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.
Um, there are 10 on one side and ONE on the other. It's not ten you can move to either side.
Yes. 10 on the disadvantaged side or one on the advantaged side, in my version and 10 on the advantaged side or one on the disadvantaged side in yours.
And my point was that your assertion was arbitrary:
"Oh, it is such a difference to allocate resources this way!"
It works just as surely the other way - and they are both nonsense and both are based on a false dichotomy that you have bought into in terms of resources.
I wish it were otherwise but it isn't. Successful people tend to live in the same areas and successful people pass on traits to their children that lead to success. Between genetics and peers with goals, you're going to see a lot more success in wealthy suburbs than in the inner city.
Ivory - your point was about making a difference and having an impact.
What is the difference between my:
a) teaching a group of bright affluent kids and helping them to get into Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and MIT vs. only getting into Brown, Columbia, and RPI;
or
b) teaching a group of bright impoverished kids and helping them get into any college when they might not have applied without my intervention?
Teachers are not, as you have quite accurately said, everything.
But they can be very powerful forces that can change lives drasitically - and the teacher in the low SES system has the potential to make far greater changes in the lives of his students than the teacher in the high SES school system ever will.
In the affluent community, after all, it is not about the teacher there, either - the teacher is not having success, the students are.
Ivory - your point was about making a difference and having an impact.
What is the difference between my:
a) teaching a group of bright affluent kids and helping them to get into Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and MIT vs. only getting into Brown, Columbia, and RPI;
or
b) teaching a group of bright impoverished kids and helping them get into any college when they might not have applied without my intervention?
Teachers are not, as you have quite accurately said, everything.
But they can be very powerful forces that can change lives drasitically - and the teacher in the low SES system has the potential to make far greater changes in the lives of his students than the teacher in the high SES school system ever will.
In the affluent community, after all, it is not about the teacher there, either - the teacher is not having success, the students are.
If they were in equal numbers, you'd have a point. I could go to a wealthy district and fill my schedule with AP calc, AP chemistry and AP physics. If I go into the inner city, they'll be hard pressed to fill one class.
What you, and other posters are missing, is that kids in poorer areas need something different than kids in affluent districts. The issues of inner city schools are, totally, different than the issues in wealthy suburban districts. They're worlds apart and don't need the same teachers. Take someone like me. My forte is my subject matter expertise which would be pretty much useless in an inner city school where discipline issues would be what I'd really need skill in dealing with.
Kids who have stable homes have different issues than kids who don't. Kids who have, involved parents who are positive role models have different issues than kids who don't. Kids who are college bound have different needs than kids who aren't. They need different teachers. The teachers who are best for the suburban kids aren't the ones you want in the inner city. So why discourage them from going where they fit?
I have 18 years of engineering experience to bring to the classroom and I want to go where that's an asset. I have connections that will allow me to do after school activities like electric car or First Robitics (both heavily sponsored by my former employer). What is that to an inner city school that is dealing with truancy, drugs, gangs and violence? They'd rather have a 6'2" ex line backer in the classroom.
You're trying to pretend that kids in the inner city need the same kind of teachers surburban kids need. They don't.
Can we stop with the across-the-board assertion that all inner city classrooms are experiencing massive behavior issues, have few kids who are up to taking AP courses, and who need a babysitter and not a teacher?
I think both JPS and I have agreed that different situations need different teachers. That doesn't mean that the city schools don't also require teachers who are "good," both in ability to manage the classroom as well as teach their subject matter. I don't think anyone has said that "good" depends on the context; what I, anyway, am taking offense at is the idea that poor or city kids (and poor kids can be found in places other than the city, too, of course, and not all city kids are poor) don't deserve to have good teachers, too.
I'm a city kid. I went to school with some kids with major issues. Our AP classes were filled to capacity. I wasn't poor, but some of my classmates were. Not all kids need to go to college, but making the assumption based on preconceived notions that a poor kid is automatically not college bound (or, worse, is genetically inferior to a kid born in a wealthier family) is disturbing.
