School makes kids stupid?

[Jeff Corey]

Message at http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/

[cbish]

**sigh!**
Again!?!

[Melendwyr]

I didn't know Fred Epstein had suffered a traumatic brain injury. How awful.

[jimlintott]

I watched this last night it was interesting. When they showed footage from inside a 'typical' classroom I saw some very bad behaviour. I could be wrong but I tend to place the blame for bad behaviour at the feet of the parents. The children whose parents are making the effort to find better schools are probably being raised to higher standards of behaviour and eagerness to learn. More willing students will make a school perform better. If teachers have to expend 75% of their effort just getting kids to sit down and shut up then there is little learning left.

Not once did Stossell consider that students who don't want to learn won't. If too many students don't want to learn then none of them can. Unfortunately, there will be some willing students who get caught up in this mess. I don't have any solutions but I do know that instilling a desire to learn and the discipline to behave appropriately is the job of parents.

[TobiasTheViking]

I watched this last night it was interesting. When they showed footage from inside a 'typical' classroom I saw some very bad behaviour. I could be wrong but I tend to place the blame for bad behaviour at the feet of the parents. The children whose parents are making the effort to find better schools are probably being raised to higher standards of behaviour and eagerness to learn. More willing students will make a school perform better. If teachers have to expend 75% of their effort just getting kids to sit down and shut up then there is little learning left.

Not once did Stossell consider that students who don't want to learn won't. If too many students don't want to learn then none of them can. Unfortunately, there will be some willing students who get caught up in this mess. I don't have any solutions but I do know that instilling a desire to learn and the discipline to behave appropriately is the job of parents.

Just drug the kids :D


Sincerely
Tobias
I am, of course, kidding.

[Renfield]

I watched this last night it was interesting. When they showed footage from inside a 'typical' classroom I saw some very bad behaviour. I could be wrong but I tend to place the blame for bad behaviour at the feet of the parents. The children whose parents are making the effort to find better schools are probably being raised to higher standards of behaviour and eagerness to learn. More willing students will make a school perform better. If teachers have to expend 75% of their effort just getting kids to sit down and shut up then there is little learning left.

Not once did Stossell consider that students who don't want to learn won't. If too many students don't want to learn then none of them can. Unfortunately, there will be some willing students who get caught up in this mess. I don't have any solutions but I do know that instilling a desire to learn and the discipline to behave appropriately is the job of parents.

I'm not a big Stossel fan. He seems to me like the Michael Moore of the right. But like Moore he sometimes makes a good point, even if he has a dishonest way of making the point.

Private schools would have a lot more freedom to innovate and improve themselves then public schools do. Its almost impossible to suspend a student these days unless they bring a gun or drugs to school or something equally agregious. Private schools wouldn't have that limitation. Those students who were causing problems in those clips would not last long at a private school.

And private schools have total freedom when it comes to how they teach. They aren't beholden to some school board, aren't forced to try every lame brained new teaching gimmick that comes along. No discovery learning. No "new" math. Not if what the teachers doing is affective.

There are definately some advantages there to a more privatized system.

[Melendwyr]

It would also mean that the 42% of Americans who reject evolution would be free to demand that it be removed from their children's science curricula.

[CFLarsen]

Duct tape.

[blue_eastcoast]

shocked, well not really...

[Eos of the Eons]

Canadians have no problems expelling students for behaviour. You don't need to have a gun or weapon to get expelled. They do just seem to think parents of disruptive kids don't care, and in some cases won't work them at first. Willing parents can work with the schools to help find out what is going on with their kid.

Some kids have legitimate problems and need an aid or other interventions. Some need extra attention in regards to disciplinary programs.

With this taken care of, then why are we still getting kids in high school that can't read. Why are they allowed to pass? On the program they had kids with parents or caregivers that did care, and had to intervene. These kids didn't have behavioral problems.

Stossel's main beef was the fact that parents don't have educational choices, and schools have a "monopoly". There's not much incentive to work with students, espcecially those that might be floundering for whatever reason, to increase achievement scores. He also found increased spending correlated with decreased achievement. He then looked at Belgium and other countries to compare educational systems where parents had more choices.

