Woman to Woman

By USinUK

September 19, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this

As promised - I hereby institute Friday Snacks … this week, I give you Guiness Chocolate Cupcakes:

_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/

please help yourselves … (recipe at Epicurious)

now, as for the subject at hand, kids take way the hell too many standardized tests! they lose more than a week each school year to tests - time that could be better spent … oh, I dunno … LEARNING. it’s draining for the kids, it’s a challenge to teachers and administrators squeeze more curriculae into less time and it really sucks the life out of education.

yes, there needs to be accountability - but it’s really coming at the kids’ expense.

By ashley

September 19, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

i think that standardized test are worthless. the teachers should teach more things than just what they have to teach because of those tests….. ash..*

By Gale

September 19, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

Before jumping into this topic… the new Mark Morford column is interesting if you are shaking your head over the Palin effect. http://www(dot)sfgate(dot)com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/09/19/notes091908(dot)DTL

By Gale

September 19, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this

Shaunti,” The law shouldn’t be blamed for the fact that too many school districts force good teachers to focus more on the test than the point of the test.” But then gives a quote from and administrator about focus on the goal and the test will take care of itself. Seems contradictory to me.

IT isn’t working, Shaunti. A few scores have gone up a little. We still have about a 50% dropout rate in GA. We still have kids that often cannot read at level. We still have a fifth grade five day science curriculum that I am personally aware of being squeezed into two days so the test material can be taught. It isn’t working.

By TheBlogger

September 19, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this

“Teaching to the test” will negatively impact students, IMHO. However, a teacher does not have to teach to the test in order for students to get high test scores.

Therein lies the flaw with this blog.

By USinUK

September 19, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

Gale -

We still have about a 50% dropout rate in GA

now, there’s a topic. why do you think there’s still such a high dropout rate ??

ABC has a story from 2006 up and they talk about GA - one of the kids they quote said, “I was just tired of school, you know. I didn’t like it. I had made my mind up that I wasn’t going to school anymore,” Thomasson said.

how do we make learning more motivational? how do we engage these kids so that they want to get an education and do something with their lives?

By Victoria

September 19, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this

“Kids are beefing up on the state test material” explains Bob Schaeffer of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing. “But it doesn’t mean they know the subject matter.” Proof can be found with inferior scores on similar external tests, from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) to the SAT. In other words, test the same knowledge in a slightly different way and you realize that kids are adept at filling in bubbles on a sheet, not gaps in their education.

This reminds me of a book I read. It wasn’t a scholarly work, or a work of non-fiction. It was actually a work of science fiction. However, it had a real theory in it. That theory was the “chinese room” idea. Today’s modern schooling teaches kids to be those “chinese rooms”. They’re given the symbols that get the results, but there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of understanding going on. I can ask my sister things that are supposed to be common knowledge, and she has no clue of the answer to what I’ve asked.

This description of chinese rooms, taken from wikipedia, explains what I am talking about.

—-“Searle requests that his reader imagine that, many years from now, people have constructed a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, using a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose, says Searle, that this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a human Chinese speaker. All of the questions that the human asks it receive appropriate responses, such that the Chinese speaker is convinced that he or she is talking to another Chinese-speaking human being. Most proponents of artificial intelligence would draw the conclusion that the computer understands Chinese, just as the Chinese-speaking human does.

Searle then asks the reader to suppose that he is in a room in which he receives Chinese characters, consults a book containing an English version of the aforementioned computer program and processes the Chinese characters according to its instructions. He does not understand a word of Chinese; he simply manipulates what, to him, are meaningless symbols, using the book and whatever other equipment, like paper, pencils, erasers and filing cabinets, is available to him. After manipulating the symbols, he responds to a given Chinese question in the same language. As the computer passed the Turing test this way, it is fair, says Searle, to deduce that he has done so, too, simply by running the program manually. “Nobody just looking at my answers can tell that I don’t speak a word of Chinese,” he writes.[1]

This lack of understanding, according to Searle, proves that computers do not understand Chinese either, because they are in the same position as he — nothing but mindless manipulators of symbols: they do not have conscious mental states like an “understanding” of what they are saying, so they cannot fairly and properly be said to have minds.” —-

Now I’m not saying that kids have no minds. What I’m saying is that the expectations of testing turn a child into a ‘chinese room’. So to me, Sarvardy has it right. Kids are just good at filling in bubbles. Sadly, they aren’t even given a complete set of “rules” if they can’t fill the bubbles in when presented with the information in a different way…

By Victoria

September 19, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this

“Kids are beefing up on the state test material” explains Bob Schaeffer of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing. “But it doesn’t mean they know the subject matter.” Proof can be found with inferior scores on similar external tests, from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) to the SAT. In other words, test the same knowledge in a slightly different way and you realize that kids are adept at filling in bubbles on a sheet, not gaps in their education.

This reminds me of a book I read. It wasn’t a scholarly work, or a work of non-fiction. It was actually a work of science fiction. However, it had a real theory in it. That theory was the “chinese room” idea. Today’s modern schooling teaches kids to be those “chinese rooms”. They’re given the symbols that get the results, but there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of understanding going on. I can ask my sister things that are supposed to be common knowledge, and she has no clue of the answer to what I’ve asked.

This description of chinese rooms, taken from wikipedia, explains what I am talking about.

—-“Searle requests that his reader imagine that, many years from now, people have constructed a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, using a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose, says Searle, that this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a human Chinese speaker. All of the questions that the human asks it receive appropriate responses, such that the Chinese speaker is convinced that he or she is talking to another Chinese-speaking human being. Most proponents of artificial intelligence would draw the conclusion that the computer understands Chinese, just as the Chinese-speaking human does.

