<p>God grant me the pigheadedness to not accept there are things I cannot change, the fortitude to work to change them, and the creativity and wisdom to figure out how.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can’t unilaterally say that. What you can say is that “I survived, and I succeeded.”</p>
<p>It does not matter how much money a school has. The student is always part of the equation and drive cannot be taught.</p>
<p>Money hides the kids who don’t have drive in moneyed areas.</p>
<p>Money for school is necessary but not sufficient in very poor areas. Lead in their air/water/soil, high asthma rates, surrounding crime, parents working two jobs, and a host of social ills hold back kids who aren’t actually born different from ours. </p>
<p>Or maybe I’m wrong-- “those” kids just want to shoot hoops in the gym. They’re not like “ours.”</p>
<p>Okay, we get in these conversations on here, and they always deteriorate, for whatever reason, but let’s look at it, for a second, what would make a good situation. Let’s say, money isn’t an issue, and we have a scattering of academic abilities and low-income students, what should the mission be? What CAN schools do, in these circumstances, and what else do we need to have in place to make it work? </p>
<p>Let’s say we are talking about elementary school:</p>
<ol>
<li> Recess.</li>
<li> Light</li>
<li> Clean: access to water, access to space to move around and access to books and art supplies and notebooks, and access to a computer room, new computers, people in the room to make sure the kids know how use them, and how to treat them.</li>
<li> Chances for the kids to have responsibility as they get older… so, maybe the fourth graders can be in charge of the first graders in the computer lab, and etc…</li>
<li> Drilling on math skills. Real drilling on hard, basic skills.</li>
<li> Science labs, so they can learn there way around and do some basic experiments in chem, bio and physics.</li>
<li> Reading instruction for the younger ones, and a really excellent librarian to recommend books to the kids. Good communication between the librarian and teachers so that the librarian(s) know what level each kid should be aspiring to, so that they can be kind of “situated” in that area to “explore.”</li>
<li> Every kid should have a tablet computer and access to a library of books on that tablet.</li>
<li> I would recommend the no homework model. Everything gets done in the classroom, particularly in low-income areas.</li>
<li> An arts curriculum, including music.</li>
<li> An after school program available to all students, coordinated and directed by the gym teachers, the librarians, and the arts faculty.</li>
</ol>
<p>This, I think would be a good start.</p>
<p>Same schools, same income, same race vastly different results</p>
<p>[Local</a> News | ‘Alarming’ new test-score gap discovered in Seattle schools | Seattle Times Newspaper](<a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017046660_newgap19m.html]Local”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017046660_newgap19m.html)</p>
<p>poetgrl, I like your proposal. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I completely disagree with this. By removing the hurdles in front of them, we can teach students to go as far as they possibly can. For example, my son attended a low-income high school. This high school has lots of field trips and interactions with the local colleges beyond the duel-enrollment courses that the “top” kids take. For a child whose never been on a college campus, this removes the mystery of it and makes college seem more accessable. When those around you believe you can succeed, and take help you blaze the trail, then of course that student is going to be more driven.</p>
<p>Same schools, same income, same race vastly different results…</p>
<p>Oh, we’ve known that for a long time. People who come from places where they weren’t the low man on the totem poll do much better than those who were. In fact, that’s true even if they came from the same country. Dalits who come from India do much worse than those who come from higher castes. Upland Mien people from Laos, and Hmong people do much worse than those who come from Pnomh Penh or Vientienne. </p>
<p>There are known ways to deal with this. They cost money. They don’t happen in schools. We don’t invest in them, except with pilots projects which are shown to work, and then are quickly forgotten.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good God, how could you possibly know that? A good education provides students with the tools that they need to succeed. For some that is a musical instrument or a paint brush or a computer.</p>
<p>Active, vital and productive PTOs are, generally those that are comprised of parents who have a lot of time and a lot of resources. These parents are, again, in general educated beyond high school. So this translates into the following: schools in wealthy areas have PTOs that raise a great deal of money and schools in poorer districts with more low income, single parent families don’t. I’m sure there are exceptions to this generalization but not many.</p>
<p>Should the children of the poorer parents just “get over” the fact that they are poor? Maybe they should accept their fate as the future poor of our nation. Hey, I was born short and have a physical disability and I’m not complaining. Those kids just need to suck it up. Jeesh.</p>
<p>I would not object to lower-performing schools receiving more funds than others (I think this happens already); but I would object to erecting ANY obstacles to parents donating money to help fund their own children’s schools, including forcing them to share their donated money with other schools. That is cutting off your nose to spite your face.</p>
<p>Bay,
The problem with parents donating significant amounts of money to their child’s school is that it negates the intent of the public school system as it is defined. When parents (or corporations for that matter) donate and thereby take the responsibility for providing necessary equipment, resources or funds to their child’s school, the balance of power over decision making shifts. It is no longer a public school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh pullease. AS IF you can compare your ‘hardship’ or know that life doesn’t deal us all equal knocks. I’m sorry but your ‘struggles’ simply make your perspective sound foolish. Soooo easy to whine about helping disadvantaged others when you’ve had so few. Having a high pitched voice, plain looks or not being able to sing doesn’t compare to growing up in a ghetto, being born with physical or mental disabilities, or spending your life in a crap education system. </p>
