How bad are schools?

[pupdog]

Someone I know claims public schools are little more than cesspools--kids constantly misbehave, watch soap operas on classroom TV, etc etc. He has a tendency to leap to conclusions based on little or no evidence (he thought the Amer Assoc of Pediatricians was trying to promote sexual activity among children just because he heard of an article that mentioned discussion of birth control methods as a means of reducing pregnancies amongst some high-risk students). There were no such problems (well, very very few) when I went to school; can anyone recommend some reliable sources for judging the efficacy of K-12 education these days? Any good comparisons between schools now vs 20 or 30 years ago, or geographically?

[Mr Manifesto]

My school was the worst in the Hunter region. Yet I never saw anyone with drugs the whole six years I was there. People like to exaggerate.

Maybe word got around that we teased the teacher with one arm...

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

National Center for Education Statistics (http://nces.ed.gov/). The link to their Fast Facts (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/) section seems to have some of the info you're looking for, particularly school safety (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=49).

For your particular area you can get School Report Cards (http://www.paprofiles.org/) from the PA Dept of Education (http://www.pde.state.pa.us/pde_internet/site/default.asp).

[pupdog]

Thanks--the NCES site looks like it's got what I need. I've previously seen the TIMS page, dealing with science achievement (internationally), but that's math & science and everybody knows how hard they are.

Also, I think that some of those who berate public schools for poor results, are also among those who are calling for science curricula to include Creationism. Go figure.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Criticizing the schools is an age-old pastime.

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/moa-cgi?notisid=ABQ7578-0132-24
The North American review. / Volume 132, Issue 292
March 1881
The Success of the Free-School System, by John D. Philbrick
Notwithstanding this undeniable progress, so familiar to every school-man, and of which the evidence is abundant and conclusive, attempts are made by its opponents to discredit it and bring it into disfavor with the people. This is no new phenomenon. In every stage of its onward march it has been subjected to adverse criticism, in which ignorance of the topics discussed, unreasoning caprice, self-conceit, and sectarian bigotry have been in turn conspicuous. The most opposite and contradictory faults have been laid to the charge of the schools. Now they are complained of for teaching too much, and educating the pupils out of their proper sphere; then they are pronounced unworthy of confidence, because they fail to teach even the rudiments of education. They are accused of being godless and sectarian at the same time. While one critic is depicting the evils resulting from overworking the pupils, another is dilating on the waste of time in holidays and vacations. But of all the descriptions of fault-finding in which the opponents of public schools indulge, perhaps the most unjust and nonsensical is that which, ignoring altogether the incalculable good they have accomplished, blames them for not yet having succeeded in curing every political and social disease.

[Zero]

Schools are pretty good. The whole 'the system is failing' thing is a lie created by people who want it to fail.

[Tmy]

No one has a vested interest in promoting the GOOD in schools.

If the schools are "bad" then,

Teachers can whine that the classes are too big and they are underpaid
School Committees can whine that they dont have enough money in the budget
Politicians love to use "improving schools" as a platform.


Locally there was this story about one of the school districts having some of the lowest per student budgets in the state. Everyone cried about "not investing in our children" bla bla bla.
Funny thing, that same school district has some of the BEST test scores in the state. No one mentioned that while whineing about money cause the last thing school officials want is finanically efficient school that scores well.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tmy
No one has a vested interest in promoting the GOOD in schools.

If the schools are "bad" then,

Teachers can whine that the classes are too big and they are underpaid
School Committees can whine that they dont have enough money in the budget
Politicians love to use "improving schools" as a platform.


Locally there was this story about one of the school districts having some of the lowest per student budgets in the state. Everyone cried about "not investing in our children" bla bla bla.
Funny thing, that same school district has some of the BEST test scores in the state. No one mentioned that while whineing about money cause the last thing school officials want is finanically efficient school that scores well. Oh no, schools don't want to be run well...what are you talking about?!? Most people in school positions really care about the kids.

BTW, test scores aren't everything. You can 'fake' test scores by encouraging students to drop out, or leaving them back repeatedly so that they can avoid the tests.

[pupdog]

From Zero:
BTW, test scores aren't everything. You can 'fake' test scores by encouraging students to drop out, or leaving them back repeatedly so that they can avoid the tests.

Isn't there a post around here somewhere (or maybe I heard it on the radio) how just this thing has been going on in TEXAS?

