06-09-2017, 11:02 PM
Six schools in Baltimore (5 high schools, one middle school) had ZERO students proficient in math or English.
http://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-bal...tate-tests
http://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-bal...tate-tests
06-09-2017, 11:02 PM
06-10-2017, 05:42 AM
06-10-2017, 08:19 AM
06-10-2017, 08:24 AM
06-10-2017, 09:37 AM
06-10-2017, 10:10 AM
06-10-2017, 11:00 AM
06-10-2017, 03:15 PM
I have been avoiding posting in the politics forum, but as a teacher I feel like I need to pop in on this thread. Let me preface this by saying I have been teaching for over a decade and am classified as a high performing teacher (and I have been for all but my first few years teaching, during which I was "satisfactory.") I have taught in the inner city and in the suburbs.
There are a lot of misconceptions about competition in schools. The first being that somehow it creates better schools. Let me point out some ways the treating schools like business and having them compete is going to leave people disappointed.
The existence of charter schools (the main driver behind the competition argument) were originally pushed as a way to provide choice for failing schools in neighborhoods where there was a history of failing schools. When I worked in the inner city we saw the first wave of inner city charter schools come out. There are more than a few issues that exist with charter schools (at least here in FL)
a. Charter schools that opened near failing schools had poor results. As a matter of fact, charter schools across Jax and FL generally have lower scores than their neighborhood schools. There are a few exceptions (River City Science is consistently scoring well.) As a result of this, charter schools stopped opening near low performing schools and started to move out to the suburbs where the public schools were doing just fine. Which is the opposite of what the schools were supposed to be for.
b. Schools should NOT be in competition with each other. As a public school teacher with a near perfect pass rate on my End of Course exams each of the last few years, I SHOULD share my information and teaching strategies with other teachers. If I am in competition with them, it does not benefit me to share my info and strategies because it could help the "competition." The only losers in this situation are the kids who do not get access to better classroom ideas. For the record, I share all of my info with whoever wants it. However, If I was in competition with my co-workers, I do not know if I would be so willing to share, especially if it meant keeping my job or not.
c. New Orleans is all charter school (they have no public school system since Katrina.) They are having a tremendous amount of trouble following the law in regards to access to mental health professionals, English as second language learners laws as well as staying on top of the extremely cumbersome process of accommodations for students with learning disabilities. NPR had a very interesting story about how public schools share funds to hire the necessary mental health professionals and other professionals needed to meet all of the requirements to help children with learning disabilities/mental health issues, but that the charter schools in New Orleans did not want to work together because they want their competition to fail so they can get more students. Remember, students = $$$.
d. Charter schools were meant to be a way to allow innovative teaching. Let me say that this one is REALLY frustrating as a teacher. We are told that we are not innovative which is why we need charters, BUT, I am not allowed to be innovative. The state micromanages everything I teach down to the amount of days I am supposed to teach it. I, as mentioned above, have an extremely high pass rate, but I have still had people from the district get on my case for following a different pace than I am supposed to. I kind of get away with it (yearly ending up in a meeting with my boss and a district person explaining why I am doing it the way I am) because I have a good record, but new teachers do not have that privilege. Remember that we are not allowed to get creative. We are not even supposed to show documentaries or in some cases video clips. This is all pushed down on us by a legislature that, being a super majority of Republicans, you would think would want LESS interference and micromanaging.
e. Charter schools do not have to have certified teachers. When I heard this I thought that this was just some bull, I did however look into it and it is true. They do not have to have the same level of certification that we in the public schools do.
f. Remember that charter schools can kick kids out. Public schools cannot. Every year, after funding counts are made and money is distributed from the state, we, the public school, get a bunch of kids that have been kicked out of the charters (usually around the start of 2nd quarter.) This of course means we don't have the funding attached to them yet still have to teach them, and are dealing with the kids the charters do not want.
