Public schools are a lie.....

[fundiefun]

Then what would they like parents who can't or don't have the ability to homeschool or can't afford private school to do? Let their kids roam the streets all the day? There is no winning with fundies and their school of thought. I always thought I wanted to homeschool, but with my anxiety and health issues that would be very hard since there are days I can't get out of bed or just want to be left alone. To try homeschooling knowing I couldn't handle it would be unfair to my kids to give them a substandard education.

[lizzy]

I think one of the things we could do is create a national school system. Have a national curriculum (which would make the tests a better assessment), national uniform, etc. Just witnessing the confusion on the Chatter grading thread makes me think that things are too local. Americans cannot even tell a European what school a certain grade would be in. I think things usually go more smoothly where there is a system. I read a book about the Japanese school system, and they are totally organized, which is why they are getting a better product with less money. They also have (imo) a superior teacher training system, but the uniformity of schools definitely contributes to that.

Anybody here work in a public school? How would this sit with the teacher's unions?

[Aurora]

The Kid is a poster child why we Do need public schools. Any education that turns out his ilk needs to be eliminated and fast.

This.

[Jazzyjen]

Austin, I respect your opinion, and that is certainly educational (especially since charter schools have "come of age" since I got my BA in Ed), but not all charter schools are like that. I went to college in a town where there were several charter schools that were not run by big corps like yours. As a matter of fact, several of my old college professors had a hand in designing the school and its curriculum, and most of the professors kids went there. So, much like public schools, you can't generalize all charters based on what you have experienced in your community.

As far as public schools, one of the other posters was exactly right, that any school is not responsible for teaching your child everything ( I would even say most things, considering the amount of homework and teaching my husband and I do every night). Which is why I wonder if we will ever have a "great" American school system. There are just too many people out there who don't value putting time into their children's eductaion. They instead put it into youth sports, or the like (barf. How many of those kids toiling away at little league or soccer put the same time and effort into school work?)

The comparisons which places like Japan and Sweden and the like are problematic too. Those are homogenized societies that do not have the same issues we have in America. And as far as a national system, I think it's a good idea to have a national concensus on what our children need to know and when, but I worry about the federal government royally screwing our kids with budget impasses and pork wrapped into bills by lobbyists. Because that happenes on both sides of the aisle.

[Linnea]

The above poster brings up an interesting point. I moved to a school distrcit where parents care deeply about their child's education, and we all pay a premium in taxes for it. We also volunteer consistently in the schools, and contribute time and talents to the community. There are going to be communities where most families have households where both parents must work, or there is only one parent. What do we do about those schools? Charter schools seem like a good start, but what else? I don't know, just asking.

For starters, distribute the resources more equitably. The current system in the U.S. promotes inequity. The kids who have all the advantages at home go to the best-funded schools. The kids whose families have struggle to give them enough food, clothing, nurturing-time and safe places to play go to schools that are struggling too.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

It's not so homogenized as a lot of people here think it is, really. There are parents who don't care about their kids' educations in Japan too, there are also immigrants. There are issues with immigrant kids who don't speak the language AND have parents that don't send them to school, at least now the schools have become more aware and actually have language help services for those kids now (they didn't decades back). It IS a smaller place though, and so perhaps the better comparison would be with a single state, to start with (same goes for discussions about Switzerland and the like).

The one thing I worry about when people say, well, the parents should be teaching their kids and you can't expect the schools to do everything is, sure, that's the ideal, but what about the kids unfortunate to be born to parents who just don't, and never will, care? The education in the school itself needs to be at some minimum standard, just as the food needs to be at some minimum standard.

As for sports when I was in school, we were all required to be on some sports or activity team at school, with daily practice after school. We were also graded on skills in regular PE class.

[Linnea]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-pl ... =fullstory

(not breaking link because it's a magazine article)

Finland's schools have some of the highest achievement scores on the planet, even in areas with large immigrant populations. They have a national curriculum, but a lot of autonomy on the local level as far as how to implement it.

Some other things they do differently from the U.S.:

They require advanced training for teachers, pay them well, and treat them with respect.

Teachers stay with the same students for several years at a time

There is no ability-tracking in the classroom.

Of course, some of the reasons for Finland's good performance are outside the classroom. They have a more egalitarian society in general, and a better social safety net, so poorer kids don't tend to show up at school lacking medical care or safe housing or enough to eat, like they do in the U.S.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html?c=y&story=fullstory

(not breaking link because it's a magazine article)

Finland's schools have some of the highest achievement scores on the planet, even in areas with large immigrant populations. They have a national curriculum, but a lot of autonomy on the local level as far as how to implement it.