I found the show wasn't too bad.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It's quite shocking to see people who have been through the education system,Graduated highschool and gone to college still being as stupid as can be. In my experience simply going to school is not enough to make you smart. People can go all of the way to the 12th grade and have perfect grades and then go to a 4 year college and graduate and still come out extremly ignorant of extremly basic things such as math or science.
You've got college graduates who still don't have a clue about how evolution works and deny it. You've got college graduates who can't even do basic algebra equations. You've got college graduates who are stupid enough to believe in nonsense like psychics,homeopathy or God.

The problem is 1.They don't actually learn things correctly in school to begin with. Ignorant teachers rampant. 2.They don't ever actually continue to deal with the things they would learn in school. They don't continue to study outside of the classroom just to learn for the sake of learning. Learning about the basics of evolution a year in 10th grade biology won't do you any good if you never deal with it again. You'll simply forget what you learned and go back to denying it.

[Sushi]

When I was in elementary school - highschool, I found that a lot of kids just did not want to learn and were there because it was required by law. They cheated and only did work half-well. I wonder if the attitude of American teens is against education.

[Sushi]

It would also mean that the 42% of Americans who reject evolution would be free to demand that it be removed from their children's science curricula.

Perhaps, but the truly religious parents will "teach" kids the "controversy" on their own time.

[jimlintott]

Stossel's main beef was the fact that parents don't have educational choices, and schools have a "monopoly". There's not much incentive to work with students, espcecially those that might be floundering for whatever reason, to increase achievement scores. He also found increased spending correlated with decreased achievement. He then looked at Belgium and other countries to compare educational systems where parents had more choices.
Oh I quite agree with this and with most of what has been posted here. I just think that Mr. Stossell left out the students and parents in the equation. While everbody blames everyone else they don't realise that there is plenty of blame to go around. If each part, from government down to the student, would realise how they are failing the system and work to correct it, the public school system would work fine.

When a child is so disruptive they have to be expelled, somewhere along the line that child has been failed by someone. Society will have to pay a price for these kids at some point.

The public schools here in Canada don't seem to have these problems and are really quite good. What is the difference between the U.S. public schools and Canadian public schools? As far as I can tell the only difference is that Canadian schools are attended by Canadian students.

[Jorghnassen]

Basic Stossel journalism: find a problem, find a way to blame it on government, select an example where you can give the appearance of a solution based on "free market economics", and voilà, libertarian proselytism.

Of course, actually analyzing the complex issues of the identified problem and taking a comprehensive look "solutions" other people might have found doesn't give you good ratings. It's much easier to misrepresent the facts and tack on a memorable catchphrase.

Stossel's only good when dealing with claims of psychics helping police investigations...

jimlintott: There are many factors, such as the way public schools are funded (it appears more evenly spread in Canada, though you'll still find discrepancy between fancy suburban schools vs poor big city neighbourhood ones) and a whole slew of cultural factors. The US spends lots of money on "education" but you have to look at where the money goes. Administration and football related expenses appear to be often higher priorities than teachers and (good) books.

But, since both in Canada and the US, the decisions are made by politicians (influenced by self-serving lobbyists and ideologues fond of one-size-fits-all solutions) and apathetic electorate*, problems with public education rarely ever get solved.

*an editorialist (Pierre Foglia of La Presse) illustrated this nicely. Recently, he pointed how changes to the curriculum mandated by the government but decried by teachers go unnoticed by the population while when teachers decide to use pressure tactics (such as not having Halloween related activities for the kids) to get the government's attention, then parents complain that teachers don't treat/take care of their kids properly...

[Euromutt]

The public schools here in Canada don't seem to have these problems and are really quite good. What is the difference between the U.S. public schools and Canadian public schools? As far as I can tell the only difference is that Canadian schools are attended by Canadian students.I can't speak for Canadian schools, but Dutch public schools are overall pretty good as well, or were in my day, so I've been wondering about why that is. I think that much of the problem isn't so much that American public have a monopoly in general, but that each has a local monopoly. In the US, you're assigned to a specific public school depending on where you live. By contrast, in the Netherlands, you can attend any publicly funded school you like; if you want to go to a school on the opposite side of town, that's your lookout. So American public schools don't have to compete with each other, whereas Dutch ones do, and I think that's a big difference right there.

[bignickel]

It would also mean that the 42% of Americans who reject evolution would be free to demand that it be removed from their children's science curricula.

Holy cow. Good point.