[Zero]

Originally posted by pupdog
From Zero:


Isn't there a post around here somewhere (or maybe I heard it on the radio) how just this thing has been going on in TEXAS? Yeah, something like a single school, the one they were parading around as their 'success story', had something like a 40% dropout rate, and they were keeping some huge percentage of students in the 9th grade(I think possibly just on paper, though that could have been a different school), in order to keep them from taking the 10th grade test.

[Yahweh]

The school systems are fine, but I think the cirriculum could be improved with a little more emphasis on Skepticism and Critical Thinking skills.

[patnray]

There are good and bad public schools. There are good and bad private schools. There are good teachers, who inspire and motivate students, and bad teachers, who just put in their time for a paycheck, in all schools.

I had experience with just about every combination. What I learned is that what you get out of any school depends almost entirely on what you put into it. At the pre-college level, I think that the most important factor to a student's success is how involved the parent's are. When parents take an interest in the classes, help with the homework or just discuss the lessons, and communicate with the teachers regularly, the students do better compared to students with uninvolved parents. This is far more important than the quality of the school.

Some private schools require parental participation in the school community as a condition of enrollment...

[Kodiak]

IMO, most public schools are far inferior to private and charter schools.

Personally, I found my formative education (K- 8 at a catholic school) far superior to my younger sister's formative education (K-8 at a public school). Though a High School grad, she has only basic math skill, and little understanding of science, history, or politics.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Kodiak
IMO, most public schools are far inferior to private and charter schools.

Personally, I found my formative education (K- 8 at a catholic school) far superior to my younger sister's formative education (K-8 at a public school). Though a High School grad, she has only basic math skill, and little understanding of science, history, or politics. Maybe your sister is just stupid?:p

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Kodiak
IMO, most public schools are far inferior to private and charter schools.

If we're not talking about home-schooled kids, then I have to offer up a resounding "Well, DUH" to this. Nothing personal, Kodiak. :)

Think about it--in a system where you have both public and private education, of course private education is going to be better. Think about it. Suppose you're a parent. If you have a choice between Public School A, which is already paid through your tax dollars, and Private School B which is worse than the Public School and costs you money, which are you going to send your kids to? The one that costs money and sucks, or the one that's paid for and is doing alright?

My point is--there probably are private schools out there worse than the local public schools, but I can't imagine who would pay more for lesser quality. Unless, of course, we're talking about religious fundamentalists.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Zero
Maybe your sister is just stupid?:p

If that were the case, she never should have graduated.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Cleon


If we're not talking about home-schooled kids, then I have to offer up a resounding "Well, DUH" to this. Nothing personal, Kodiak. :)

Think about it--in a system where you have both public and private education, of course private education is going to be better. Think about it. Suppose you're a parent. If you have a choice between Public School A, which is already paid through your tax dollars, and Private School B which is worse than the Public School and costs you money, which are you going to send your kids to? The one that costs money and sucks, or the one that's paid for and is doing alright?

My point is--there probably are private schools out there worse than the local public schools, but I can't imagine who would pay more for lesser quality. Unless, of course, we're talking about religious fundamentalists.

Its gotta be more than money though, doesn't it?

Both the States and the Feds throw tons of money at education, all without any measurable benefit it seems.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by patnray:
There are good and bad private schools.

Originally posted by cleon:
Think about it--in a system where you have both public and private education, of course private education is going to be better. Think about it. Suppose you're a parent. If you have a choice between Public School A, which is already paid through your tax dollars, and Private School B which is worse than the Public School and costs you money, which are you going to send your kids to? The one that costs money and sucks, or the one that's paid for and is doing alright?

But surely the proportion of bad private schools will be lesser than the proportion of bad public schools, since the former are profit making operations, and like all for-profit enterprises will go to the wall very quickly if consumers are unhappy with the quality of service and take their custom elsewhere?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
But surely the proportion of bad private schools will be lesser than the proportion of bad public schools, since the former are profit making operations, and like all for-profit enterprises will go to the wall very quickly if consumers are unhappy with the quality of service and take their custom elsewhere?

Profit and competition....

Now we're talking...

[Tmy]

Public Schools usually have better sports teams.! Unless a private school goes out an recruits. Which is another advantage they have over public schools.

Private schools can surpass publics because they do not have the same restrictions.

[nightwind]

Well, one of the problems we have in this country, is that we try and educate everyone. In other countries, many would already be in a coal mine, factory, food services, etc.

Education while touted as a priority by politicians, the public, etc. is really not. It looks to me like most politicians, are big business people, lawyers, insurance folks, and others who can afford to be a politician. So it looks to me that we need to find some way to get educators, or those who "really" care about education to get into politics.

