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.
Because they vote liberal democrats to run things and there is no alpha's in charge to make things happen. "oh no we can't expel little (6' 4") Latavius for punching a teacher out." "before we do that lets have a hearing with the parents and the board and vote on it"
Michelle Rhee was an Alpha chancellor for DC schools and the unions got her fired. She did what no one else would do and needed to be done. If you don't know her story it's worth looking up.
Inter city kids are more of a challenge, but can be taught. However nothing will get done without someone making hard decisions. This is why charter schools have largely doing well.
G.F. Brandenburg, a retired D.C. math teacher with an irresistible blog, has done it again. If he had chosen a career in journalism instead of teaching, no U.S. president would have finished out his first term. He has found the missing test score data from former D.C. schools chancellor's early years as a classroom teacher, something I did not think was possible.
He has proved that Rhee's results weren't nearly as good as she said they were.
The "Waiting for Superman" documentarians also found the same thing regarding school funding. Once you reach a certain point, throwing more money at a problem just doesn't work. And the buys who made the documentary are self professed liberals.
Here's what you don't see: the four out of five charters that are no better, on average, than traditional neighborhood public schools (and are sometimes much worse); charter school teachers, like those at the Green Dot schools in Los Angeles, who are unionized and like it that way; and noncharter neighborhood public schools, like PS 83 in East Harlem and the George Hall Elementary School in Mobile, Alabama, that are nationally recognized for successfully educating poor children.
Quote:
You also don't learn that in the Finnish education system, much cited in the film as the best in the world, teachers are—gasp!—unionized and granted tenure, and families benefit from a cradle-to-grave social welfare system that includes universal daycare, preschool and healthcare, all of which are proven to help children achieve better results at school.
Why are sex health classes and free BC not offered in Middle school (or earlier) ??
Not sure how anyone could not support this use of tax money.
Seems like preventing teens from making babies would be a great place to start.
Why do you assume they're not offered in middle school. Well, at least the sex ed classes were part of the curriculum back when my kids were in MS, and that's been almost 20 years for the oldest one. I believe they were told where they could get free/cheap BC.
I will tell you an anecdote, too. I used to be a public health nurse for a county health dept. We used to go to the middle schools to give rubella immunizations to 6th graders. You have to advise the girls they shouldn't get pregnant for 3 months after getting the vaccine. A 6th grader told me, "We don't do that stuff in 6th grade". Feeling bold I asked, "When do you start", and she said "8th grade".
With respect to Finland, which is always being tossed out as the model for educational achievement, it is insightful to note that the United States has three times more poor children than Finland has for its total population.
More than 16 million children in the United States – 22% of all children – live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level – $23,550 a year for a family of four.
There are usually a higher proportion of special education students in urban public schools. That means that while these schools may have more funding and more teachers, most of that extra funding and most of those additional teachers and specialists are working with only a subset of the enrollment. This is something that's often overlooked and very difficult to account for when simply looking at per pupil expenditures and "average" class sizes.
In a very simplified example, let's say you have 40 kids, 8 of which are special education, and two teachers each making $50,000. That means that while you have an "average" class size of 20, in reality you have one class of 32 and one class of 8. And while $2,500 is spent "per student" for teacher salaries, in reality the students in one class are seeing $1,562.50 per student for teacher salaries, while the other class is seeing $6,250 per student in teacher salaries.
While I'm certain, again, that 90% of the problems in urban schools are being brought in from home by the students, there definitely are some funding issues that despite decent steps taken by the Federal government and many states, is still an issue. If nothing else, the issues surrounding finances or the mandates required for special education needs to be addressed, because it's a huge challenge for urban and rural districts, where these students are overwhelmingly concentrated.
Poor schools get Title 1 funding which is separate from SPED funding.
Poor schools get Title 1 funding which is separate from SPED funding.
I don't believe that the Title 1 funds go very far in propping up schools that serve the poor. As I said, there should be no poor schools. A poor child should go to school in the same kinds of classrooms as suburban kids. The public doesn't see fit to do this because they accept the fact that poor schools exist. As long as the schools in their communities are well-served, most people just say "oh, well," and make up some justification for the dilapidated buildings and sub-standard resources.
I would love to have a smart board, and I would make great use of it. But instead, I try to achieve 21st century results with 1990s technology in a classroom with decaying (asbestos?) tiles on the walls and ceiling. I guess my students just don't deserve the same quality of conditions as suburban students get. Too bad, they should have chosen different parents.
I don't believe that the Title 1 funds go very far in propping up schools that serve the poor. As I said, there should be no poor schools. A poor child should go to school in the same kinds of classrooms as suburban kids. The public doesn't see fit to do this because they accept the fact that poor schools exist. As long as the schools in their communities are well-served, most people just say "oh, well," and make up some justification for the dilapidated buildings and sub-standard resources.
I would love to have a smart board, and I would make great use of it. But instead, I try to achieve 21st century results with 1990s technology in a classroom with decaying (asbestos?) tiles on the walls and ceiling. I guess my students just don't deserve the same quality of conditions as suburban students get. Too bad, they should have chosen different parents.
Texas school funding is different. All the poor schools I've been in have their smart boards, iPads and laptops for the students.
I do tutoring in poor schools with students that are failing and this is since the first 6 week benchmark.
My salary is paid with 100% Title 1 funds which can only be used in Title 1 schools.
Title 1 funds will not bring poor schools up to par with suburban schools.
Title 1 funds are to supplement their education, not fill in a state's budget problems.
The teachers in Finland may be unionized, but based on other stuff I have read, they rules and regulations put forth by their unions are not the same as what we have in the U.S. The culture is different.
I am not necessarily a big proponent of charter schools myself. I still think the biggest problem we have is family structure (or lack thereof) and cultural values and public policy that makes single parenting a normal and viable way of life. After that is valuing education itself.
Why are sex health classes and free BC not offered in Middle school (or earlier) ??
Not sure how anyone could not support this use of tax money.
Seems like preventing teens from making babies would be a great place to start.
Actually the teen pregnancy rate, while still high compared to other developed countries, is plummeting:
Teen births are at the lowest ever reported in the USA and both the number of births and birth rate dropped 10% in just one year, according to fresh federal data released today.
But we still have a huge problem with single parenthood. Better a 22 year old single mom than an 18 year old, but not by much.
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.
