Get Schooled

By bearcasey

October 16, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this

OK… a simple idea. Require all parents to spend one day per semester in their child’s classroom as an observer. Allow parents to see what actually goes on in class. We are not talking “parent volunteers” here. The parents are in their own child’s classroom all day. They would leave with increased respect for most teachers.

By jim d

October 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

Here’s a better idea. Stop providing education as a right. Make it a revocable priviledge, then just sit back and watch parents get involved!

By TheBlogger

October 16, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this

I agree with jim d on this one. In some Countries, education is really a priviledge. If a student misbehaves or cannot make the grade, they are kicked out - period, end of discussion, no second chances. The kid then is 100% the parents responsibility 24/7.

What better way to ensure parental involvement than with the threat that their creation would be at home 24/7 every day of the year? I bet that all parents would then make darn sure that their child behaves properly and keeps their grades up!

For too many parents (not all), school is nothing more than baby sitting with a free lunch for thier child. And, if their child gets into trouble or has bad grades, they either don’t give a darn or they immediately blame teachers, the school, etc., anyone but their child.

By V for Vendetta

October 16, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this

Jim D and TheBlogger and dead right: If we take away the free babysitting, the quality of parental involvement will drastically improve. The number of emails I’ve received over the years have been very telling. For example,

Gifted Kids: TONS of emails from their parents asking about grades, progress, behavior, and future units to be covered.

Honors Students: Nearly as many emails, but mostly concerned with performance and behavior.

College Prep: Few. Mostly centered on grades but generally delivered in a much more combative tone (if the news isn’t good).

Technical: Almost none. The ones that do come in are misspelled, sometimes incoherent. The tones are generally combative and accusatory regardless of the topic.

Now let’s compare the IQs and grades for each of those groups. I don’t think we need a degree in statistics to see a link here … .

By luvs2teach

October 16, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this

Like V, I have seen a similar relationship between the attendance of Open House and the academic level of the child. When I taught advanced classes, my room was full of parents at Open House. On-level? Not so much.

Even as a parent I have seen the same trend. My son was in an advanced English class - that class was packed. The on-level math class the next period? Two other parents out of a class of 28.

I will also refer everyone once again to the school choice studt referred to in the book Freakonomics that showed Chicago students of families given a choice where to go to school did better in whether or not they got their first choice school!

Which came first, the involved parent or the academically gifted child?

By jim d

October 16, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

Hey y’all the only catch to my plan is that it would require ending compulsory education.

Hmm, that might just work better than I origionally thought.

By SallyB

October 16, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this

I was totally involved in both of my children’s schools from k-12. It was almost a full time job, keeping up/ attending/raising money/volunteering. I know I could not have done all that I did if I had had a full time, demanding job. [ I was a paraprofessional in those years and when they were in high school I began teaching full time. ]

My mother pointed out to me that “back in the day” she and my father NEVER were involved, never even attended PTA meetings. .And neither were other parents of their generation. The only time they had any contact with school was when their child was in some kind of performance…….they attended and sometimes made a costume. She believed that a child’s performance in school is related to parental expectations” rather than “parental invovlement”.

In my years in the school system I came to believe that she was right. I never met the parents of some of my very best students. Some of them were living in deplorable conditions, even taking care of younger siblings while their parents [ or parent ] workded 2 or 2 jobs . Granted, many, but not all of these were Asian students whose parents expectations were off the scale.

By jim d

October 16, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this

Playing devils advocate on this one.

Most schools come across as not really wanting parental involvement in any other form that what they suggest. Making it most difficult for a parent to become involved.

By SallyB

October 16, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this

luvs2teach@12:54….. Your last comment/question….Which came first, the involved parent or the academically gifted child?” What food for thought that is!!!!!

By Tony

October 16, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this

The Supreme Court has declared that education is a right, so I don’t see any change to that principle. This means we will have to look at realistic avenues to educate all students. By the way, your social security and medicare depend on how well this generation of student is educated.

I laughed at the title, “Making Parents Participate”. This as if we can make parents do anything. Parents who want to be involved have already laid the most important foundation for their child. Education is important. A parent who believes this will be involved.

Federal rules require schools to do things to improve/increase parental involvement in schools. It is hilarious (and sad at the same time) to see some of the things schools do to improve parent involvement.

I’ll quickly admit our school is well supported by parents and these good people have strong feelings about the importance of a good education, and their children know it. We don’t have to play those games.

