<p>Cheers: The problem is that most poor urban kids are home alone after school. They basically have the TV as a babysitter. Or, sometimes, they are with a relative who has too many kids in their house. Or worse, they are on the street hanging with “friends.”</p>
<p>Kat: I do not take a negative view of military service. Quite the contrary. I do take a negative view of them preying on kids who feel they have no other options.</p>
<p>“You cannot think at a higher level if you do not understand the basics. If you miss the basics, you are in very deep yogurt.” Amen.</p>
<p>Have you every heard the expression “a child is a lamp to be lighted, not a vessel to be filled.” Well you can’t light a lamp that has no fuel in it. </p>
<p>I am a huge fan of content based education. Once the content is there the “higher level skills” follow quite nicely. Wihtout the content it’s hopeless.</p>
<p>Our system rewards schools (trickle down to teachers) by the improvements made from one year to next on tests. Teachers correctly assume that their middle/top students will remain the same or improve, and concentrate on pulling up the bottom 5-10 kids in each class. That was the reason for my kid’s teacher asking me to pull the group of students out of class (who said my kid was one of them?). </p>
<p>In the best of all worlds, education would address each individual’s strenghths and weaknesses, sort of like home-schooling does. Within a classroom environment, there is a tendency to do the expedient thing, which rewards teaching to a test, focusing in on the lowest scoring students, and letting the rest slide. (This is our school district.)</p>
<p>Yes, doubleplay, absolutely so in both schools I taught. The state tests which divided kids’ reading according to a simple 1-4 (with 1’s highest = “proficient”; 2’s “capable”, 3’s below expectations, and 4’s far below expectations,
the teachers attended meetings in which graphs were shown about the urgency of moving more 4’s up to a 3 level, and getting those 3’s over the bar into the land of 2.
Once a kid was either a 2 or a 1, nobody much sweated over their progress.
The big fear is the takeover of the school, being “under state review” for lack of suitable progress in moving those bottom kids upwards.
You can argue the merits, but you have to agree that the system is disinterested in the movement of the 2’s and 1’s. It’s all about the 3’s and 4’s.
Of course if you meet the kids, none of them are numbers; all are individuals. But that’s the administratiion’s view: how can we move up the bottom quadrant so we don’t get a bad report card from the state this year?</p>
<p>doubleplay…
i am seeing the same thing in our district (a rural district) …we have a new assessment system which is aligned with the state standards. no more iowa basics.<br>
what will happen in the coming years? will the brighter students stay? will they move to private schools that are not state accredited? is this why we are seeing an increase in the number of virtual schools… and more and more families choosing to homeschool?</p>
<p>“in your initial post you blasted the educational system at how they should group kids to abilities like they did in the back of the day. A tier system in one class. How will this solve the problem of teaching to the test?”</p>
<p>How will this solve the problem of teaching to the test?</p>
<p>What is the first thing that a student does when he/she goes into a Sylvan-type learning center? They take a diagnostic to see where they are- what their strengths and weaknesses are. Then the weaknesses can be remediated and the strengths augmented. That’s where the ability grouping comes in.</p>
<p>New York State instituted high stakes testing a few years before NCLB. I’ve got a lot of beefs with the tests, and do think they hurt the high performing kids, but one thing I will say for NY’s tests, is that they required much more than answering simple multiple choice questions. For exampe kids in fourth grade were often required to read two stories and compare themes.</p>
<p>I think the major problem with many poor minority families is that they just don’t start with the same background as middle class kids. The cultural literacy books got a lot of flack, but the fact is that the average middle class kid comes into school with more background than kids with a deprived background. This is not always the parents fault, if you are working long hours and multiple jobs there’s a limit to what you can do. Though I do think that poor families might learn from immigrants. You have to make education a priority.</p>
<p>A nearby district here in New York (Mt. Vernon - there’s a good NY Times article, but unfortunately you have to pay for it.) managed to get their average elementary scores from way less than half passing the tests to over 90%. Among other things they added Saturday and after school classes and major incentives for reading books for pleasure. At least one of the schools in the district also has a thriving chess program.</p>
<p>There’s a big gap in known vocabulary words at first grade among the poor, and the gap widens almost exponentially each year thereafter. “Without language there is no thought,” so limited vocabularies cripple children’s ability to think in higher order fashion, and limit the kinds of discussions possible within the classroom, even when the teacher is very dedicated. Then the poverty-based gap widens each year.</p>
<p>Vocabulary is a well-known problem among educators.</p>
<p>That said, I did find first-hand that when students were loved, hugged, put to bed on time and fed (either at home or at school) every single one was teachable. I knew many, many families without two extra nickles to rub together who communicated enough love and confidence to their children that they arrived in school ready, willing and able to learn.</p>
<p>The biggest problems I found were that the disorganization of home life took a toll on kids’ self-esteem. Homework was left in one home or another; kids’ bookbags smelled like cigarette smoke inside the bags; kids complained about their relatives who were fighting loudly the night before; spaces are crowded so there’s no place quiet for the child to think or do any reading; insufficient exercise; and most went to sleep by VCR tapes in a TV. I’m not sure about the neurological damage therein, but the American Pediatric Association is quite concerned about the TV-in-the-bedroom issue.