But I would think that for a school to take 'vouchers', it would have to be accredited by the state. Any school that had a single ID/Creationism class should/would be deemed as 'unacceptable', and thus no vouchers could be used at it (not only because the government would be giving money to a religious institution, but also because such a school wouldn't meet basic science standards)

[RSLancastr]

I watched this last night it was interesting. When they showed footage from inside a 'typical' classroom I saw some very bad behaviour.They had given some students cameras, and had them film in classrooms.

My guess is the bad behavior was mostly people acting up because they were being filmed for TV.

[Eos of the Eons]

But, since both in Canada and the US, the decisions are made by politicians (influenced by self-serving lobbyists and ideologues fond of one-size-fits-all solutions) and apathetic electorate*, problems with public education rarely ever get solved.


There I have to disagree. In Canada we have done A LOT to educate the students with behavorial problems, and thus have solved many educational quandries. I don't see kids here in high school that can't read. We also have appear to have fewer incidents of kids bringing weapons to school.

What to do with kids who lashout, drive their desks around the class, and throw books when frustrated? Put them in a class with only 6 kids and two teachers, that's what. Not a "special ed" class, but a class where normal education curriculums are taught, and the kids get a lot more attention when they need it. Why? Because some kids are born ADHD, with Tourettes, and have anger management issues. My son had disruptive tics and threw fits (for example, when he couldn't find a word in a dictionary-he would become convinced his dictionary was the only one without the word and throw it across the room while yelling how that dictionary was different and therefore stupid, etc.).

These kids then get an education and don't grow up quite so angry with a world that is punishing them for not sitting quietly in class instead of helping them deal with their impulsiveness, anger, and different viewpoint on the world.

Of course, there is then the the problem of overdiagnosing kids with problems and trying to get them out of the classroom or put them on medications. It's a balancing act trying to determine who actually needs intervention vs. some kid who wants attention or whatever. As a parent with one child with a clear diagnosis of Tourettes, I can't help but wonder if they just want to automatically say that my other son does too at the slightest sign (when he may just be copying some things his brother does). So far my younger son is in a regular class and doing well academically, just with a few bumps (complaints of him drawing on desks, making fart noises, and not standing still in line ups).

For the most part, the school systems here are pretty great. We have a choice of two schools we can send one son to, and three for the other. Schools work with parents as much as possible to adddress problems, and offer choices from there.

[Jorghnassen]

I'm not saying there are necessarily major problems in the Canadian systems (as education is a provincial jurisdiction). As I understand it Alberta is doing quite well (though they have the resources to throw money at potential problems, in the sense that they don't need to sacrifice spending elsewhere if something arises), and Albertan students rank high, at least in math and sciences, compared to the rest of Canada (they're 1st, if memory serves) and much of the world. In my own province things aren't so great, and the implementation of curriculum reforms have actually led to lower rankings compared to the ROC and internationally (Quebec used to be 1st or 2nd in Canada in math and sciences like 12 years ago, now I think it's down to 7th or 8th place, but of course they don't publisize it much anymore). And the current government isn't cooperating with teachers or even trying to put some much needed money in education... Our only consolation is that the system still isn't as screwed as the American one, for now.

[jimlintott]

Our only consolation is that the system still isn't as screwed as the American one, for now.

This is what has me baffled. The two systems look virtually indentical to me. Are there some fundamental differences that I'm not seeing?

[Jorghnassen]

Go up in the thread. The funding and curriculum decisions are more decentralized in the US, and the priorities for spending are different (sports related spending is a big thing in the US), and I do believe American bureaucracy has a natural tendency to take a bigger share of the money pie than Canadian bureaucracy. I mean, the Canadian gun registry fiasco and sponsorship scandals are drops in a bucket compared to your usual US pork-barrel spending...

[jimlintott]

It has to be more than just squandering money. As was pointed out in the program many succesful schools are working on smaller budgets. Maybe they see more of that money. A weak curriculumn makes some sense but how much weaker is it really?

If it really is as simple as money and standards then it should be easy to fix. First step is just admit there is a problem. Someone might have to accept some blame.