By Gwinnett Parent

October 16, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

This is interesting. Half of the education community complain that the parents are too involved and the other half complain that they are not involved enough. There will never be a happy medium.

By jim d

October 16, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

“The Supreme Court has declared that education is a right”

Not entirely correct Tony.

The United States Constitution is one of restricted authority and delegated powers. As provided in the Tenth Amendment, all powers not granted to the United States by the Constitution, nor denied to the States by it, are reserved to the States or to the People.

That being said it falls back onto each states constitution to determine if education is a right or not. So in reality any state could ammend their constitution deleting any articles making education a right. (in Ga. I’m pretty certain that would be article VIII)

By Mike D

October 16, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this

Just a thought that doesn’t include my usual pranks against my neighbors - for once

What about having the education money follow the children. This would open up new institutuions that would complete with other public and private schools to get each kid - which in theory would make better and better school. Right now the public schools don’t have to compete for anything, so they can suck all they want and the community can’t do much about it. The other choice right now is private school that is usualy out of reach for most people.

The catch to keeping parents involved would be the school can decide not to accept or keep your child.

By Needless

October 16, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this

Education should ALWAYS be a RIGHT, because we already have too many uneducated people in this country.

The more uneducated people in this country, the faster we will become a third world country. Crime will definitely become a much bigger issues and the more jails we will need. We will not increase our workforce, with ONLY the chose few being educated.

If education becomes a privilege “once again”, we will need to go back to being farmers and riding horses, like in the early 1800s. How would we ever survive as a technical, educationally advanced society, if we don’t promote the education of all our citizens.

How quickly would the job market change, if we stopped educating our children? Everything is being ran by computers. We are importing and exporting goods from all around the world. Little Johnny needs to know that CHINA and JAPANs are countries and where to find them on a map.

If we only educated 30% to 40% of our entire population, we would be in a worse financial disaster than we are TODAY.

If you think there is a shortage of Nurses today, I would hate to see what it would look like after 10 to 20 years of EDUCATION NOT BEING A RIGHT.

Jim D, could you please describe to me a vision of what you believe our world would look like, after 10 to 20 years of not educating our children? I’m talking NO Education at all (Reading, Writing, Math, History, Foreign Language, Music, etc….) this includes no Technical schools. Only the most privileged and those with the BEST parents attending school of course.

This is a NEEDLESS conversation, because we face to many challenges to GO BACK IN TIME.

By Susan

October 16, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this

Education is the one thing that no one can take away from our children. As a single mother, I sent my child to a private school over an hour away for a better education. We get involved ONLY when we want too. Working 2 jobs, was it worth it? I refuse to allow myself or my son to be the “statistic” of a single parent.

By Susan

October 16, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this

Education is the one thing that no one can take away from our children. As a single mother, I sent my child to a private school over an hour away for a better education. We get involved ONLY when we want too. Working 2 jobs, was it worth it? I refuse to allow myself or my son to be the “statistic” of a single parent.

By Tony

October 16, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this

jim d - It’s my understanding that the landmark ruling of Brown clearly connected the 14th amendment (equal protection) to a person’s right to an education. Further federal action regarding education has embedded the status of a “free appropriate public education” to all children.

It is true that states could reject all federal funding and make their own rules for education. This is not likely to happen.

By jim d

October 16, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this

Needless,

did I say don’t educate our children?

No indeed, But there are other methods of providing a public education.

Liberals, ironically, think that a liberal education system based on parental choice would be socially divisive. They have it exactly backwards: it is the compelled conformity of a single officially-established school system that is socially divisive.

Individual freedom in other areas of American life, especially religion, is the reason we have had such a comparatively stable and peaceful society. If we got rid of the one significant remaining area of cultural and ideological compulsion, the official school monopoly, the current red vs. blue animosity would lessen substantially.

As mike has mentioned above—simply allow choice. I am a LARGE advocate of choice as any regular blogger here can attest. I just didn’t want to be the first to bring it up again.

MIKE has it right!! It’s just a shame that so much of America fears freedom to such a degree that they feel they must fight it. It really is ironic we are allowed to determine who teaches our children about religion, yet we refuse to accept that people other than employees of the state are capable of providing a first class education to our kids.

Perhaps separation of State and education laws, similar to the separation clause in our constitution will be needed before it can happen. What a shame!!