Searle then asks the reader to suppose that he is in a room in which he receives Chinese characters, consults a book containing an English version of the aforementioned computer program and processes the Chinese characters according to its instructions. He does not understand a word of Chinese; he simply manipulates what, to him, are meaningless symbols, using the book and whatever other equipment, like paper, pencils, erasers and filing cabinets, is available to him. After manipulating the symbols, he responds to a given Chinese question in the same language. As the computer passed the Turing test this way, it is fair, says Searle, to deduce that he has done so, too, simply by running the program manually. “Nobody just looking at my answers can tell that I don’t speak a word of Chinese,” he writes.[1]

This lack of understanding, according to Searle, proves that computers do not understand Chinese either, because they are in the same position as he — nothing but mindless manipulators of symbols: they do not have conscious mental states like an “understanding” of what they are saying, so they cannot fairly and properly be said to have minds.” —-

Now I’m not saying that kids have no minds. What I’m saying is that the expectations of testing turn a child into a ‘chinese room’. So to me, Sarvardy has it right. Kids are just good at filling in bubbles. Sadly, they aren’t even given a complete set of “rules” if they can’t fill the bubbles in when presented with the information in a different way…

By Victoria

September 19, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

“Kids are beefing up on the state test material” explains Bob Schaeffer of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing. “But it doesn’t mean they know the subject matter.” Proof can be found with inferior scores on similar external tests, from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) to the SAT. In other words, test the same knowledge in a slightly different way and you realize that kids are adept at filling in bubbles on a sheet, not gaps in their education.

This reminds me of a book I read. It wasn’t a scholarly work, or a work of non-fiction. It was actually a work of science fiction. However, it had a real theory in it. That theory was the “chinese room” idea. Today’s modern schooling teaches kids to be those “chinese rooms”. They’re given the symbols that get the results, but there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of understanding going on. I can ask my sister things that are supposed to be common knowledge, and she has no clue of the answer to what I’ve asked.

This description of chinese rooms, taken from wikipedia, explains what I am talking about.

—-“Searle requests that his reader imagine that, many years from now, people have constructed a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, using a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose, says Searle, that this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a human Chinese speaker. All of the questions that the human asks it receive appropriate responses, such that the Chinese speaker is convinced that he or she is talking to another Chinese-speaking human being. Most proponents of artificial intelligence would draw the conclusion that the computer understands Chinese, just as the Chinese-speaking human does.

Searle then asks the reader to suppose that he is in a room in which he receives Chinese characters, consults a book containing an English version of the aforementioned computer program and processes the Chinese characters according to its instructions. He does not understand a word of Chinese; he simply manipulates what, to him, are meaningless symbols, using the book and whatever other equipment, like paper, pencils, erasers and filing cabinets, is available to him. After manipulating the symbols, he responds to a given Chinese question in the same language. As the computer passed the Turing test this way, it is fair, says Searle, to deduce that he has done so, too, simply by running the program manually. “Nobody just looking at my answers can tell that I don’t speak a word of Chinese,” he writes.[1]

This lack of understanding, according to Searle, proves that computers do not understand Chinese either, because they are in the same position as he — nothing but mindless manipulators of symbols: they do not have conscious mental states like an “understanding” of what they are saying, so they cannot fairly and properly be said to have minds.” —-

Now I’m not saying that kids have no minds. What I’m saying is that the expectations of testing turn a child into a ‘chinese room’. So to me, Sarvardy has it right. Kids are just good at filling in bubbles. Sadly, they aren’t even given a complete set of “rules” if they can’t fill the bubbles in when presented with the information in a different way…

By kimberly

September 19, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this

High school students with low test scores bring down a school’s average. Now what do you think happens to these kids in an NCLB scores-motivated high school? (a) They get extra attention from faculty to fill in the gaps in their education to this point, and the counseling and encouragement to belive that yes, they CAN succeed? or (b) They are encouraged (often through negative reinforcement) to transfer to an “alternative” school that prepares them (in the few weeks they actually remain there) for life as a drop-out? Take a guess.

I’ve SEEN what happens — close up and personal with a friend’s son — but I’d like to see actual teachers (Chuck, RF, Monica?), and parents of struggling students discuss and enlighten us on this topic.

As the parent of academic over-achievers, all I can say is that they’ve spent months of their lives, over the years, in repetitive drilling for tests, bored out of their minds, completely uninspired, and learning nothing during those times. (Actually, they did learn something: that “the man” wants them to regurgitate, not think. Thinkers are dangerous, you know.)

By Gandalf, the Grey

September 19, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this

This is too easy! I have the ANSWER! PARENTING! ONE WORD TAKES ALL THAT BADNESS OUT OF SCHOOL, AND TESTS AND PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING! Kids should be able to cook, set the table, do laundry, read, understand math, and shoot and dress game by age 12. Anything less is just lazy parents, self absorbed parenting.

By Gandalf, the Grey

September 19, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

Oh, by the way, I too am an Aquarian!

By GOB

September 19, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

Kimberly - My school didnt make AYP last year because our special ed kids didnt do well enough on the Graduation Tests. This year, free school-wide tutoring tutoring that has been in place for years was cancelled so that all the attention could be focused on those special ed students.

It is great that they are getting more help, but it is coming at the expense of everyone else in the school. The fear of being placed on the failing list and getting your name in the paper is the driving force behind everything that my school is doing this year. We’ve even had special ed teachers asked to move kids out of the program so that they wont bring that group’s test scores down again.

We have a good school (exceeding standards school-wide, just not the SPED group), but get labeled as failing. The whole NCLB testing patterns make no sense. There is no tracking as a different group of kids are tested each year. How can you truly track improvement if you arent testing the same kids as they progress? One bad group can get a school listed as a failure.

By John

September 19, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this

Normally I don’t agree with Andrea on much of anything she writes, but she quiet correct regarding NCLB. My wife has been teaching in Gwinnett County for over 20 years. She will tell you NCLB is like a 100 pound gorilla hanging on teachers’ backs. Sure, NCLB sounds good in theory, but its emphasis on test scores as a measurement of success undermines the learning process. Test scores have become the holy grail for which teachers are blamed when their class and school test scores don’t measure up. Granted legitimate test scores provide parents with a good measuring stick when evaluating schools, but NCLB creates an inherent conflict of interest. There are teachers who focus on teaching to the test and there are those who are “forced” to compromise their teaching philosophy for the sake of test scores. Regardless of what governmental educational policies - federal, state or county - are created to “improve” education, parental involvement in their children’s education is paramount and starts at home, not at school.

