Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Want a better education for your kids, you'd best be willing to pay for it.
I disagree. Higher per pupil spending does not always equate to higher education quality/results. E.g. compare Chicago public school per pupil spending to some high performing school in the middle of a cornfield.
I'm not saying its impossible just that its improbable.
Either you somehow get your kids into a district that has high income and standards so the public schools are decent or you spend a lot of dough on the privates.
But the reason the district has high income/standards is often because the parents have higher educational attainment which results in higher income/standards. It is not simply a $/school spending issue.
I'm not saying its impossible just that its improbable.
Either you somehow get your kids into a district that has high income and standards so the public schools are decent or you spend a lot of dough on the privates.
I have my kids in a public school district with high incomes and supposed "high standards". The curriculum taught in school has nothing to do with the high income of the parental body.
It is still wanting - high income or not.
It is standardized, pre-packaged, dumbed down, testing-oriented - just like any public school curriculum. It is not the classical, discipline-based education I was talking about - even though it SHOULD be.
The reason why the school looks good is because many parents do SPE (supplemental, private education). They either buy extra curriculum and tutor the kids at home themselves (I am one such case) or they contract out the tutoring job.
This still doesn't address the public school curriculum; that is, what is done in class - not at home! - every day, and what is assigned by the school to be done at home every day.
An educational system that relies heavily on parental involvement, parental contribution and parental supplementation, etc. to show great results is not much of an educational system.
Do you think people pay little for public education in the US? This is the country with the highest expense per pupil in public ed.
I am not buying the argument.
Extremely high quality education can be done with little expense.
I agree with you that we are squandering our educational dollars in this country. We spend plenty of money in this country. We are not spending it well.
High quality education is not available in much of the US unless you spend your own money (in excess of your taxes).
The truth about our educational system is not pretty.
But it's not some great conspiracy to keep the masses down.
As a long time public HS teacher, I've had thousands of students pass through my classroom. A good cross section of the American public, actually, as I've taught both advanced and remedial courses over the years.
The truth is that the children of the American public represent a wide spectrum of ability and motivation. There are a small number of very capable and highly motivated students. There are a great number of mediocre kids. And a considerable number that are way-below average. Over the past couple of decades, there's been an across the board attempt to convince both parents and students that everyone is college material and needs to get a college prep HS education. The premise itself is totally bogus, but widely accepted by the public. Few parents want to admit to themselves that their child is going to top out at about 8th grade, academically. But many do. They are forced to remain in an academic setting where they will never advance their knowledge or capabilities.
We don't have this deep misconception when it comes to athletic or artistic ability. But when it comes to academics, the assumption seems to be widespread that there are no naturally stupid people in the US. And if you ever do meet someone who is dumber than a doorknob, then it must be a reflection on our educational system.
So, practically ALL kids are shoved into the current one-size-fits-all system. Not because it's going to prepare marginal students to do well in college. But because it's much cheaper than offering vocational courses for non-college bound students. It's costly to build and equip shops for welding, electrical, auto mechanics, and metal finishing. So, nowadays, those things are offered at "career colleges" instead of high schools in many areas. Like I said, it's cheaper. Money not spent on schools, teachers, classrooms, and students can be diverted to adding additional bureaucratic layers of administration. And that's exactly what's occurred across most of the USA. District administration offices are crammed to bursting with all kinds of higher pay grade people (and their associated staff) who teach no one anything and seem to be mainly concerned with interfering in the efforts of those who do.
Compounding the problem is the current obsession with standardized test scores being the measure in education. All of this testing has done nothing but confirm the obvious; that some kids are brighter and others are duller. But legislatures and administrators are now tying school funding, teacher evaluations and the status of entire programs to these test results. No one should be surprised that the effort has gone almost totally into coaching low performers to be able to pass an easy test, because the good students see the tests as a joke. The average students don't struggle with it. Only the marginal kids have trouble passing, and the ONLY criteria that decision makers at the state and local levels really pay any attention to is the simple passing rate. And they demand that it improves yearly. Which means getting more of the poor performers to pass an easy test. It reduces our schools to the lowest common denominator.
I'd like to hear an argument from someone who has been involved in education for a good number of years who is convinced that this test-mania has in any way improved student learning.
As we've all seen, the results of this "effort" have been anything but encouraging.
I recently retired. And I'm so glad to no longer have to put up with all the bureaucratic bungling and time-wasting administrivia that's overtaken the teaching profession.
Good luck to those of you remaining in the front lines.
Incredibly well said. The thought is that EVERY child should be good at school, i.e. math, writing, reading, etc. How is that any different from expecting every child to excel at music or football or drawing? We have completely taken "natural talent" out of the equation.
It also didn't help when we started telling kids, "you can be anything you want when you grow up". We started adopting this notion that everyone needs to go to college, and if you don't you're somehow a failure. So far, this has not had good results.
I disagree. Higher per pupil spending does not always equate to higher education quality/results. E.g. compare Chicago public school per pupil spending to some high performing school in the middle of a cornfield.
Honestly, the quality of education in rural areas is not exceptionally high. The best public schools are typically in the richest suburbs. More to the point, yes--per capita spending is probably higher in Chicago than it is in a typical rural school. But Chicago has a much more complex school system to run because it has so many more students, less space per capita, and such a different environment, so one would expect their per capita spending to be higher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momma_bear
I agree with you that we are squandering our educational dollars in this country. We spend plenty of money in this country. We are not spending it well.