By jim d

October 16, 2008 5:26 PM | Link to this

Tony,

Brown was about equality. Provide for one—then you must provide for all. By providing for none—well, you get the point. Since the government is so involved in education, I agree they will never concede that power. However, the inevitable is freedom of choice. Hopefully this will happen in our lifetime.

By catlady

October 16, 2008 5:32 PM | Link to this

I am about to go to a special program for parents and students at my school. It requires no preparation—just showing up. Free refreshments, too. Now, we have about 630 kids(130 Latino), so you figure about 500 families, with about 80 Latino families. My bet is, we will see the parents of about 60 kids, and half will be Latino. Will let you know when I get back.

What is the difference? Not parental education or money, but PARENTAL INTEREST AND THE FEELING THAT THEIR KIDS HAVE TO HAVE THIS EDUCATION THAT IS BEING OFFERED TO THEM.

By Nuphaz

October 16, 2008 5:50 PM | Link to this

Brown v the Board was sinply about the differenes intra school system that were divided along racial lines. It was never about - I want to go to another school, it was make all schools equal in facilities, equipment and resources in order to provide the same quality of education.

How about this concept. Revert back to tha age when discipline was a teamm effort between parents and teachers. When little johnnie - gets out of hand. Put a hand on him. This order well, children need order and structure. To allow them to exist in an environment without consequences during the entire day AND at home we are asking for the trouble experienced today.

By Needless

October 16, 2008 6:09 PM | Link to this

By jim d

October 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

Here’s a better idea. Stop providing education as a right. Make it a revocable priviledge, then just sit back and watch parents get involved!

When you make statements such as the above, it comes across as if you don’t believe that a CHILD should have the Right to an education.

FYI… Children are not old enough to make a decision about their future and in some cases parents don’t care. But, since that child will oneday become and adult; someone (govenrment) should step in to invest in what the country as a whole will become.

At this time, people do have a CHOICE about their childs education. You can decide, like many people have in the past and in the future, to send your child to private schools. Unfortunately, the cost of private school is outside of the financial means of a large segment of the population.

I believe that we should invest in the schools within OUR community and a child should not have to go across town to a GOOD school. The school building down the street or around the corner should have the ability to provide a successful education to every child in that community.

We are very good at labeling a BUILDING as a bad school, but will not take the time to volunteer our time or committ to help making the community and the schools a more successful enviornment. It doesn’t have to be a financial investment, but it would be a great idea for the successful population, to take a few minutes and go into a BAD School building and make an investment in the future of our society.

We need afterschool programs at the schools during the weekday and on weekends if necessary. We need the ability to discipline appropriately, which doesn’t mean kicking kids out of schools entirely. Even the bullies and drug dealers need to be educated.

Call me a libearl Jim, but when it comes to EDUCATION, I believe in it 100% and that it is DEFINITELY a RIGHT that everyone should have. I don’t care if you have the worst parents in the world, because even a child with a BAD parent can become successful, if they come into contact with the RIGHT individual(s).

By Kudos to SallyB

October 16, 2008 7:48 PM | Link to this

One poster’s comments stand out above all others in this thread, those of SallyB. It is not parental participation, it’s parental expectations.

Ironically some of the most involved parents have some of the lowest expectations. Like the parents who were “involved” in their child’s toilet training; all the way to age 5. Compare that to the parent who “expected” it to happen by age 3, and it did; with a few days of training, and very little fanfare.

It’s not participation, it’s expectation and it’s the fundamental failure of the public schools, as many parents don’t get the difference, and the school systems and politicians kowtow to them, instead of rewarding the parents that do get it.

By teacher2

October 16, 2008 7:53 PM | Link to this

I teach high school science. I get more sad every day for some of these kids. Not only are their grades tied to parental expectations/involvement, but their behavior is tied in there too. I teach at a high-risk school and I just don’t know what is going to become of the vast majority of these kids. They think that welfare is a right and that money made from a job is meant to be used to buy an i-pod or cell phone. They learn this at home. Therefore, they see no value in education.
So many times when I call a parent I hear “I haven’t been able to do anything with him/her since 3rd (4th, etc) grade, maybe you can do something.” Honestly, I’m scared for our future. As teachers, we can care about them and try to make them better people, but we simply can’t go home with them at night and on the weekends to make sure that our message is stronger than the one that they see in their own home every single day!

