california

[PassedOut]

In the block where I used to live, a Jewish woman was looking into the local home school network. It's pretty heavily  Christian, she was told. Hardly a plus for a Jewish family, but she was about ready to make the switch (in the end, she decided to live with the public schools). When people send their kids to a religious school that is not of their religion in order to get them taught, I would say that this is a strong vote of no confidence in the schools.

Except for one Montessori primary school, we found both public and private schools unacceptable for our sons (albeit for different reasons). So we had a home school for them until their college years.

 

I can attest to the heavily (right-wing) Christian nature of the home school network, and we pretty much steered clear of that. We went to trade shows for folks buying text books and materials for home schooling, and among the materials available were wall charts showing the 6000-year history of the Earth, and so on. But good materials were available also.

 

One thing we found was that colleges have programs where students of high school age can take one or two college courses per semester. Through those programs our sons got to take courses difficult to provide at home, such as laboratory sciences and (for our young artist) life drawing.

 

During their high school years, each took at least one college course every semester and, in addition to what they learned, got a good feeling for what college life was like.

[hrothgar]

I find this all a bit surprising

 

I went to public schools

Almost all my friends went to public schools

The children of almost my friends and family are going to public schools

This is just what's done.

 

(The only exceptions in my circle o'friends are the folks with "Gossip Girl" type money. Moreover, I expect that their decision might be motivated more by the fact that they live in urban centers than income)

 

In much the same way, folks around here actually vote in favor of tax over rides, bond structures, and the like to fund said school systems. It's expected behavior.

 

I hear you all talking about guns, metal detectors, etc. None of this even resonates with me.

 

I don't know if this is a California versus Massachusetts thing or an urban versus surburban thing or what, but a lot of you are living in a very weird part of the world.

[jdonn]

We did seem to be able to run our schools without guards or metal detectors. It's worth asking how this could be, even if you do not agree with my views. I doubt that the fundamental genetic make up of kids has changed that much.

The schools now manage to run without paddles and with blue jeans.

yes, and everything is so much better for it

Yes I blame the schools for everything wrong in the world. We should go back to the good old days when you could beat students and there were world wars every third decade. But hey don't look at me, I went to a high school with such a good moral backdrop they didn't even have locks on the lockers (yes, really). And we didn't even need a religious affiliation to pull it off!

 

But maybe I'm wrong after all. I can think of plenty of adults who could have used some sense beat into them long ago. I'm not sure how the jeans are hurting but I'll think of something.

[helene_t]

Josh, you sound very old. This "it is all the school's fault" (or the parents' fault for that matter) went out of fashion when I was in primary school. The new hype is to blame all evil on our genes.

[mikeh]

Josh, you sound very old. This "it is all the school's fault" (or the parents' fault for that matter) went out of fashion when I was in primary school. The new hype is to blame all evil on our genes.

Yes, since we all know, now, that genes are selfish little buggers :)

 

Hey, I found a way to get evolution involved... ooops.

[hrothgar]

Josh, you sound very old. This "it is all the school's fault" (or the parents' fault for that matter) went out of fashion when I was in primary school. The new hype is to blame all evil on our genes.

Yes, since we all know, now, that genes are selfish little buggers :)

 

Hey, I found a way to get evolution involved... ooops.

Or "jeans", as the case may be

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9041502861.html

 

(the article is a real hoot)

[JoAnneM]

I don't know for sure which side was right in the last California election, I voted yes on all but one issue, but what to me was most distressing is the fact that this was the lowest % voter turnout I think ever. My husband is an election precinct volunteer clerk and they pretty much just sat around all day.

 

Usually when an issue is very controversial it is the naysayers who are going to turn out in numbers to support their position. The TV and radio advertising in these campaigns is emotional not informational.

 

It really bothers me that about 20% (+or-) of the population of Calilfornia has decided the fate of the rest of us.

 

I haven't read all the posts so if this is a repeat I apologize.

[kenberg]

I have mixed feelings about light voter turnout. If someone is totally clueless about the implications of the matter before them, it's best they don't vote. And of course then my vote is a larger fraction of the total vote.

 

Getting people to vote is a popular idea, but it seems like voting would be a natural consequence of getting people interested in the issues, so maybe that should be the goal.

[luke warm]

I have mixed feelings about light voter turnout. If someone is totally clueless about the implications of the matter before them, it's best they don't vote. And of course then my vote is a larger fraction of the total vote.

 

Getting people to vote is a popular idea, but it seems like voting would be a natural consequence of getting people interested in the issues, so maybe that should be the goal.

good luck with that... it's been a popularity contest for so long (i'm talking about elections for people here) that i doubt it ever changes... as far as issues, i have no problem with low turnout for those...

[Winstonm]

I prefer low voter turnout to ignorant voter turnout.

[kenberg]

One more word on schools. Everyone in my family is from public schools. In my father's case, an immigrant kid in Nebraska, public school was critical. So I intend my comments as a concern about whether the schools are still playing the important role that they did for my family. I believe there is cause for concern.

