Schools don't fail children......parents do. (holidays, conspiracy, Alabama, insurance)

[Ceece]

Originally Posted by tkdmom

Really ? How so ? Please elaborate.

"State Indoctrination Camp"? It's not necessary to elaborate.

[gallowsCalibrator]

Now, I'm going to be nice and just not respond to your commentary that violates the Terms of Service. Remember in the future, we discuss the topic, not our fellow posters.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

Then you do ensure your child gets the proper amount of sleep ... that's good. And that also tells me that you and your husband obviously enjoy schedules that allow you to do that. But I see a math problem here ... if bedtime is 9:00 pm .... your child cannot possibly get 12 hours of sleep, and attend school at the standard hour that most schools operate. So, perhaps you should stick to the 10 hour story .... that's the only one that works.

Bed time is at 2030. Morning starts 730. That's 11 hours. Note, of course, the part where I said "10-12" hours.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

I honestly can't fathom the idea that ensuring kids get the proper rest, and attending to other matters that contribute to their physical and mental well being could be mistaken for "coddling". When I was growing up, that was just a sign of good raising.

Blaming school systems first is a sign of an inability to accept responsibility. As a parent, I'm responsible that my daughter gets sleep, eats well, etc, etc. Considering that nothing has changed in my school system regarding their Hours of Operation, if I couldn't do that, I would not blame the school.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

But no, I don't think kids should be treated like adults, because they aren't adults. Their needs are different, and they should not be forced to cope with strenuous demands unsuitable for their age. As an older adult, I can barely manage more than 6 hours of sleep, and my schedule is as flexible as I want it to be ... I just can't sleep more than 6 hours. But a kid cannot operate on that little sleep .... well, they can ... but it's not good for them.

Whereas I don't find waking up at 730am, which she already does on her own, is a "strenuous demand".

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

And this isn't really a subjective opinion, but a scientific one. There are things going on with children ... like growing ... that places greater demands on their minds and bodies, and much of the maintenance of that development takes place while sleeping. When that sleep is interrupted or cut short, so too are those processes affected negatively.

Correct. It's a scientific one. Kids need more sleep. What does that mean? They go to bed at a decent hour.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

Then it should, as a matter of due course, cause you to contemplate the sources of this. And, as I suggested before, and provided information to support my claim ... children are being ill-served by a flawed system ... and those flaws are not just isolated to the starting hour of the school day, but that is one of the more significant factors affecting kids. This fatigued state is not only an impediment to proper learning, but also affects physical and psychological development and mental health as I mentioned previously. Can you not contemplate a connection between final outcome and factors affecting development during those "developmental" years? It seems to me that such a connection might be more obvious to you, particularly given the attention this has received over the past 20 years ... much of which points to the need for changes, yet those changes simply aren't occurring.

Correct. What does that mean? They go to bed at a decent hour.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

All you need do is google "later starting times for public schools", and you'll get almost 4 Million hits. There is plethora of information out there in the form of scientific and practical studies that show an across the board improvement in all of the significant areas, from better grades, better discipline, lower drop out rates, and increased participation and student satisfaction resulting from simply moving the start time 1-1.5 hours later in the morning. And isn't that every school's major goals? Isn't it?

Sure, let's push back the start time of schools. Which, if you don't know how that works in practice, actually causes more financial strain on many parents seeing as how school buses would arrive at a later time than when the "average working parent" would need to leave for their job.

I mentioned it once, but in my school district, they pushed back the middle school start time by 30 minutes. School starts at 915 with the last bus stops generally around 900-905. Luckily for my father, my middle school did not follow the rest of the district (and still hasn't, haha) because it meant that he could still make sure I was up and out the door. My younger sister, on the other hand, went to a regular school that did change. At first, he would make sure she was awake before heading to work himself. But after locking herself out numerous times, missing the bus at least once a week, forgetting things like her backpack, etc... well, he was forced to pay for "Before School Care" to the tune of $25/day.

And the problem is, he wasn't alone in this.

Add in additional things like extra-curricular activities, buses traveling during high volume traffic (studies show increased risk of accidents), impact on businesses that employee cheap teenage labor.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

One such practical study was done in the mid-1990's. That's 15+ years ago ... but based on your attitude about this, maybe that explains why this information has not been acted upon by school boards nationwide. Fact is, it's so much easier to blame the parents and lack of funding, and if I were to be completely honest, I don't really think the school boards and teachers unions care quite as much about the delivered product as they would have us believe. Going on strike should serve as a clue here. Whatever fault lies with parents, in my estimation, comes in the form of failing to demand changes that will deliver better educational outcomes.