By catlady

October 16, 2008 8:30 PM | Link to this

Teacher2, when I taught kindergarten I had quite a few parents bring their (usually) boys in and say “I hope you can do something with him because I can’t” I eventually developed a shocked, blank look and would say, “you’ve got to be kidding.” A parent said, “she won’t ride the bus home.” I said, “don’t pick her up and she will ride it home.” and “she won’t let me put a barrett in her hair.” My God, the kid is 5. Be the parent; pin the hair back or cut it off.

Please don’t suggest that we go home with them at night because I see that coming!

I have a couple of third graders so messed up (terrible home life) that they FRIGHTEN me.

We had about 60 parents; about 20 of them were Anglo. The rest were Latino.

What we need is parent INVESTMENT.

By V for Vendetta

October 16, 2008 8:39 PM | Link to this

“Even the bullies and the drug dealers need to be educated.”

Sure, Needless. Why not? How about I sit them down in a class right next to your kid. Would that be OK with you? I mean, since education SHOULD (in all caps, no less) be a right and all.

No, Needless, Education should absolutely, without a doubt, NOT be a right. You’re not thinking about what we’re saying here. I’m not suggesting leaving the choice up to the kid. I’m simply saying that education should be treated like driving—you are more than welcome to partake in the privilige, but if you disrespect the opportunity by flunking out, causing chronic behavior problems, or negatively impacting the education of those around you, you should be swiftly removed. It should not be the school’s problem to deal with delinquents. That responsibility should rest solely on the parents who raised them.

So, in short, everyone is more than welcome to an education. But, if you waste your opportunity, then you can go F#$k yourself. The world needs ditch diggers.

Heck, the world needs fertilizer. :-) Think of it as social Darwinism.

By Donai

October 16, 2008 9:19 PM | Link to this

Schools with high levels of participation from parents tend to have well disciplined children, are higher performing academically and receive higher ratings from school report card.

It is unfortunate that an increased number of parents expect the schools to “parent” their children. However, if little Johnnie misbehaves they arrive at the school ready for war. Every parent should be required to enjoy one day at school with their child. Take a parent to school day. Teachers will gain support and parents will begin to do their God given job.

Yes, parents should be involved in their children’s education. Yes, if the child is unwilling to cooperate or behave , then provide an alternative away from cooperating students. Everyone deserves an oppourtunity to learn.

By Sade

October 16, 2008 9:38 PM | Link to this

V for Vendette you hit the nail on the head! I too am a high school teacher and I see so many students who come to school just to socialize; they have no interest in learning because it’s too hard. They’ll come to class with nothing but their electronic pacifiers, disregard the rules, or skip class but not leave school. Go figure. These children are failing classes and yet they are afforded every priviledge: cell phones, iPods, laptops, digital cameras, etc.. And their parents allow them to go on field trips - passing grades should be a requirement but you can’t hold a child accountable for their lack of learning; after all they’re just children! PLEASE… when will it end.

To elected officials, the school board, and administrators: If children are not held accountable, if there are no meaningful consequences, if you continue to allow repeated misbehavior with a mere slap on the wrist nothing will change and you are doing these children a disservice by continuing to allow it to happen. We deserve better from you. These children are responsible for their behavior and they should be held accountable. They are misbehaving because you let them.

By Sade

October 16, 2008 10:07 PM | Link to this

The world does need ditch diggers, mechanics, construction workers, and skilled labor of all sorts. Unfortunatley, everyone is pushing little Johnnie and Lakeisha to go to college but what they fail to see is that little Johnnie and Lakeisha are not academically inclined. Therefore, they misbehave, skip school, and waste away valuable time that could be spent learning a trade that would occupy their hands and yes, their minds! And when they graduate from high school they will be able to earn a decent and most likely profitable living. Instead little Johnnie and Lakeisha routinely get into trouble, get suspended, can’t or don’t want to learn, and probably drop out. If they do manage to graduate from high school they will have no skills with which to get a job. Our school system desparately needs to be re-vamped. We are not a one size fits all ability. Parents: get involved fight to get the education that is best for your child. They need you.

By Competitive

October 16, 2008 10:31 PM | Link to this

Parental expectations are far more important than parental participation.

However, think of the main law requiring parental expectations: truancy. Our government has the audacity to require our parents to expect their children to attend school and follow up those expectations with actions. When it doesn’t happen, schools and the courts are too weak-kneed to stand up to the parents and enforce the laws. I wonder what our schools and courts would do if parents did not uphold high academic or behavioral expectations for their kids.