Some other things they do differently from the U.S.:

They require advanced training for teachers, pay them well, and treat them with respect.

Teachers stay with the same students for several years at a time

There is no ability-tracking in the classroom.

Of course, some of the reasons for Finland's good performance are outside the classroom. They have a more egalitarian society in general, and a better social safety net, so poorer kids don't tend to show up at school lacking medical care or safe housing or enough to eat, like they do in the U.S.

Similar to my own experience also.

[Austin]

Austin, I respect your opinion, and that is certainly educational (especially since charter schools have "come of age" since I got my BA in Ed), but not all charter schools are like that. I went to college in a town where there were several charter schools that were not run by big corps like yours. As a matter of fact, several of my old college professors had a hand in designing the school and its curriculum, and most of the professors kids went there. So, much like public schools, you can't generalize all charters based on what you have experienced in your community.

As far as public schools, one of the other posters was exactly right, that any school is not responsible for teaching your child everything ( I would even say most things, considering the amount of homework and teaching my husband and I do every night). Which is why I wonder if we will ever have a "great" American school system. There are just too many people out there who don't value putting time into their children's eductaion. They instead put it into youth sports, or the like (barf. How many of those kids toiling away at little league or soccer put the same time and effort into school work?)

The comparisons which places like Japan and Sweden and the like are problematic too. Those are homogenized societies that do not have the same issues we have in America. And as far as a national system, I think it's a good idea to have a national concensus on what our children need to know and when, but I worry about the federal government royally screwing our kids with budget impasses and pork wrapped into bills by lobbyists. Because that happenes on both sides of the aisle.

Yes, I realize that not every single charter school is like that. But the majority of charter schools in this country are operated by just a couple of corporations. Corporations exist to make profits. Whenever profit gets mixed with education, profit just automatically becomes more important, and it isn't a good thing. And this is not "just in my community". This is the culture of dozens of charter schools and that's just the way it is. I don't have any doubt that there are some charter schools that do a fine job and are not run corporately.

However, charter schools overall have not served to improve the public education overall system (they are supposed to be public education) and basically, drain money away from the local public school system. In the end, this is not a benefit to any community. I have heard all of the arguments about how competition will improve the educational system in this country and taking away teachers' bargaining rights will fix it, but it just isn't true. Education is not business. The problem is not that we haven't applied enough business principles in education (remember the blueberry story? It is extremely relevant).

There are definitely changes that need to be made to public education, and some of those changes have to do with teachers. I believe we should require highly qualified teachers and we need to have ways to measure this (other than test scores). I believe we should require all teachers to become board certified (NBPTS) by year 10 or they couldn't continue to be licensed. This is a national system that is already in place and is very rigorous. My husband did it in 2001 and we barely saw him for the year that he worked on it. It would definitely weed out those who are there for any other reasons than the right ones. Different states have different tests and use praxis or whatever, but NBPTS is a national standard by which every teacher can be measured, and the playing field would be leveled and not so arbitrary and capricious as it is now.

That's just one idea and lots of experienced educators have many good ideas. But draining public school funds away from local school systems is not the answer.

[Austin]

Anybody here work in a public school? How would this sit with the teacher's unions?

Teachers' unions are very concerned with the inequality of resources that is currently at the forefront of the major problems in public education. Distributing funding for education based on property values is a recipe for creating a society of haves/have-nots, which is exactly how schools are funded in many states right now. Poor communities = low property taxes = inequitable funding. It is not fair that just by virtue of where a child lives can determine a child's educational opportunities.

But so many in this country would see nationalizing the education system as a huge step toward socialism, and I doubt it will ever happen.

[Diggers]

The comparisons which places like Japan and Sweden and the like are problematic too. Those are homogenized societies that do not have the same issues we have in America. And as far as a national system, I think it's a good idea to have a national concensus on what our children need to know and when, but I worry about the federal government royally screwing our kids with budget impasses and pork wrapped into bills by lobbyists. Because that happenes on both sides of the aisle.

I have to disagree with you about Sweden being a homogenized society. I attended the equivalent of 10th and 11th grade in Sweden, the rest of my pre-college years being completed in the US, and I have to say that my Swedish school incredibly diverse. This was in Stockholm, so I imagine that in less cosmopolitan areas the situation would be different, but there were 23 nationalities (and not only European ones) represented in my year alone. This was 15 years ago, so unless there's been a purge of non-Swedes, I can't see the situation being much different now. My American public school was very good, but on the diversity scale it didn't come close to that.