By John

September 19, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this

Normally I don’t agree with Andrea on much of anything she writes, but she quiet correct regarding NCLB. My wife has been teaching in Gwinnett County for over 20 years. She will tell you NCLB is like a 100 pound gorilla hanging on teachers’ backs. Sure, NCLB sounds good in theory, but its emphasis on test scores as a measurement of success undermines the learning process. Test scores have become the holy grail for which teachers are blamed when their class and school test scores don’t measure up. Granted legitimate test scores provide parents with a good measuring stick when evaluating schools, but NCLB creates an inherent conflict of interest. There are teachers who focus on teaching to the test and there are those who are “forced” to compromise their teaching philosophy for the sake of test scores. Regardless of what governmental educational policies - federal, state or county - are created to “improve” education, parental involvement in their children’s education is paramount and starts at home, not at school.

By Bruno

September 19, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

It’s sad to me that all the fun has been taken out of going to school, from the demise of recess/gym class, to the reduction of art/music classes, to the overemphasis on standardized testing. For me, school was a bright spot in an otherwise bleak childhood.

but I’d like to see actual teachers (Chuck, RF, Monica?)

Do you think that they are—gasp—actually working this year?? ; > }

By AGF

September 19, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this

Kimberly said: (Actually, they did learn something: that “the man” wants them to regurgitate, not think. Thinkers are dangerous, you know.)

This is nothing but liberal hogwash. I have three children in various grades (and like yours, mine are over-achievers), and all of them have to take the CRCT. While I may hate the CRCT, and while I believe that our children are required to take too many standardized tests, the questions on the test have been revamped over the last few years to REQUIRE students to think.

Gone are the days where students can simply read, remember, and regurgitate. Almost all questions are designed to combine multiple elements of the Georgia Performance Standards. In math (a subject that I help my children with the most), students are now given mostly word problems to solve. In many cases, they can derive the correct answer by eliminating wrong answers. This process requires them to THINK for themselves.

No longer are they simply asked to estimate the square root of 41. They are given a word problem that requires them to recognize they need to sketch a triangle with sides of 4 and 5, then they have to recognize that the problem is asking them to solve for the hypotenuse (which is the square root of 41). Then they must estimate the square root to find the correct answer.

I have also looked at sample social studies, science, and reading test questions. These tests are now designed to ask questions like “which is the BEST answer, or “which of the following is NOT the answer”. Again, the students are required to think, instead of recalling memorized facts.

Finally, over 75% of the teachers are women, the state superintendent is a woman, and 5 of the 12 state board members are women. You may want to rethink your “the man wants you to regurgitate” comment.

By Bruno

September 19, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this

My school didnt make AYP last year because our special ed kids didnt do well enough on the Graduation Tests. This year, free school-wide tutoring tutoring that has been in place for years was cancelled so that all the attention could be focused on those special ed students. It is great that they are getting more help, but it is coming at the expense of everyone else in the school.

Form what I understand, one of the ramifications of NCLB is that schools aren’t allowed to segregate students within the classrooms based upon ability. While this may sound like a noble social goal, I think the bottom line is that not every child has the same amount of gray matter to work with. Not every child is college material. I think we would be better off admitting that and encouraging the “less-able” to obtain vacational training.

By kimberly

September 19, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this

Gee AGF, I apologize for expressing my own observations and opinions. (The nerve!) I guess our familial discussion of how Orwell’s “1984” was only 25-30 years off the mark and how some of the book’s fictional depictions actually exist in our country right now, is still fresh in my mind. But I’ll get back into the kitchen now where I belong. So sorry to have offended you!

By Bruno

September 19, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this

vacational training.

OOps—that was supposed to be vocational training. ; > }

Finally, over 75% of the teachers are women, the state superintendent is a woman, and 5 of the 12 state board members are women. You may want to rethink your “the man wants you to regurgitate” comment.

Good one, AGF. I had a first date with a special ed teacher last night, which went very well. I like teachers. I still think about becoming a math teacher, but just can’t get up early enough in the morning to be there on time.

By Gale

September 19, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this

Aquarian Galdalf, I believe it. Aquarians like to shock people.

You have it right. The basic problem with schools is parenting. And as someone else said, the problem with NCLB is the inclusive set for the test. Average in the SPED kids and in some cases, imigrant kids with a very different background and little English, and the school is doomed. Focus attention on those low scores and the other kids are ignored. Kids aren’t all the same and cannot be taught at the same speed. Trying to measure a group for a set of metrics that aims for average will bore the snot out of the faster learners. What do you get when a bright kid gets bored, especially if the parent is not closely involved? Trouble. Right here in River City.

By GOB

September 19, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

I think we would be better off admitting that and encouraging the “less-able” to obtain vacational training.

Bruno - That would be a great plan. Tell that to the state DOE which just took away the Career-Tech Diploma starting with this year’s freshman. If you thought the dropout rate was bad before, just wait a few years until these kids turn 16.

When I was in high school in the mid-90’s there were real-world vocational classes offered (autobody, plumbing, etc.), but now I dont know of a single program like that in my county.

By USinUK

September 19, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

Bruno -

It’s sad to me that all the fun has been taken out of going to school, from the demise of recess/gym class, to the reduction of art/music classes, to the overemphasis on standardized testing. For me, school was a bright spot in an otherwise bleak childhood

that’s exactly the point I was trying to make earlier - all this emphasis on testing and national standards is bleeding the soul out of schools. not all kids are going to be engineers, so why can’t they have art and music class??

and why is no one making the connection that 8-9-10-year olds NEED to go outside and run around and have unconstructed time. their little brains need to be stimulated through imagination and freeplay, not just drilled and drilled and drilled.

and, GTG, I agree with you that parenting is key, but schools can’t really DO anything about parents. they can only do what they can do.

By Bruno

September 19, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this

Trouble. Right here in River City.

Gale—Is there any chance that you are a fan of the 60s musical group Spanky and our Gang?? They do an awesome version of “Trouble” on one of their albums. (With a capital T which rhymes with P which stands for Pool). I think that Spanky McFarland has one of the greatest “smokey” singing voices of all time—she makes you feel like you’re in a roaring 20s speakeasy. In case you aren’t familiar with them, their biggest songs were “Sunday Will Never Be the Same”, “Lazy Days”, and “Give a Damn”.