By mmmm

October 16, 2008 11:14 PM | Link to this

Well, some parents just give up getting involved because of their kids’ teachers, too. Some teachers are hopelessly arrogant and clueless about what their profession is supposed to be. We should send teachers who aren’t teaching, i.e. whose students aren’t learning, to jails, too.

By SallyFR

October 16, 2008 11:24 PM | Link to this

It’s a testimony to how bad our schools are that you people don’t seem to understand the value to all of society of educating our children. Forcing parental involvement in school is a stupid idea, what sort of police state would that require. But then I remember, you republican folks want to take away the rights of individuals, i.e. students and parents, while increasing the rights of the government and business. The idea that it’s conservative and fiscally sound (oh you guys don’t know that one, were you in ged class with Mr. Palin?) to have some sort of law enforcement agency that monitors whether parents at home make kids do their homework is proof that we need to do away with bogus “education departments” and focusing on hiring qualified teachers, paying them well, cleaning up the schools physically, and cutting the bogus crap like the enormously expensive right wing failure, No Child Left Behind.

By love my 4 kids

October 16, 2008 11:34 PM | Link to this

I always thought that the original idea behind government school was “benevolence”. Even Jesus says that the “poor will always be with you.” This system was set up as government supervised redistribution of wealth, such that even the poor had a chance at an education and success in life. The wealthier have always had the opportunity to provide their offspring a quality private education, while still contributing to the less fortunate through school taxes. Some in the middle class have also had the opportunity to rise to this level of choice. Currently, the home school choice has become the “poor man’s private school.” Only the public schools have a state sanctioned tax advantage. It is the home schooling parents that make the greatest sacrifice. They must run their home and school on one income, while still paying a school tax, and they must supply all their curriculum and extracurriculars out of pocket, with no tax break. Yet they gladly do it because they see the genuine rewards of a close-knit family, the freedom to customize their child’s education, and a healthier lifestyle.

I have heard that about 90% of American children attend government schools. Why is this percentage so large if it is such a dismal place? Remember, about 90% of those parents (and teachers) are graduates of that same system. Did not the “benevolent” school system give them enough impetus to achieve economic independence such that they could choose an alternative education for this generation of students? Did not this “benevolent” school system give them a firm moral foundation by which they would be equipped to train their children to be respectful, exercise self control, and to have a decent work ethic? It would seem that Paul’s words are true, “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.”

By TheBlogger

October 16, 2008 11:43 PM | Link to this

Now, come on guys! Sure, overall society would be better if every citizen was educated. In that, there is no doubt.

Ever heard of that saying: You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink? Same for education. Sure, the horse needs water to survive. Sure, kids would be better off with an education. But, you cannot force the horse to drink. And, you cannot force kids to get an education.

Therein lies the problem.

The solution is to make education a priviledge, not a ‘right.’ It should be considered something special and that every child desires. Today’s parents (most of them it seems) do not instill this in their kids under the current system.

So, we must change the system. In other words, make the public schools available to only those children willing to behave and to make the grade. Children that cannot stop fighting, disrupting class, etc. should simply be expelled - not only are they not getting their education but they are also preventing other kids from getting their education. And, children that simply refuse to put forth the minimal effort to simply pass need to also be expelled - let them sit at home, do chores, get a job, whatever. But, why waste taxpayer dollars trying to education a kid that doesn’t want an education?

With an approach like this, I feel that the attitude towards school will quickly change and everyone (students and parents) will change for the better.

By Mary

October 17, 2008 12:27 AM | Link to this

How would you define involvement? For example, would you require a parent who gets a week of vacation and no sick leave to take a day off to staple leaves on a bulletin board? Would you ask the teacher to spend a day in summer doing that parent’s job so the parent can take the day off and read to his kids? Does your pediatrician ask you to decorate her office for Halloween? Schools and teachers naturally want to blame parents, and sometimes they’re right. But there’s also a “culture of complaint” in the educational system that makes it harder to look at situations and solutions realistically.

By Ms. Pris

October 17, 2008 6:08 AM | Link to this

The only thing I can say is that this is a big problem down here in the South. I wonder why. Look at school districts thoughout the country where the socio-economics support the belief that education is very important. My kids attend one. One child is in special ed for having ADD. She is smart but unfocused. My other two are in honors classes. Regardless of what level the kids are at parental involvement is high at the elem, middle, and high school levels. The parents are well educated and want their children to be well educated. There is no “you owe me” mentality, “it ain’t my problem” mentality at all. No wonder the South is so low on education. You should be able to live in any county outside the metro Atlanta area and attend a great school. People who no longer live in the South, or who don’t live there at all can so clearly see what the problem is.