Additionally, while my sister and I were in Swedish schools, kids got a small allowance from the government for attending school. If they found out you weren't going, the allowance stopped.

Off topic, but I'd like to take a tiny moment to plug for socialized healthcare. Trip to emergency room, including an ambulance ride, several hours in the hospital, heart monitoring, and Saturday visit from on-call dentist, plus all necessary follow-up care = free!

Edit: also free school lunch in our Swedish schools AND not a tater tot in sight (there were things like pizzafisk, though: yay pizza! oh no, the crust is actually made out of cod...), plus there was always salad.

[Rosa]

The thing about charter schools is that they are just ripe for abuse, because there's a lot of money to be had and not enough oversight; in my city we have great charter schools, and awful ones (including 2 that have had to be shut down because of financial fraud.) They're prime targets for hucksters and fakes.

Equalizing resources, or even tilting them to make up for the unequal circumstances of kids, would be a HUGE change here - but then why not go whole hog and make sure there are resources for the families in the first place? We have homeless kids living with their families in shelters here - we have refugee kids who still have one parent stuck in a camp in Somalia or Kenya - we have migrant kids who are only in our school one or two months of the year. The illiterate teens I tutored came out of families so chaotic they averaged having spent less than one entire school year with each adult/family (relatives or foster family) they grew up with, mostly because of drug addiction by their parents - if we guaranteed public housing & cafeteria style meals for addicts, instead of kicking them out of programs as undeserving whenever they used, we'd have a lot fewer kids failing in the schools.

[Linnea]

Equalizing resources, or even tilting them to make up for the unequal circumstances of kids, would be a HUGE change here - but then why not go whole hog and make sure there are resources for the families in the first place?

Because that would be socialism, and socialism makes Baby Jesus cry.

[Nothing2CHere]

Austin, I think you're my hero. :clap:

[YPestis]

Public schools are evil because they no longer teach kids how to read the Bible *correctly* and they outlawed the Christian God. Duh.

I remember Sarah Maxwell wrote in her blog that she would drive by the local public school and feel "so sorry" for the kids there. She was sooo grateful her parents sheltered her from the evil public school system. Then there were the Duggars who visited a public school they look so out of place when the kids started to dance and sign during their pep rally. I'm no fan of the pep rallies but that episode really hit home how out of place the Duggar kids were. They didn't understand the rock music, they probably weren't sure how to react to so many kids jumping and dancing. It wasn't something they had ever seen. Michelle Duggar was the only one who looked comfortable in the school. It made me wonder what else these sheltered fundie kids were not exposed to because they were hyper isolated---I mean, homeschooled.

I thought it was so incredibly sad that the Duggar kids were so isolated that they can't even engage in normal activities with other kids. How is that suppose to make them superior to their public school counterparts?

[lilwriter85]

Public schools are evil because they no longer teach kids how to read the Bible *correctly* and they outlawed the Christian God. Duh.

I remember Sarah Maxwell wrote in her blog that she would drive by the local public school and feel "so sorry" for the kids there. She was sooo grateful her parents sheltered her from the evil public school system. Then there were the Duggars who visited a public school they look so out of place when the kids started to dance and sign during their pep rally. I'm no fan of the pep rallies but that episode really hit home how out of place the Duggar kids were. They didn't understand the rock music, they probably weren't sure how to react to so many kids jumping and dancing. It wasn't something they had ever seen. Michelle Duggar was the only one who looked comfortable in the school. It made me wonder what else these sheltered fundie kids were not exposed to because they were hyper isolated---I mean, homeschooled.

I thought it was so incredibly sad that the Duggar kids were so isolated that they can't even engage in normal activities with other kids. How is that suppose to make them superior to their public school counterparts?

I have read similar blogs and heard things from fundies whose issues with public schools are because schools don't teach the Bible or allow prayer. I remember Latisha said that public schools were anti-Bible. I feel sorry for the Maxwell kids more than public school kids.

The Duggars kids and some of the kids of these families we discuss are extremely isolated. I remember that episode at the public school and the kids really looked out of place. It seemed like they couldn't observe the dancing and the singing normally. Some homeschooling fundies are all about control with their kids because they want their kids in Christians environments all the time.