g. There is no transparency with charters. My sister-in-law was teaching at one here in Jax. She made 9,000 less than me and got no benefits. The question I have is, where did the rest of the $$$ go? It wasn't to facilities (the school was a dump) and she didn't have smaller classes. No one knows what happens to the $$$ at these schools. Shouldn't my tax dollars that are being given to the business that runs the school be traceable? A few years ago a local charter school (military academy one) closed it doors in March because it ran out of money. They literally had a sign on the door that said we are no longer operating. It was on the local news. DCPS said we would take the kids, but their parents were freaking out because seniors who were scheduled to graduate in May, were being placed in 10th and 11th grade because they could not pass the tests that are required in public schools. How did the school fail to finihs the year? We will never know since they do not have to divulge their accounting at charter schools.
h. And perhaps the kicker. The state provides funds for charter schools to build and operate. If they fail the business keeps the building that our tax dollars paid for. Again, this was so ridiculous that when I heard it I thought it was a complete lie, but it is not.
Now, I know that public schools are not perfect, but it is hard for them to compete when the playing field is not level. If charter schools were held to the same standards as public schools than it would be a different story, but as of now, they are not and it is frustrating to always hear how bad of a job my colleagues and I do, when we are following the guidelines of what the legislature wants, other than to work for free
There is more I could write and I would be more than happy to talk about this with everyone in an adult way (which is to say, NOT like the majority of threads in the politics sections!) but I am taking my kids to go see Captain Underpants, so I can't add more right now!
There are a lot of misconceptions about competition in schools. The first being that somehow it creates better schools. Let me point out some ways the treating schools like business and having them compete is going to leave people disappointed.
The existence of charter schools (the main driver behind the competition argument) were originally pushed as a way to provide choice for failing schools in neighborhoods where there was a history of failing schools. When I worked in the inner city we saw the first wave of inner city charter schools come out. There are more than a few issues that exist with charter schools (at least here in FL)
a. Charter schools that opened near failing schools had poor results. As a matter of fact, charter schools across Jax and FL generally have lower scores than their neighborhood schools. There are a few exceptions (River City Science is consistently scoring well.) As a result of this, charter schools stopped opening near low performing schools and started to move out to the suburbs where the public schools were doing just fine. Which is the opposite of what the schools were supposed to be for.
b. Schools should NOT be in competition with each other. As a public school teacher with a near perfect pass rate on my End of Course exams each of the last few years, I SHOULD share my information and teaching strategies with other teachers. If I am in competition with them, it does not benefit me to share my info and strategies because it could help the "competition." The only losers in this situation are the kids who do not get access to better classroom ideas. For the record, I share all of my info with whoever wants it. However, If I was in competition with my co-workers, I do not know if I would be so willing to share, especially if it meant keeping my job or not.
c. New Orleans is all charter school (they have no public school system since Katrina.) They are having a tremendous amount of trouble following the law in regards to access to mental health professionals, English as second language learners laws as well as staying on top of the extremely cumbersome process of accommodations for students with learning disabilities. NPR had a very interesting story about how public schools share funds to hire the necessary mental health professionals and other professionals needed to meet all of the requirements to help children with learning disabilities/mental health issues, but that the charter schools in New Orleans did not want to work together because they want their competition to fail so they can get more students. Remember, students = $$$.
d. Charter schools were meant to be a way to allow innovative teaching. Let me say that this one is REALLY frustrating as a teacher. We are told that we are not innovative which is why we need charters, BUT, I am not allowed to be innovative. The state micromanages everything I teach down to the amount of days I am supposed to teach it. I, as mentioned above, have an extremely high pass rate, but I have still had people from the district get on my case for following a different pace than I am supposed to. I kind of get away with it (yearly ending up in a meeting with my boss and a district person explaining why I am doing it the way I am) because I have a good record, but new teachers do not have that privilege. Remember that we are not allowed to get creative. We are not even supposed to show documentaries or in some cases video clips. This is all pushed down on us by a legislature that, being a super majority of Republicans, you would think would want LESS interference and micromanaging.