Perhaps that is true of some school districts, but mine has pretty much gone out of its way to ensure kids have access to a great education (if they want it). Heck, my former middle school realized that the sheer amount of books required was too great in weight for the average size of their student (aka, bunch of tiny, wimpy nerds carrying 5-7 full size school books a day) and decided to save money for new books by... buying tablets, one issued to each student - preloaded with all of a student's books and locked down from tampering. Program's been running for 4 years or so now.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

And I dare say that many parents might balk at later starting times for school based on the impact that might have on their own routines of getting their kids off to school so they can get off to work.

Probably because it's true.

It's also true that teenagers/children, when they know they can sleep in later, will tend to gravitate towards staying up later.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

But if you really think about it ... who decided that the day must begin at 0:dark:30 in the morning? Farmers. They have historically been tied to maximizing their productive work during the daylight hours, up at the crack of dawn to begin their long days, but for the rest of us .. why can't our work/school day begin at 10:00 am ? It easily could.

Of course. Let's overhaul the entire system because some parents can't instill a sense of personal responsibility into their children.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

But at the very least, we should make adjustments so that the kids can be better served.

I think my daughter is served quite well by the school she attends.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

The problems you refer to as a result of "coddling" are in fact a result of the many significant changes that have occurred over the past several decades that are cumulative, and didn't just appear overnight. Change has a tendency to follow a slow path, rather than abrupt big changes, and the results tend also to be cumulative and subtle. But there is no argument that it's an entirely different world today that even 20 years ago, never mind the dramatic differences compared to when I began school in the early 1960's. My reference earlier to "June and Ward Cleaver" was a popular television show of that era "leave it to Beaver", which I believe they've made a modern movie not long back. This depicted Hollywood's typical American family of the 1950's, including all of that outdated and backward "conservative nonsense" about good values, morality, social responsibility and right and wrong ... which seems to have no place in modern America, and rejected quite universally from the leftists who break out in hives at the mere mention of family values. To this new America, there's no place for such antiquated thinking

Again with the political ideologies thing.

Coddling isn't a left or right issue.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

And though that 1950's show was artificially idealistic, and perhaps not totally reflective of real life 1950's, it was not that far off, either. Most families in those days had a father that worked, and a mother that stayed at home and raised the children ... all those things like homework, proper nutrition, proper bedtime, and preparation in the mornings for getting the kids off to school, and most importantly, closely monitoring the child's physical and mental development, was typical of that stay at home mom era. And, it worked.

And, with some changes, the same level of attention can be done by most, if not all, parents. Whether with the assistance of friends, families, and/or after school programs.

I know because I've lived it.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

But that bears no resemblance to American life today.

Correct. So does the change in parenting styles mean that schools are failing or that parents are failing?

If Momma Sally doesn't mind that her tikes are going to bed at 2am, not brushing their teeth, and not finishing homework appropriately... is it really the schools that are failing when these tikes are illiterate tards?

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

The reality is, school has become today's parents .. and it has proven to be a very poor substitute, and the results are showing.

Most certainly. A school is not a parental unit substitute.

The answer? Parents need to step up.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

The school teacher spends more time with the kids than their own parents do .... if the kid gets the 10 hours of sleep they require, and they spend 8 hours a day in school including transit ... or even more, if the kid is involved in extracurricular activities at school, as so many are ... there is only 24 hours a day ... and the mathematics are what they are. Consequently, parents are relegated to 30 minute updates from their children regarding their lives during the week, with the other couple of free hours spent on practical matters. The schools have them for the majority of their waking hours m-f, so dismissing the school's contributions to the results being witnessed is simply delusion.

If a student has parents that are involved with the learning process, they'll more often than not do quite well. If a student has parents that don't have time or don't care? More likely to fail.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

My my .. now I'm really confused. There you are, advocating that which you are also arguing against? Do you do this often? So you two made the conscious decision that a stay at home parent provides the best scenario for your kids .. therefore I'm left with the assumption that in your mind, if you can do it, so can everyone else? That it? Well, that sounds good, but not exactly practical or even possible for far too many. Everyone's financial situation is different, and that is part of the slow but damaging changes that have occurred over time.

I'm not advocating anything except that parents do what it takes to provide for their children.

