Schools Are Not Social Service Centers
Imagine you got a lousy haircut and complained about it, and you got this response:
“Well, of course your haircut looks bad. What do you expect? You only paid us for a haircut. You didn’t also give us enough money to provide you with all the other services you need to look your best. Next time, pay us triple the price, and we won’t just give you a haircut, we’ll also give you a manicure and a new set of clothes. Then your haircut will look great!”
Would you go back to that shop?
Believe it or not, that more or less sums up the big new marketing campaign the teachers’ unions are using to try to lure you into giving them more money. It’s actually called “Broader, Bolder.” If you’ve ever seen a title that sounded more like a gimmick to sucker people out of their money, you’ve seen more marketing gimmicks than I have.
The argument runs like this: kids do better in school when they’re well fed, healthy, and so forth. Therefore schools should be transformed into social-service centers that will not only teach students, but also provide health care and lots of other services. Schools would be open all day and provide a wide variety of community programs.
This will, of course, cost a ton of money and entail a huge expansion of the government educational bureaucracy. Which has nothing to do with why the unions want it.
My friends Matt Ladner and Jay Greene call this education reform by dorm-room bull session. They imagine the meetings to develop it sounded something like this:
“Like, kids need so much. We should totally provide them with everything they need.”
“Yeah, like, there should be a health thing and a poverty thing and a food thing.”
Some of the dreamy rhetoric being used to push this idea does suggest that kind of thinking (Randi Weingarten, teacher union president: “Imagine schools that are open all day …”). But I think the meeting at teacher-union headquarters probably sounded more like this:
“School spending has been rising much faster than inflation for over fifty years. Historically, we’ve done a great job getting state legislatures to direct enormous geysers of money into the government school system, especially by hiring too many teachers, which puts lots of money into our pockets. And in the past, when people asked why our results were so lousy, we just told them we needed more money. But now that spending is over $10,000 per student, they’re not swallowing that as much as they used to. Options?”
“We definitely need to do more to shift the blame for educational failure to something that’s outside of schools’ control.”
“Agreed. But how can we do that in a way that continues to increase our budgets?”
“Well, we’ve always said we can’t be expected to teach kids if they’re poor, or sick, or have anything at all wrong with them, right? So let’s tell them all social services should be brought into schools.”
“Hey! Great idea! That way we can bring social workers, nurses, nutritionists, counselors and tons of other people into the teachers’ union. We’ll start calling ourselves the ‘community school services union.’ We could triple the size of our membership overnight. I can buy that new boat I’ve had my eye on!”
For the record, yes, poverty and ill health and similar problems do make it harder for kids to learn. But the issue is not whether poverty or ill health is a bad thing. Everyone agrees that if we have an effective way to reduce these social problems, we should do it — and not only because it will help kids learn more in school.
The issue isn’t even whether another big new expansion of the welfare state can be expected to alleviate these problems any better than all the previous big expansions of the welfare state have done. Some of us may well be skeptical. But even if we had some reason to think that this big expansion of the welfare state would be different from all the previous ones, the proposal still wouldn’t make any sense.
And the issue isn’t even whether schools are capable of providing social services effectively, although that isn’t their core mission and they’re currently failing to perform even their core mission (that’s education, in case you forgot) effectively. Even if we had some reason to believe schools could effectively perform these services, the proposal would still be a loser.
The issue is, are schools the best institutions for providing these services? Even if schools could provide them, it still makes no sense to provide them through schools if other institutions could provide the same services better. Like, say, institutions whose core mission is to provide those services.
Even if we stipulate everything the unions might ask us to stipulate — that these services are needed, and that they can be provided effectively by a big new spending program, and that schools can provide them effectively — the idea that a bunch of non-educational services should be handed over to schools makes no sense. Unless, of course, the real goal is to build up the government school bureaucracy and its attendant gravy train — such as the unions who are making this proposal.
The really funny thing is, we’ve tried bringing social services into schools before. Fifty years ago, schools didn’t serve breakfast and provide teams of guidance counselors. Providing these and other social services in schools was originally justified on grounds that the kids needed these services to do well in school. How has that worked out?
