Manchurian Candidate to stomp for terminator on doa props

Parent Cafe
41

<p>

Spoonyj, there’s nothing in your suggestion that I would disagree with–I just don’t see how it can be implemented in the current public school system. You’re describing the situation that we have in our private schools (and we’re working on raising teacher pay, just as a matter of fairness to the incredible individuals doing the teaching–not because we can’t attract them.) Our performance incentive is clear: perform, or you’re fired (that doesn’t happen often, but it does happen.) Expectations may not be spelled out in platitudinous format, but they are clearly conveyed by faculty, administration, and the overall ethos–that nebulous word I keep coming back to. I don’t know how you convey this in a government/union-run school, and make it work.</p>

<p>As for increasing the budget for schools, I would have to ask: from what base-line? The effective private school base-line, or that of the bloated and wasteful public schools? Even in “poor” urban districts, an incredible amount of money is spent on bureaucracy and overhead. Kind of like a wasteful charity, except one with taxing authority and politically powerful unions. It’s a very tough nut to crack.</p>

42

<p>Driver,</p>

<p>No, your analysis was not naive.</p>

<p>And, I should apologise for the harshness of my words. Please accept my apology, socal.</p>

<p>Driver, the issues you describe are complex. I’ll post more later this PM when I have more time.</p>

43

<p>Eh, I was a tad snarky myself. I apologize too.</p>

44

<p>As promised, some further comments on ed quality, and the problem we parents have in making sense out of the information available. </p>

<p>The questwe parents face is a simple one: we want to find good teachers in good schools. While it is easy to find schools and teachers with kids who perform well, the question we SHOULD ask but do not is whether this high level performance is because of the school or in spite of the school. </p>

<p>It turns out this is a tough question. Some econometric models have claimed to identify schools (and in some cases school districts) that out or under perform based on SES based models. Unfortunately, this tells us little about how OUR kid would fare in that system, as a school that does well serving the top decile, for example, may do more poorly with more average students. Take this down to finer levels and the problem gets even worse.</p>

<p>In the case of my own D, I found an even more serious problem. While the ed research literature is rife with studies purporting to show positive effects on low performing students that are subject to various forms of what I term social engineering, such as mixed ability classes etc., none of these studies looked at the performance of high performing kids like my own, and like many of my fellow CC parents. It seems little ed research has been done regarding evaluation of teachers or schools for higher performing students.</p>

<p>Fortunately, there are other, more indirect resources to draw upon. There is an interesting body of work on gifted students and the environments that work for them, for example. Other work has looked at the developmental aspects of learning, a surprisingly strong factor (surprising at least to me). Some sociological work has looked at peer influences, which are, of course, strongly correlated with SES.</p>

<p>The bottom line is that, no great surprise I suppose, that the most important factor in individual performance is family (genes, environment, the whole works!). Next is peer factors. Waaaay down, indeed perhaps of no relevance, are school and teacher factors. </p>

<p>This has two implications. One is that our quest for good schools succeeds, but for the wrong reasons. High student performance as little to do with the school, but does help our own Johnny throug peer influences. </p>

<p>The other is that holding schools and teachers accountable for poor student performance no doubt does more to drive good teachers (I presume the exist!) out of the system than it does to improve the performance of those same students. </p>

<p>So what good would efforts like those in CA do for the students? Beats me.</p>

45

<p>A slightly different perspective from newmassdad’s though not necessarily different conclusions.</p>

