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.
But an increase in money spent or services offered means nothing if the family is not involved or the child is not motivated. Hence why money alone is not going to improve the quality of a school system.
I didn't say money alone would help, but money is a precondition for getting things in place that do help. One example, early reading intervention is cost-intensive, requiring a student-to-teacher ratio of about 3:1. But that expense in kindergarten and first grade is almost guaranteed to have a child reading at grade level by third grade, which is one of the biggest indicators of future success in school.
I didn't say money alone would help, but money is a precondition for getting things in place that do help. One example, early reading intervention is cost-intensive, requiring a student-to-teacher ratio of about 3:1. But that expense in kindergarten and first grade is almost guaranteed to have a child reading at grade level by third grade, which is one of the biggest indicators of future success in school.
You're right. The addition of those program are expensive but would add value to an educational program. My point is that those programs won't matter if a child or their family aren't motivated or committed to their education to take advantage of that opportunity to enrich their learning experience. This is especially rtrue for learning during the early years as those students look to their home environment for motivation. IMO, this motivation and commitment to learning needs to be in place before the programs for the programs to be successful. My mom walked several miles to a one room segregated classroom to learn. Her comimitment eventually led to her MS Ed. My cousin, born and raised in Ethiopia, had to live with friends of the family (who lived in the city) during the week to go to school. His family and subsequently his commitment led to his MS in Special Education. I believe that drive needs to be in place before programs are added that fall on deaf ears. For those parent or students who already have it but the resources are not available through the school then make your own program. Early reading could be done by using the local library and it's reading club,etc. what I find is a lot of parents nowadays want to drop their kids off at school to have them taught and raised by the educational system. I have seen parents invest hundreds/thousands into their kids wardrobes or access to electronic devices but little to extrcurricular academic enrichment programs (be it at the elementary or secondary level). Do we need additional programs and teaching staff? Yes but the foundation needs to be fixed before we work on the frame.
You're right. The addition of those program are expensive but would add value to an educational program. My point is that those programs won't matter if a child or their family aren't motivated or committed to their education to take advantage of that opportunity to enrich their learning experience. This is especially rtrue for learning during the early years as those students look to their home environment for motivation. IMO, this motivation and commitment to learning needs to be in place before the programs for the programs to be successful. My mom walked several miles to a one room segregated classroom to learn. Her comimitment eventually led to her MS Ed. My cousin, born and raised in Ethiopia, had to live with friends of the family (who lived in the city) during the week to go to school. His family and subsequently his commitment led to his MS in Special Education. I believe that drive needs to be in place before programs are added that fall on deaf ears. For those parent or students who already have it but the resources are not available through the school then make your own program. Early reading could be done by using the local library and it's reading club,etc. what I find is a lot of parents nowadays want to drop their kids off at school to have them taught and raised by the educational system. I have seen parents invest hundreds/thousands into their kids wardrobes or access to electronic devices but little to extrcurricular academic enrichment programs (be it at the elementary or secondary level). Do we need additional programs and teaching staff? Yes but the foundation needs to be fixed before we work on the frame.
And how are you getting those kids whose parents -- for whatever reason -- aren't as involved as they should be into the library (which has had proportionally deeper cuts than the school system) for reading clubs? The point about delivering services at schools is that kids are required to be there and there are systems in place to track and follow up with kids. If you try to spread out services like early reading intervention to other places, you're less likely to reach the kids who need them most.
Do parents need to be more engaged and responsible, sure. Do kids need to take responsibility themselves, that's a lot to ask of a kindergartner, but to a degree, yes. In the mean time, while you're fixing the foundation (and how is that being done by the way?), we need to ensure that those kids who may not have the opportunity at home do have the opportunity as school to kindle their interest in learning.
And how are you getting those kids whose parents -- for whatever reason -- aren't as involved as they should be into the library (which has had proportionally deeper cuts than the school system) for reading clubs? The point about delivering services at schools is that kids are required to be there and there are systems in place to track and follow up with kids. If you try to spread out services like early reading intervention to other places, you're less likely to reach the kids who need them most.