High quality education is not available in much of the US unless you spend your own money (in excess of your taxes).
Some public schools in the US are good. If we look at foreign countries with exceptional education outcomes, we find that they do some simple things that we don't: 1) spend many years in school, 2) hire and retain good teachers--treat them as professionals.
I'm not sure whether we spend enough money in this country to attract and retain high quality educators. Our best college graduates would have to take significant, long-term pay and benefit cuts to become teachers, especially to teach in urban public schools that need the quality teachers but have a high cost of living.
The truth about our educational system is not pretty.
But it's not some great conspiracy to keep the masses down.
As a long time public HS teacher, I've had thousands of students pass through my classroom. A good cross section of the American public, actually, as I've taught both advanced and remedial courses over the years.
The truth is that the children of the American public represent a wide spectrum of ability and motivation. There are a small number of very capable and highly motivated students. There are a great number of mediocre kids. And a considerable number that are way-below average. Over the past couple of decades, there's been an across the board attempt to convince both parents and students that everyone is college material and needs to get a college prep HS education. The premise itself is totally bogus, but widely accepted by the public. Few parents want to admit to themselves that their child is going to top out at about 8th grade, academically. But many do. They are forced to remain in an academic setting where they will never advance their knowledge or capabilities.
We don't have this deep misconception when it comes to athletic or artistic ability. But when it comes to academics, the assumption seems to be widespread that there are no naturally stupid people in the US. And if you ever do meet someone who is dumber than a doorknob, then it must be a reflection on our educational system.
So, practically ALL kids are shoved into the current one-size-fits-all system. Not because it's going to prepare marginal students to do well in college. But because it's much cheaper than offering vocational courses for non-college bound students. It's costly to build and equip shops for welding, electrical, auto mechanics, and metal finishing. So, nowadays, those things are offered at "career colleges" instead of high schools in many areas. Like I said, it's cheaper. Money not spent on schools, teachers, classrooms, and students can be diverted to adding additional bureaucratic layers of administration. And that's exactly what's occurred across most of the USA. District administration offices are crammed to bursting with all kinds of higher pay grade people (and their associated staff) who teach no one anything and seem to be mainly concerned with interfering in the efforts of those who do.
Compounding the problem is the current obsession with standardized test scores being the measure in education. All of this testing has done nothing but confirm the obvious; that some kids are brighter and others are duller. But legislatures and administrators are now tying school funding, teacher evaluations and the status of entire programs to these test results. No one should be surprised that the effort has gone almost totally into coaching low performers to be able to pass an easy test, because the good students see the tests as a joke. The average students don't struggle with it. Only the marginal kids have trouble passing, and the ONLY criteria that decision makers at the state and local levels really pay any attention to is the simple passing rate. And they demand that it improves yearly. Which means getting more of the poor performers to pass an easy test. It reduces our schools to the lowest common denominator.
I'd like to hear an argument from someone who has been involved in education for a good number of years who is convinced that this test-mania has in any way improved student learning.
As we've all seen, the results of this "effort" have been anything but encouraging.
I recently retired. And I'm so glad to no longer have to put up with all the bureaucratic bungling and time-wasting administrivia that's overtaken the teaching profession.
Good luck to those of you remaining in the front lines.
The problem is that you know this, I know it (30 years, retiring within the next 2), any teacher knows it. The anti-education people won't believe it and will state that we're just protecting our own incompetent selves.
Newsflash folks, public education has always been marginal. The reason we didn't see it was because the marginal kids dropped out and those who remained graduated and were a "success", therefore the schools were "successful".
And whoever thinks that schools produce drones need to really research and see that has always been the case (depending how you define "drone").
The problem is that you know this, I know it (30 years, retiring within the next 2), any teacher knows it. The anti-education people won't believe it and will state that we're just protecting our own incompetent selves.
Newsflash folks, public education has always been marginal. The reason we didn't see it was because the marginal kids dropped out and those who remained graduated and were a "success", therefore the schools were "successful".
And whoever thinks that schools produce drones need to really research and see that has always been the case (depending how you define "drone").
Exactly. This is what teachers know but aren't allowed to say...
I don't claim to be an expert. I graduated high school way back in 1978. There has always been a tug of war on those wanting the economically functioning citizenry and those who will think on a higher level and maybe we could have avoided the long and damaging wars in Vietnam and Iraq along with the devastation reeked by the power players on our economy in 2008.
College has usually been the place where it gets elevated to the higher social good being considered and a lot of that will depend on field of study, etc.
All I know is that teachers are under valued and when they do the "economically viable citizen" teaching, they get bashed for not broadening that. When they teach the citizenship and ethics, then they are not being practical. It is a no win.
Newsflash: No reason we can't do both! They can be drone like and efficient in their job when needed, but also involved citizens that vote and get involved and do not tolerate abuses of power.
I have no comment for the hypocritical parents who want discipline for everyone else's kid, but scream bloody murder when their kid is disciplined. Inexcusable.
I don't have the magic answer, but we could start with respecting and appreciating our teachers more than we do now.
Last edited by chessgeek; 03-07-2014 at 05:22 PM..
Reason: spelling corrections
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