<p>Our district is bimodal. It has the highest per-pupil spending per student in the state but has achieved mediocre state test results. This, despite putting LOTS of resources into supporting struggling students. At the same time, the school has been quite successful in sending students to HYPSM and top LACs. The bimodal character of the school population ensures that resources are not spread evenly among the students. The kids who are being lost in the shuffle are the average and above-average kids who could benefit from being encouraged to reach higher.
The k-8 schools vary enormously in terms of student performance. The highest-performing ones are those where parents are most involved; this correlates with SES. Middle-class parents are more likely to be involved, and more likely to have flexible working conditions that allow them to come to breakfasts and student performances, accompany classes on field trips, etc…
When our school shared a building with another which had low enrolment and did poorly on state tests, our school’s council compared the teachers at both. The conclusion was that there was no difference between the two sets of teachers in terms of qualifications, experience, dedication, and willingness to innovate. But the parents at the other school seldom attended meetings, much less volunteered in the school. They were also less likely to be able to help their kids with homework (many of them were immigrants with limited English).
In other words, trying to close the gap between the two schools by focusing on the teachers would have been the wrong way to do it. Certainly, rewarding our teachers for our kids’ superior performance would have discriminated against the teachers at the other school, who, it could be said, had a much harder row to hoe.</p>

46

<p>Marite,</p>

<p>Many have concluded from data regarding parental involvement that the level of parental involvement is what makes a better school. So, they’ve looked at ways to encourage more parental involvement.</p>

<p>Anyone see the potential logic problem here? And this problem is pervasive in ed research.</p>

47

<p>Newmass, I am far from naive on this issue. My examples were only illustrations of possible performance criteria that can be used other than testing. And I think you would be naive to believe that there are not teachers out there who regularly show up late to school. I have seen it. It happens. Maybe “innovative programs” was a little stretch; however, some teachers go far beyond others in planning projects, activities, etc. for their students. That is what I was referring to. I would be interested in your ideas for solutions.</p>

<p>Driver, I have also known many teachers who send their own kids to private schools. What does that say about the school system? Also, what does it say about teacher salaries if they are able to afford private schools? I also agree that the teachers unions are the biggest problem.</p>

<p>Spoonyj, you have come up with some great ideas. I wish they could be implemented. You are reasonable and thoughtful in your posts.</p>

48

<p>NewMassDad:
I honestly don’t see the potential logic problem you talk about. What is it?</p>

<p>I grew up in an Asian culture, with an different viewpoint of education. Almost all Asian countries have an inherent, deep-rooted respect for education and teachers (they don’t PAY them any better, but the respect is there). One possible reason is that for centuries, education wasn’t seen as a right for every child, but was available only to children of the priests and upper classes. So, parental involvement in their children’s education is almost universal, and very easy to understand.</p>

<p>I think that in most of the rest of the world, kids don’t have a prayer of succeeding in life if they don’t get an education. That wasn’t the case in the US - entrepreneurship and hustle would take you far in life. People can make a very decent living here, and be respected members of society, with jobs as truckers, plumbers, longshoremen etc. that don’t require a college education - that’s just not true in a large fraction of the world. </p>

<p>I’ve been a college professor here in the US, and also (what did you expect?) a heavily involved parent in my daughters’ schooling. I’ve seen parents complain when kids were sent home with homework for the weekend - their argument was that ‘school was for education, and none of that schooling stuff should come home’. I’ve been to PTA meetings where 70% of the parents didn’t bother to show up. It’s hard for me to imagine being a schoolteacher here under those circumstances, and still retain an enthusiasm for the job.</p>

49

<p>Newmassdad:</p>

<p>The teachers in our school really welcomed parental involvement. One parent (a Ph.D. candidate in literature) came regularly to read with children in 2nd to 4th grades. Parents ran book fairs and book swaps. Parents chaperoned kids on field trips to NYC and Washington DC and did fund-raising for those trips. They showed up at PTA meetings, at parent-teachers conference, at portfolio breakfasts. They helped with costumes and music for student performances of Shakespeare’s plays, Renaissance fairs, Pilgrims’ departure for the New World, etc… And they helped their children with homework. They were also involved in hiring committees, wading through hundreds of applications and interviewing candidates. There was sometimes tension between some parents and some teachers, but the latter shook their heads over the total non-involvement of parents in the other school.</p>