Despite alll this, there were moms, dads and grandparents (some REMARKABLE grandparents) who organized the kids’ lives well enough that they could come to school and learn.
Every one was loved, but not always did the young parent know how to get the child from point A to point B. But all wanted their child to succeed; they just didn’t know the right moves to get them there.</p>
<p>BigAppleDaddy,
Yes, there is a difference in how schools teach kids. However, the difference is based on class, not race. Kids in low income school districts are the ones who get drill and drill lessons that often come from incompetent, uncertified teachers. (Kids in poor districts are far more likely than kids in affluent districts to have new teachers and teachers who are not certified in the subjects they teach. )</p>
<p>Because a larger proportion of black than white kids are low income that’s why the disparity appears to you to be one based on race.</p>
<p>I am a black parent who has volunteered in lots of low income schools, went to a 99+% white public school in my own reasonably well off hometown, and had sons who went to a black private school (where kids got arts, swimming, foreign languages even in elementary school and were expected to think) and majority white public schools in a reasonably affluent district, and a magnet program in a majority black public school.</p>
<p>i dont understand how schools today can focus on analyzing theme, diction, meaning of an authors work today all to help them create better literature critics. This is all great but to tell you the truth most people dont know proper grammar in my school and SAT verbal is a struggle. Teach the basics earlier before in 5th grade you have them analying poetry. I cannot tell you how many times I have to go and review past topics that havent been taught sufficently in advanced classes</p>
<p>My elementary school somewhat solved the problem of unequal backgrounds/preparation by taking all 4th, 5th, and 6th graders, giving a diagnostic reading/math test at the beginning of the year and then dividing everyone up into groups for reading and math (that were smaller than a 4th, 5th, 6th class because they pulled other faculty into teaching groups that were specialists). Writing was the 3rd block of the day, taught in various groups with mixed ages and abilities (no diagnostic, it was random). </p>
<p>It certainly worked, there was major improvement. On one hand, it was by ability, so no one who was in 6th grade but missing some foundation had to feel embarassed in class by not knowing something. On the other hand, although we didn’t think about it much and it certainly didn’t come up as a point of teasing, I wonder how the kids who got put in classes two levels below their grade level felt. I honestly don’t know for sure, it could go either way. It could have reinforced in some cases a feeling in the student that they were incapable. But at the same time when they were trying to teach to the middle in classrooms with various preparation levels, including very limited English, people were getting left farther and farther behind because material just kept going on without ever addressing the holes. </p>
<p>Once a month there was an enrichment Monday with a group that included kids from all grades 1-6, randomly picked. Field trips, cross cultural material, art, etc. All of this was implemented by a new principal who I suspect may have come from a disadvantaged background herself and really knew what she was working with. I mean the difference it made was incredible. Our other principal up until then was certainly a nice lady and I think she did her best but you kind of got the sense she was biding her time until retirement. I think a lot had changed in the time she had been educating and she didn’t necessarily know where to start, and things just snowball. </p>
<p>I think in a sense we may have somewhat of a problem of people making decisions who don’t really have the resources or understanding to know where to go, and they fear failing by trying something new. These things I mention above were radical changes in a school system that’s widely viewed as elite but has a few struggling schools. As of now, this principal has pushed to get a foreign language program (Chinese, started last year) and also the first Junior Achievement program led by local high schoolers (this year…it’s basically teaching simple business and economic concepts to 2nd graders - ALL of them, not select ones). She’s definitely willing to take the risks and recognize when something isn’t working. There has definitely been