what Makes Chicago Public Schools Bad (Atlanta: crime, loans, homes)

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by chicagobear

Lewis said she got her answer about Emanuel's character rather quickly.
"In that conversation, he did say to me that 25 percent of the students in this city are never going to be anything, never going to amount to anything and he was never going to throw money at them."

If he said that - it is rather interesting for several reasons:

1. I agree with the statement. A significant portion of the students (and their families) really don't care about education and they are just negatives to everyone else. If you thrown money at the problem it won't change at all.

2. It goes against typical Democrat/liberal positions that refuse to acknowledge that some people are just not worth the investment.

3. If 25 percent will amount to nothing, what does Emanuel suggest will happen to these people? How will it affect Chicago 5, 10, 15 years from now?

[Attrill]

While I don't think anyone should give up on any CPS student, I do think a quarter to a third of CPS students need serious help from social workers before they have any chance of learning anything from any teacher. Unfortunately social services are being cut at the same time that CPS has been reducing nursing and counseling staff. The larger issues need to be addressed before anyone starts worrying about test scores in the worst schools.

[Aleking]

Originally Posted by Attrill

While I don't think anyone should give up on any CPS student, I do think a quarter to a third of CPS students need serious help from social workers before they have any chance of learning anything from any teacher. Unfortunately social services are being cut at the same time that CPS has been reducing nursing and counseling staff. The larger issues need to be addressed before anyone starts worrying about test scores in the worst schools.

I think this is the right idea...test scores and college prep have to take a back seat to basic life skills, sex-ed, etc. Kids having kids is a huge reason why this cycle is so hard to break.

[linicx]

The feds say thou shall educate. When I was in school disruptive behavior and the stuff associated with it was not allowed. The student was banned from that school after the third time. The student that punched the pregnanat teacher went to jail. Chicago is saddled wih a massive school system that is out of control and broken.

Smaller districts have separate schools for the disruptive with a very rigid set of rules. When that fails, they are out of the school system. Some go to jail, some go into the DCFS, some get their GED, some go to college and some die. The point is they are not in the school system or allowed on school grounds.

As a nation we can do better. The problem lies with DC. One set of rules does not fit every school and every district in every state in America.

A better policy is to form regions of 4 states and let the 4 District Superintendents work out what is best for their region. Let them meet the Supers from 5 other regions to further define it. .Now there are two super regions representing 48 states. It is up to the 24 in each region to find the best course of action/solutions for their super region. The hardest job will the last step. Bringing the two ideas together to form a consus that treats equally all of the school issues that School Superintendents face every day: poverty, languages, behavior, failing teachers, failing schools, bullies, weather, old books, old classrooms and overcrowding, sports, music, arts, equal funding for all schools, breakfast and lunch programs, sick kids, drugs, booze, after school activities, discipline, etc.. The list is long and endless.

But you have to start by removing disruptive behavior from school permanently. The ACLU will scream.

We could probably create a model system that works. The problem is where to start and how. DC is not answer. The real answer lies in boots on the ground; the people who live it.

[oakparkdude]

All urban school systems with large underclass populations do poorly based on standardized criteria. Some school systems like NYC are better run and have slightly better scores compared to their peers, while some like DC are particularly poorly run and have performance worse than average even by big city school standards. I think CPS is a little bit worse than average but not too far from the mean.

[JacksonPanther]

A hypothetical scenario here...

Are school systems across the USA built on a model that assumes kids will have parental participation in their education? Meaning, a parent who can help you with your homework, who will help you build a diorama, who will make your costume for you? And if you do not have a parent that helps you, you cannot succeed?

I am not talking about abusive parents, disruptive classrooms, none of that. Assume the parent gives the kid time to do homework, but does not assist in any way. I am asking a simple question - Can a typical kid who has non-participant parents succeed in the USA classroom?

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by JacksonPanther

A hypothetical scenario here...

Are school systems across the USA built on a model that assumes kids will have parental participation in their education? Meaning, a parent who can help you with your homework, who will help you build a diorama, who will make your costume for you? And if you do not have a parent that helps you, you cannot succeed?

I am not talking about abusive parents, disruptive classrooms, none of that. Assume the parent gives the kid time to do homework, but does not assist in any way. I am asking a simple question - Can a typical kid who has non-participant parents succeed in the USA classroom?

What's your definition of success? They can probably graduate with a C average (or higher if they are particularly bright or self-motivated.) Is that enough to go to college or be successful in this poor job market? Maybe not.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by JacksonPanther

A hypothetical scenario here...

Are school systems across the USA built on a model that assumes kids will have parental participation in their education? Meaning, a parent who can help you with your homework, who will help you build a diorama, who will make your costume for you? And if you do not have a parent that helps you, you cannot succeed?

I am not talking about abusive parents, disruptive classrooms, none of that. Assume the parent gives the kid time to do homework, but does not assist in any way. I am asking a simple question - Can a typical kid who has non-participant parents succeed in the USA classroom?

I don't think it is easy to say what school systems across the USA do. I suspect there is more local/regional variation than many believe.

I don't think a child has to have active parent participation to complete K-12 schooling with at least passable grades. I know many upper income families where the parents do very little related to their children's schooling. However - these parents have a stable home life and set expectations from an early age that education is important.

I think that there are certain demographic sub-groups that simply don't care about education. These family units, if they are a unit at all, make no effort to even require their kids to attend class. Improving the classroom or teaching has no effect on these kids.

The very interesting book "Freakonomics" studied some of these issues and concluded that the best predictor of a child's academic performance is who their parents are, not what their parents do.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

I don't think it is easy to say what school systems across the USA do. I suspect there is more local/regional variation than many believe.

This is absolutely true, and the variations aren't just by states and municipalities, in CPS there are big differences between schools. These variations have to be there because CPS contains both the highest scoring and the lowest scoring schools in the state, with the rest being all over the place. Many schools have a majority of students who don't speak English, others have students who are surrounded by violence everyday. The needs of schools that are right next to each other can vary drastically.

That said, both the feds and the State of Illinois issue standards, procedures, and policies that need to be followed. CPS then takes those into account and adds it's own layers of standards, procedures, and policies on top. After that each principal then figures out what policies make sense and what they can get away with for variations from those laws if they don't make sense for that schools needs. Part of the resistance to evaluations is actually a resistance to schools having to be run based on what people in DC, Springfield, and City Hall think needs to happen, when frequently they're just grandstanding politically and could care less what will actually work (i.e. NCLB).

[cubssoxfan]

Originally Posted by Drover

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the right to an education has morphed into the right to disrupt everyone else's education. The classroom learning environment has been effectively reduced to the lowest common behavioral denominator, and in many urban schools, that denominator is frighteningly low.

ADD NCLB standards and you do have an increase in teaching to the lowest denominator, often at the expense of the high achieving student. If we can break out kids into what high schools do in the suburbs why can't it be done earlier. That is have a highest level, honors level, regular level and remedial level. The delinquents are sent to a separate school. Of course this would mean merging many of the small elementary districts into large ones to provide this, but why can't this be done? Oh sure some schools like ours have "differentiated teaching", but unless there are enough teachers or aids in the classroom this cannot occur consistently IMO. And then they may have a high level math and regular level math in middle school.
BUT with so much focus on the lower performers so $$ to districts isn't adversely affected, why aren't we also focusing so much on the brighter kids?!