<p>Optimizerdad: We, too, have been taken aback by parents’ complaints about homework. Interestingly, it is loudest among middle-class parents. It started in day-care when some parents objected to children being stressed while learning phonics (the children loved the sense of achievement they got when they could decode sounds). It continued in kindergarten when parents claimed it was to learn to socialize, not to learn to read or count. And they complained when homework got in the way of extra-curricular activities.</p>

50

<p>Chicago public schools used to have this interesting phenomenon called “social promotion” for several years. The basic principle was that if you flunked kids and made them repeat a grade, their psyches couldn’t handle the trauma and their self-respect would plummet, and so they would drop out of school. The ‘solution’ to this was to promote kids to the next grade, whether they had a straight-A or straight-F average. A large number of high school graduates were functional illiterates.</p>

51

<p>Marite
The same city in CA that has an unused HS sitting idle is now trying to build a new elem school. The school board wants to take 60 (or more?)houses away to build this school, and many citizens are outraged. </p>

<p>I can’t agree more about parental involvement being the key, not necesarily pay or class size</p>

52

<p>The parental involvement logic problem: post hoc ergo propter hoc.</p>

<p>Just because high performing schools have involved parents does not mean the high performance was BECAUSE of the involved parents. It is far more likely that the SAME factor(s) led to the high parental involvement as led to the high performance. </p>

<p>This logic error is pervasive in social science research and permeates much of the pseudo scientific work that comes out of ed schools and seeps into the popular media.</p>

<p>Since socal asked what I would do, here goes:</p>

<ul>
<li> first, I would invest resources in determining what does matter for EACH group of learners. Right now there are many research questions that are politically taboo or lack broad support. For example, little work is done regarding the impact of heterogenous grouping on high ability students. An example of what has been done:<br></li>
</ul>

<p>"While high-ability students working in homogeneous groups uniformly performed well, high-ability students in some heterogeneous groups performed better than high-ability students in other heterogeneous groups. The quality of group functioning served as the strongest predictor of high-ability students’ achievement. High-ability students in groups that were responsive to group members’ need for help and did not engage in debilitating social behavior performed well, whereas high-ability students in groups with poorer functioning did not. Whereas homogeneous groups consistently showed beneficial group functioning, only some heterogeneous groups exhibited these traits. " (CSE Technical Report 541, 2001)</p>

<p>Try making policy out of that!</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Since we already know that parental factors are all important in performance, investment in the parents is likely to pay off. I’m no expert in this area, but we can already see the payoff, for example, in those communities that have invested in parenting classes for less able folks. </p></li>
<li><p>maybe it is time we recognize that ability does differ and adjust our expectations?</p></li>
<li><p>reform the money sink special ed has become in some areas.</p></li>
<li><p>more controversially, blow up ed schools at universities and bring real expertise into the field. While there are pockets of excellent research being done, too much, IMHO, is driven by social agendas. And it is our kids that suffer.</p></li>
</ul>

53

<p>newmassdad:</p>

<p>I don’t disagree with you. As I mentioned, middle-class parents are more likely to be involved in their children’s education at all levels, including pre-kindergarten (studies about vocabulary acquisition bear this out).
I do think, however, that parental involvement reduces a great deal of the burden on teachers, making it possible to provide a richer curriculum. For example, our teachers could not mount a Renaissance Fair without parental assistance, whether it is ferrying kids to buy art supplies, or helping kids learn dance steps, or ransacking attics for fabric that can be turned into “Renaissance” costumes. And, at home, middle-class parents provide support and enrichment, be it through supervising homework to taking kids to museums, paying for music lessons, etc…</p>

<p>The main point I was trying to make was that evaluating teachers’performance is incredibly difficult. Even teachers receiving the same pay, working in the same building, may be experiencing totally different working environments when it comes to the student populations they serve.</p>

<p>I agree about ed schools. Some of the nuttiest ideas we’ve had to live with came from people whose knowledge was theoretical rather than applied. My S was a guinea pig. That he was not slaughtered was totally thanks to his highly educated, highly involved middle class parents.</p>

54

<p>Newmassdad, </p>

<p>“Just because high performing schools have involved parents does not mean the high performance was BECAUSE of the involved parents.” </p>