By Gale

September 19, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this

Bruno, while we seem to agree on vocational education, I am a be squirmy with the “less-able” label you give that group. Some, perhaps have less IQ. Some often are as bright or brighter than the students in the advanced programs. They merely do not see the value to them in book knowledge. Some day, they may find value and change course. But we do them a misjustice with a stand that all kids should leave high school with the same knowledge. Some kids are ready and eager to go to college. Some either don’t want to spend another day in class and just want a job and their own money, or some maybe want to go to college but just don’t have what it takes at this time; be it grades or money. Either way, this group is left feeling that they don’t matter and the faster learners are not challenged to do their best because the class is reduced to the slowest learners.

We, as a society, need to get over the idea that everyone should go to college. Tradesmen make perfectly good livings. A 20-something carpenter’s asst might finally figure out that he has an interest in economics and is ready to spend time in class learning something that he values personally, not because he will be tested on it. I think it comes down to that arrogance that we know best what is good for everybody, with a healthy dose of PC-itis.

By Bruno

September 19, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this

That would be a great plan. Tell that to the state DOE which just took away the Career-Tech Diploma starting with this year’s freshman. If you thought the dropout rate was bad before, just wait a few years until these kids turn 16. When I was in high school in the mid-90’s there were real-world vocational classes offered (autobody, plumbing, etc.), but now I dont know of a single program like that in my county.

GOB—I’m sorry to know of the changes. I wonder what they are thinking at the DOE…. My ownly contact with the educational system is in taking care of hordes of teachers who come to my office totally stressed out. One poor HS teacher is having a problem with kids throwing things at her every time she turns her back. If that happened to me, I’d be cracking skulls, fer sher.

By Bruno

September 19, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this

and, GTG, I agree with you that parenting is key, but schools can’t really DO anything about parents. they can only do what they can do.

Hi, gorgeous. In one county in GA, they have been giving jail time to parents for truancy. Probably a little extreme, but maybe it will get some of their attention. I can’t talk too much, however, since I essentially skipped my senior year in HS in order to work more.

P.S. My blind date went great—we finished it off with 20 mins. of making out in the parking lot. Made me feel like a high-schooler again.

By Bruno

September 19, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

I am a be squirmy with the “less-able” label you give that group. Some, perhaps have less IQ. Some often are as bright or brighter than the students in the advanced programs. They merely do not see the value to them in book knowledge. Some day, they may find value and change course. But we do them a misjustice with a stand that all kids should leave high school with the same knowledge. Some kids are ready and eager to go to college. Some either don’t want to spend another day in class and just want a job and their own money, or some maybe want to go to college but just don’t have what it takes at this time; be it grades or money. Either way, this group is left feeling that they don’t matter and the faster learners are not challenged to do their best because the class is reduced to the slowest learners.

I’m with you 100%, Gale—in case you didn’t notice, I put “less-able” in quotes. With the cost of 4 years of college tuition and expenses approaching $100,000, learning a trade makes a lot of economic sense as well. In my home area, a lot of kids went to work for the casinos and made $35,000 their first year in the late 70s.

By Gale

September 19, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

I guess the problems seep into the system from school systems like Clayton county, where if anyone here doesn’t know, the system was so bad it has lost acredidation (or will). The school boards are supposed to keep the system on track. When that becomes a platform for personal gain, or ideolgy (sp?) agendas, the kids lose.

Government decided to step in and fix the problem. Once again, they fixed what was not broken. And yes, some of the blame rests in the liberal camp for not wanting slower learner to feel bad. The fix has hurt education and frustrated career teachers. This about it. If your raise or incentives or whatever they do, depends on the CRCT scores and you have a slow learner or kids that don’t speak English in your class that will bring down the average, what would you do?

A single solution will not serve every school system. What works in an area of involved parenting will not work in an area where 90% of the kids have family problems.

By tcoach

September 19, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this

Just got on the blog, and I am a teacher and a basketball coach at a Georgia public high school. (I have planning the last period of the day) The problem with the NCLB is that it brings down the education level of students who have been taught how to behave at home, and the ones who are advanced in the studies so that the ones who are behavior problems and those that just do not or do not want to get it. You sacrafice the education of many for a few. From being in schools now there is not nearly as much learning going on as when I was in high school. A large reason for this is that somewhere along the lines parents felt raising their child now falls on teh education system.
I am sorry but as a person who sees it every day, there are many children who have no business going to school with those who are actually trying to educate themselves. Therefor class time is not spent pushing students to their intellectual limits instead time is spent making sure lil’ Johnny does not get left behind eventhough he does not take notes, and has not done homework in 2 weeks.
Do not think this is the ramblings of a teacher in a bad district. The school sysytem I work for has made AYP for the last 4 years and is teh only system in teh area to be a school of distinction. Still even here we have some students that do nothing but lower the educational experience of every other student enrolled.

My message would be to the parents, to teach your children how to behave in school and also to show them that you do not learn something to pass a test you learn for the gaining of knowledge. But who am I to put any of this blame for the mess on parents?

By Rick

September 19, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this

What’s the big deal about education anyway? Our next President graduated near the bottom of his class, and our future first woman President barely got a bachlor degree. This is America where anyone can reach thier dreams. You dont have to have degrees to be smart and get a head, you just need to be tough and hate everything a liberal stands for.

By Gale

September 19, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

Bruno, I remember the group, but not that specific song version. I’m all for teaching kids skills, but I don’t know that I would consider dealing at a casino a good career. The point, however, is that kids want to move on with their lives. It isn’t just kids from less fortunate families either. If public schools were engaging kids more in the process so school was not something they just wanted to get away from, it would probably help. The deal is, we as a society need to help them move in a direction that will provide them with a good life. We cannot do that if vocational education is sneered at.

By USinUK

September 19, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this

GOB and Bruno -

oh, god - I’m so sorry to hear that vo-tech was defunded. don’t people realize that we need plumbers?? (they will when their toilet backs up and there’s no one to call). we need plumbers, brickies, electricians, plasterers - people who know how to do stuff. not everyone can be bill gates or steve jobs or warren buffet.

yes, encourage the smart kids and keep them challenged. but, shouldn’t we be helping kids find their potential and find what blows their skirts up?? if we do that, we will remain competitive.

fact is, we need the dreamers - and there are no standardized tests to measure that.

on the arrests for truancy - it’s about damned time! my point was that schools can’t make parents read to their kids and help them with their homework.

and YAY Bruno!!! wtg on the snog (man, there’s nothing like a good snog!!) woowoo!!