Well, after all the empirical research that’s been done on schools, there’s no serious evidence that educational outcomes have improved as a result of these services. When the unions were challenged to come up with some evidence, they responded that “teachers know” these policies work.
But if the real purpose of providing these services in schools was to enlarge the government education blob, mission accomplished.
On the other hand, a large body of empirical evidence demonstrates that changes in education policy can make a difference. Vouchers, accountability testing, and other programs have an empirically proven track record in producing better teaching (yes, even with kids who have high levels of poverty, etc.). Other policies, like merit pay, haven’t been tried much, but based on what we do know they’re much more promising than yet another big spending program.
If we want better learning, we should try better teaching. Just a thought.
Go to your local kid’s school. Walk around the buildings, campus. Then look up into the sky. See them?
Those are “lawyer birds” flying all about! That’s right, lawyers. They wait for cases coming from your kid’s school. The teachers know this, their bosses know this, and their bosses know this. Everyone in the educational system knows this, right down to those school board members.
Now, why not think what the impact of such a scene creates? Forget whether you accept this premise or not, just go with the idea, see where it takes you.
Add a female gender issue to this mix, a female point of view, a view without a masculine input. Not pretty, is it? Ok, throw in kids from super dysfunctional families.
What a recipe! Anyone got time for real learning, serious thinking, actual teaching?
I doubt it. Do you see what I see? See Spot run!
I am a HS math teacher in Florida and formerly an engineer (not uncommon)
I voluntarily belong to a teacher’s union primarily for the legal protection( mandatory today IMO).
Our biggest obstacle is the culture too many of our kids are raised in and live in. Over the period of a year, we have the kids only one hour in eight; not enough to overcome the negatives in kids lives but we try,
It does not matter how much money is dumped into a system that is destined for failure and travels further and further from any HOPE of success each day. The VALUE of an education cannot be instilled into anyone. If parents don’t value knowledge, how can they teach their children. When athletes and artists make millions without education, what message does that send? I will not say that every child cannot learn if they want to, but I will say the system is dead, and just like a dead dog, no matter how much you poke it, it won’t get up and run.
If poring more and more money and authority into the educational system was the answer, then why do lower cost charter schools, or parochial schools, do better with results for the kids?
While my experience was many years ago, the impact of my guidance counselor was negligible, at best. In fact, over my entire high school time, I met with him once. That was to verify that I had obtained a scholarship to a local technical college for the indigent or orphaned.
“I” applied for that scholarship, with no help from guidance. He was upset that I had gone directly to the institution and had not consulted him first.
The reason? One of the methods of justifying his position was to count the number of applications to colleges he handed out. I had applied on my own without going through his office for the form.
Bureaucracy does not equal better. Just look at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The horrific Katrina response has been blamed on “racism.” I contend the abysmal response had nothing at all to do with racism. The problem was the huge bureaucracy. It was too big to know what it was doing, or in that case, not doing.
Why do I say this? How many Democrats, liberals,
or blacks work for DHS? The answer is many. Now does anyone actually believe all of those folks deliberately failed to respond to that disaster,
based on racism? I think not!
Larger, more money, only means less parental control & involvement. It means we turn our kids over “to the state.” Hitler did this with German kids when they joined the Hitler Youth. I do not use that as an exaggeration, but as a realistic example of what can result when the government becomes the parent.
Chicago has the perfect solution. Send inner city kids to suburban schools (busing is back?) to try to equalize funding. In fact a lawsuit has been filed to do just that.
The implication is that if this goes through, then the suburbs will privatize or find some other way to keep financing schools at their current levels. Only the lawyers and politicians will benefit. So much for worrying about the inner city schools.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-oped0822urbanaug22,0,7144865.story
I belong to a local service organization that funds with our own PRIVATE monies a program that provides food to disadvantaged students over the weekend. The idea is that expounded in the statement: “For the record, yes, poverty and ill health and similar problems do make it harder for kids to learn.” Though this program could never be seen as a complete solution to the problem, it has been quite successful. There is no large bureaucracy involved, the local community does have input and oversight, and (or I should say “AND”) the children actually receive the food.