e. Charter schools do not have to have certified teachers. When I heard this I thought that this was just some bull, I did however look into it and it is true. They do not have to have the same level of certification that we in the public schools do.
f. Remember that charter schools can kick kids out. Public schools cannot. Every year, after funding counts are made and money is distributed from the state, we, the public school, get a bunch of kids that have been kicked out of the charters (usually around the start of 2nd quarter.) This of course means we don't have the funding attached to them yet still have to teach them, and are dealing with the kids the charters do not want.
g. There is no transparency with charters. My sister-in-law was teaching at one here in Jax. She made 9,000 less than me and got no benefits. The question I have is, where did the rest of the $$$ go? It wasn't to facilities (the school was a dump) and she didn't have smaller classes. No one knows what happens to the $$$ at these schools. Shouldn't my tax dollars that are being given to the business that runs the school be traceable? A few years ago a local charter school (military academy one) closed it doors in March because it ran out of money. They literally had a sign on the door that said we are no longer operating. It was on the local news. DCPS said we would take the kids, but their parents were freaking out because seniors who were scheduled to graduate in May, were being placed in 10th and 11th grade because they could not pass the tests that are required in public schools. How did the school fail to finihs the year? We will never know since they do not have to divulge their accounting at charter schools.
h. And perhaps the kicker. The state provides funds for charter schools to build and operate. If they fail the business keeps the building that our tax dollars paid for. Again, this was so ridiculous that when I heard it I thought it was a complete lie, but it is not.
Now, I know that public schools are not perfect, but it is hard for them to compete when the playing field is not level. If charter schools were held to the same standards as public schools than it would be a different story, but as of now, they are not and it is frustrating to always hear how bad of a job my colleagues and I do, when we are following the guidelines of what the legislature wants, other than to work for free
There is more I could write and I would be more than happy to talk about this with everyone in an adult way (which is to say, NOT like the majority of threads in the politics sections!) but I am taking my kids to go see Captain Underpants, so I can't add more right now!
06-10-2017, 04:03 PM
06-10-2017, 04:35 PM
(06-10-2017, 03:15 PM)Vicbow Rules Wrote: [ -> ] a. Charter schools that opened near failing schools had poor results. As a matter of fact, charter schools across Jax and FL generally have lower scores than their neighborhood schools. There are a few exceptions (River City Science is consistently scoring well.) As a result of this, charter schools stopped opening near low performing schools and started to move out to the suburbs where the public schools were doing just fine. Which is the opposite of what the schools were supposed to be for.
b. Schools should NOT be in competition with each other. As a public school teacher with a near perfect pass rate on my End of Course exams each of the last few years, I SHOULD share my information and teaching strategies with other teachers. If I am in competition with them, it does not benefit me to share my info and strategies because it could help the "competition." The only losers in this situation are the kids who do not get access to better classroom ideas. For the record, I share all of my info with whoever wants it. However, If I was in competition with my co-workers, I do not know if I would be so willing to share, especially if it meant keeping my job or not.
c. New Orleans is all charter school (they have no public school system since Katrina.) They are having a tremendous amount of trouble following the law in regards to access to mental health professionals, English as second language learners laws as well as staying on top of the extremely cumbersome process of accommodations for students with learning disabilities. NPR had a very interesting story about how public schools share funds to hire the necessary mental health professionals and other professionals needed to meet all of the requirements to help children with learning disabilities/mental health issues, but that the charter schools in New Orleans did not want to work together because they want their competition to fail so they can get more students. Remember, students = $$$.
d. Charter schools were meant to be a way to allow innovative teaching. Let me say that this one is REALLY frustrating as a teacher. We are told that we are not innovative which is why we need charters, BUT, I am not allowed to be innovative. The state micromanages everything I teach down to the amount of days I am supposed to teach it. I, as mentioned above, have an extremely high pass rate, but I have still had people from the district get on my case for following a different pace than I am supposed to. I kind of get away with it (yearly ending up in a meeting with my boss and a district person explaining why I am doing it the way I am) because I have a good record, but new teachers do not have that privilege. Remember that we are not allowed to get creative. We are not even supposed to show documentaries or in some cases video clips. This is all pushed down on us by a legislature that, being a super majority of Republicans, you would think would want LESS interference and micromanaging.