By Sunshine

September 19, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

Bruno: P.S. My blind date went great—we finished it off with 20 mins. of making out in the parking lot. Made me feel like a high-schooler again.

YEAH! Nothing like those little butterflies from first dates! Good luck!

By Mara

September 19, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

Gale - misjustice

shall we call this a “Gale-ism”? just joking ;^)

I happen to agree with you and Bruno about the derth of vocational education. How many kids out there, with little chance (or desire) to go to college, even know how many different fields there are that can be taught on-the-job or through apprenticeships etc? Not every good job requires a college diploma and those who dom’t do well in an academic environment often thrive in less structured, more hands-on, situations.

By Gale

September 19, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this

“Our next President graduated near the bottom of his class,” of the Naval Academy, Rick, not public high school. Granted, his dad was an admiral and he probably got a leg up to get in. But it is a very tough school. Don’t I remember reading that Eisenhower graduated low in his West Point class? Of course, his military career was more successful than McCain’s.

By NCLB wants schools to fail

September 19, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this

The one question Dr. Mary Cohen, Margaret Spellings, or any other NCLB apologists don’t want to answer is this: If the law is designed to help schools succeed, then why is it that by 2014, a school will “fail” if even a single child in the school doesn’t pass the test?

That’s right. 999 kids pass the test, and one kid, back in school only because the terms of his crystal meth conviction fails the test and the entire school fails. Then the neocons have their “proof” that the school failed, and can justify giving middle and upper class supporters vouchers.

Funny how a law can be named No Child Left Behind, be pushed by the party of “personal responsibility” and have zero in the way of meaningful legislation on discipline. See if you address discipline, schools might succeed, and then you couldn’t justify vouchers. But even if an individual school does deal with it, NCLB has assured it will fail, because their “sound educational policy” dictates that if one fail, all fail.

You want vouchers? Then have the integrity to have an honest discussion about it; not put teachers through a meatgrinder that sets them up for failure, then blames them for it.

By Gale

September 19, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this

Mara, thanks. I had to read that again after you pointed it out. Um, it’s Friday and my brain is all used up?

By Gandalf, the Grey

September 19, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this

EXPAT: the low test scores are a symtom of poor parenting - not the fault of the schools. So schools should teach the children with poor parents harder? That is pretzel logic, or binary thinking (which is the dumbest comcept I have seen here, except anything spewed by that eldest of 6th graders). So put the parents in jail! Take away free tutoring! Elect OBAMA! He will fix it all, with your 5%er tax hikes. (Of course to a democrat, removing a tax cut put in place by a republican isn’t a tax hike! How silly of you to think that!
HOLD PARENTS RESPONSIBLE! Your kid isn’t get a B in Georgia schools and isn’t mentally retarded, you suck donkey balls as a parent. There I did it without insulting anyone (That eldest of 8th graders doesn’t really count, I even refrained from bombing Kimberly, though I was very tempted!)

By Researcher

September 19, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this

*When Dwight realized that the only chance of getting his own college education was to try for a free one, he took the competitive examinations for both the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He placed first for Annapolis and second for West Point. He wanted to go to the Naval Academy, but he discovered that at 20 he was too old. At the Military Academy the age limit was 21.

Eisenhower entered West Point in 1911. His academic record was average. He stood 61st in a class of 164. But he was very popular. He was a big, powerful young man with a friendly grin.*

By Mara

September 19, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

Gale - Um, it’s Friday and my brain is all used up?

Hey, I’ve been out for three days and I’m all hopped up on cold/allergy medication…LOL! All I can say is it’s a good thing the husband needed the car today, so HE gets to drive home and I get to enjoy my faux-codeine haze…

have a good weekend all.

By Gale

September 19, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this

Mara, Ack! misjustice is a word and it is the word I meant. Yeah! I looked it up. When you questioned it, I thought I should have typed injustice; pretty close tothe same meaning. USinUK is teaching me to spend the time to look things up.

By Randall

September 19, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this

Usually I agree more with Feldhahn, but the lefty is right this time.

By Gale

September 19, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this

Thanks researcher. I did a quick look, but didn’t take the time to dig it out. So, Dwight was not at the botton. It might be worth noting that top grads do not always succeed. Success is more a factor of dedication and commitment. Learning is only the start. Kids tend to learn commitment from parents and family. Schools really cannot teach that.

By kimberly

September 19, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this

Lazy parents ARE the problem! And ignorant ones. And sick ones. And ones that have to work all the time because the other parent left, or died, or can’t or won’t… so they don’t have time to spend with their children. Or don’t know how to help their kids learn or grasp the importance of it, because no one showed them. Parents ARE the problem!

They’re also our reality. School should not be expected to fix everything when parents can’t or won’t. BUT, it’s better for the children if they try. It’s better for all of us if more people grow up knowing how to succeed and make a life for themselves, and have the tools to do so. It’s better when we CAN spend more on schools and less on prisons. It’s better if our neighbors’ children grow up with enough to eat, a family doctor they can afford, and opportunities that are more compelling than drugs and crime. And something to reach for in a society that believes in them too.

You might say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. So let loose the hate bombs or whatever. Have a great weekend! (Just um, keep the creepy details to yourself. Like, ewww.)

By ToughTeacher

September 19, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this

Sorry TheBlogger but teachers have to teach what we’re told to teach. This does mean that we do have to teach to the test. Everything that we do is based on what test scores will be. I invite you into a public classroom in America.

By Bruno

September 19, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this

Just um, keep the creepy details to yourself. Like, ewww.)

Kiss, kiss, smooch, smooch, feel, feel….Is that what you meant?

By Bruno

September 19, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this

And a rousing round of applause for all the teachers who weighed in today. I think y’all are well compensated for your work when you factor in all the vacations, but it’s still a tough job to put up with all the bratty students and their bratty parents.

In the end, I don’t hold schools, or even parents responsible for a child to receive an education. I hold the students responsible. WHy not? In my own cse, I had zero parental input or oversight, and look how well I turned out. ; > }

By Funneeee

September 19, 2008 4:48 PM | Link to this

no slurp slurp in there?