Do parents need to be more engaged and responsible, sure. Do kids need to take responsibility themselves, that's a lot to ask of a kindergartner, but to a degree, yes. In the mean time, while you're fixing the foundation (and how is that being done by the way?), we need to ensure that those kids who may not have the opportunity at home do have the opportunity as school to kindle their interest in learning.
Reading club is an example. Exposing a child to the library or any type of activity that promotes ongoing learning and not waiting for the system to have those things is the objective. The bottom line is that parents need to impress upon their children that learning isn't just done during school hours from M-F.
Yes being in school is a requirement and could theoretically track a students progress and following-up generally results in just checking the box instead of ensuring that real progress is being made. Fixing the foundation is multi-tiered and complex but a start would be making parental involvement mandatory(similiar to what is done in private schools) since there are parents/families out there that don't realize that optional doesn't really mean optional when it comes to educating their children.
I agree with you that kids who are motivated should have access to in-school programs that help them get to that next level. However, should we wait for that program or service to be offered in the schools to initiate it. No. There are other avenues to provide for the social, cognitive, educational and emotional development of a child than school. It is highly likely that any new monies generated from expanded gaming will go towards catching up and not adding programs. That said what is to be done in the interim. Just like we shouldn't be putting all of our eggs in one basket over the possibility of an increased revue stream, we shouldn't take a wait til the money is there approach to improving the PGC school systems.
Reading club is an example. Exposing a child to the library or any type of activity that promotes ongoing learning and not waiting for the system to have those things is the objective. The bottom line is that parents need to impress upon their children that learning isn't just done during school hours from M-F.
Yes being in school is a requirement and could theoretically track a students progress and following-up generally results in just checking the box instead of ensuring that real progress is being made. Fixing the foundation is multi-tiered and complex but a start would be making parental involvement mandatory(similiar to what is done in private schools) since there are parents/families out there that don't realize that optional doesn't really mean optional when it comes to educating their children.
I agree with you that kids who are motivated should have access to in-school programs that help them get to that next level. However, should we wait for that program or service to be offered in the schools to initiate it. No. There are other avenues to provide for the social, cognitive, educational and emotional development of a child than school. It is highly likely that any new monies generated from expanded gaming will go towards catching up and not adding programs. That said what is to be done in the interim. Just like we shouldn't be putting all of our eggs in one basket over the possibility of an increased revue stream, we shouldn't take a wait til the money is there approach to improving the PGC school systems.
I don't know the ages of most here but I went to elementary school during the 60s, and 7-12 in the 70s.
Grades 1-9 were mostly in Texas and those school districts are different to this day as my brother does a lot of construction work for most of them in the San Antonio area. The city is broken up into individual independent school districts rather than by the county. The state oversees all but is hampered by the federal government.
If any attended school back in that time era you know well that your parents were very involved in your schooling. You did homework as soon as you got home and you had to get good marks on your report card or there were consequences to be paid in the form of restriction, loss of allowance or other privileges kids today take for granted.
The federal government needs to butt out and parents need to butt in if any changes are to take place in PGC schools because throwing more money at the problems hasn't worked so far. Kids are passed along even though they don't earn the grades and brings the worth of an education down for those who do try.
The government mandates the schools be "fair" to all - do we face "fair" when out in the real world?
The same can be said about the scholastic woes across the country.
Reading club is an example. Exposing a child to the library or any type of activity that promotes ongoing learning and not waiting for the system to have those things is the objective. The bottom line is that parents need to impress upon their children that learning isn't just done during school hours from M-F.
Yes being in school is a requirement and could theoretically track a students progress and following-up generally results in just checking the box instead of ensuring that real progress is being made. Fixing the foundation is multi-tiered and complex but a start would be making parental involvement mandatory(similiar to what is done in private schools) since there are parents/families out there that don't realize that optional doesn't really mean optional when it comes to educating their children.
I agree with you that kids who are motivated should have access to in-school programs that help them get to that next level. However, should we wait for that program or service to be offered in the schools to initiate it. No. There are other avenues to provide for the social, cognitive, educational and emotional development of a child than school. It is highly likely that any new monies generated from expanded gaming will go towards catching up and not adding programs. That said what is to be done in the interim. Just like we shouldn't be putting all of our eggs in one basket over the possibility of an increased revue stream, we shouldn't take a wait til the money is there approach to improving the PGC school systems.