Classrooms today basically look the same as they did years ago, with rows of desk, etc. Perhaps a revamping of the process needs to take place. Emphasis, needs to shift from learning trivia to critical thinking, problem solving, etc. This is going to take money. I think a specific "education" tax would be very worthwhile. But the problem here is that most Americans it seems don't want to pay any kind of tax, no matter what it's for. But everyone needs to pay, and not just property owners.

Now there seems to be enough teachers, but they drop out of the profession, because of low pay, lack of respect, lack of administrative support, no benefits, etc. It seems as if instead of offering good salaries and benefits that will draw people into the teaching profession, that states are just lowering the qualifications for being a teacher. It looks to me that they are just looking for warm bodies to stick in the classroom. We need to do something to lure the best teachers into the classroom, and those that are out, try and get them back.

And there needs to be something done to get parents involved in the educational process, and get them to support education. I don't know how you could do this, but there would have to be a way.

It seems that the Bush plan, "No Child Left Behind", is nothing more than a big joke. There is no money available to implement innovative programs. Computers in most schools, are old run down, no modern software, etc. In fact there is no money available just to run a basic "no technology" type of education. It seems that there are millions put into "testing" the kids, revising tests, etc., which to me seems to be a pretty useless joke.

Now the problem with discipline. There need to be some very tough measures implemented for those students who choose not to learn. Maybe there needs to be some kind of alternative eduction programs, that will just teach the basic skills that would apply to the occupation those students are to follow. The problem of course here is money, and it is going to take it.

It seems to me that it is just going to take some arranging of priorities, and some gutsy decisions by the politicians, and some innovative programs, to turn schools around. Some say that throwing money at the problem is not going to solve it, well witholding money isn't either.

I certainly can see why there is a teacher shortage. And I don't blame the teachers one bit, as I can only imagine the workloads that they have, and the disrespect they have to put up with from both students, and parents. I would not encourage any young person to go into teaching with the way that it is now.

Until politicians get off of their duffs, and the public does not come forward with the money needed, etc., education will not improve, and there will always be a teacher shortage.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tmy
Public Schools usually have better sports teams.! Unless a private school goes out an recruits. Which is another advantage they have over public schools.

Private schools can surpass publics because they do not have the same restrictions. The main restriction being the fact that private schools only accept the students they want. Comparing public and private schools is apples and oranges. This is also why the school voucher idea is a joke. Making every school 'private' either means some kids don't get any education at all, or we just rename the same situation.

Imagine comparing Harvard to...Podunk Community College? The kids at Harvard do better than the ones at PCC. Is the solution to divert money from PCC , and give the students $3000 and try to send them to Harvard? First of, $3000 isn't going to pay for a month of school. Secondly, most of those kids won't get accepted to Harvard anyways. Third, now PCC is short on cash, and the students there are 'left behind' with a poorer education. Now, imagine running the school system like that, and tell me vouchers are a good plan.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
The main restriction being the fact that private schools only accept the students they want.*snip*

Yes, the evil private school only accepts students who want to learn. As opposed to what, forcing students who don't want to be in school into a class where they can disrupt others? I think it'll be a good idea to let those who don't want to be in school not be there. It'll bring some meaning back to having a High School Diploma.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Yes, the evil private school only accepts students who want to learn. As opposed to what, forcing students who don't want to be in school into a class where they can disrupt others? I think it'll be a good idea to let those who don't want to be in school not be there. It'll bring some meaning back to having a High School Diploma.
Brilliant Idea!! Just one minor point, do the children have to ask thier parents first before they choose to stop going to school? Can parents decide to remove thier children under your plan? I think everyone should have the oportunity to pass thier ignorance onto thier children....

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Yes, the evil private school only accepts students who want to learn. As opposed to what, forcing students who don't want to be in school into a class where they can disrupt others? I think it'll be a good idea to let those who don't want to be in school not be there. It'll bring some meaning back to having a High School Diploma. Ummm..did you actually read my post? Can you read? Or do you just spew spin automatically?
Private schools generally accept students that would be in the advanced placement courses in a public school. 'Wanting to learn' has nothing to do with it, and neither does being 'disruptive'. A hard-working 'B' student isn't going to make the cut at an exclusive school, while a student like I was could(naturally gifted, a bit lazy).

Weeding out all but the top 1% of students doesn't mean that the education at a private school is inherently better, since those students will excel anywhere.