I DON'T want a teacher to go where he or she is not comfortable, or where the teacher doesn't undestand, or can't empathize with, the students.
Can we stop with the across-the-board assertion that all inner city classrooms are experiencing massive behavior issues, have few kids who are up to taking AP courses, and who need a babysitter and not a teacher?
I think both JPS and I have agreed that different situations need different teachers. That doesn't mean that the city schools don't also require teachers who are "good," both in ability to manage the classroom as well as teach their subject matter. I don't think anyone has said that "good" depends on the context; what I, anyway, am taking offense at is the idea that poor or city kids (and poor kids can be found in places other than the city, too, of course, and not all city kids are poor) don't deserve to have good teachers, too.
I'm a city kid. I went to school with some kids with major issues. Our AP classes were filled to capacity. I wasn't poor, but some of my classmates were. Not all kids need to go to college, but making the assumption based on preconceived notions that a poor kid is automatically not college bound (or, worse, is genetically inferior to a kid born in a wealthier family) is disturbing.
I DON'T want a teacher to go where he or she is not comfortable, or where the teacher doesn't undestand, or can't empathize with, the students.
Sorry but that's the experience of everyone I know who fled the inner city schools. I've never taught in inner city schools but I have two step sons who attended them and that's what I saw too. The boys were among the few who took upper level courses and they were both threatened by other school mates because they were upper track. My youngest step son didn't graduate because he was too afraid to attend school his last semester. Sadly he was a compact student and would have had a free ride to college had he graduated with a B average, which he had up to his senior year when a gang tried to get him selling drugs and he chose not to go do school rather than face them every day. I wish we could have moved him out of the city. I graduated from college about the time he would have graduated from high school so it was too little too late.
I'm not sure what inner city schools you're talking about where the norm is no gangs, no behavior problems and the kids are taking AP calc. Yes, there are good kids in bad schools but the schools are bad for a reason.
I have connections that will allow me to do after school activities like electric car or First Robitics (both heavily sponsored by my former employer). What is that to an inner city school that is dealing with truancy, drugs, gangs and violence?
Clearly, schools in the inner city with students from disadvantaged backgrounds would not after school programs like First Robotics, and their schools wouldn't want somebody who could do things like that.
Like these Detroit schools:
Chadsey High School
Cody High School
Detroit Academy for Young Women
Finney High School
Kettering High School
Mumford High School
Pershing High School
Renaissance High School
West Side Academy
or
Cass Technical High School
Crockett Technical High School
Denby Tech High School
What's that?
You mean all of those are Detroit Public High Schools that have First Robotics teams?!
There must be some kind of mistake - those schools only want ex-linebackers in the classroom!
Sorry but that's the experience of everyone I know who fled the inner city schools. I've never taught in inner city schools but I have two step sons who attended them and that's what I saw too. The boys were among the few who took upper level courses and they were both threatened by other school mates because they were upper track. My youngest step son didn't graduate because he was too afraid to attend school his last semester. Sadly he was a compact student and would have had a free ride to college had he graduated with a B average, which he had up to his senior year when a gang tried to get him selling drugs and he chose not to go do school rather than face them every day. I wish we could have moved him out of the city. I graduated from college about the time he would have graduated from high school so it was too little too late.
I'm not sure what inner city schools you're talking about where the norm is no gangs, no behavior problems and the kids are taking AP calc. Yes, there are good kids in bad schools but the schools are bad for a reason.