My point is that government funding of such programs is very overrated. Private
Quaking Conservative, Boston has SEVERAL kinds of busing programs that Chicago is proposing. They are every bit of an expensive and ineffective disaster one could imagine.
Unions, especially in education: a destructive force that has ruined our schools, teachers and children
And when the Dems whine about all those jobs disappearing oversees, blame the Unions. Would you, as CEO, pay some 55 year old whiner $60k per year to do the same job (but worse) than an energetic, intelligent worker abroad for 10% of the pay?
Funny how the only time the Dems are “patriotic” is when they’re looking to steal votes.
The basic problem with government run institutions is lack of competition. It is time to break up these centers of mediocrity and sell them to private institutions. Then every child could have chits to go to any school that they could get into. Private schools could demand behavioral standards and additional support from parents. Government education an oxymoron.
We seem to be about one generation away from parents being required to turn their children permanently over to the government full-time at age 3.
As a teacher, I can tell you that kids who are well fed, with good health care and stable families with strong educational backgrounds tend to do better than those who are hungry, in poor health, and living in bad family situations. I have both in my classes.
But I don’t think it’s the school system’s responsibility to solve that inequity. Indeed, I’m not at all sure it’s even the government’s responsibility.
The problem is that the politicians have set up a situation where the schools are penalized if every student is not above average (no child left behind).
But every thinking person knows that not all people are created equal, and not everyone has the mental capacity or the social background to succeed at the high standards set by the government (state or otherwise).
So where does that leave teachers and schools? If a kid fails because of genetics or home life (poverty, health, lack of family support), the schools are blamed for it. Since every kid gets the same material in a classroom, the only defense seems to be to try to equalize those things outside of the classroom.
I don’t agree with it, but I can see where the logic comes from. If you’re going to get blamed for things out of your control, you want to try to minimize the things out of your control.
And one last news bulletin: not all teachers (perhaps not even a majority) go along with the radical agenda of the NEA. Most of us just teach, doing the best job we can in our classroom with the tools we are given.
GolfBlogger Did you ever think of getting out of the NEA. If schools taught rather than tried to make each student feel good about themselves, then students could be grouped by ability and perhaps those kids who have been dealt a bad hand could be given a little more help. We already feed them, but lets face it we don’t know how to fix stupid.
Our New York community’s schools are locked down. Order is more important than enabling. Effectively, everyone not certified is kept out.
A school should be a community center rather than a social service center. Open the school for a lifetime of continuous education. Open the school for seniors and parents to come in and partner with kids so that everyone has an opportunity to find others to do something together they enjoy. Open it for, I don’t know, nudging people to think instead of teaching just subjects.
Yeah. That might happen.
Saw Tallan’s comments about being an engineer and teaching math at a high school. Kudos for the engineering degree. How do you even tolerate the idiots with education degrees?
I propose a school consisting entirely of retired scientists, engineers, and perhaps an occasional lib arts type (closely monitored, of course) . NO EDUCATION DEGREES ALLOWED. Let’s see how the students turn out. Wanna make any bets? I honestly don’t know how Tallon (comments way above) can put up with the complete idiocy that comes out of the education community. Let’s fight it out and see who wins.
My only problem with this article is that the author apparently hasn’t been paying attention for at least the past twenty years.
When I was in “Teacher School” the idea the schools need to become full service centers that basically take care of everything parents need to be doing was the rage and openly espoused in all of my classes.
It’s no surprise that libs want the government to take the place of the family.
The unions are just figuring out that they can cash in too.
I’m not opposed to remedial programs and other social services being implemented where they’re warranted – BUT it’s evident that these are also being widely adopted in districts that have no need for them.