For us, it was having a stay-at-home parent. For some, it's alternating work schedules. For some, the parents make time where it is available. Outright not doing anything and blaming the schools is a cop-out.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

Your stay at home parent situation was typical in the 1950's and 1960's ... today it's a rarity .... and that was one of my points. The modern, practical realities of American life have changed dramatically, and those changes have had a dramatic negative impact on the results. The lack of parental guidance and preparation children receive today, relegated to being wards of the state school system, strikes at the heart of the matter, and you yourself acknowledge this by your own choices and sacrifices to mitigate some of that. Is there a light bulb coming on here for you?

And my single-parent father also made sacrifices to mitigate it.

Last I checked, parents have a responsibility to their children. Sometimes at the sacrifice of things like gadgets and other extras, social time with friends, vices, etc.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

First, what works for your 6 year old ... "it's 9:00, time to go to bed" ... has one large snowball's chance in hell of working for the 14 year old.

Absolutely correct. The 14-year is (or should be) responsible or grown enough to do so on their own if 9pm is appropriate. By instilling the value from a young age and slowly relinquishing the shift of responsibility to her, that's how I intend to raise my daughter. Just as I raised her with real foods and not junk - she chooses, of her own volition, to eat things like eggs and cucumbers for breakfast over sugared cereals. Or she asks for cucumbers on the side.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

Go ahead and try ... and come back in 8 years and tell me how it worked out for you.

Will do.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

The teenagers are at a particularly precarious age ... not quite adults, and not quite children .. they're in that limbo transition zone .. and the challenges are exponential from their and their parents perspectives. Their academic and social obligations and pressures are much more demanding (yes, the social part is an obligation of emerging adulthood), and their psychological development is at a particularly fragile stage as they try to deal with raging hormonal changes that are typical of both physical and mental transition, which is no picnic for teenagers ... all while really trying to figure out where they fit into this new world of adult like responsibility and challenge. Throw in peer pressures, and unlimited sources of unwholesome influences from the media and entertainment worlds, which now must also include the schools themselves, since they begin passing out condoms to 5th graders today whilst their parents (hopefully) are imploring them not to become active in such areas!

Did you not say that kids are not adults and shouldn't be treated as such?

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

What you fail to realize is that to compare Japan to the United States, is like comparing an elephant to a mouse. We have totally different cultures ... absolutely polar opposites. Consequently, the idea that what works for Japan would work here is preposterously out of touch with reality. It is not nearly as simple as you'd like to suggest.

I'm not saying that their system would work as-is in the US. I'm questioning the notion to completely ignore cues that we could be taking into account. Instead of blasting their entire culture because of the Fukushima incident, why not pick up "tips and tricks"?

For instance, starting the day of with calisthenics is proven to boost energy in the mind and body. I'd love to see that incorporated into the actual school curriculum.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

If you really want another jab in the ideological ribcage ... you are once again arguing on behalf of my position. Japan is an EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE society, and if there is any one example that a liberal progressive would not want to utilize in an argument, Japan would be the one to avoid like the plague. Japanese culture is antithetical to left wing ideology right down the the level of DNA, and if you think liberals have a bad rep in the US ... just take that social liberalism over for a spin along the conservative highways of Japan for a major revelation. You will be politely asked to leave the country, only because of Japanese sense of decorum won't permit them to tell you what they really think. The Japanese are so conservative, they make the 700 Club look like gay bar in San Francisco

Once again, you make it a liberal/conservative thing. Perhaps you failed to notice, but I'm neither.

Though, if we want to see everything as liberal/conservative - Japan is also neither exclusively. They, like most modern countries vacillate depending upon what works best for their populace.

Just like parenting and families. Sometimes "conservative values" are better. Sometimes "liberal values" are better.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

Their culture is immersed in the obligation to honor, and honesty, and family values which even the most conservative of Americans would find rather repressive. You do not disobey authority ... you do not disobey parents ... you do nothing that would cause the loss of "face" to yourself or your family. These people are the epitome of dedication, hard work, and self sacrifice. The recent tragedy there was a perfect example of the vast cultural difference .... no looting ... no one taking advantage ... restaurants providing free meals to anyone ... stores providing free goods to anyone .... people banding together to help each other, and not an inkling of violence or crime, such that RIDDLED New Orleans during and after katrina ... some of which was even perpetrated by the local police!!

Perhaps, then, instead of trashing their entire society because of the Fukushima incident, as you did, we should be taking cues and raising the next generation not to be so darn stupid?