[emmiedahl]

The inherent inequality of American society compared to Japan and Sweden is one of the major issues that schools face, but it is a problem that is partly caused by the schools and thus must be addressed within them.

And if teacher's unions are against adopting a great national curriculum, then we need to re-evaluate the unions. But I don't think many teachers would object to every school receiving the same books and supplies provided these were really high quality. My stepfather is a school administrator and the local rep for his teacher's union. He has said before that he does not agree with a lot of the battles that the union chooses to fight, but also that the recent changes to our schools have been bad for students and teachers. I mean, his school is mainly populated by children from an impoverished and crime-ridden Indian reservation; is it really fair that the teachers are expected to get the same results as an upper-middle-class school across town?

Within that framework, it is easy to see why teachers as a group are inherently suspicious of national changes. We need to start treating our teachers like professionals and give them the tools to do a great job. Our system is currently set up so that we cannot even begin to evaluate a teacher based on results; the variables are too diverse for any kind of scale to be used.

[meda]

I work for the teachers union, there is no opposition from the unions regarding the concept of a national curriculum. The devil is in the details. In my state, unionized teachers have been working to develop the core learning standards and the related curriculum. The union has been one of the lead groups along with the parent's groups and School Board's Association in opposing the dumbing down of state regent's exams and the elimination of elective classes.

Several of the main impediments to a national curriculum are state politicians and State school boards in states like Texas and Kansas who hold very conservative ideas about curriculum and local control. Look at the recent battles over the whitewashing of history books. How could the federal government impose a decent national curriculum when we have people in power who find Jefferson's and Madison's views on the separation of church and state so objectionable that they want to remove them from textbooks?

[Austin]

I work for the teachers union, there is no opposition from the unions regarding the concept of a national curriculum. The devil is in the details. In my state, unionized teachers have been working to develop the core learning standards and the related curriculum. The union has been one of the lead groups along with the parent's groups and School Board's Association in opposing the dumbing down of state regent's exams and the elimination of elective classes.

ITA. Teachers and their union representatives have no interest in continuing the same inequitable situation that now exists. A national curriculum would take, with equal distribution of teaching materials, would be a wonderful step in the right direction, but again, many in this country have an irrational fear of against anything resembling equal distribution of resources. As someone else said, they would consider is socialism and therefore, evil.

I think local control is highly overrated. We have two complete nutz on our school board right now. One hates public schools and "homeskools" her children so she rails against schools and does all she can to defund schools and make them less effective (trufax). The other is just a nutjob who recently walked into a restaurant and out of left field assaulted a man who she barely knows because he supported the candidate running against "her" candidate for another local race. She's a fine example for schoolchildren. :roll:

[emmiedahl]

The issues in some areas regarding evolution, the Constitution and Christianity in the classroom (just to name a few) are good reasons to impose a national curriculum. There are whacked out, untrained people all over the country imposing their ideology on our kids and it needs to fucking stop. In addition, our children's electives should never be on the table for cuts. If the federal government requires so much art, so much music, so much PE (etc) and provides the resources to offer these, then we can be assured that all children are getting a well-rounded education.

Local and state-directed schooling is not working. Conservatives acknowledged this with NCLB, but they did not give schools the resources to meet any kind of standard.

[Mama Mia]

I would have a problem with a national curriculum if it was managed as poorly as the current "no child left behind" . I think the problem with too much standardization is that teachers are left solely teaching to the test, without any room for following children's interests, local events, inclusion or art etc..

Equal funding nationally would be great, the current system is far too inequitable.

[Diggers]

Speaking of NCLB, I have a little anecdote from my trip to the grocery store this evening. I just wanted to get a piece of salmon to feed two people, so I went to the store in our neighborhood. For regular food-for-the-week shopping, I go elsewhere, because the market close to us is a little yucky and doesn't have great produce. Location is relevant because our neighborhood doesn't have stellar schools.

Anyway.

There was one person working the fish/deli counter. He looked about 16. Our interaction went as follows:

kid: What do you want?

me: I'd like a third of a pound of salmon, please.

kid: (picks up tilapia) This one?

me: (pointing to salmon) No, this one.

kid: (puts every salmon piece on the scale in turn and looks like he wants to run away when they are all over 2lbs.) How much?

me: A third of a pound, please.

kid: (puts one fillet on the scale. It's 1.9lbs. Takes it off. Puts it back. It's still 1.9lbs. Looks very sad.)

me: Ok, how about half a pound?

kid: Oh, so you want half of this piece?

me: No, half of a pound please.

kid: (Goes to cutting table, grabs a knife, and starts slicing the piece in half horizontally. He throws the sliced off bits away.)

me: (so confused, cannot speak.)

kid: (Puts mangled fish skin back on the scale. It now weighs 1.4 lbs. Kid looks about to cry.)

me: Hey, you know, half of that piece will be just fine. Maybe you can just cut it off the end there?

kid: (cuts mangled fish in half, wraps, puts on scale, it weighs .76 lbs, hands it to me.) There's half a pound of salmon for you.

me: ...thanks.