[Jorghnassen]

How much weaker, I don't know, but I can give you one anecdote. In some places, students don't see negative numbers or fractions by the end of grade 7 (someone I know teaches at Lower Canada College, an independent school with a ~$12K tuition, had such a student in one of her 8th grade math class, that student wasn't dumb or anything, and probably went to private school in the US). I've known other Americans coming to study in Canada for university saying similar things (and in one case, saying US history courses are all lies made to foster patriotism, in fact that particular guy was saying the entire education system was geared towards making mindlessly patriotic American drones).

[TimmyBerry]

One has to admit that American public schools are one-sided, though. No world history till 8th grade, anyone?

[Eos of the Eons]

I don't know if money has much to do with Alberta schools. We've had teachers go on strike In the last few years due to low pay and large class sizes. We do seem to have some common sense folks on school boards though.

[Renfield]

Holy cow. Good point.

But I would think that for a school to take 'vouchers', it would have to be accredited by the state. Any school that had a single ID/Creationism class should/would be deemed as 'unacceptable', and thus no vouchers could be used at it (not only because the government would be giving money to a religious institution, but also because such a school wouldn't meet basic science standards)

No, i don't think so. At least where I live. Religious schools are part of the voucher program and can teach what they always have. They don't have to make any changes to their curriculum to take part.

[Art Vandelay]

It thought it was rather suspicious that Stossel never told us just what this test was that he was using to compare different countries. Isn't that an incredibly important piece of information? Was he just lazy, or is he hiding something? He acted like there was some sort of objective measure of academic achievement, which was ridiculous. He also implied that poor academic achievement is the same as being "stupid", which is... well, stupid.

And what's up with that woman who blames the schools for the fact that her 18 yo son can't read? Yeah, the schools should have taught him, but unless he is mentally retarded or something, he and his mother share at least some of the blame. What ever happened to personal responsibility?

It would also mean that the 42% of Americans who reject evolution would be free to demand that it be removed from their children's science curricula.42%? Cite?

[Euromutt]

One has to admit that American public schools are one-sided, though. No world history till 8th grade, anyone?Well, speaking as a product of the Dutch education system, until (the equivalent of) 7th grade, everything I learnt in history class pertained to some extent to the Netherlands; if it didn't involve the Netherlands in some way, we didn't learn it. The only coverage of the Roman empire was "life under Roman occupation," the only coverage of the England related to wars in the 17th century, the only coverage of Spain was the Eighty Years' War, and if most the royal family hadn't spent the second world war in exile in Canada and the Canadian 1st Army hadn't liberated most of the Netherlands in 1944-1945, Canada would never have gotten a look-in. And bear in mind, we're talking about a small country here.

[homer]

Can't say school ever made me anything . I left at 15 with no qualifications of any sort . I went back at age 39 -40 when I was ready to learn and moved on to the Open University a few years later .
I think education is wasted on the young anyway who find it not 'cool' to learn anything . Of course at age 16 you know everything anyway so why bother to pursue higher education .

[bignickel]

No, i don't think so. At least where I live. Religious schools are part of the voucher program and can teach what they always have. They don't have to make any changes to their curriculum to take part.

Ugh. That's pretty much why I used "should/would".

Well, so much for vouchers...

[Jorghnassen]

I don't know if money has much to do with Alberta schools. We've had teachers go on strike In the last few years due to low pay and large class sizes. We do seem to have some common sense folks on school boards though.

Money does make a difference:

What to do with kids who lashout, drive their desks around the class, and throw books when frustrated? Put them in a class with only 6 kids and two teachers, that's what. Not a "special ed" class, but a class where normal education curriculums are taught, and the kids get a lot more attention when they need it.


To be able to do this, you need a seperate classroom and 2 teachers (who might find their salary low nonetheless) for six kids. In many places that have endured budget constraints for a while, you simply don't have the room or personnel to do this. And common sense of the school board is limited by how much money they get from the government. When resources are scarce, they'll avoid having to tenure anyone as much as possible, reduce the teaching staff to a minimum, and even go as far as sending kids to less crowded schools, even if it's a long way from their neighborhood/town...

[Eos of the Eons]

Money does make a difference:


To be able to do this, you need a seperate classroom and 2 teachers (who might find their salary low nonetheless) for six kids. In many places that have endured budget constraints for a while, you simply don't have the room or personnel to do this. And common sense of the school board is limited by how much money they get from the government. When resources are scarce, they'll avoid having to tenure anyone as much as possible, reduce the teaching staff to a minimum, and even go as far as sending kids to less crowded schools, even if it's a long way from their neighborhood/town...