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

You have an extreme conservative bend at moments, that interlaces with an overall screaming progressive liberal mindset.

Though, I said I would ignore parts where you discussed the poster and not the topic, I'll respond to this.

Ideologies are not always black and white, liberal and conservative. Those two labels are inherently limiting. There's nothing wrong with things like supporting same-sex marriage and gun ownership rights. While you might find it difficult to understand, if I had to pick a label to confine myself to... it'd probably be libertarian - but even then it doesn't encompass my actual ideologies in their fullest.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

I assign all of that to the liberal progressive "entitlement" mentality. And I find it disgustingly sad that we've become this gaggle of whining cry babies who look upon personal responsibility as someone else's job.

I do believe I've been stating over and over again, ad nauseum, that parents need to be responsible for their children's educational growth rather than blame the schools for their "strenuous demands"?

If you seriously feel that "liberal progressive entitlement mentality" is where people look upon personal responsibility as "someone else's job" - then what do you call asking that every single school system shift to cater to kids who don't go to bed at a decent hour?

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

We have to ensure that everyone succeeds ... as it is not fair for the more gifted to make the less gifted feel inferior.

In some places, this may be sadly true... but that's probably why I've done everything I can to keep my daughter in the same school district that I know doesn't cater to this concept.

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

We have to teach tolerance of homosexuality to 7 year olds

Glad the schools don't need to teach this to my daughter. Even she understands "Some boys like girls; Some boys like boys". Probably because she's been around homosexuality since she was an infant and it's no big deal to her.

[randomparent]

I understand and accept that it is very much my responsibility to ensure my children are well rested, but I think it's worth noting that the real concern regarding sleep is for high school students, who continue to need 8-10 hours a night and also experience metabolic changes that shift their most wakeful hours to later in the day.

My oldest must be up for high school by 5:30 in the morning, because the bus arrives at 6:20. He arrives home around 3:30. Eight hours of sleep would require that he be in bed by 9:30, earlier if his sleep needs were on the higher end of normal. Do you know many teenagers who will go to bed that early, even if they could manage to get through a sports practice, dinner, and several hours of homework by that time? I vividly remember walking around in an absolute haze my last two years in high school as I tried to juggle a part-time job (12 hrs./wk.), honors coursework, and youth orchestra. It wasn't easy, and it came at a price: way too little sleep.

[tkdmom]

Originally Posted by Ceece

"State Indoctrination Camp"? It's not necessary to elaborate.

Yes, that's exactly what it is. You'd know this if you bothered to research it yourself...or even take a good hard look at the system, it is designed not to work. I'll give you a head start, two words for ya, Charlotte Iserbyt. And...T.F.Y.Q.A.Q.E !!

[natalie469]

Originally Posted by malamute

True -- but parents aren't paid $75,000 a year with lavish job benefits like teachers are.

Hold both accountable.

You're making a general assumption and lumping all teachers together. But not all teachers make 75,000 with lavish benefits. My sister has been a special ed teacher for over 25 years and doesn't even make that much.

[natalie469]

Originally Posted by randomparent

I understand and accept that it is very much my responsibility to ensure my children are well rested, but I think it's worth noting that the real concern regarding sleep is for high school students, who continue to need 8-10 hours a night and also experience metabolic changes that shift their most wakeful hours to later in the day.

My oldest must be up for high school by 5:30 in the morning, because the bus arrives at 6:20. He arrives home around 3:30. Eight hours of sleep would require that he be in bed by 9:30, earlier if his sleep needs were on the higher end of normal. Do you know many teenagers who will go to bed that early, even if they could manage to get through a sports practice, dinner, and several hours of homework by that time? I vividly remember walking around in an absolute haze my last two years in high school as I tried to juggle a part-time job (12 hrs./wk.), honors coursework, and youth orchestra. It wasn't easy, and it came at a price: way too little sleep.

I think they are talking about elementary school children who need parents to make sure they have a consistent bedtime and get plenty of sleep. You have no control of your kids sleep schedule in high school though. Their internal clock just isn't programmed to fall asleep at 9 or 10 o'clock. My kids got up at 5:30 too. I got up with them to make sure they got out of the house on time. I was so glad when they finally graduated lol I know most of those kids had no idea what went on in the first 2 or 3 classes since they were too tired to pay attention.

[nana053]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

It explains why our country's top students rank at the bottom compared to the top students in the rest of the world.

