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.
Need more? That's just the first page in my search with the term "parents to blame for education problems". I could go farther on this search, or use some different terms.
And that's just the internet! Get on any education forum, this one, one on Facebook or anywhere else, you hear the same shtick about parents.
Oh come on, most of those are stories about what teachers are saying. These are not stories about politicians or opinion pieces saying that parents should be blamed. I'll stick by my original comment that most of the conversation about students failing lays blame on the schools and teachers. Few, outside of teachers, have the cajones to correctly point that much of the blame for failure should fall on parents and the students themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
So you deal with this problem. I don't buy that we need some special "reform school" for these kids. There are plenty of "alternative schools" around right now. There's online education, etc. Talk about throwing money at a problem. Build/staff a separate school for what 20-30 kids or so, transport the kids there, etc, etc.
This wouldn't require extra money, just re-assignment of students and staff. And let's be clear, we're talking about more than just 20-30 students in large metropolitan areas. You could fill a dozen schools in Greater Cleveland with students that would fit this description.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
I just don't have a solution off the top of my head for CD.
I gave you the solution. The district in which I grew up had an alternative school for troubled students. It's not exactly a new solution, but it works. My only point is that these schools should be funded by the state, not individual districts, because for many districts it's not feasible. But all districts have troubled students.
Oh come on, most of those are stories about what teachers are saying. These are not stories about politicians or opinion pieces saying that parents should be blamed. I'll stick by my original comment that most of the conversation about students failing lays blame on the schools and teachers. Few, outside of teachers, have the cajones to correctly point that much of the blame for failure should fall on parents and the students themselves.
This wouldn't require extra money, just re-assignment of students and staff. And let's be clear, we're talking about more than just 20-30 students in large metropolitan areas. You could fill a dozen schools in Greater Cleveland with students that would fit this description.
I gave you the solution. The district in which I grew up had an alternative school for troubled students. It's not exactly a new solution, but it works. My only point is that these schools should be funded by the state, not individual districts, because for many districts it's not feasible. But all districts have troubled students.
Re: the links:
#1, yes, discusses the teacher's perspective, although the writer disagrees and feels such blame is doing nothing to move forward..
The second link is written by an education politician.
#3 is an article about everyone getting blamed and maybe we should do something besides blame.
#4 is by an education reporter.
#5-ditto.
#6 actually disagrees with teachers blaming parents. It appears to be written by a teacher. Look at the conclusion. Mod, please bear with me as I post more than three sentences; I think it would ruin my passage to leave some out.
"Several years ago, someone--not me--posted a list of "funny" excerpts from parent excuse notes on the lounge bulletin board, illustrating parents' misspellings and malaprops. As a group of teachers were eating lunch, a custodian came in for a cup of coffee. He stood reading the list, cradling his mug.
He turned to the teachers: Is this what you think of us, the parents in this district? There was dead silence, as he walked out. Like most support staff in this small town, he grew up here, sent his children to our classrooms, paid taxes and came to football games."
And that is exactly what I'm getting at, too!
I know you didn't read #7 unless you copied the link and pasted it in your browser, b/c my bolding of the "68_in_poll_say_parents_not_tea" gave me a 404 error and I had to paste it in manually. I was trying to emphasize the 68%. But yeah, this is a survey of the general public. It's sort of like, "I"m a great parent but no one else is". The poll was conducted by Stanford University. http://www.cleveland.com/nation/inde...s_not_tea.html
Everything costs money. Moving a few kids out of each classroom/homeroom in the case of middle and high school will require extra teachers for those kids, and will not result in smaller class size for those not removed. IOW, the same amount of kids will be educated, but by more teachers. It may also require another building, and most certainly transportation b/c you can't forcibly remove kids from a classroom, assign them to a school possibly miles away and expect them to get there themselves.
My district already has a number of alternative high schools. I don't think any of them are for "disruptive" students. They also have online education. I don't know where you think the states are going to get the money. In my state, the legislature cannot raise money. All taxes have to go to a vote of the people. Can you see this one being voted in? I can't.
You may have had some good ideas in that post, but you lost me right there. For too long, parents have been blamed for the majority of school problems. I would like to talk about schools without bashing parents, for a change.
I am inclined to agree with placing responsibility with the parents.
You just can't argue against it - the biggest factor in academic and life success of students comes from their parents and family. Kids are at school for a few hours a day, with a teacher that has 20-30 of them to attend to. No matter how great the school or the teacher, they're not going to give each student individual attention like parents can at home. It's always going to be hard, if not impossible, to negate at school the effects of neglectful, abusive, uneducated and non-involved parents, an unstable home life, poverty, lack of proper food and shelter, parent's mental illness or substance abuse, etc etc etc. It has long been shown that disparities in outcomes between affluent and poor schools really come down o this, the demographics and involvement of the families (involvement tends to correlate with demographics, barring some exceptions). All school factors being equal, a child with involved, educated parents will do better than the child without, practically every time. How can we argue that?
Okay, NOT intended to be a political post, I just want to hear from those well-versed in the education field. I posted on a thread in the politics forum and did not get an answer. I want to know what to expect now that Betsy DeVos was elected? Specifically, what's going to happen to areas which already have an excellent public school system? Are they going to be affected and lose a lot of funding, or will the local/ state levels compensate for it? I don't know enough about how school funding works, so I'd love to hear from someone who does. As a family with very young kids who just settled and bought a house primarily for its fantastic schools, just how concerned should we be?? I'm worried to be honest.
Did you ever get an answer?
Like you, I moved to an area with very high property taxes but also - very good public schools and I was very pleased with the opportunities my son had.
He is now in college so not so much of a concern but I would be pi$$ed if they took money from my school to form some for-profit charter school.
Charter schools can be very low performing themselves.