I am grateful the schools exist, even if space is limited. It will explain why other class sizes are larger, the largest in the country in fact. We've achieved a balance with the same or less money that other provinces have available to spend on Education.
Alberta, with the greatest amount of school choice as well as the highest international test scores, spends considerably less per pupil than do Ontario, Manitoba, Quebec or British Columbia. It also has one of the highest student/educator ratios in the country.
http://www.educationforum.org.nz/documents/private_education/EdInvest_canada.pdf

Post secondary education is a major beef here. It's very expensive, and no wonder why:

Amongst the provinces in 2002/03, government
expenditures on post-secondary education were
highest in Manitoba ($509), Quebec ($504),
Newfoundland ($480) and Saskatchewan ($472).
Expenditures were lowest in Ontario ($324) and
Alberta ($354).

http://www.caut.ca/en/publications/educationreview/educationreview6-1.pdf


It's sad a province that is viewed as having so much doesn't do more in the education area, especially since we have a shortage of skilled workers.

[Jorghnassen]

I am grateful the schools exist, even if space is limited. It will explain why other class sizes are larger, the largest in the country in fact. We've achieved a balance with the same or less money that other provinces have available to spend on Education.


And the moral of the story is: it's not how much money you spend, it's where it goes (or where it gets cut when the budget is reduced). It does appear Alberta has been wise on where to put its money in elementary and secondary school education (is their ministry of education run by actual teachers instead of lifelong politicians and pedagogues?).

[hgc]

Read this funny critique of John Stossel's performance at The Daily Howler. Shame on ABC News.

http://dailyhowler.com/dh011706.shtml

an exerpt:What does Stossel say in the passage we’ve quoted? He says he gave “parts of an international test” to these two groups of students—but he never says what the test was. In the same vein, he never gives us any way to judge who these two groups of kids really are. In the case of the American students, he says they attend an above-average school—but that, of course, doesn’t mean that the students themselves are above average. (Nor can we verify his claim about their school, since he never names it.) And how about the Belgian students? How average (or above-average) might they be? There is absolutely no way to know. Stossel says nothing about them or their school; they may be the brightest students in Belgium, attending that nation’s most selective school. In short, this episode is like a ludicrous parody of the way information is actually gained. It’s astounding to think that ABC News would even consider airing such nonsense. Indeed, if it’s “Stupid in America” you want, the names of this show’s producers—and its clowning correspondent—should go at the top of your list.

[Red Siegfried]

Maybe slightly off topic, but I'm going on a rant ...

Here we go again. I can't quote numbers on this, but I'm convinced the whole "America's schools are going to Hell in a handbasket" non-debate is just another instance what happens whenever it's a slow news day.

America has one of the best education systems in the world. Could it be better? Of course. How badly do we want it to be better? How many changes are we willing to make and how much money are we willing to spend to get results that will still cause some people to think are not up to their standards anyway? Is it worth it for what I believe would be very small gains anyway?

My real opinion on this isn't that America's schools are failing. If anything, I think maybe more parents are failing to impress upon their children the importance of learning than in the past. And I'm not even sure about that. Everyone likes to say that back in the good old days things were better than they are now. In most cases, it's just the opposite.

My point is arguing that America's schools are failing is about as useful as arguing that "Bush is a bad/good president" or "gays should/shouldn't be allowed to marry" or "taxes are too high/too low" or "we should/shouldn't ban smoking in some places." It's just another political football the talk radio types and the mainstream media both like to trot out whenever they're too lazy to come up with another more relevant topic.

So no, I just don't believe there is a significant problem with our schools in America. There always have been kids who didn't do well and there will continue to be. Thankfully, the number is relatively low.

Remember, half of all people are stupider than average.

[Art Vandelay]

Well, speaking as a product of the Dutch education system, until (the equivalent of) 7th grade, everything I learnt in history class pertained to some extent to the Netherlands; if it didn't involve the Netherlands in some way, we didn't learn it.Of course, you have had an interesting history. If it weren't for you guys, England might be a Catholic country. One third of the Irish flag refers to you.

Remember, half of all people are stupider than average.Median, not average.