Hmm… where to start? I am an elementary school teacher that has taught in both low economic & affluent schools. Kids are kids no matter where you are. The difference is when children do not have basic needs met, why are they even concerned about learning their multiplication facts??? Worrying about where their next meal comes from, & if they are going home to another night at home where life isn’t so friendly, is more of a priority. Now on the opposite side of the pendelum, children from affluent areas can be just as troubled. What about the kids with cell phones in third grade & parents who cater to their every need? I’ll agree with the latter sounding a whole lot better than the first. Now let’s throw in the teachers. Obviously not a career chosen for wealth, most teachers show up each day because that’s what they choose. Being fair & honest, our field, just like others has it’s fair share of losers. I’ve had some, I know some, and I work with some. Of course the recipe isn’t complete without the politicians that decide what is best for kids. Like they really know??? They can’t seem to take care of the adults in the world, so lets just try with the future adults. Eventually we’ll get it right huh????
Imagine this…. a teacher arrives for work and sitting in her or his classroom are 20 kids from the same neighborhood, but some that seem worlds apart. The teacher will deal a zillion different issues trying to get her job done. Teach??? That is what I’m supposed to be doing here. After giving it 100%, & sending the kids off to face whatever situation awaits, the emails & calls begin. Some ok, some not! Now we get to take care of the parents too. “I’m sorry that you’re child had basketball last night, stayed up late, & wasn’t ready for the test.” ” I wasn’t aware that Johnny had his feelings hurt at recess. I’ll get right on that.” ” I would love to have a seventh conference with you about while your childs grades are dropping. Maybe we can discuss again how she needs to do something in class.” ” Yes, we do have exercise built into our daily schedule. The law says we need have to. Don’t worry about the junk food & excessive television your child watches. We will see that he gets physical activity. As a parent, just don’t worry, the teacher will.” ” Can Suzy Q move seats? She doesn’t like where she sits.” “Today we’ll be picking up Joe Blow early. We are going on a cruise. This one is to a different place than last month.” ” Johnny has fever, and threw up this morning, but he’s better now. I’m sorry he was late.”
Finally, the teacher goes home, hoping to have a little family time, crash, & wake up the next day to do it all over again. So what point am I trying to make? Our education system fails for many reasons. Blame, or credit for failing shall we say, is shared by many. If you ask me for the solution, I’ll tell you I have no clue. I just know that parents need to be parents, and teachers need to teach. Our society seems so jacked up that these two things are nearly impossible to do with ease.
Having posted this, I’m now off to start a new school year in two days. Hopefully I will make a difference, & change a life. Out of twenty future adults, I will.
I will also continue to love what I do, roll my eyes at those who show up merely for the check (idiots, go to McD’s. Less stress)and watch for that look in a child’s eye when they “get it” and it confirms once more why I do this. It’s who I am. Hats off to those out there like me. To those out there that make the rest of us look bad, try filling out an application at your local fast food chain. You may even be qualified for the job. Maybe.
It won’t start to get better until school administrators, and even state and federal officials start admitting that schools can’t do everything, and can’t succeed without the right kind of parental help. Schools will appear to fail many children because, in reality, the parents of those children are failing to do what’s necessary. I’m not convinced that it’s just the teachers’ unions, there are a lot of elected officials and non-union administrators who want exclusive credit for making our children successful. So they end up resorting to this kind of thing to hide the fact that the people most essential to children’s success -the parents- are being excluded from the process.
“The difference is when children do not have basic needs met, why are they even concerned about learning their multiplication facts???”
There were plenty of poor people 200 years ago–indeed, by today’s standards most people were poor. And yet even poor children managed to get an education.
The chief causes of our educational problems today are families and neighborhoods that do not value education, and schools that value faddish education theories and ideological indoctrination more than proficiency in reading and math.
This is an opportunistic move by urban unions to rationalize even more benefits for their members. They’ve never concerned themselves with the quality of the services they pretend to provide.
In fact, unions and the civil service simply do not mix. Ponder that the next time your postal worker goes on strike, or when the TSA’s federalized workforce decides to walk out during the Summer travel season.
They’re OK in the private sector, but unions have no business holding government bureaus ransom in order to extort the taxpayers further.
After all, it’s not like we, the taxpayers, can choose to not pay our taxes; mandatory taxation is one of the few coercive gambits we Americans permit the government to perform in our still-free country.