Aside from the fact that he was obviously not trained at all and then just left alone to flail around wasting product, I just cannot believe that a 16 year old could not know that one third = ~0.33 and one half = 0.5.

[Aurora]

Speaking of NCLB, I have a little anecdote from my trip to the grocery store this evening. I just wanted to get a piece of salmon to feed two people, so I went to the store in our neighborhood. For regular food-for-the-week shopping, I go elsewhere, because the market close to us is a little yucky and doesn't have great produce. Location is relevant because our neighborhood doesn't have stellar schools.

Anyway.

There was one person working the fish/deli counter. He looked about 16. Our interaction went as follows:

kid: What do you want?

me: I'd like a third of a pound of salmon, please.

kid: (picks up tilapia) This one?

me: (pointing to salmon) No, this one.

kid: (puts every salmon piece on the scale in turn and looks like he wants to run away when they are all over 2lbs.) How much?

me: A third of a pound, please.

kid: (puts one fillet on the scale. It's 1.9lbs. Takes it off. Puts it back. It's still 1.9lbs. Looks very sad.)

me: Ok, how about half a pound?

kid: Oh, so you want half of this piece?

me: No, half of a pound please.

kid: (Goes to cutting table, grabs a knife, and starts slicing the piece in half horizontally. He throws the sliced off bits away.)

me: (so confused, cannot speak.)

kid: (Puts mangled fish skin back on the scale. It now weighs 1.4 lbs. Kid looks about to cry.)

me: Hey, you know, half of that piece will be just fine. Maybe you can just cut it off the end there?

kid: (cuts mangled fish in half, wraps, puts on scale, it weighs .76 lbs, hands it to me.) There's half a pound of salmon for you.

me: ...thanks.

Aside from the fact that he was obviously not trained at all and then just left alone to flail around wasting product, I just cannot believe that a 16 year old could not know that one third = ~0.33 and one half = 0.5.

Too funny. I wonder how long that kid will last, because I'm not sure all the customers will be as nice as you were.

I thought it was bad when I asked (re the marinated fish) "Are there chillies in this marinade?" (I'm allergic) and nobody at the counter could tell me. But now I have a new standard.

[PraiseSeitan]

The idea of a national curriculum scares me, because a significant proportion of the country consists of absolute morons who elect people so stupid I'm surprised they remember to breathe.

As an example of what I'm talking about, until recently California took no national funds for sex education programs, so that our state could teach kids comprehensive sex education at our own expense. Had we a national curriculum our state's kids would have been stuck with abstinence only education, and we'd have a teen pregnancy rate like that of Texas.

Considering the number of creationists, climate denialists, abiotic oil nuts, St. Reagan worshippers and other reality impaired people in the federal government, I'd much rather we be left to set our own standards.

[snarkbillie]

ITA. Teachers and their union representatives have no interest in continuing the same inequitable situation that now exists. A national curriculum would take, with equal distribution of teaching materials, would be a wonderful step in the right direction, but again, many in this country have an irrational fear of against anything resembling equal distribution of resources. As someone else said, they would consider is socialism and therefore, evil.

I recently happened upon another reason why there may be pressures against adopting a national curriculum among certain groups of conservatives. I didn't realize it, as I've been homeschooling my kids for like....since forever, but the state I live in has no science standards. They have math standards, and reading standards. Hell, they even have "social studies" standards. There are no science standards.

What does that mean? It means there are no checks or tests to make sure kids are learning an appropriate amount of science. I think they like that. Nobody has to teach evolution or sex ed or health or biology or chemistry or anything else they don't like if nobody is making sure it's done.

A national curriculum would most definitely include some kind of standards for scientific literacy....and then you know what happens. Sure, at first they throw a big stink about the evolution requirement but then they realize, if people are scientifically literate they might start asking questions about their environment and how polluted it is. They might want to do something about global climate change. They might start using birth control! Omg no!