I don't disagree that parents need to motivate kids and be engaged with their education -- I preach that every time I'm pitching the PTA -- but at the same time, exposure to the library or a reading club isn't the same thing as reading recovery or early reading intervention. (Although if you wanted to direct more money to the library system, I suppose they could add those services, but it wouldn't have the same opportunity to reach the number of at-risk kids that can be reached in school.) The kids who are being taken to the library generally aren't the ones who need that additional focused attention.
Reading intervention reaches those kids whose parents aren't pushing them to read, hopefully building that foundation for success in school. To me, that's part of building/strengthening the foundation, and you're helping give the child the tools and skills they need to improve themselves instead of just sitting back and waiting for parents who aren't involved to decide to get involved.
I don't disagree that parents need to motivate kids and be engaged with their education -- I preach that every time I'm pitching the PTA -- but at the same time, exposure to the library or a reading club isn't the same thing as reading recovery or early reading intervention. (Although if you wanted to direct more money to the library system, I suppose they could add those services, but it wouldn't have the same opportunity to reach the number of at-risk kids that can be reached in school.) The kids who are being taken to the library generally aren't the ones who need that additional focused attention.
Reading intervention reaches those kids whose parents aren't pushing them to read, hopefully building that foundation for success in school. To me, that's part of building/strengthening the foundation, and you're helping give the child the tools and skills they need to improve themselves instead of just sitting back and waiting for parents who aren't involved to decide to get involved.
And I am not against the need for those programs in the schools (especially for those who may not get support at home) but, given the finite amount of time provided during the school day, how can this be reinforced in a child so that it actuallly sticks (if that child is not receiving positive support at home)? Also, the problem exists with or without additional funding so how can it be employed regardless of an increase? My basic point is that it is necessary but if the PGC budget does not receive an increase for such programs are we just going to let the need for a solution fall to the wayside or think of other ways to achieve the same with zero/negative growth. What is the solution if that program cannot be implemented?
And I am not against the need for those programs in the schools (especially for those who may not get support at home) but, given the finite amount of time provided during the school day, how can this be reinforced in a child so that it actuallly sticks (if that child is not receiving positive support at home)? Also, the problem exists with or without additional funding so how can it be employed regardless of an increase? My basic point is that it is necessary but if the PGC budget does not receive an increase for such programs are we just going to let the need for a solution fall to the wayside or think of other ways to achieve the same with zero/negative growth. What is the solution if that program cannot be implemented?
Two budgets ago, it was to cut Reading Recovery, but the county ponied up additional money to bring back at least partial services. This last budget, it was to shift staffing/program decisions to the principals via student-based budgeting, which has as many pitfalls as it does benefits (and allows the PGCPS and the board of education to avoid responsibility for some hard choices ...)
I guess my problem is that money for the school system does matter. It allows the system to afford additional teaching positions and to keep better teachers within the system. It's not a panacea by any means, but it does make a difference.
Which, to bring it back to Question 7, doesn't mean a casino at National Harbor will help improve education, but if the question passes statewide but fails in Prince George's, then the county will be worse off than if it passes both in the county and statewide.
I guess my problem is that money for the school system does matter. It allows the system to afford additional teaching positions and to keep better teachers within the system. It's not a panacea by any means, but it does make a difference.
Which, to bring it back to Question 7, doesn't mean a casino at National Harbor will help improve education, but if the question passes statewide but fails in Prince George's, then the county will be worse off than if it passes both in the county and statewide.
I agree that a strong budget does matter and just as long as we look at it as a piece of a much more complex puzzle. I was reading a few days ago that PGCSB is looking at ways to consolidate schools to save money. With problems like bubbling in the background, I think that the implementation/restoration of certain programs may be trumped by fixing other issues in cue. Question 7 may be a catch 22 situation but I do feel that the additional jobs will go a long way in helping resolve some other issues in the county. At the very least the additional income tax revenue (from workers living in the county) will place us in a better position than where we are now.
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.