“First they’ll come for our children, then…”
If the Dems take over completely this coming election then all of this will be enacted, and more. Reform will never be possible again because of the inertia that will be created from the new expansion. But this is just one more of many things they are planning that will mean the end of America.
@Mike G: At least in Michigan in secondary schools, you can no longer have just an education degree. You need a major in an academic subject to be “highly qualified.” I have Masters in economics and political science AND education.
@nobozons: I can’t not belong to the union. It’s a condition of my employment contract.
I’ll give a different view of our public education system. Don’t hit me!
The educational establishment is utterly convinced that Education as a discipline is progressing in the same manner as Medicine or Engineering or Chemistry. And is set on equally firm foundations.
In this fantasy it is necessary that education practices be applied precisely by certified personnel. And highly skilled specialists vett all materials and every act no matter how small. Then public schools could roll out nearly perfect young citizens.
Alas, so many inconvenient influences beyond educators control have impeded all this. More effort must be made to nullify those influences.
In other words, this is worship of Process. At the most extreme product doesn’t matter at all. In fact, it is considered insulting to even measure the results.
At times companies are also overcome by the process fantasy. Disaster often follows. Consider car makers.
Sometimes they apparently think it won’t matter what they build or its quality. It is the processes of production and selling that count.
Process – highly efficient assembly lines, well paid happy workers, constant emphasis on cost controls, avoiding expensive retooling and redesign.
Sales, aka. lobbying. Incentives and advertising and promotions.
I have always said that the public school system is a bottomless pit in which we don’t need to throw anymore money. There needs to be incentives for teachers such as, teach or you won’t have a job. I don’t want to place all the blame on teachers as I agree with tallan, you can’t do much about the home enviroments that some kids must endure. Parents should be held more responsible for the education of their children.
I am a middle school math/science teacher (also an engineer by training). I would say that 85% of my students over the years have been well served by the schools I have taught in.
The other 15% have so many emotional, social, physical or familial problems that they simply cannot fully take advantage of what is offered.
That’s a darn shame.
Some of that we can accommodate for but some of it we can’t.
How can anyone expect a child with a mother working two jobs and no father present to compete with the child of a Doctor and Professor?
Lisa makes the larger point clearly: the teachers’ unions are engaging in a cryptic form of class warfare.
The argument goes: take two families, one is blue collar the other is white-collar, and then assert that because of their class differences the blue-collar family’s kids cannot “compete” with the child of the white-collar family.
This is pure, urbane class-warfare, and it denies the truth. Poor families come to America with nothing, and because they push their kids to perform academically, regardless of the class background of their parents, their kids excel in their studies.
The argument Lisa offers seems more like an excuse designed to let a distinct, urban demographic off the hook for non-performance. This demographic is inner-city, pop-culture saturated youths and the teachers who are failing them. And, worse, when applied to our entire nation it threatens to drag the rest of our education system down to this lowest, common denominator – all while extorting more money from America’s captive tax-payers.
If unions want to create 24/7 community centers for my children, then let them find a wealthy donor, like a Teresa Heinz-Kerry, to fund a “charter.” experimental school. Then, after proving their model’s efficacy over a decade or two, maybe one of our states will choose to institute a similar program.
But, until then…I cry foul!
Fastest way to improve schools? The quickest and best way to hold parents more responsible for the education of their children is to throw their underperforming or misbehaving children out of their easy and convenient neighborhood public schools and require the parents to assume the responsibility of finding and financing alternative education and transportation for their little darlings.
Parents have learned the local public schools have become babysitting centers that must bow down and take a lot of unacceptable behavior (at the expense of the children who do want to be there to learn). Such families who have learned they can abuse the privilege of a “free education” in this way hurt not only themselves, but others, and the schools, in attempting to be all things and social workers to all children, have allowed them to do this.
Immediately raise the academic performance standards at the general public schools, so that they can all, for example, produce an 80% pass rate on the national standardized IOWA tests. Quickly remove students who do not want to or cannot achieve there to less convenient schools for the family. The parents will be responsible for obtaining the legal minimum education for their kids (as they already are).