e. Charter schools do not have to have certified teachers. When I heard this I thought that this was just some bull, I did however look into it and it is true. They do not have to have the same level of certification that we in the public schools do.
f. Remember that charter schools can kick kids out. Public schools cannot. Every year, after funding counts are made and money is distributed from the state, we, the public school, get a bunch of kids that have been kicked out of the charters (usually around the start of 2nd quarter.) This of course means we don't have the funding attached to them yet still have to teach them, and are dealing with the kids the charters do not want.
g. There is no transparency with charters. My sister-in-law was teaching at one here in Jax. She made 9,000 less than me and got no benefits. The question I have is, where did the rest of the $$$ go? It wasn't to facilities (the school was a dump) and she didn't have smaller classes. No one knows what happens to the $$$ at these schools. Shouldn't my tax dollars that are being given to the business that runs the school be traceable? A few years ago a local charter school (military academy one) closed it doors in March because it ran out of money. They literally had a sign on the door that said we are no longer operating. It was on the local news. DCPS said we would take the kids, but their parents were freaking out because seniors who were scheduled to graduate in May, were being placed in 10th and 11th grade because they could not pass the tests that are required in public schools. How did the school fail to finihs the year? We will never know since they do not have to divulge their accounting at charter schools.
h. And perhaps the kicker. The state provides funds for charter schools to build and operate. If they fail the business keeps the building that our tax dollars paid for. Again, this was so ridiculous that when I heard it I thought it was a complete lie, but it is not.
Now, I know that public schools are not perfect, but it is hard for them to compete when the playing field is not level. If charter schools were held to the same standards as public schools than it would be a different story, but as of now, they are not and it is frustrating to always hear how bad of a job my colleagues and I do, when we are following the guidelines of what the legislature wants, other than to work for free
There is more I could write and I would be more than happy to talk about this with everyone in an adult way (which is to say, NOT like the majority of threads in the politics sections!) but I am taking my kids to go see Captain Underpants, so I can't add more right now!
A. There are always examples and counter examples. The survey done in Detroit showed that Charter Schools outperformed public schools even when students of the same ethnic or financial background were compared. The problem here is that Charter Schools are guaranteed finance as part of the government, and as such have no incentive to improve. All they need to do is outperform Government Schools, which is not exactly a high bar to jump over.
B. Teachers should not be in competition with each other. Furthermore, schools should face strong consequences for failure. Neither the school administrators nor the teachers face even mild consequences for poor performance.
C. D. F. X. These all point to government regulation as the problem. Were Public Schools allowed to make the choices that Charter Schools can, then there would be a lot better performance.
E. Certification is not a guarantee of ability. The whole concept of certification requirements to do a job is an anti-competitive force between government and (usually) big business. do taxi drivers need certification? Nail salon workers? University faculty do not take teaching classes, yet many are very good teachers.
G. H. Were the administrators or owners of schools to face real market forces rather than guarantees of government funding, there would be a major incentive to improve and innovate. Another example of how government screws up the private sector.
Let me add one thing. Back before the Federal government got involved in education and schools were funded locally, most schools gave a much higher level of education. There were a few really bad schools, but even the very worst schools were not as bad as those schools in the original link.
And from Jerry Pournelle:
Quote:[font=Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]In 1983 Nobel Prize laureate Glenn T. Seaborg headed a national commission to evaluate our education system; it was mostly dedicated to the primary and secondary schools. The general consensus was that our higher education system was all right (that was explicitly said at a plenary session of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science even as it deplored the primary and secondary schools). Dr. Seaborg’s conclusion was that the schools were awful; this in 1983. He blamed it on the system imposed by the Federal Government (aided by the Courts).