I never said no gangs, no behavior problems. I said that despite the problems there were kids taking AP classes. Not all kids were, of course, but many were. No one threatened me because I was on the advanced course track. More of that happens in the junior high level than at high school, anyway, since the real problem kids drop out (which is why we need good early intervention to at least try to get them on the right path). At my school, anyway, at least at the junior high level there was also, unfortunately, a race element; some of my black friends (I'm white) were accused of "acting white" when they did well in school, but that seemed to fade by the time we moved on to high school. Not to say that bad things don't happen in city schools or that gangs aren't at times an issue, but if we're going to get into that then I can tell you stories of some of my suburban friends at wealthier districts who encountered far more hard drug use and drinking at their more posh schools than anything I ever saw in our city school.
Obviously schools with poverty do have different issues, but there are kids in these schools who are motivated, smart, and need the chance to succeed. At my urban school district the city manages to keep a number of middle class and upper class kids (in other words, the kids whose parents could move or go private if they chose to do so) in the schools by offering high-quality academic programs. The poverty rate was still fairly high, but the opportunity for top-notch academic courses was there for any student who was willing to take advantage of it.
Going to school with kids who did face extremely difficult situations (and later tutoring in high-poverty schools in both city and suburbs) has given me the empathy necessary to realize that sometimes people are dealt bad cards in life. Not everyone is going to overcome that, but it's our obligation to at least provide a helping hand to those who want to take it.
Not every inner city school is bad, and if you haven't encountered examples of some of the success stories in high-poverty schools it's because you've written them off already. Check out Patrick Henry in Minneapolis; 75% qualify for free or reduced lunch, yet Henry is considered one of the best schools in the state (offers the IB diploma, too), right up there next to some of the wealthiest suburban districts in Minnesota. (and no, it's not just the wealthier kids who are doing well.)
The more I think about it, though, the last thing an inner city school (or a rural school with high poverty, for that matter) is a teacher who looks at his or her students as statistics, rather than individuals. Kids of all background need teachers who have high expectations and hopes for their students. Obviously not every student is going to succeed, but at the very least we can give kids the benefit of the doubt and not write them off before even giving them the opportunity.
The more I think about it, though, the last thing an inner city school (or a rural school with high poverty, for that matter) is a teacher who looks at his or her students as statistics, rather than individuals.
The problem is, administration is much more likely than teachers to see such students as statistics, since they don't have the day to day contact with them to develop that special relationship. And I've met more than one administration who doesn't seem interested in the progress that is being made in intangible ways that can't be crunched with numbers to the point where they will implement some asinine programs for some "research-based" reasons, or some damned-fool thing like that.
The problem is, administration is much more likely than teachers to see such students as statistics, since they don't have the day to day contact with them to develop that special relationship. And I've met more than one administration who doesn't seem interested in the progress that is being made in intangible ways that can't be crunched with numbers to the point where they will implement some asinine programs for some "research-based" reasons, or some damned-fool thing like that.
A big part of the problem where I am is we're forced to treat them as statistics. We single out the students who are just failing and focus on bringing up their test scores so the school has a higher passing rate. After the amount of effort required here is put in, there's not much left for other students. There just aren't enough resources to go around. I'm sure this is true of many schools.
However, to the issue at hand, treating them like individuals (as if a teacher could really do that with 160 students without making the day 48 hours long), doesn't mean the teacher is obligated to forgo personal adancement for a particular group of students, which is the question at hand. If I pass on an opportunity to better myself beause of timing will the students I made the sacrifice for make up the difference in my pay or pay my bills during retirement? Heck no. The only person who will pay a long term price for that decision would be me so it's my choice to make.
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.
A big part of the problem where I am is we're forced to treat them as statistics. We single out the students who are just failing and focus on bringing up their test scores so the school has a higher passing rate. After the amount of effort required here is put in, there's not much left for other students. There just aren't enough resources to go around. I'm sure this is true of many schools. 
without making the day 48 hours long), doesn't mean the teacher is obligated to forgo personal adancement for a particular group of students, which is the question at hand. If I pass on an opportunity to better myself beause of timing will the students I made the sacrifice for make up the difference in my pay or pay my bills during retirement? Heck no. The only person who will pay a long term price for that decision would be me so it's my choice to make.