<p>You are just plain wrong…Involved parents do make the difference in individual performance as well as in the school’s performance as a whole. Schools with high parent involvement have a different atmosphere where all children benefit. For example, students who are not read to at home benefit academically when parent volunteers read to them. Students at schools with high parent involvement benefit because parents help out with enriching activities such as Marite has mentioned as well as helping with paperwork, projects, etc. so teachers have more time to teach and evaluate their students. In addition, parents who are involved in the school are the same parents who take in interest in their own children’s academics, encouraging and expecting success. I think you would have a hard time finding many high performing schools without significant parent participation.</p>

<p>“maybe it is time we recognize that ability does differ and adjust our expectations?” </p>

<p>Sounds to me like you are willing to give up on the children. There are many low performing students with very high potential. I disagree with lowering expectations. Low expectations are why so many high school students can’t pass the exit exam which tests very basic skills.</p>

55

<p>socal,</p>

<p>You totally miss the point. Don’t worry, though, you have lots of company. And that’s one reason why schools are so messed up. </p>

<p>“There are many low performing students with very high potential.” Yes, and a lot of these come from families with highly involved parents. Tell me something new. Platitudes will not fix the problems. </p>

<p>" Low expectations are why so many high school students can’t pass the exit exam which tests very basic skills."</p>

<p>A wonderful political soundbite. Sounds like you’ve been reading the press releases for NCLB. It would be great if real life were so simple. But it isn’t. Just watch how this plays out over the next few years, after a few billion has been spent on testing, raising expectations etc. (and note where Pearson, the company that receives a good share of these billions for the testing, has big operations, by the way…)</p>

56

<p>Newmass, let’s examine your previous post…You say that parental involvement doesn’t make a difference, that we should lower our expectations from our students, and your brilliant solution is researching groups of homogenous vs heterogeneous learners. You then attack my reasoning as to why schools are so messed up. Kinda funny how every time you are wrong on these cc message boards, you attack the person you are disagreeing with. It seems you are long on abstract ideas and short on practical experience and reasonable solutions.</p>

57

<p>"You say that parental involvement doesn’t make a difference, that we should lower our expectations from our students, "</p>

<p>Please be accurate in your quotes. I did not say any of the above, and get rather frustrated with folks that cannot tell the difference between the quote above and what I did say.</p>

<p>It is obvious that some folks just do not understand nuance or cause and effect analysis - not to mention difficutly dealing in abstract concepts. </p>

<p>Please, socal05, continue on your way. We can disagree and see the results in a few years.</p>

58

<p>Newmass, here are YOUR OWN WORDS: </p>

<p>“Just because high performing schools have involved parents does not mean the high performance was BECAUSE of the involved parents.”</p>

<p>“maybe it is time we recognize that ability does differ and adjust our expectations?”</p>

<p>Like I said, you believe parental involvement doesn’t make a difference and you are willing to lower expectations.</p>

<p>It is too bad you feel you have to personally attack people when you are wrong.</p>

59

<p>Back to the topic…
The California schools are failing the students. It is not abstract concepts, but real reform that will make a difference. We all agree the problem is there and it is complex. But scratching our heads will not solve anything. Something has got to be done and the governor has made some excellent proposals to get started in the right direction.
Vote YES on Arnold’s propositions.</p>

60

<p>Socal:</p>

<p>I understand Newmassdad’s point. Parental involvement CORRELATES with student achievement and usually with SES. It does not CAUSE student achievement. There is a huge difference between causation and correlation. Newmassdad certainly is not arguing against parental involvement.</p>

<p>As for low expectations causing students to fail exit exams: at least in our district, a very high proportion of failing students are: Special education students and limited English students. They are held to the same expectations as others and no accommodations are provided for them. That does not seem like low expectations causing failure; on the contrary, it is about unrealistic expectations.</p>

<p>Neither these issues, by the way, are about teacher competence or qualifications, or salaries, or degree of commitment, or unionization.</p>