[Zero]

Oh, and I never said private schools are 'evil'...but they have nothing to do with public school reform, unless you think that poor people and those below the top 5% simply shouldn't be educated.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by The Fool

Brilliant Idea!! Just one minor point, do the children have to ask thier parents first before they choose to stop going to school? Can parents decide to remove thier children under your plan? I think everyone should have the oportunity to pass thier ignorance onto thier children....

You misunderstood me. I meant that certain children keep being troublemakers -- get into fights, disrupt lectures in class, etc. -- and schools, at least in the US, are forced to keep those children because it's illegal for kids not to be in school.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm..did you actually read my post? Can you read? Or do you just spew spin automatically?
Private schools generally accept students that would be in the advanced placement courses in a public school. 'Wanting to learn' has nothing to do with it, and neither does being 'disruptive'. A hard-working 'B' student isn't going to make the cut at an exclusive school, while a student like I was could(naturally gifted, a bit lazy).

Weeding out all but the top 1% of students doesn't mean that the education at a private school is inherently better, since those students will excel anywhere.

Private schools does not mean exclusive schools; in fact they generally have the same curriculum as public schools. I would assume a hard-working 'B' student -- whatever the heck that is -- would fit in fine in a private school.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


You misunderstood me. I meant that certain children keep being troublemakers -- get into fights, disrupt lectures in class, etc. -- and schools, at least in the US, are forced to keep those children because it's illegal for kids not to be in school. Grrrrr....4AM....must kill and kill again...


Personally, I just worry about the whole 'slippery slope' thing. Once we say it is better to kick kids out left and right(which we do now to a limited degree, I'm sure) what's next? Get rid of hard-to-teach kids? I dunno, seems like you have to be careful about that sort of thing.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
Oh, and I never said private schools are 'evil'...but they have nothing to do with public school reform, unless you think that poor people and those below the top 5% simply shouldn't be educated.

You did mention voucher program, or do you think it doesn't apply to poor?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Private schools does not mean exclusive schools; in fact they generally have the same curriculum as public schools. I would assume a hard-working 'B' student -- whatever the heck that is -- would fit in fine in a private school. Plus, of course, there is the issue that there simply isn't enough room in private schools for everyone. Public schools mostly work, they just need a little tweaking, you know? A little less football, a little more education, for instance.:D

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Grammatron


You misunderstood me.


fair enough

I meant that certain children keep being troublemakers -- get into fights, disrupt lectures in class, etc. -- and schools, at least in the US, are forced to keep those children because it's illegal for kids not to be in school.
Thats right Its illegal, The alternative if they are uncontrollable is some form of detention in an institution. I don't doubt there are plenty that should be dealt with using extreme measures. Education of children is about them learning about life and society too. Society contains problem people and I think that everything possible should be done to avoid segregating the "normal" from those we brand "problem".

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


You did mention voucher program, or do you think it doesn't apply to poor? It doesn't help poor kids. It hurts them. Private schools cost more than any voucher I have heard proposed, which means that the public schools lose the middle class kids, and there is even less money to teach the poor kids. And, once more, there is no room for all these kids.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
Plus, of course, there is the issue that there simply isn't enough room in private schools for everyone. Public schools mostly work, they just need a little tweaking, you know? A little less football, a little more education, for instance.:D

What's wrong with football or other sports? IMO it's not different than having a music program; you are spending money on equipment and space that only a select group of people will use.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
It doesn't help poor kids. It hurts them. Private schools cost more than any voucher I have heard proposed, which means that the public schools lose the middle class kids, and there is even less money to teach the poor kids. And, once more, there is no room for all these kids.

The reason for this is basic economics. A cheap private school can't succeed because it would be competing against the government and there you just can't win because like you said, poor people can't afford private schools and would probably rather save that money for their child's college education or some such. If you switch to vouchers, suddenly there's no more competition with government and you will see small private schools with low costs show up. They most likely will concentrate on very specific areas of educations because they would only be able to support a small curriculum they would need something to attract their customers. For instance there could be a math school, English school, physic school, etc.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


What's wrong with football or other sports? IMO it's not different than having a music program; you are spending money on equipment and space that only a select group of people will use. Nah, football is for losers. Actually, my point is that schools should balance sports with education, some of them lean too heavily towards things like new team and band uniforms, and other 'school spirit' type things. More importantly, when I was in school there were like 30+ coaches on the staff, most of whom also did a very bad job teaching to justify their jobs. School sports should be for fun and character-building, but winning games shouldn't matter, compared to maybe hiring some actual effective teachers.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


The reason for this is basic economics. A cheap private school can't succeed because it would be competing against the government and there you just can't win because like you said, poor people can't afford private schools and would probably rather save that money for their child's college education or some such. If you switch to vouchers, suddenly there's no more competition with government and you will see small private schools with low costs show up. They most likely will concentrate on very specific areas of educations because they would only be able to support a small curriculum they would need something to attract their customers. For instance there could be a math school, English school, physic school, etc.

