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.
-Eliminate behavior issues: Public schools are "public" and open to everyone by definition, but alternatives could be implemented to weed out the 10-15% of students that are only there to ruin it for everyone else.
The second option is only available in a handful of states where districts are given the option to transfer kids to alternative school without parent permission. You can allow kids to voluntarily attend an alternative school, but since this involves additional transportation requirements on the parents, it really does not help in large urban districts. (The parents will not take the voluntary alternative school option if it means they are responsible for transporting their child to some other part of the city.)
The second option is only available in a handful of states where districts are given the option to transfer kids to alternative school without parent permission. You can allow kids to voluntarily attend an alternative school, but since this involves additional transportation requirements on the parents, it really does not help in large urban districts. (The parents will not take the voluntary alternative school option if it means they are responsible for transporting their child to some other part of the city.)
Seems like that would be a problem for larger districts, but perhaps they could set up multiple alternative schools and provide all of the transportation? It would be well worth the money, in my opinion.
In reality, we're already working our way towards a two-tiered system (along with the increased transportation costs) with the growth of charter schools, many of which remorselessly limit the enrollment of challenging students. The difference is that I don't believe that the average citizen really knows that this is happening. Perhaps we, as a society, need to have this discussion more openly and then perhaps more flexibility can be given to actual public schools and/or charter schools will be seen for what they really are.
The problems in inner-city schools of course have a huge impact on those schools' performance. Thus lowering the bar for private schools to clear. Private schools getting better results is a product of both their advantages and the disadvantages public schools deal with. I suppose I went a bit off-topic in bringing up the lack of solutions for those public schools. But their inferior results (test scores) are a product of all of the challenges they face which can not truly be controlled by teacher quality. Switch the staffs at Private School A with that of Public School B, and I think you'd find that very frequently the results would be as they are now.
It depends on the district and school. A lot of teachers don't want to teach in inner city schools so you're left with schools with some low quality administrators and teachers who are certified to teach and are there because it's a job and they were able to get an emergency license.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clevelander17
What is it that private schools are doing (besides the parents) that may contribute to success? Here are are a few ideas that I think would have a big impact:
-Smaller class sizes
-Eliminate behavior issues: Public schools are "public" and open to everyone by definition, but alternatives could be implemented to weed out the 10-15% of students that are only there to ruin it for everyone else.
-De-emphasize standardized testing
Agree with one and three, but disagree with two. Children shouldn't be "weeded" out for having behavior issues. A teacher should be pro-active in getting to know their students and the issues they face to help prevent problems before they occurs instead of reacting to behavior issues when they occur. Sometimes a lot of behavior issues are imagined. In my experiences, males tend to get the brunt of disciplinary action taken against them(by a female teacher) and being a male standing in the position of a teacher, I could never see what it was that irritated the teacher in the first place. Males tend to have a lot of energy so maybe I just have the patience for it or maybe other teachers expect all of their students to act in the same way. Again, it's that getting to know the student part. There are some other issues that go along with what you said besides gender differences in behavior issues, but also race since male minorities have more disciplinary action taken out against them even when the same offense is committed across all groups. Then there is the issue of where you send them? Expel them? Send them to an institute for other kids with "behavior" issues ensuring that nothing will ever get taught? My point is those options and your recommendation will just rob them of an education that they deserve just as much as the kid setting next to them.
Agree with one and three, but disagree with two. Children shouldn't be "weeded" out for having behavior issues. A teacher should be pro-active in getting to know their students and the issues they face to help prevent problems before they occurs instead of reacting to behavior issues when they occur. Sometimes a lot of behavior issues are imagined. In my experiences, males tend to get the brunt of disciplinary action taken against them(by a female teacher) and being a male standing in the position of a teacher, I could never see what it was that irritated the teacher in the first place. Males tend to have a lot of energy so maybe I just have the patience for it or maybe other teachers expect all of their students to act in the same way. Again, it's that getting to know the student part. There are some other issues that go along with what you said besides gender differences in behavior issues, but also race since male minorities have more disciplinary action taken out against them even when the same offense is committed across all groups. Then there is the issue of where you send them? Expel them? Send them to an institute for other kids with "behavior" issues ensuring that nothing will ever get taught? My point is those options and your recommendation will just rob them of an education that they deserve just as much as the kid setting next to them.