 

 

With schools, as with anything, we can look for guidance in various places. Europe, Asia, our own past, our own current success stories. My own high school was far from perfect, I don't think I presented it as such. Still, it served me and others reasonably well and possibly there is something to be learned from thinking back on the experience. Or not.

[JoAnneM]

I don't think anyone tested the voters who did turn out as to their actual understanding of the issues. However, they might have been able to recite the TV ads.

[awm]

While it is popular to trash the public school system, I think there have also been a number of positive changes in the last few decades. For example:

 

(1) Education for the top students is substantially better. There are many opportunities in almost every high school to take college level courses. A lot of students enter college with up to a full year's worth of credit, and substantial percentages are taking calculus (for example) in high school. I doubt this was true for people attending high school in the seventies or earlier.

 

(2) Education for students with learning disabilities is substantially better. Years ago these kids were just classed as "dumb" and often drummed out of the education system before high school. Now their disabilities can be identified and in some cases treated, and teachers are required to be educated in how to reach these kids. Some of them are in fact quite bright.

 

(3) Accountability and standards have improved markedly. There is a great deal of rigorous testing that goes on now (much more than years ago). This is probably dragging some of the worst schools up, or at least making the problem easier to diagnose.

 

Obviously there are still a lot of issues in schools. The one that seems to be getting a lot of attention is weapons in schools and shooting sprees. It may be worth mentioning that there are not really all that many of these (they are just very newsworthy when they occur). Nonetheless it is true that inner city schools have a lot of kids in gangs, metal detectors, etc etc.

 

I think there are two big things that have lead to this situation. One is the disintegration of the family. Many of these problem kids are from single parent homes, or from homes where both parents work and there is rarely anyone taking care of the kids. This situation is much more prevalent in today's society than it was years ago. You can blame it on a lot of different things (women working, no fault divorce, changing standards for child raising, etc) but this is definitely a change. The other issue is the segregation of American society. Wealthy families increasingly live in gated communities far away from poorer families. Communities where everyone is poor and out of work tend to become pretty dangerous areas. Since we have schools where almost all the students come from such communities, we end up with some dangerous schools. Obviously there have always been rich people and poor people, but I don't think the level of segregation in where they live and go to school has always been this great.

[kenberg]

Not sure why I am awake at this hour but I am so I may as well reply.

 

The segregation by income is, I believe, a major issue. Growing up, the guy across the street drove a bakery truck for a living but a guy on my paper route drove an Alfa Romeo for fun. No one within walking distance of where I now live does either.

 

Now I am going back to bed.

 

nite all

[kenberg]

Now that I am actually awake it would be good to say more in regard to Adam's post, much of which I agree with. I need to think a bit first though. The short version is that the good students definitely are better off than when I was young, I am rather discouraged by the situation at the lower end.

[JoAnneM]

I think awm's post is very good. Howver, I do not see #3 as especially a positive:

 

"(3) Accountability and standards have improved markedly. There is a great deal of rigorous testing that goes on now (much more than years ago). This is probably dragging some of the worst schools up, or at least making the problem easier to diagnose."

 

From what I have heard from parents and teachers, in most school districts now they are only teaching the "TEST". This is the test given to the students which grades the school and the teachers. This is a very specific test so they don't even teach things like geography anymore. This used to be a junior high subject and if you tested average 10th graders in an average high school right now I doubt if they would know where Chile is, or even some of the states of the US.

[jdonn]

I think awm's post is very good.

I sort of disagreed with all the points. I think 1 might just be a sign that those are the courses that SHOULD be high school level courses. 2 may well be true, and is good from it's own moral standpoint, but I don't think has much to do with the general level of education. In other words it may technically bring up the average but only by creating a few more well-functioning members of society, not by increasing standards as a whole. There may also be a problem of over-diagnosing I think. 3 I think is not necessarily true at all, I would be careful not to confuse increasing with improving.

[hrothgar]

While it is popular to trash the public school system, I think there have also been a number of positive changes in the last few decades. For example:

 

(1) Education for the top students is substantially better. There are many opportunities in almost every high school to take college level courses. A lot of students enter college with up to a full year's worth of credit, and substantial percentages are taking calculus (for example) in high school. I doubt this was true for people attending high school in the seventies or earlier.

 

(2) Education for students with learning disabilities is substantially better. Years ago these kids were just classed as "dumb" and often drummed out of the education system before high school. Now their disabilities can be identified and in some cases treated, and teachers are required to be educated in how to reach these kids. Some of them are in fact quite bright.

 

(3) Accountability and standards have improved markedly. There is a great deal of rigorous testing that goes on now (much more than years ago). This is probably dragging some of the worst schools up, or at least making the problem easier to diagnose.

 

Obviously there are still a lot of issues in schools. The one that seems to be getting a lot of attention is weapons in schools and shooting sprees. It may be worth mentioning that there are not really all that many of these (they are just very newsworthy when they occur). Nonetheless it is true that inner city schools have a lot of kids in gangs, metal detectors, etc etc.