I feel we are offering TOO many social services and TOO much acceptance of unacceptable behavior and academic failure in the classrooms of our mainstream schools, which is a major impediment to both teaching and learning effectively, which should be the main (and only?) mission of the public school.
(If private schools wish to teach to “the whole child” and assume social worker responsibilities along with academic instruction, that would be their right and I heartily approve.)
Then try giving the minority of other children in the alternate public schools all the services they need, including individual tutoring if necessary, so that “no child is left behind.” They should also have ample opportunity to rejoin the mainstream schools if and when they prove themselves ready. But incentivize the parents to understand it is up to them and their children to determine their success. Do not pass children to the next grade until they have earned the privilege.
Involved and informed parents at the local level, if free of centralized mandates (and teacher unions protecting deadwood), will make sure the teachers and principals are doing a good job.
Stick to the mission, keep control local, incentivize and free teachers to teach and students to learn, do not tolerate deadwood in either students or teachers. Hmm, sounds like private school, doesn’t it?
That’s why I am also a proponent of school vouchers. I think it would be a big improvement if someday in the future the “government schools” were truly the schools of last resort for only a limited portion of the population, the most problematic and needy learners. But I still think private schools, churches, and institutions could handle those kids better than the government bureaucracy.
SteveAZ
I think you are stretching my comment too far. I can’t speak for the urban schools; I’ve never taught in one. I can only speak to my experience teaching in university towns.
Most of my students have been the children of professionals. Those students have access to educated parents, tutors, computers and books.
A far smaller percentage (usually less than 20%) come from homes with limited finances and less educated parents.
If the child of professionals is struggling in school, the parents can provide assistance or a tutor. If the child of a working class parent is strugglingin school, they may be lucky enough to have access to a community program. Worse, they have often given up by middle school.
I have always had a large immigrant population (mostly Asian) and those students have done very well BUT most of their parents are educated and extremely devoted to their children’s education.
Oh and I always teach towards the top. Even if my bottom kids only get 50% of what I teach, it will still be more than if I taught to the bottom.
Local involvement can make a huge difference. My daughter’s first public school was one in a magnet TAG (talented and gifted) system whose charter required that at least 20% of the school be children from the surrounding areas, which were always poor, minority neighborhoods. The remaining slots went to district-wide kids who had to test at a TAG level to gain entry. The parents of the TAG kids were strongly encouraged to participate in tutoring and other services for the disadvantaged kids.
I am a solid conservative and I was very impressed with the results of this model. The disadvantaged kids were surrounded by kids who were motivated and engaged and were supported by parents who assisted them in ways their own parents could not. Our kids, mostly white and Asian, were exposed to kids they normally would never encounter, engendering an understanding and respect they might not otherwise have had. Keeping the underperforming group small allowed the larger performance-based culture to have strong influence. The community kids’ scores and grades reflected the positive effect of that influence and my daughter also received a quality education (that was superior, in my opinion, to that of the affluent district my children are now in). I have never seen this model in place anywhere else.
Obviously, most urban kids go to schools that reflect their neighborhoods, which is the biggest challenge most teachers face. Vouchers seem to offer the best answer in those situations.
Each local school needs a board of stakeholders willing to say this in public — two each of parents, teachers, administrators, and students.
All a school needs to be good is a little sunshine and people with the wit and wisdom to shine the light on real problems.
A student in the hands of a bad teacher is like a dented can in a grocery store — damaged goods. And people in authority need to deal with the problem or be exposed for not doing so.
Some time previously one of the columnists did a article on a potential ‘one room schoolhouse’.
He made some good points, but in thinking about those I have found some others. This may – in the larger cities – be the way to go.
1 teacher, 1 aid, and maybe 40 students – ALL FROM THE SAME APARTMENT BUILDING – would cut out so many of what are currently problems in the system. No wasted ‘services’. No wasted ‘overhead’ or ‘administration’. No bad lunchroom food. ( Get local takeout – it will reflect the local taste and be cheaper besides!) No stupid jock coaches. (If the kids want coaching – let them pick the sport and hire a real coach!) No transportation or… if the schedule was for an eight hour school day … hassles with after school daycare. (Meaning that money could go to the students or even – yes, what a shock – school activities.)