Originally Posted by kovert

At least if the US is not good at producing Einsteins, we have done and should continue doing a great job of attracting other peoples' Einsteins.

This is simply not true. Our top students actually do quite well. It's hard to find direct comparisons, but this one at least shows that our highest performing states (which include more high performing kids) do very well compared to other countries in math and science. Note that overall, the US ranks near the middle of the pack, so given the states with so much poverty, it is not as bad as you think.

How do United States students compare to students in other countries?

The first such study linked the U.S. National Educational Assessment of Progress (NAEP) results with TIMSS results and produced such interesting comparisons as:
• Students in Massachusetts, one of the highest performing states, are on par with students in Japan in math.
• In science, students in Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wisconsin are behind students in Singapore and Taiwan only, but are equal to or ahead of students in the other 45 countries in the TIMSS.

Global grade: How do U.S. students compare? - Academic skills | GreatSchools

The United States has one of the biggest gaps between high- and low-performing students in an industrialized nation.

[SourD]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

WOW! 20+ in a class. I never had less then 30+ in any of my classes from 1st grade all the way through high school.

I guess the teachers of today just aren't as good as those of the past.

Same here with the class sizes. And YES, the teachers now are mostly garbage and come from the very homes that have failed parents. I think it's quite obvious that today's teachers are spoiled little brats that came from upbringings with absolutely no discipline and the theory that there are no losers in life, just horrible people that make your chances of success that much harder.

[SourD]

Originally Posted by natalie469

You're making a general assumption and lumping all teachers together. But not all teachers make 75,000 with lavish benefits. My sister has been a special ed teacher for over 25 years and doesn't even make that much.

That's because Special Ed isn't that involved as far as subject matter goes. Yes, it may be hard to deal with the kids, but you're not teaching them algebra or chemistry. The pay matches what you need to know.

[nana053]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

statistics say they are

Black Urban Students Perform Better In Charter Schools Than Traditional Public Schools, Analysis Says

Education: Charting a better course | The Economist

Charters generally perform better than traditional schools, not as well as magnets - Los Angeles Times

http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/IN...March92011.pdf INDIANA CHARTER SCHOOLS PERFORM SIGNIFICANTLY. BETTER THAN THEIR TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL

African American Students Performing Better, Enrolling At Higher Rates At California Charter Schools

Charter Schools Open During Strike | Chicago Tonight | WTTW

Originally Posted by alphamale

All of the above is because the charter schools can choose the best performing students from the pool of applicants....which generally have the more involved parents.

Unfortunately, it is not true in general that charter schools perform better. Some do, but many are doing much worse than the public schools.

The 10 Cities With the Most Charter Schools

The National Association of Charter School Authorizers found that between 900 and 1300 of the approximately 6,000 charters in America (1 in 5) are performing in the lowest 15 percent of schools in their state. According to the NACSA press release, “While some states may have imperfect measuring sticks, too many schools are not achieving the goals promised in their charters.”

Ohio

The good: Four charter schools in Ohio were rated Excellent with Distinction and two of them are in Cleveland. They are Citizens Academy and the Intergenerational School. There were 26 charters rated as Excellent and 55 rated as Effective in Ohio.

The bad: 55 were on Academic Watch and 66 were Academic Emergency schools.

Gary, Indiana

“The superintendent points to state test scores which show the top performing K-6 school was a public school, McCullough with 79.5% of the students passing. Compare that to the Charter’s top performing school, Gary lighthouse, which had only 48.4% passing.”

Kansas City

In Kansas City, according to KCTV, not all charters are meeting state performance standards. Last year, only five out of 21 charters in Kansas City met all of the performance standards.

And of course, in Louisiana, the Charter schools are teaching junk science.
Crazy stuff they'll teach in Louisiana's publicly funded charter schools - Boing Boing

Louisiana governor (and retired exorcist) Bobby Jindal has signed an aggressive charter school bill that will transfer millions in tax dollars to religious academies run by evolution-denying, homophobic, climate-change-denying Christian extremists. Mother Jones's Deanna Pan went for a dig through these schools' official texts and discovered that Louisiana's publicly funded education system will soon tell some of its luckiest students that the KKK "achieved a certain respectability" by fighting bootleggers; "the majority of slave holders treated their slaves well;" dragons might be real; "dinosaurs and humans were definitely on the earth at the same time," and many other fun facts.

Read the rest of that article and weep for the children in those charter schools.