 

I think there are two big things that have lead to this situation. One is the disintegration of the family. Many of these problem kids are from single parent homes, or from homes where both parents work and there is rarely anyone taking care of the kids. This situation is much more prevalent in today's society than it was years ago. You can blame it on a lot of different things (women working, no fault divorce, changing standards for child raising, etc) but this is definitely a change. The other issue is the segregation of American society. Wealthy families increasingly live in gated communities far away from poorer families. Communities where everyone is poor and out of work tend to become pretty dangerous areas. Since we have schools where almost all the students come from such communities, we end up with some dangerous schools. Obviously there have always been rich people and poor people, but I don't think the level of segregation in where they live and go to school has always been this great.

Few comments regarding AWM recent post

 

When I was in high school back in the first half of the 80s, New York state had an excellent college prepatory curriculeum. The school districts were heavily tracked. The "gifted" program was very much focused on the Advanced Placement exams. Most of my classmates took 2+ AP exams their senior year. Almost everyone took between two and three semesters of calculus.

 

My impression is that a lot of this infrastructure has been dismantled due to a combination of

 

1. Teaching to the "test"

2. Budget cuts

3. Exploding budgets for special needs students

 

No Child Left Behind is a disaster for any school district that is actually trying to teach students to think rather than learn to take tests.

 

Coupled with this, educational opportunities for special needs students is certainly much better than it used to be. However, as insensitive as this might sound, I question our priorities on this one...

[luke warm]

one of my favorite boston legal reruns was on last nite, about the school girl who shredded 'the test' at her school... no child left behind is a disaster, especially since schools have very little choice in the matter (assuming they want/need federal money)... i noticed some stats on the act avg results since 1967... at that time the avg culmulative score was something like 19.6... from 1968 - 1989 it ranged between 18.4 and 18.7 (nothing in the 19s)... in 1990 it jumped to 20.5 or so... coincidently, the test was changed in 1990

 

another funny factoid - the sac math scores indicate that students are math-ok, the act scores indicate the opposite... it seems to me that the percentage of students in remedial math should tell which test is more accurately guaging college readiness in math

[JoAnneM]

And, how could I forget, my sister retired as chair of the English department of Lowell HS in San Francisco, a premier college prep school, where students routinely graduate with college credits. I believe those college credits were being given the entire 30 years she was there.

[kenberg]

A small world, JoAnne. Both my wife and my older daughter graduated from Lowell. My daughter was a classmate of Naomi Wolfe, class of '78 I think. An exceptional school. My wife took a long bus ride to get there from the Haight Asbury area where she was living during the Janis Joplin era. She is even less a hippie than I am, but she did see several of the famous ones live.

[Winstonm]

I don't think anyone tested the voters who did turn out as to their actual understanding of the issues. However, they might have been able to recite the TV ads.

You mean a heavy Republican turnout, then. :P

[Winstonm]

one of my favorite boston legal reruns was on last nite, about the school girl who shredded 'the test' at her school... no child left behind is a disaster, especially since schools have very little choice in the matter (assuming they want/need federal money)... i noticed some stats on the act avg results since 1967... at that time the avg culmulative score was something like 19.6... from 1968 - 1989 it ranged between 18.4 and 18.7 (nothing in the 19s)... in 1990 it jumped to 20.5 or so... coincidently, the test was changed in 1990

 

another funny factoid - the sac math scores indicate that students are math-ok, the act scores indicate the opposite... it seems to me that the percentage of students in remedial math should tell which test is more accurately guaging college readiness in math

Interestingly enough, last night I watched "Stand and Deliver", the movie version of the true story of the LA inner city school where H. Escanlante taught an AP calculus course and the first year had a perfect 18 of 18 pass.

 

Terrific movie.

[JoAnneM]

A small world, JoAnne. Both my wife and my older daughter graduated from Lowell. My daughter was a classmate of Naomi Wolfe, class of '78 I think. An exceptional school. My wife took a long bus ride to get there from the Haight Asbury area where she was living during the Janis Joplin era. She is even less a hippie than I am, but she did see several of the famous ones live.

Ask them if they had or knew Patricia Hanlon as a teacher. She sure hated to retire.

[PassedOut]

Reading this story brought home to me that things are indeed much different than when I went to school: Teacher Resists a Charge of Corporal Punishment

 

When Glenn Storman, a guidance counselor at Public School 212 in Gravesend, Brooklyn, came across an unruly student cursing at a substitute teacher in 2004, he ordered the boy to “zip it” and brandished a rolled-up piece of paper, thinking that would be the last he heard of the encounter.

 

But five years later, Mr. Storman, 57, is embroiled in a legal dispute over allegations that he committed corporal punishment. A 27-year veteran of the school system, Mr. Storman denies hitting the student and is seeking to erase an unsatisfactory rating that a principal gave him.

One of the phrases I heard often was "Spare the rod and spoil the child." And the rod was not a rolled up paper.