(fade in)

(slurping stops)

She :you do love me, don’t you?

He: aw, just keep doing that

(A Child’s Garden of Grass)

(fade out)

By Bruno

September 19, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this

no slurp slurp in there?

Hey, gotta save something for the second date, right??

By Dr. Craig Spinks/Augusta

September 21, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

Teaching students the content to be assessed upon a test is a considerable portion of what good teaching is about. However, using the test itself not only as pre- and post-instructional measures of student learning but also as the primary basis for instruction is to abuse the testing function. Specifically, I have witnessed students administered pretests, given the correct answers to the pretests, drilled over the answers to the pretests, and then given the identical pretests administered as a posttests. Shame on me for not reporting this testing abuse to my principal. On second thought, I had absolutely no confidence in her to do the right thing anyway. Still, shame on me.

By Gandalf, the Grey

September 22, 2008 8:01 AM | Link to this

TYPICAL LIBERAL RESPONSE FROM KIMBERLY! FEEL SORRY FOR THE POOR KID WHOSE DADDY LEFT MOMMY. Life is competition. The strong survive. The weak cut grass.

By USinUK

September 22, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this

appropos to absolutely nothing …

YAY MAD MEN!!! the best show on the teevee …

… back to our regularly scheduled programming …

kimberly -

BUT, it’s better for the children if they try

um. what exactly are schools supposed to do for the parents who won’t (or can’t) do their jobs? are they supposed to do home visits and teach the parents how to help with homework? are they supposed to require parents to go WITH their children to the library (not just drop them off) and read with them?

this is where I draw the line - a school’s job is to educate the kids and help them be prepared for life (and, yes, this includes sex ed) - they’re job isn’t to teach parents how to be parents.

By Gale

September 22, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this

The topic should be: ‘…damaging our education system’ more. The public school system is a wreck in many places. Georgia is a good example of how bad public schools can be. However, over the weekend, I regained my sense of our public school system comepared to those of probably 80% of the world where there is no public school system. Many people most sacrifice deeply to pay tuition for children. Perhaps that maakes them more committed to involving themselves and not abdicating the whole education process. People here sending children to private schools so their children can learn without the drags of public school requirements have little comparison to that 80% of the world population. They must pay for schools where there is no public funding. If they are poor and barely providing food and shelter, there is no schooling. Poverty is sustained because there is no escape.

We should be grateful we have public schools and find ways to fix them without the government help. I have no suggestions because I only had three years experience with a high school age stepchild. Where schools are considered good, I think parents are deeply involved, but don’t interfere with teachers. Basically, I come back to parenting.

I happened to grow up in Ohio with a school district that had a very good reading program. I don’t know what the average was, but I do know that reading is the foundation for everything else. It is also the easiest thing with which to engage children in learning. I would focus on reading. We have programs for that, but it obviously isn’t enough with the many distractions children have today. My suggestion for NCLB is to trash it and step the education system back about 40 years.

By Gale

September 22, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this

My parents did not help me with homework, nor did I have homework in primary grades like children apparently do now. They did not read to me —that I remember. I remember my mother trying, but growing impatient with our lack of attention. I don’t remember my mother reading much. My father, although he had no more than a fourth grade education read a lot when he was not working two jobs and maintaining the house. They were not directly involved in our studies, but they were interested.

Most parents seem to be disconnected from the process. If the child fails, it becomes the school’s fault; the teacher’s fault, and not theirs or their child’s. Where is the disconnect? I think it happened when we stopped holding children back because it would hurt their self-esteem. It was that PC attitude that everyone should be equal. Everyone needs an equal chance. I agree with that. But everyone is also resonsible for what they do with that chance. Failing a grade is a serious lesson in responsibility.

By Gandalf, the Grey

September 22, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this

Good point in the PC attitude Gale. Everyone is CREATED equal, years and years of hard work separate the great from the poor.

By Lyrazel

September 22, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this

Actually NCLB testing cannot be held to any standards—in GA yearly tests scores can be excused by the governor—and suddenly—that school gets merits of scholarship and standing even if 30% of the class failed.

Businesses are abandoning the south for the stupid quota; employers are leaving because the workforce cannot read remedial text. I had a challenge finding employees who could read a ruler.

Maybe its a southern thing to want to be dumb puppies—move to any other state in the country above the Blue Law Belt and the quality of education surpasses what is A+ down here becomes C- there. Across the country teachers hate the testing teaching too but it seems they have more success. Drop out rates are abysmal in the south and getting worse yearly. Public southern colleges spend more for athletics than other programs. Many HOPE scholarship students need remedial coursework in their freshmen year of college.

By USinUK

September 22, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this

Gale -

Everyone needs an equal chance. I agree with that. But everyone is also resonsible for what they do with that chance. Failing a grade is a serious lesson in responsibility.

when I run for president, I want you to be my Sec of Ed :-)

my biggest gripe is the parents (and I work/have worked with dozens like this) who have their kids in an activity each and every night of the week plus at least 1 game on the weekend. hello! they’re kids - they need rest and they need to put their studies first. instead, you have the parents taking them to ballet, tae kwan do, drama, piano, softball/soccer/basketball, church youth group, and on and on and on.

how on earth are kids supposed to get the message that their education comes first, that it’s the most important thing for their future when parents have them going-going-going every minute of the day to where school becomes just another activity???

By Gale

September 22, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

USinUK, I agree on the over-abundance of structured activity for kids. They need unstructured time in order to build their internal conrols of their time. If you are told what you are going to do with every minute of your day, how do you learn to direct your own time? I am a fan of providing a wide experience for the child. But play should be a part of that. UNstructured play. If there are rules, it is not unstructured. One of the games I remember best was pretend baseball. We had no bats and no ball. The batter determined where the ball went, then the fielders determined ball control. A chase-down between bases was a measure in trusting the fair play of your friends.

By lovelyliz

September 22, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this

Students are being taught to regurgitate a test not to think. These students go on to college where surprise! Surprise! They are ending up in remedial classes in record numbers.

By USinUK

September 22, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

Gale -

UNstructured play. If there are rules, it is not unstructured

amen!!

Lovelyliz -

They are ending up in remedial classes in record numbers

you’re dead-on right - USAToday had an piece about a study done by a group called Strong American Schools which said that:

Nearly four of five remedial students had a high school grade point average of B or better.