a turnaround in the last 7 or 8 years that she took over as principal. But there’s little recognition and in schools that are generally viewed as “good” I think there’s a resistance from well-off parents to change. But every school has a few struggling students, even if it isn’t widespread, and you have to wonder about them. They’re going to fall farther and farther through the cracks. There’s been a revelation that a school divided failing and at risk kids into groups of potential, so they could effectively focus all resources at those who had a good chance of passing. This way the school would stay out of trouble. But what about the other ones? This is a big flaw in NCLB IMO. You’re almost better off in one of the schools like mine that was viewed as “in danger” because then there’s a general push to lift everyone up, not just keep going along because enough are going to pass easily.</p>
<p>Oh, and I also think one of the big problems isn’t not grouping by ability, it’s the fact that there are like 30 1st graders in some of these classes. Kindergarten generally has large class sizes now here because it’s viewed as negligable (no tests), but that’s a problem! That’s another year for those who didn’t do pre-K and who don’t have the home resources to fall further and further behind in a critical period. How are people supposed to account for 30 individual needs, when a lot of energy has to be devoted just to making sure 30 small children survive the day safely? Of course they’ll have to drill and just teach to the test. I think part of the reason diving the 4th-6th grade classes up worked was because it made much smaller groups by pulling in extra faculty during those few hours in the morning. Not only was it grouped by ability, it was led by a teacher who could now account for individual needs within the general ability range. The writing classes were bigger but mine was still very well run IMO, they used assignments that had individual potential and it was taught by two teachers. 6th graders could also help 4th graders.</p>
<p>I was in a JH program for math from K-8 while I lived on the east coast, but when my parents had a relocation of occupation, the incredibly high cost of living ended that, and I was tossed in classes that I was not adjusted to at all, and I received low marks in many of the classes (C). Simply put, I was too used to a conceptual approach and over here in California, the usual approach is rote. The difference in volume was simply astonishing, but the amount of meaningful material was a lot less, I think.</p>
<p>Not to mention, California’s school system disregarded my medical illness, and did not accommodate for my absences due to asthma. </p>
<p>I was taught how things work, not what things are, and it has resulted in my rejection from any college.</p>
<p>Princedog, keying off your last post – research shows that RATIO between teacher and the # of children in the regular classroom is THE MOST IMPORTANT variable of all to achieve student progress. It has a larger impact than textbooks, computer hardware, curriculum and money spent per child, amazingly enough.</p>
<p>Not to get political, but when Bill Clinton was president, he provided specific grants to struggling schools such as the one I worked in. It could ONLY be applied to reduce student: teacher ratio. So they hired two more teachers for the building and pulled some kids from each class over the summer. The district decided to apply it to Grade 1, capping all of those grades at classes of 20 students, since it’s a critical “learn-to-read” year.
When i arrived in Fall and was handed a roster of l9 kids instead of 27, I thought something was wrong. Then I heard this was implemented over the summer.
It was the most amazing difference of anything we ever did or learned. It was heaven. Suddenly I could find time enough for all, both academic and emotional. THere was enough time to call parents, visit homes, talk to social workers about the kids’ problems, review all their work thoroughly, help each one as s/he wrote in class, and so much more.
That year, I went to a political dinner where Hillary was speaking (Catskills of NY State). Finding myself in a long line of people for handshaking, as she came near, I said loudly, “Thank Bill for the classroom ratio!” She turned around l80 degrees and came back to talk with me about it, specifically. She knew what I was referring to, and I told her how transforming it was to the First Grade to alter that ratio. She was extremely supportive and knowledgable, and appreciated hearing the word from the field, I suppose.