He said, “If a foreign government had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightfully consider it an act of war.”[/font]
It was bad even then. The US school system has gotten a lot worse since 1983.
06-10-2017, 04:59 PM
06-10-2017, 05:18 PM
06-11-2017, 12:11 PM
06-11-2017, 04:10 PM
06-12-2017, 02:51 AM
(06-09-2017, 11:02 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Six schools in Baltimore (5 high schools, one middle school) had ZERO students proficient in math or English.
http://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-bal...tate-tests
Hey look here, those teachers weren't teaching to the test! Those students got a real education.
(06-10-2017, 11:00 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]I agree overwhelmingly with this. The two worker household has done nothing but make us poorer in more than just money. Its funny that equality just meant lower pay for everyone so that one spouse can't afford to stay home for most people. Also the thing about families on thier phones in resturantes. That gets me too. I was at some hipster pizza joint the other day and well over half the people there were just looking at their phones, not paying attention to anyone across from them. Its crazy, and whats even worse is it isn't just 'young,' I see plenty of people who are 50+ doing it too. People are addicted to technology and 'social networks' that are anything but an actual network most of the time.(06-10-2017, 10:10 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Education begins at home. We've destroyed the American home and now we reap the results. No school can overcome the smoldering ruins of the homes in their surrounding neighborhoods.
This is true as well. It's rare you ever hear about a stay at home mom these days. Most parents in most locations are forced to work day and night to make ends meet. Barely make ends meet at that. When I was a kid in the 90s and early 00's. I always had my parents home. They could work and be there during the evening. So I was getting plenty of help, teaching, guidance and support through them.
Fast forward to nowadays. It's rare. Very rare to see that. And technology has also sapped everyone's attention as well. It bothers me to no hell's end when me and my wife go out to dinner and you see a family of maybe four or five just sitting there GLUED to their phones. Rarely talking, laughing or making eye contact with one another. And anytime someone asks a question they don't know an answer to. Guess what?
Youtube it! Google it! God forbid you take your son or daughter out to a library for a few minutes and do it the old way. Or you take your son or daughter outside physically to see how to fix a car or repair something around the house hands on.
Sad times man. The meek will inherit the Earth at this rate. The survivors have always passed down the best skills and techniques. I have a terrible feeling that comes to an end by 2050 - 2100.
And yes, I know we are on a message board, but still this is totally different. We are engaging over common interests, not wasting time browsing nothing, and most of us are not spending all day on here. Its really sad when I see a group of people eating together, and none of them even look up from their phones at each other.
I also agree about problems coming around the corner. Too many people have let technology erode any skills they have. They have gotten so dependant on other overspecialized workers that they couldn't support themselves (like in the 'keep yourself alive without a grocery store for a month' kind of sense) even if they wanted too. If the great depression happened today, a lot more people would die, cause hardly anyone is growing their own food.
Caldrac got me way off topic now. This one is gonna be a 20 pager.
(06-10-2017, 03:15 PM)Vicbow Rules Wrote: [ -> ]....
I agree on the most part with what you have written. I think that education should not be run like a for profit business. Especially when I look at the College situation, I can't think of one for-profit school that is better than a State School. Its not true competition when the government is giving all the loans to just anyone, and the system won't innovate in that environment IMO. State funds should not goto schools. Thats the only way you will see real improvement.
True private schools in primary education (not charter) often do outperform Public. They have to, to justify their existence, and convince parents to send their kids there. Without that incentive (see for profit colleges that just have to meet the minimum accreditation guidelines) they would end up being equivalent to a lower level degree mill (University of Pheonix Charter School Duval, don't you want your kid to go there?). If a school couldn't survive without government funds, than it shouldn't exist.
I get it, that school is partly babysitting for the poor classes to help make more factory workers, but really it should be more than that.
06-12-2017, 03:02 PM
06-12-2017, 03:11 PM
06-12-2017, 03:55 PM
06-12-2017, 03:58 PM
06-12-2017, 05:29 PM