More than half the students taking remedial classes in college say they were good students in high school who always completed their assignments.

Nearly six of 10 remedial students say they should have been challenged more in high school.

interesting (and very sad) stuff - we’re not preparing our kids, we’re just doing stuff to make ourselves feel good.

By Gale

September 22, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

fact regurgitation in place of reasoning: Reasoning is something children learn to do normally during unstructured play. They make up the rules of the environment and determine how things work. Then they apply that reasoning to the rest of their environment. Forcing them to replay facts like a recorder takes them out of the normal mode of thinking. Likewise, programmed games, even educational games usually only teach them how to ‘game’. They learn that they can make mistakes without the world crashing down and that is good. But they also learn there are no bad consequences to the error. In play, a small error can be corrected and the game goes on with a lesson learned. (“You hit the ball out of bounds and that doesn’t count.”) If the error is more severe, the consequence is more severe. (Johnny smacks Jimmy because he knocked him down when he didn’t have the ball anyway.) Children are very good at teaching social behavior if the adults butt out; most of the time.

By Gale

September 22, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this

What I find odd is that colleges even offer remedial courses. That is what community colleges should be doing. If a student isn’t prepared for college material, he should not be in the class, whether the tuition is funded or not. That is more of that equal opportunity cr*p. Yes, if a student is prepared to handle a college course, funding should be found. No tuition assistance should be provided for a student just because he or she is disadvantaged. If you are not ready for a college class, you are not ready. It is that simple.

By USinUK

September 22, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this

Gale -

What I find odd is that colleges even offer remedial courses. That is what community colleges should be doing. If a student isn’t prepared for college material, he should not be in the class, whether the tuition is funded or not.

criminey. without remedial courses, what would most freshman football players take???

Yes, if a student is prepared to handle a college course, funding should be found. No tuition assistance should be provided for a student just because he or she is disadvantaged. If you are not ready for a college class, you are not ready

makes you wonder if anyone has audited this situation - how much in grants, etc, are offered to people taking remedial courses their freshman year? having said that, though, given how much more competitive that situation is, now, I doubt it would be as much as you might think.

By Gale

September 22, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

Competition for college slots. I have been hearing about that, USinUK. One would think that would cut down on the remedial classes being offered. If the colleges are being more selective, it would seem they are already getting the brighter students. To Lyrazel’s point, though, if the student transcript shows a high GPA and a well-rounded student… Well, scratch that thought. Wouldn’t the SAT score show up a high GPA that does not translate to real learning? Or is that the reason more colleges are depending on the SAT scores? Based on the poor showing for GA public schools, I would think the only college they could get into would be a GA college.

By USinUK

September 22, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this

Gale -

Wouldn’t the SAT score show up a high GPA that does not translate to real learning? Or is that the reason more colleges are depending on the SAT scores? Based on the poor showing for GA public schools, I would think the only college they could get into would be a GA college.

from what I remember, it’s the other way around - your SAT shows your aptitude - in other words, you can (theoretically) get a high SAT but have mediocre grades. in fact, I knew someone from high school who did really well on his SAT, but was a C-ish student — the univ of his choice rejected him because they said he wasn’t working up to his potential.

according to my sister (a high school administrator), a growing number of schools are using the ACT to supplement/supplant the SAT scores - I don’t know the difference between them, though.

where are our educators??? would love to understand the finer points.

By Why it's pointless

September 22, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this

We hear about inner-city, economically-challenged students who are ostracized by their peers for making the effort to do well in school and better themselves. “Acting white” they call it. We shake our heads at how sad that is.

Yet, WHITE BREAD NORTH FULTON, like so much of America these days, is no different! Sure, kids can study and get good grades without being maligned as much, but look at the PARENTS! They look at me like I have three heads when I don’t join the “American Idol” conversation. “You DON’T watch? Gasp! WHY?” (Um…) Likewise, when I asked these good, respectable, Republican, Idol-watching moms if she’d caught any of the John Adams mini-series on HBO, I received a blank-eyed blink blink blink. Huh? History, interesting? How’s that? (I must be an elitist or something. Pass the arugula.)

This morning the half-wits on Dave FM woke me up smirking and snickering at the Emmys won by the John Adams mini-series, something none of them had wanted to watch, but one commented that the weird brother in law had watched it. Smirk! Yet these people will tell us ALL ABOUT “Dancing with the Stars” in a couple of weeks. How sad that these dolts represent the common attitudes and concerns of so many Americans.

BTW, John Adams WAS a great American. His personal sacrifices and stubborn adherence to principle helped hold together a fledgling nation that was in danger of falling apart as quickly as it had come together. Not a particularly likable or popular fellow, he spent his life in tireless advocation for the principles of freedom and honor we claim to hold dear. Our bi-cameral legislature and the checks and balances in government, as well as the early ideas that became our Constitution, were all brought about in part by Adam’s dedication to country over self. His wife was perhaps the most amazing woman of her time. The series, based on an incredibly-written biography by David McCullough was riveting and insightful. (But certainly not as interesting as any episode of CSI Miami or a national karaoke contest.)

In 21st Century America, if you strive to be educated, you’re an “elitist” who deserves scorn instead of praise or positions of responsibility. We want our leaders to be just like us, the kind of guy or gal we want to have a beer with. Smart people are “uppity!” We don’t need brains to solve complex national and global issues, what we need are “tough cookies” who’ll get drunk on Saturday and go to church on Sunday (unless they’re out hunting) and think educating kids about science is bad, and wars are a “task from God.” Smirk and sneer at the smart guy, people!! All hail the snappy dresser with the snappy comeback and the guy who calls himself a hero. We don’t need no education! Just another brick in THE WALL… Pointless.

By Gale

September 22, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

Why it’s pointless. Now I’m scared. You are very right. How rare is the person who reads a biography? I don’t and I am an avid reader. If we don’t even watch an educational TV show when it is presented, the folks who produce them will stop. But I would think people who are tuned into having the TV on all the time would at least watch something more engaging than the current reality nonsense.

By The Other Jack

September 22, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

Why It’s Pointless

Please tell me that you are not criticizing others for not watching the same TV shows as you. Horror or horrors, you probably don’t listen to the same music, either.