[epepke]

Well, speaking as a product of the Dutch education system, until (the equivalent of) 7th grade, everything I learnt in history class pertained to some extent to the Netherlands; if it didn't involve the Netherlands in some way, we didn't learn it. The only coverage of the Roman empire was "life under Roman occupation," the only coverage of the England related to wars in the 17th century, the only coverage of Spain was the Eighty Years' War, and if most the royal family hadn't spent the second world war in exile in Canada and the Canadian 1st Army hadn't liberated most of the Netherlands in 1944-1945, Canada would never have gotten a look-in. And bear in mind, we're talking about a small country here.

Just for purposes of comparison, in New York City by 6th grade we had learned about the Boxer Rebellion and about Aztec, Inca, and Mayan pre-Columbian cultures. The courses weren't called history courses, though: they were called "social studies."

[Hindmost]

This is such a complex issue.

Stossel provided anecdotal evidence which really can’t translate into any conclusions. He certainly wanted the impression that freedom to choose is the only solution to improving schools in the USA. Logically then, our entire government is mired in a mediocrity monopoly.

I would be curious how other countries handle disruptive students. I have had some kids that have really challenged my patience. (It only takes one student to disrupt a class) It is not easy to remove a student from class or school and keep that student removed long-term. There are so many due process procedures. Removing such students does help raise class and school testing averages. I have noticed a strong correlation between student behavior and parent behavior—in general, the more intolerant the student, the more intolerant the parent.

I would have liked to see the test and why it was considered so difficult. I may have too many students happy to receive a C or a D, but I also have some great over-achievers that would love the challenge. It is the underachieving C or D students that are most frustrating—they may have great ability, but no ambition. What those students will achieve in the future is like balancing on knife edge--I just can't tell which way they will fall. And this is where I think we need to shift our culture to a strong emphasis on education. It would make underachieving student obsolete. Too many people don’t think education is really needed--particularly in math and science.

glenn:boxedin:

[Jorghnassen]

Ah, but the pedagogues decreed that you should put everyone in the same class, and that you shouldn't give academic lessons but let the kids discover everything, and that giving marks is bad for self-esteem, etc...

/disrupting kids are a problem, but the only way you can use to deal with them now is through medication...

[Red Siegfried]

Of course, you have had an interesting history. If it weren't for you guys, England might be a Catholic country. One third of the Irish flag refers to you.

Median, not average.

Congratulations for being the 10th smart*ss since I've started posting here to point out that a commonly used idiom is not technically correct. You've shown that you've taken basic statistics. Thanks for being pedantic. ;)

[blutoski]

I'm not a big Stossel fan. He seems to me like the Michael Moore of the right. But like Moore he sometimes makes a good point, even if he has a dishonest way of making the point.

Private schools would have a lot more freedom to innovate and improve themselves then public schools do. Its almost impossible to suspend a student these days unless they bring a gun or drugs to school or something equally agregious. Private schools wouldn't have that limitation. Those students who were causing problems in those clips would not last long at a private school.

And private schools have total freedom when it comes to how they teach. They aren't beholden to some school board, aren't forced to try every lame brained new teaching gimmick that comes along. No discovery learning. No "new" math. Not if what the teachers doing is affective.

There are definately some advantages there to a more privatized system.


Doubtful. Here's a phrase: "the customer is always right". The private school's customer base is the world's most powerful school board: not only are they not elected or qualified, but they're responding to personal investment to the tune of thousands of dollars. They vote just like a school board, except their votes are measured in dollars.

This is why teachers in the private system are much more stressed: their disciplinary options are very restricted. They can't expel a kid (they'd lose a customer). They can't document incidents (the school's salespitch is that kids will stop misbehaving, so they have to have paperwork to prove it).


Hold the students accountable, but understand that disciplinary problems begin and end with parents. That's why some schools are worse than others: the neighbourhoods have different family demographics. You can move teachers around from school to school, but the schools will perform the same. Moving kids from school to school makes little difference in their performance, unless it coincides with a change in parental involvement (and it often does).


Private schools vary widely. Here in the Lower Mainland, they range from poor to excellent. The worst I'm aware of is a basement operation with five students, a priest who thinks he's an expert in everything (1), and no tuition. The best is probably St. George's with hundreds of students and a very high entrance requirement. They turn away 80% of applicants. The parents are screened. Repeat: the parents are considered the best predictor of student success.