<p>I’m glad I live in a society that tries to take care of people and repair some of the inherent injustices we are dealt. So sorry those efforts upset you so much. But I think you should get over it though and just accept there is no one helping you improve your voice…hey, life ain’t fair (wahhhh!).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…which is defined how? The school remains open to all students residing in a particular geographical area at no cost to them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you are exaggerating. How is it no longer a public school just because funds are donated to it?</p>
<p>" An elementary or secondary school in the United States supported by public funds and providing free education for children of a community or district."</p>
<p>The above is a short and simple definition.</p>
<p>When funds are being provided for things that are absolutely NEEDED in a school by any entity other than through public funds, then it is no longer functioning as a public school. Does a child whose parents can afford to “donate” great deals of money garner a benefit beyond that of other students? Well, you tell me. And if that child gains an advantage over other students whose parents cannot afford such donations, then we no longer have a “free” education for all of the children.</p>
<p>Ok, then I guess all donations must be banned. How sad that public school teachers and administrators cannot be trusted to treat all children equally, regardless of who their parents are.</p>
<p>You know, in some areas, there isn’t an income threshhold for admission to public school! In NYC there are many schoools that encompass different demographics. In my community, the k-8 schools cover very large geographic areas. For example, my kid attends a school which is technically Title I, but has a very, very large population of both Jewish and Muslim families who are as wealthy as any in the area. Two sets of public housing send their kids to the school and some of the kids are the poorest of the poor and the most needy in the entire city. As a tradition, many of the Jewish kids raise money as their Mitzvah projects (it’s a music magnet) to buy instruments or have others repaired. A group of the Muslim families happen to be comprised of a lot of doctors. They have donated money, time and resources to expanding the school’s science facilities. One has a background in grant writing and spearheaded the fundraising for a ta-da science lab. There are many other examples, these are just two I know of personally. All done by parents and kids themselves. A lot of money. And guess what? The items purchased are for the use of all students now and into the future, not just the wealthy kids whose parents raised the money. I don’t know where you all live, but the public schools here are mostly diverse, so poor kids benefit just as much or more than wealthy kids and would be harmed most by its loss. I would love to hear about the inequality in your schools.</p>
<p>I would think the last thing anyone would want to do is chase affluent families out of the public school system.</p>
<p>Bay, it does not need to be an either/or situation. No need to ban all donations. The risk is in having large portions of children’s public schooling being paid for by families.<br>
As a teacher, I don’t think that the problem is whether teachers will treat children differently based on their parents level of financial support (although I guess I can’t speak for all teachers). The problem is that the person or person’s who hold the purse strings automatically becomes a valued player in a way that they may not have been prior to the check writing. It is not due to greed on the part of the administration (they want what is best for the kids and money buys lots of the best) but human nature is what it is and nobody wants to bite the hand that feeds them or, in this case, buys the ipads for the computer lab. That’s where the balance of power shifts.
In my state, teachers, individually, are not allowed to accept any gift from a student or family of a students with a monetary value higher than 50 dollars. It is in our ethics clause. Would a teacher give a better grade to a child who gives a wonderful Christmas gift? I don’t think so but the state doesn’t want to take a chance on it. We even have to list our gifts to prove how little we received. lol.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is your cynical side talking. As zoosermom pointed out, there are plenty of wealthy families who want to benefit ALL students in their school, not just their own children (if only to protect their property values lol). If this weren’t the case, the wealthy would just send their kids to a private school or have them privately tutored. Please be thankful for the monetary assistance you are offered by well-meaning parents and use it to the advantage of all students. Thank you.</p>
<p>Do teachers or other parents actually know who donated what?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The children of the poorer parents simply shouldn’t care about their parents financial status. They should dream big in life: they should want to be engineers, doctors, teachers, as well as mechanics, construction workers, and auto repair technicians, just as children of the more wealthy parents do. (Dreams are free) They should find the teachers or other role models that can help them suceed and pursue the dream. They should find the guidance counselors who will help them apply for college and obtain scholarships. All of these services are provided by every school around, and you don’t need an extra million to help these students.</p>
<p>I can say that more computers would not have helped the students who didn’t thrive in society from my high school, because those students weren’t spending time in the computer lab. Rather, they were skipping class and hanging out on smokers corner. Newer or more computers would have been a lost cause for them. </p>
<p>We had plenty of computers for students; however, they were older. But only the computer geeks cared, and those were not the kids skipping class.</p>
<p>Same for musical instruments. We had some musical instruments for the students who couldn’t buy / rent their own. They were older and not as nice as the ones the students owned. More money would have bought more instruments and nicer instruments. However, students that failed to thrive in society never tried band to begin with. It wasn’t a lack of instruments, it was a lack of motivation. Or ability to rpactice at home. Or supportive parents. But not money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you’re missing the rather important point that what you call pursuing the dream isn’t free.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Try using this website’s search option to find a few threads on the variation between guidance counselors and the services they provide at various schools. 10 minutes is all it will take to disabuse yourself of your belief.</p>
<p>-edit-
Then again, considering your earlier posts such as this one, it’s pretty clear you have a massive axe to grind.</p>
<p>
</p>