Her knowledge of educational policy is truly impressive, BTW, as she spoke on that and other topics that evening. She knew which variables mattered and what was bull. I was impressed with her that evening, and have supported her since b/c I figure if she knows education that well (which I know) she must also be able to juggle tons of info about economics and other matters that I can’t evaluate as well. In my area of knowledge, she was astonishing in her grasp of complex issues. No rhetoric; just could distinguish what was important and not.</p>
<p>Anyway, RATIO is a crucial variable in the classroom, as Princedog expressed eloquently in the previous post.</p>
<p>Whites pulled out of the school and the school admin was happy again.</p>
<p>actually only 10 of the 40 kids pulled out of the school are white
but it is true that the administration is happier with the focus being drill the basics, rather than supplementing with music/ art etc
and I don’t think it is so much change in buying patterns because that has always been a pretty nice neighborhood w mixed incomes, but the school had been completely redone a few years ago- so it is pretty nice now, compared to other elem in area</p>
<p>But the fact that they weren’t taught before is not necessarily an indictment of the teachers. Too many kids have years to catch up when they first walk in the door of school and as another poster said chaotic lives that cause them to fall farther and farther behind. I have a good friend whose first teaching job was in the Bronx. She had a 10 yo 3rd grader who couldn’t read and was angry all the time. Who had given up, but there were no tutors available for her. She had kids living in shelters. She had kids who had been sexually abused and were acting out in the classroom. And to top it all off, there were no substitute teachers if a teacher was absent her kids got scattered into other classrooms for the day. It was a wonder anyone learned anything.</p>
<p>The neighborhood had a large influx of whites who bought the older homes and rehabbed them due to the great location. I’d call that a change in buying behavior reflected in the demographic change the paper detailed.</p>
<p>Washington state parents: never fear – the obsession with the WASL is the great leveler! Everyone teaches to the test, now, and money that went to enrichment programs for all students (radical things like field trips to museums) is now being spent making sure that those ol’ WASL numbers keep rising.</p>
<p>WashDad: I have proctored the WASL (10th grade) twice and was surprised to find I thought most of it was a pretty good test. I think the math requires too much writing and not enough computation, but the emphasis on synthesis is pretty good.</p>
<p>I always figured that obsessing about these issues in my head was not good, one reason I decided to start posting here. Wow, has my head been expanded. This is great!</p>
<p>There is an old saying from, what?, the turn of the century radicals? We want bread and roses too. I hear the folks who say knowing the basics is a prerequisite to everything else. I’m just not convinced that the bread has to come at the expense of the roses, that it has to be an either/or choice, algebra but not art, reading but not music, or some such. As some posters have written, it probably is the effedts of NCLB to a great degree–what gets taught is what gets tested, and if it isn’t tested, then you’re on your own. </p>
<p>Someone wrote that this is a class issue, not a racial one, and that middle-class kids hit school with more of the basics ialready in place. I don’t buy that entirely. Poor white kids do likley get little beyond the basics. But black kids who are solidly middle-class way often end up in these types of educational environements. I see this here in the city as well as in various suburban districts as well. Impovershment is not the issue. The issue is what these kids are considered capable of doing. They are vastly underestimated and underappreciated, despite having working parents, intact homes, and yes, out-of-school opportunities for the “extras” </p>
<p>I know of one majority black/Latino HS in the metro area that is fighting to get AP classes in its curriculum. They were told by the educrats that they might qualify, “…even though those kids will only get 2s on the tests” That is, the expectation is that they would all fail, and that they should be considered lucky to even be given the chance to succeed. This is not something I imagine happening regularly in mostly white schools. To the HS’s credit, they are pusing ahead anyway. </p>
<p>I know little about Seattle beyond the fact that racial assignments have so roiled parents there that the case has ended up before the Supremes, but the newspaper article from the Seattle Times that someone posted is evidence that Seattle is not sticking its head in the sand about these issues or their effects. For that they are to be congratulated. Personally, I always get nervous when white people say race has “nothing to do with it”–whatever “it” is. History has shown otherwise. </p>
<p>Of course I will do whatever I can to make sure my kids get what I feel they are missing in school in terms of going beyond the basics. I make sure they at least glance at the Times every day to understand the news, and talk to them about exhibits at the museums we visit , and find plenty of real books for them to read. (One middle school English class one of my kids was in let the kids read whatever they wanted, just happy that kids opened a book. That is not good enough for me.) </p>
<p>And yes, I know that there are black parents who are very happy to have strong test-prep curricula in thier shcools. I have met them. I am just not one of them. My own kids are no geniuses, but they need more than that to be productive, thoughtul, anc civic-minded adults, and, yes, to improve their chances come college admissions time. </p>
<p>At any rate I have picked up ideas that I will pass along to other dissastisfied folks, especially the STEP program. Like I say, bread and roses too. The house and the foundation. Don’t sell anyone short.</p>