As an educator, I agree that it is very important to get to know students, build positive relationships, and try to deal with their issues in a way that prevents major behavioral issues. That being said, I don't think that's always possible and I think that there are indeed students that need a different environment; let alone that the rest of the class that might need a break from that student.
Let me elaborate about my plan. First of all, these schools would only be for the most extreme cases, so maybe my 10-15% estimate is a bit too high. Second, there would be special alternative schools where these students would not be warehoused, but have a chance to work in more intimate settings with educators who are specifically trained to deal with their issues. However, this would not be voluntary and if parents/families did not like the idea of having their child attend such an alternative school, the other part is that this would create some incentive to work with the teachers and administrators at the regular schools to get their child to behave in a more appropriate manner. These schools are not a punishment, though if you really want to be in a normal school environment, you must be able to reasonably control your behavior. While I agree that everyone deserves an education, no student has the right to be a constant disruption that prevents the majority of other students from learning. Private schools, parochial schools, and many charter schools all share that philosophy. Regular public schools need to be able to do so as well.
As an educator, I agree that it is very important to get to know students, build positive relationships, and try to deal with their issues in a way that prevents major behavioral issues. That being said, I don't think that's always possible and I think that there are indeed students that need a different environment; let alone that the rest of the class that might need a break from that student.
Let me elaborate about my plan. First of all, these schools would only be for the most extreme cases, so maybe my 10-15% estimate is a bit too high. Second, there would be special alternative schools where these students would not be warehoused, but have a chance to work in more intimate settings with educators who are specifically trained to deal with their issues. However, this would not be voluntary and if parents/families did not like the idea of having their child attend such an alternative school, the other part is that this would create some incentive to work with the teachers and administrators at the regular schools to get their child to behave in a more appropriate manner. These schools are not a punishment, though if you really want to be in a normal school environment, you must be able to reasonably control your behavior. While I agree that everyone deserves an education, no student has the right to be a constant disruption that prevents the majority of other students from learning. Private schools, parochial schools, and many charter schools all share that philosophy. Regular public schools need to be able to do so as well.
I, and I suspect most educators, agree with what you propose but it will not be well met by most parents who child gets an invitation to attend such a school. Sadly, children who engage in disruptive behaviors that have a special education label will be ineligible to be forced to such a school because it will be most likely deemed in violation of the least restrictive environment. I find the current trend of sacrificing the good of the many, for the good of the one troubling. Putting a disruptive student in a regular classroom creates a stifled environment for all the other children in that classroom.
I, and I suspect most educators, agree with what you propose but it will not be well met by most parents who child gets an invitation to attend such a school. Sadly, children who engage in disruptive behaviors that have a special education label will be ineligible to be forced to such a school because it will be most likely deemed in violation of the least restrictive environment. I find the current trend of sacrificing the good of the many, for the good of the one troubling. Putting a disruptive student in a regular classroom creates a stifled environment for all the other children in that classroom.
And putting in several such students creates an environment where the balance of power is constantly shifting from one clique to another. Most years I have at least one class that I call my therapy group, because there are so many students enrolled that their issues constantly complicate my instruction and the students' learning. In my opinion, we need social workers or interventionists who can help the students with their non-academic issues that interfere with their ability to get along in a group and learn.
Last year, I had one class with about seven seriously disruptive students, one of whom was constantly oppositional. He had numerous issues outside the school setting, and I think he only passed a couple of classes. Once most of the chronic disrupters had quit coming, the next level began seeing some improvement in their grades, they felt like they were learning, and they at least cut down on their disruptions. Another class was difficult to the end, not bad at heart, but completely unmanageable. The worst one in that class bragged that he had only been suspended six times so far (only once for conduct in my room), two less than the previous year which was three fewer than the year before. This was a boy whose mother claimed that she could handle him. I pray for her a lot. With thirty students in class, a full half of whom were more than a bit naughty, I was unable to accomplish as much as I would like.
It's not very nice of me, but I emphasize to my students that they need to make enough money to live in a community with good schools or to pay for private schools. The reason, I point out to them, is all around them--the classmates who make such a difference in the classroom environment. In my class from hell this year, the top student in the course suffered through, being harassed by his classmates, having his phone stolen, and under constant pressure to give the other students the answers that they needed to pass. As much as I would love to have him in my advanced class next year, I understood when he told me that he didn't want to. He deserves to be in a private school, and I counseled him to apply for a scholarship. I hope he did.