Sounds nice, I honestly don't see it working. What I DO see is a bunch of lousy schools opening up(look at the charter school debacle in Texas, fer instance)
Really, public schools are the best option, we already know they work, so what's the problem? There are some great public schools that have tweaked teh system and had excellent results. Instead of wasting money on a voucher program that is doomed to fail, why not just invest in the programs we know work?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
Nah, football is for losers. Actually, my point is that schools should balance sports with education, some of them lean too heavily towards things like new team and band uniforms, and other 'school spirit' type things. More importantly, when I was in school there were like 30+ coaches on the staff, most of whom also did a very bad job teaching to justify their jobs. School sports should be for fun and character-building, but winning games shouldn't matter, compared to maybe hiring some actual effective teachers.

Come on man, of course winning games matter. True you will have a good time playing a game, but there's no greater satisfaction like winning except losing and then beating those you lost to. We had a small sports program in my school and did not 30+ coaches, so maybe there could be excessive spending but if schools were private you could just pick up and go to a school that better suited your intellectual or athletic needs :p

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero


Sounds nice, I honestly don't see it working. What I DO see is a bunch of lousy schools opening up(look at the charter school debacle in Texas, fer instance)
Really, public schools are the best option, we already know they work, so what's the problem? There are some great public schools that have tweaked teh system and had excellent results. Instead of wasting money on a voucher program that is doomed to fail, why not just invest in the programs we know work?

I'll compromise if you'll agree to get rid of teacher unions.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Come on man, of course winning games matter. True you will have a good time playing a game, but there's no greater satisfaction like winning except losing and then beating those you lost to. We had a small sports program in my school and did not 30+ coaches, so maybe there could be excessive spending but if schools were private you could just pick up and go to a school that better suited your intellectual or athletic needs :p I absolutely do not support the idea of an 'athletic school', and I was a 3-sport high school athlete. Further, you could do all these things with existing public schools....



I am always confused when I hear great(or even just ok) ideas about education, followed by the idea that it would only work in a private school. Where does that come from, besides from a misguided distrust in all government programs?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I'll compromise if you'll agree to get rid of teacher unions. Never!! Dump half the administrative staff, maybe...

The unions are fine, so long as they are willing to come to the table with the willingness to police their own, or accept oversight. I'd agree that there are too many teachers just hanging out in schools, and I don't support the idea that they can hide behind a union. Their fellow teachers should have the balls to force the lousy teachers out.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
Never!! Dump half the administrative staff, maybe...

The unions are fine, so long as they are willing to come to the table with the willingness to police their own, or accept oversight. I'd agree that there are too many teachers just hanging out in schools, and I don't support the idea that they can hide behind a union. Their fellow teachers should have the balls to force the lousy teachers out.

The main problem is they don't. Once they hit tenure they can get away with great many things, I've read plenty of reports of teachers who get caught doing what they shouldn't be and just get moved to a different school -- this solution kind of reminds of a catholic church...

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


The main problem is they don't. Once they hit tenure they can get away with great many things, I've read plenty of reports of teachers who get caught doing what they shouldn't be and just get moved to a different school -- this solution kind of reminds of a catholic church... Well, there's a perfect place to reform schools, and on the cheap to boot! Now, if you can give me a good preschool, school lunches, and afterschool programs that don't involve a ball, and I'm in!

(BTW, this is the most civil discussion I've had here all year...bravo to both of us!!)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, there's a perfect place to reform schools, and on the cheap to boot! Now, if you can give me a good preschool, school lunches, and afterschool programs that don't involve a ball, and I'm in!

(BTW, this is the most civil discussion I've had here all year...bravo to both of us!!)

I agree! Of course I could throw in an insult if you are feeling uncomfortable ;)

A reform would be good, I just don't know where you would start first, and the whole thing is FUBAR. California spent $50 billion (that's with a 'b') on schools 2002-2003 year. That's enough money to rebuild half of Iraq but apparently not enough to educate students in California at National Average level.