By Leah

October 17, 2008 7:20 AM | Link to this

Mary - you’ve missed the point altogether! First of all, I don’t do bulletin boards at my level, so, I wouldn’t ask anyone to come and staple leaves for me! Secondly, the point is to be involved in your child’s education, not to help me do my job! Parental involvement to me is making sure that you respond to emails from teachers, making sure that your child has the proper tools for learning everyday (paper, pencil, calculator, book, etc.), making sure that your child has had enough sleep at night, giving your child breakfast in the morning so they aren’t in the hallways feeding money into the vending machines and eating crap all day long instead of being in the classroom learning. Parental involvement means having constant communication with the teachers, and not just when your child gets in trouble or is failing a class. I guess what I’m trying to say is that parental involvement means being involved in your child’s life - actually being a parent.

Your example of having a teacher take a week off so a parent can read to his/her child is ridiculous! Parents should be reading to their younger children everyday anyway! Why would you need someone to “cover” for you so you can do your job as a parent? Ridiculous. And, no - pediatricians don’t ask you to decorate their offices, but, they ask you to help your child by feeding them the right foods, having a healthy, active lifestyle and getting the proper rest. And, that is basically all I ask of you as well. Just make sure you do your job at home, and don’t expect me to be your child’s parent. I’m not. I’m his teacher.

By Meme

October 17, 2008 7:21 AM | Link to this

I invite parents to participate by coming to lunch with their kids, attending career day, coming to games after school, and any fun event that we have. I don’t need parents to come and work, but I would love for them to come and visit.

By TheBlogger

October 17, 2008 7:55 AM | Link to this

Mary and others miss the point entirely

Parent involvement is not strictly defined as visiting the school at all. Parental involvement can include reading to their child at home. It can include simply asking about their child’s grades over dinner. It can include a discussion with their child about how valuable education is for their future. It can include many things and each of them have value for the child.

There is no finger pointing at all. This blog is about parental involvement. Too many parents are detached from their own childs education and their education suffers because of it.

The post about it being a “southern” thing may or not be right. But, when a parent says that it isn’t their problem or thinks that the teacher/school will handle it all, then there is certainly a problem.

By Joy in Teaching

October 17, 2008 7:56 AM | Link to this

Personally, I welcome any parent to visit my room at any time. Tne last two or three that came to visit left shaking their heads at some of the downright disrespectful things that some of these kids do to each other and to adults.

Should education be a right? Of course. All people in an enlightened society should have the opportunity for education. However, with rights come responsibilities. Just showing up expecting teachers to perform miracles on those who are rude, disrespectful, and who cannot be compelled to be quiet and stop dancing around is ridiculous. And guess what? The behaviour of those fools has a direct impact upon those who do want to learn and get an eduacation because every single moment that is spent on working with those behavior problems is time taken away from helping those who do want to learn.

Even Max Thompson does not carry magic fairy dust in his Learning Focused box of tricks.

By Joy in Teaching

October 17, 2008 8:04 AM | Link to this

This is a bit off topic…but…

I’ve noticed that in my school, many of the Level II and Level III discipline offenses are “choice” students who attend our school from another that did not make AYP. (My AP has suggested that around 75% of those offenses are choice students.)

The tax payers are footing the bill for these students to be transported to a different school. The “choice” school has had to hire additional personel and provide trailers due to over crowding. (The other school has empty classrooms.) And for what? While many of our choice students are doing well…there are some who do not.

Shouldn’t there be some sort of “rule” that requires choice students to at least make PASSING grades and BEHAVE when taxpayers are forking out yet more money for them to go to an alternate education environment?

By Iveysmom

October 17, 2008 8:08 AM | Link to this

I live in Gwinnett county. The absolutely DO NOT want parental involvement in no other way than fundraising. They claim that it is a disruption. Well I’ve adopted for my family fundraising for Gwinnett County schools is a disruption.

By John

October 17, 2008 8:25 AM | Link to this

When I was in school one of the neighbor kids parents gave about $5k a year to the booster club. He was always on the honor roll and never got into trouble. Just throw some money at the school and your kid will do fine. They’ll see to that.