BTW. The History Channel is considered a conservative network. The reason: history is just not kind to the Democrats.

By USinUK

September 22, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this

okay, my friendlies … I’m off to a conference for a few days … so, no parties … no strangers … no long-distance phone calls … there’s plenty of milk and food in the ‘fridge and a $20 thumbtacked by the phone in case of emergencies.

have a great week!! see you Friday :-)

(be nice to Truth in my absence … I’m sure he’ll pine for me, so be kind)

By Bruno

September 22, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

Likewise, when I asked these good, respectable, Republican, Idol-watching moms if she’d caught any of the John Adams mini-series on HBO, I received a blank-eyed blink blink blink. Huh? History, interesting?

Out of curiosity, WIP, what solutions are YOU proposing to stimulate more interest in education in general and history in particular in your community? From the tone of your blog, it appears to me that YOUR point is to simply malign your Republican neighbors.

the half-wits on Dave FM

P.S. Have you ever considered listening to 107.5 (the Jazz station) instead of DaveFM or Project 9-6-1? It might put you in a better mood to deal with our stressful world. Just a suggestion—I’m on your side today.

By Bruno

September 22, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this

In my own case, I’m a late-comer to enjoying History. Through the years, Science and Math have always appealed to me more due to the problem-solving component in which there is one nice, neat answer which can be verified. History allows so many what-ifs and woulda-coulda-shouldas that it is less comfortable for my brain to digest and process.

By Nikita

September 22, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this

The History Channel is generally considered conservative because it spends a great deal of time on the various wars, which are mostly considered to have been conducted by conservatives. Not because history isn’t kind to democrats. Yeesh. Somebody remind me why this always has to be a partisan bickerfest.

My opinion is that tests are useful for comparing systems to each other such that we can adjust the various systems to our statewide or nationwide curricular standards. However, we test too much, and place too much emphasis on tests as the sole determinant of whether students are excelling. And tests have fundamental shortcomings — they don’t measure critical thinking well. You may note that private schools don’t do standardized tests much at all, because those tests are a distraction from the kind of skills that schools want to foster.

The problems with NCLB are pretty numerous. The benchmarks are unattainable in a lot of cases, the time spent on testing is wasted and extensive, and the entire system will be failing and therefore reorganized eventually because the free market concept doesn’t work when there are no better alternatives available. The only thing NCLB does well is encourage school systems not to triage learners.

By AGF

September 22, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this

Gale said: USinUK, I agree on the over-abundance of structured activity for kids. They need unstructured time in order to build their internal conrols of their time. If you are told what you are going to do with every minute of your day, how do you learn to direct your own time?

Gale, while I agree with what you are saying in theory, the reality is that too many parents will sue if their children get hurt during this “unstructured time”. If a child gets hurt, the parents always say “why weren’t you watching my baby?” or “how did you let this happen?”.

Both of my parents were teachers, I have friends who are teachers, and I have three children in public schools - so I have a fairly good insight in what goes on in the classroom. Allowing kids unstructured time makes the assumption that kids are basically good, and they will use this time for constructive purposes. The reality is that kids left on their own will usually make the WRONG choices and will generally find some kind of foolishness to get into. When this happens, the school is always liable for bad decisions the kids make.

USinUK said: interesting (and very sad) stuff - we’re not preparing our kids, we’re just doing stuff to make ourselves feel good.

You must be careful USinUK - you will get your “liberal card” revoked for talk like that! (Just kidding!)

By Gale

September 22, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

Bruno, And although Jack’s comment about the History channel might be politically oriented even though a lot of their programming has nothing to do with political history, you are right about the interpretation factor. Without a way-back machine, we can only make guesses about the how and why things happened. Unless there is a serious change to physics, 2+2 will always be 4.

By Bruno

September 22, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this

In chatting with my office manager today regarding this week’s topic, she came up with the following differences between the kids of today and the kids of yesteryear:

(1) Children today have much more power over their parents and teachers due to the threat of calling DFACS or initiating a lawsuit if they feel they have been disciplined too harshly. As a result, there often are no consequences to poor behavior on their part, with predictable results.

(2) Many years ago, the norm was a 2-parent home in which Mom typically stayed home and interacted with the kids for many hours. In today’s world, single parent homes predominate, and even in two-parent homes, both parents typically work outside of the home for long hours. By the time Mom and Dad get home, they are frazzled, and don’t want to be “bothered” with family activities. This may be the reason for the dawn-to-dusk “structured activities” that Gale and others mentioned earlier today.

By Bruno

September 22, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

The History Channel is generally considered conservative because it spends a great deal of time on the various wars, which are mostly considered to have been conducted by conservatives. Not because history isn’t kind to democrats.

If you study the major wars of this century, Nikita, US involvement was initiated by the Democrats, not the Republicans. WW1—Woodrow Wilson, WW2—FDR, Korean War—Harry Truman, Vietnam—JFK, Balkans War—Bill Clinton. It wasn’t until Bush Sr. and Jr. that Republicans became “war-mongers”. Apparently you aren’t much of a patron of the History Channel yourself.

Yeesh. Somebody remind me why this always has to be a partisan bickerfest.

Glad you’re so non-partisan yourself, especially since you don’t have your facts straight.

By Nikita

September 22, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

P.S. Failed to mention that a major factor in how successful a school is is how stationary its population is. NCLB actually accelerates volatility in the student body, and that’s not a good thing.

By Bruno

September 22, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this

When this happens, the school is always liable for bad decisions the kids make.

Great point, AGF. You beat me to the punch while I was still typing my blog.

By The Other Jack

September 22, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this

Nikita

The History Channel is generally considered conservative because it spends a great deal of time on the various wars, which are mostly considered to have been conducted by conservatives.

Which wars? WWII, started by Roosevelt.

Korea: Started by Truman.

Vietnam, Massively escalated our role from non-combatant advisers to full combat forces.

But the History channel talks about the Civil Rights movement and names names, and names political affiliations: something that PBS never does. They are not shy in pointing out who started the KKK, (actually revived the KKK), who fought against integration and who ran bigots for president (George Wallace).

By Archie

September 22, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

Yes, teaching to the test is damaging our education system and so are p