought right into the idea. Schools are now branded as failures for maintaining high standards that prevent some from graduating.

By obxgrl

June 11, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this

Kathy Cox needs to take off her blinders and acknowledge that education in Georgia is in desparate need of a complete overhaul.

When was the last time she and her cronies actually visited classes, unannounced, to see what is really going on? Why has she, and local boards, not sought out best practices used by states with stellar academic performance?

Virtually nothing about the educational system in Georgia is providing what our kids need to be truly educated so they can be successful in life.

Sonny Perdue is more interested in building fishing tourism than in educating our kids. Which is probably a good thing since that is about all our kids will be qualified to do.

Academic standards are so low they are embarassing. My 11th grader turned in work this past year, for which he received A’s, that my 6th grade teacher would have refused to grade until it had been rewritten to improve content and grammer.

I have had an elementary school principal tell me that it wasn’t important for the kids to learn how to spell because they would all have spell check on thier computers (how will they know what to choose?), and it wasn’t important for them to learn how to type because everything would be based on voice recognition.

My son’s final project in gifted 8th grade english was to turn a classic into a children’s book. Only 40% of the grade was based on academics (including creating a title page for 10%), and 60% was based on artistic creativity. They were required to hand illustrate the book and could not use normal crayons or colored pencils. They had to use paint or some other medium. Hours wasted on a worthless project when he could have been learning something useful, perhaps learning to write a coherent paragraph.

All of this was in north Dekalb where the schools are supposed to be reasonably good.

And don’t get me started on the lack of vocational trainig. Dekalb operates on the premise that every child needs a college prep curriculum. They don’t even provide for vo-tech education. Then they wonder why the drop out rate is so high.

But nothing will change because it’s politics as usual. And the politicians are interested in only one thing; themselves. Until parents riot over the sorry state we are in, nothing will change.