By Andrew

October 17, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this

Money alone won’t accomplish much. Money tends to “get lost along the way” to classroom improvement

Stop social promotion and automatic graduation. Teachers should pass kids to the next grade “only if they learn what they are supposed to know” and high school students should pass tests “in each of the major subjects before they can graduate”

Free-up the front-line educators. Local schools ought to have considerably greater freedom and control over curriculum, budgets, and, especially, firing “teachers that aren’t performing”.

Reward good teachers. Good teachers should be rewarded with higher pay and paid more if they “work in tough neighborhoods with hard-to-reach students”.

Enforce discipline. Schools should enforce strict discipline with regard to student behavior, dress, and speech.

Allow broad public school choice programs and parents are able to be involved when and where they choose. Many charter schools require parent participation to a level traditional public schools can only dream of. But that is not for everyone. Allow parents to make the choice which is best for them and their child.

DO NOT BE AFRAID OF COMPETITION IN PUBLIC K-12 EDUCATION!!!!!!

By Meme

October 17, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this

We would love to be able to keep some of the kids who fail back but they are usually administratively placed.

By jim d

October 17, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this

“some of the kids”?

C’mon meme, why not all of them? Be honest here, you know well that not all of them are there to learn. Those need to be culled and sent to an alternative type of educational facility.

*Joy in Teaching *

You mention Ga. choice students. these are kids that were not able to make it in their previous schools, why in heavens name does anyone expect anything different? As for requirements in choice schools? I refer you to Michigan’s Choice program statutes)/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-388-1705)

While grades may not be considered please note this paragraph.

(9) Subject to subsection (10), a district may refuse to enroll a nonresident applicant if any of the following are met:

(a) The applicant is, or has been within the preceding 2 years, suspended from another school.

(b) The applicant, at any time before enrolling under this section, has been expelled from another school.

(c) The applicant, at any time before enrolling under this section, has been convicted of a felony.

Again let me emphasize that “CHOICE CAN WORK” One thing for sure, I believe you’d see schools stop pandering to these thugs and start kicking them out.

By jim d

October 17, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

Sorry joy,

Try this link)/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-388-1705)

By jim d

October 17, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

Why parents should have choice.

“Do we really think that a government-dominated education is going to produce citizens capable of dominating their government, as the education of a truly vigilant self-governing people requires?” [Alan Keyes]

By Lee

October 17, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

“Would it be possible to legislate strong parent involvement in their kids’ education? Without a law requiring it, how do we make parents do their part?”

Jesus H. Christ, are you kidding me?? Did I go to sleep for twenty years and wake up in Russia?

There is so much wrong with those two sentences, it blows the mind.

Couple with that, I frequently read on this blog something to the effect: “We should REQUIRE THE PARENTS to blah, blah, blah.”

Schools exist to provide a service. That is, to provide academic instruction to their students. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I currently pay over $15k per year for private school tuition due to an idiotic middle school principal, 2-3 equally idiotic middle school teachers, and a superintendent who had his head stuck up his a*. Like I’m going to stand still and let that bunch of idiots have even more control over our lives - I’d rather see public education abolished.

To paraphrase Voltaire, “It is dangerous to be right in matters the government is wrong.” And government usurping the most basic human right, parenthood, is definately wrong.

Maybe we should REQUIRE teachers and newspaper reporters to take a class in constitutional law. Who knows, you might learn something.

By Jennifer

October 18, 2008 7:35 AM | Link to this

Lee, you are correct on basic rights. But I am sure that it comes as no surprise to you or anyone else that kids do better in school when parents participate. That doesn’t mean they ever need to set foot in the building. If they would set expectations,provide consequences, keep up with what is going on and communicate (as needed) with the teacher, their kids would work to the best of their ability. I teach middle school math. Of the kids that failed my class this first nine weeks, nearly all are because their parents are totally MIA. I can’t get them on the phone, they don’t respond to my notes, their kids do next to no classwork or homework. Should we legislate parental involvement? No, for the reasons you stated. Are there times I wish I could? Absolutely, for the reasons I stated. I work so hard to get these kids to achieve and excel, but I can’t do it alone. I have them 55 minutes a day for 180 days (and often far less if attendance is an issue). Their parents have them for 18 years. I can’t overcome that when the parenting is poor.

By Meme

October 20, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

Yes, Jim D., some of the kids not all. There are some kids who are never, ever, ever going to be on grade level. Should we have 16 year old in the 5th grade? Placement in the next grade is sometimes the best thing to do.