NO, you could not guarentee all’ good’ students – but logic would say that good or bad the students would all be closer together in background and potential. Closer in culture and expectation. The smaller group and the closer parent involvement would allow the ONE teacher – unshackled by a pyramid of desk-jockys – to guide the students in a way the *parents* value. In return, parents who felt their input being heeded would have a motivation to be reinvolved in their childrens school lives.
It would be hard work for the teacher – true. But most people prefer hard work that accomplishes something to easy days of powerless wheel-spinning.
We need not to reform the school system – we need to remake it from the ground up.
Vouchers and freedom might be a good start.
Screw all this crap.
One nun ran 35 kids. No talking, no acting out. No bad grades allowed.
It works.
Helmet: You’re not allowed to scare the crap out of kids these days, let alone the alternate use of the ruler.
I’ve been a parent and teacher for 27 years and the most frustrating things I’ve encountered in our education system is lack of:
-respect from parents and students toward schools, teachers and property of others.
-responsibility from students for attendance, homework, and behavior. Responsibility from parents to work on making their child accountable for attendance, school performance and behavior.
-integrity from both parents and students to be honest about the respect and responsibility that students and parents exhibit with regard to responsibility and respect.
-committment to actually try all of the above. For students to invest in themselves and for parents to invest in their children.
These aren’t limited to underpriviledged kids…I can tell within 10 minutes of my first class with students whether or not they have been raised with a sense of their own accountability for their education or not.
We need to get back to standards that expect students to complete the work at a certain level or they don’t move on to the next grade.
-and lastly the respect, responsibility, integrity and commitment of the school administration and community (and some teachers)to invest wisely in the students and teachers.
As far as the NEA is concerned I think their only goal is social engineering our students toward globalism and away from U.S. citizenship.
If anyone is more interested in this go to edwatch.org, go to the search button and put in FED ED. It will access articles that tell how there has been an extensive movement to change our children’s perspective on morals, our country and society. Sobering.
I would recommend we get rid of the Department of Education. Especially as related to K-12. Get rid of federal dollars tied to anything in education. Schools have become nothing but indoctrination machines for liberalism.
After visiting the local high school, and looking at the crap posted on bulletin boards from radical organizations like Greenpeace and others, I decided I would not send my daughter there. Instead I sent my daughter to parochial school (we are not Catholic) for k-8 and home schooled high school using a virtual (Internet) high school.
By the way a virtual high school costs less than $2000 a year, and provides brand new books for each class. Try that in a brick and mortar school. Email feedback was excellent and provided more assistance than she would get in a class room.
Out of that experience, my daughter was accepted at every college she applied too, and was offered several scholarship opportunities as well. One college that we eventually turned down called us, and asked what they could do to get her to come there, instead of the competing college she chose.
Bottom line is choice is the solution, and even today you have more choices than you think you have. Number one choice, keep your kids out of public schools.
Rabidfox: Alternate? There was no alternate as to why there was a 36 inch ruler in a room where the paper was only 12 inches across. The onlly alternate was it going to be your head, legs or hands that got wacked.
And the Nuns weren’t scary, the Brothers with the cauliflower ears from Ireland were. That’s who backed them up.
After that, it was the red ribbon society in the records department. And just so you know Rabidfox, those ribbons are still there. Forever…..
I followed the link (big new marketing campaign see above) It’s scary. They seem to propose giving our children to the schools to raise. They want to provide health care in school, character training, after school programs, preschool programs, and diversity programs. They propose giving the educational establishment complete control.
I don’t think these people are smart enough to see the outcome of what they are proposing.
In any case, they are a good argument for homeschooling. Any teacher who thinks the way they do views parents as obstacles not as partners.
Something is truly wrong with this country if teachers think that social services, not actually teaching anything well, will improve children’s grades. Nothing will improve a child’ grades if that child refuses to work hard. Even those who work hard, frequently cannot get a decent education, because everyone focuses on the ones who are doing the worst, the ones who are not working. Discipline is key, not social services.