I am inclined to agree with placing responsibility with the parents. You just can't argue against it - the biggest factor in academic and life success of students comes from their parents and family. Kids are at school for a few hours a day, with a teacher that has 20-30 of them to attend to. No matter how great the school or the teacher, they're not going to give each student individual attention like parents can at home. It's always going to be hard, if not impossible, to negate at school the effects of neglectful, abusive, uneducated and non-involved parents, an unstable home life, poverty, lack of proper food and shelter, parent's mental illness or substance abuse, etc etc etc. It has long been shown that disparities in outcomes between affluent and poor schools really come down o this, the demographics and involvement of the families (involvement tends to correlate with demographics, barring some exceptions). All school factors being equal, a child with involved, educated parents will do better than the child without, practically every time. How can we argue that?
Oh, yes you can argue against it! I am not talking about specific examples. I'm talking about the constant yammering, on this board as well as every ed message board I've ever been on talking about parents expecting the schools to be free day care, free babysitting service, this that the other.
Just what percentage of students do you think the bold comprises?
I already quoted one passage, here's another that describes exactly what I'm talking about. "Anyone who's ever been in the classroom is familiar with this experience: You're sitting around in the teachers' lounge, letting off steam about student behaviors and carelessness, and someone says something snarky about the wormy little apples not falling far from the parental tree.
This critique of parents comes in several varieties: The irrationally angry parent, "protecting" their child from "vindictive" school employees. The helicopter parent, smoothing over every minor problem and destroying the child's self-initiative. The feckless parent who never reads to their child or tracks homework. You know. Parents who don't do their jobs. [Insert personal job description here.]"
One more sentence with the mod's forbearance: "Over at the Badass Teachers (BAT) Facebook page, education advocate Kipp Dawson (whose work and convictions I admire) raised a series of questions over educators' kneejerk tendency to blame students' perceived academic deficiencies and character flaws on their home lives."
Truthfully, when I first came to this forum and read all the carping about parents and what jerks they are, I wanted to take back every volunteer hour I did, every fundraiser I participated in, buying overpriced useless junk, every meeting I attended, every concession stand I worked, every concession I bought, every concert and play I attended and paid for, and every vote I cast to raise money for the schools. I felt like a fool, doing all that stuff, imagining what the teachers said about me/my spouse behind our backs.
This doesn't just apply to kids in poverty, it seems to apply to all kids. If the parent asks questions, they're "helicoptering". If they feel the school should take care of the situation, they're "uninvolved".
Your last question is different from the parental blame I see on a continuing basis on ed forums. Of course it's better for a kid to have two parents, a decent household income, parents available to volunteer (but of course, not too often mind you, that's "over-involved"), etc.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 02-11-2017 at 05:21 PM..
Like you, I moved to an area with very high property taxes but also - very good public schools and I was very pleased with the opportunities my son had.
He is now in college so not so much of a concern but I would be pi$$ed if they took money from my school to form some for-profit charter school.
Charter schools can be very low performing themselves.
From what I gathered from responses in the thread is that the federal funding (which is the funding that could be impacted by the transition to vouchers) only comprises a small percentage of the school funding, most is provided by the state. So if you have good schools that are well funded by the state, any changes should hopefully not be an issue.
I'm not sure though, whether if everyone gets vouchers, parents in schools like ours would start pulling out kids from perfectly good public schools to get into a private school with a 'discount' so to speak, which would then drop the public school's ratings. I don't really see that happening though, as in our area, for example, there are only a couple of private schools, and all others are a trafficky commute away. Those schools are already full with waiting lists, so I doubt any mass exodus would be happening.
I'm not sure though, whether if everyone gets vouchers, parents in schools like ours would start pulling out kids from perfectly good public schools to get into a private school with a 'discount' so to speak, which would then drop the public school's ratings. I don't really see that happening though, as in our area, for example, there are only a couple of private schools, and all others are a trafficky commute away. Those schools are already full with waiting lists, so I doubt any mass exodus would be happening.
Again, the only way everyone would get vouchers is if your state decides to go that route. The Federal government could never afford such a policy.
Again, the only way everyone would get vouchers is if your state decides to go that route. The Federal government could never afford such a policy.
The federal government also funds k-12 schools to a degree, gives pell grants to college students, and has federal student loans. Trump will privatize student loans and end pell grants. That money, along with the federal money that goes to k--2 schools could be reallocated towards school vouchers in the states that don't pass them. Many states are now already preparing school voucher legislation though. The Feds could also give tax credits for those who pay private school tuition or who home school.
People who underestimate Trump and DeVos do so at their own peril.
So you deal with this problem. I don't buy that we need some special "reform school" for these kids. There are plenty of "alternative schools" around right now. There's online education, etc. Talk about throwing money at a problem. Build/staff a separate school for what 20-30 kids or so, transport the kids there, etc, etc.
How many educations are you willing to sacrifice to keeping that disruptive kid in the same classroom? What is the lost opportunity cost there? How much damage are you willing to take on most kids to protect the few troublemakers?
While I agree with much of what you say about parents, I disagree here.
For the OP's original question:
About the only thing that may happen is fewer unfunded mandates forced down on local districts to pay for. How is that a bad thing?
The federal government also funds k-12 schools to a degree, gives pell grants to college students, and has federal student loans. Trump will privatize student loans and end pell grants. That money, along with the federal money that goes to k--2 schools could be reallocated towards school vouchers in the states that don't pass them. Many states are now already preparing school voucher legislation though. The Feds could also give tax credits for those who pay private school tuition or who home school.
People who underestimate Trump and DeVos do so at their own peril.
They may try to use some Federal funding as a carrot to try to get states to overhaul their funding systems to implement vouchers, but since states will be picking up the largest part of the tab for a voucher system, it's really going to be up to each state.
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.