The administrators and counselors make the decisions as to the class composition, and it is frustrating that it doesn't have to be this way. I would actually prefer to have all the disruptive students in one class and create an honors section for the students who actually want and need my class. I have too many students for whom my class is one of the last stops before dropping out. Demanding college prep courses don't usually motivate students who are up to 50% behind their grade level. I think that we are not serving those students' needs by forcing them into the college-for-all model. I guess we would rather keep a 40% drop-out rate instead of giving students the courses they they need to make them locally competitive. These are not the individuals who are going to be ready to compete in the global marketplace that the CCSS supporters are always emphasizing should be globally competitive. I just want my students to be able to get jobs near home because most of them are not inclined to leave their families in order to get ahead unless it's through sports or entertainment.
I, and I suspect most educators, agree with what you propose but it will not be well met by most parents who child gets an invitation to attend such a school. Sadly, children who engage in disruptive behaviors that have a special education label will be ineligible to be forced to such a school because it will be most likely deemed in violation of the least restrictive environment. I find the current trend of sacrificing the good of the many, for the good of the one troubling. Putting a disruptive student in a regular classroom creates a stifled environment for all the other children in that classroom.
The problem we have presently is, because there is no real plan to deal with chronically defiant students, we have kids being over identified as having learning disabilities. As you said, once a kid is identified-by a completely subjective process btw- as being learning disabled, it's a whole new ballgame. IF there was a real, solid and well-known alternative program for chronically defiant, disruptive students in the first place, we'd see the numbers of students classified as LD plummet IMO.
I, and I suspect most educators, agree with what you propose but it will not be well met by most parents who child gets an invitation to attend such a school. Sadly, children who engage in disruptive behaviors that have a special education label will be ineligible to be forced to such a school because it will be most likely deemed in violation of the least restrictive environment. I find the current trend of sacrificing the good of the many, for the good of the one troubling. Putting a disruptive student in a regular classroom creates a stifled environment for all the other children in that classroom.
The thing is that this sifting of students is already happening in urban districts through charter schools and vouchers. We're simply not having a public discussion about it, and I think that needs to change as long as this is going to continue to happen.
And again, I contend that if parents of the minority of students that are causing serious problems take issue with the placement of their child, they can always do what other parents do to get their children to behavior like real students.
The special education issue a bit trickier, and I'll freely admit that I don't know as much about how to get around it as I'd like to, but I don't believe that it has to be a sticking point.
The thing is that this sifting of students is already happening in urban districts through charter schools and vouchers. We're simply not having a public discussion about it, and I think that needs to change as long as this is going to continue to happen.
And again, I contend that if parents of the minority of students that are causing serious problems take issue with the placement of their child, they can always do what other parents do to get their children to behavior like real students.
The special education issue a bit trickier, and I'll freely admit that I don't know as much about how to get around it as I'd like to, but I don't believe that it has to be a sticking point.
There are cultural issues at play here. Distrust of all public agencies is even more rampant in inner cities than it is in society as a whole.We have an especially difficult case we dealt with this year at my charter school. Parents of two students who were brash in their defiance and very disruptive. We had the parent in for a conference. The dean was there, AP, couple teachers, parents and the students. Here is part of an exchange very close to verbatim: Dean to student: "What you indicate when you say that is that you don't care about our school or our rules." Student: "I DON'T care about this school or its rules!" Mother to student: "Don't be TOO honest!"
This was a parent that chose to have her children bypass the regular school closer to home to attend a charter. And yet she thinks what she thinks about following school rules. Imagine the parents who don't bother to seek a charter school? Society doesn't understand that this kind of thing happens to varying degrees all the time with inner-city students. They just don't get it.
Many developmental disabilities, neurological impairments, and other special needs come with disruptive, challenging behavior as part and parcel. Barring children's access to an appropriate education is inappropriate and discriminatory when their behavior is due to disability.
You can't say that a child in a wheelchair may not attend your school, because the school isn't equipped to make necessary accommodations for his or her disability, and it's wrong, for example, to say that a child with tics due to Tourette's Syndrome, or challenging behavior due to an autism spectrum disorder should be denied the same education guaranteed any nondisabled child because the school isn't equipped to make necessary accommodations for his or her disability.
Any school district that discriminates against a student on the basis of disability should expect negative attention to be drawn to it in a very big, very public way.
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.