And this is not surprising. Consider my friend's role in Vancouver: she designed and obtained funding for a special education program for kids with behavioral problems. There are two streams: the ones with organic problems, such as ADD/ADHD, Tourette's, schizophrenia, &c, and a second stream for non-organic disciplinary problems. A pilot program showed excellent results, and it was opened up to five highschools, where 300 kids were identified as those who would benefit. Only one parent wanted their kid in the program, everybody else refused to accept that their kid needed help. The program was cancelled.


A hundred years ago when the education system was private, people thought going public would solve behavior problems. Now that it's public, people think privatization is the answer. The problem has always been that the kids learn behavior at home, and it's just getting worse.

I coach a swim team, and I have watched my proportion of attention and time dedicated to 'class management' increase from trivial to over 50% since the 1980s. I have gone from kicking out one kid per year to one kid per workout. I filed a police report against one in December, and the parents stand behind the kid (2). These statistics are typical for teams across Canada. I'm glad I'm not in soccer, because they've gone from 1 parent-parent assault per year in Canada to approximately twenty per weekend. The parents bring knives to the games, and think this means they're setting a good example.

The system is doing its best to work with the good parents and work against the bad parents. Unfortunately, these don't make good TV because these incidents are protected by ordinary confidentiality. Teachers would be fired on the spot if they went to the media with specific examples.



(1) Anecdote: my housemate was interviewed by this guy to take on the science curriculum and the challenge was to teach the three laws of thermodynamics in terms of the Trinity. My friend, who is a physics major, corrected the guy to tell him that there are four laws of thermodynamics, and the guy said he'd have to omit one from the program or the Trinity thing won't work. My friend turned down the offer.

(2) Their theory: I have an irrational grudge against the kid, so I snuck into his house, stole a knife from the kitchen, and planted it into his swim bag, then made up the story about threats. Nobody believes them, but if I were the kid, I'd interpret this as carte blanche.

[blutoski]

Congratulations for being the 10th smart*ss since I've started posting here to point out that a commonly used idiom is not technically correct. You've shown that you've taken basic statistics. Thanks for being pedantic. ;)


I'm going to get your six on this one. There are three types of 'average': mode, mean, and median. They could all be referred to as average. Also: in a large enough normalized sample, such as test scoring, the mean and the median usually coincide anyway.

[Eos of the Eons]

Only one parent wanted their kid in the program, everybody else refused to accept that their kid needed help. The program was cancelled.


That's downright disgusting. We have waiting lists to get into these programs where I live. I have to wonder what the heck was the "sales pitch" in Vancouver?

[Art Vandelay]

I'm going to get your six on this one. There are three types of 'average': mode, mean, and median. They could all be referred to as average. Also: in a large enough normalized sample, such as test scoring, the mean and the median usually coincide anyway.Yeah, and there are different types of means, like geometric and harmonic. But it's usually taken to be arithmetic, just as average usually means mean.

[blutoski]

That's downright disgusting. We have waiting lists to get into these programs where I live. I have to wonder what the heck was the "sales pitch" in Vancouver?

I think it's a mix: some are holding out for the programs their quack psychiatrists are pushing. eg: attachment therapy, hypnosis, sweat lodges... ain't gonna happen. There are some lawsuits where parents are trying to get quackery (vitamin therapy) introduced and publicly funded to treat their kids' ADHD, and they reject this program out of principle.

Others are offended that their 'perfect' kids were identified as problems. None should be surprised, since part of the criteria is that the kid must have had at least one police report filed, or three incidents that required parental involvement.



There *is* acceptance of a lot of special programs in Vancouver, just not this one which was targetted toward behavior. For example, dyslexic kids have a program, mentally challenged and autistic kids have an integrated program &c. That isn't controversial. This program was a new module, based on the existing framework.

It's for the 18-year-old who just walks into the classroom and locks herself in a cubpoard and has no program, unfortunately. Or the kid who cuts herself in class.

[Godmode]

It would also mean that the 42% of Americans who reject evolution would be free to demand that it be removed from their children's science curricula.
What a truly frightening thought.

[Eos of the Eons]

I think it's a mix: some are holding out for the programs their quack psychiatrists are pushing. eg: attachment therapy, hypnosis, sweat lodges... ain't gonna happen. There are some lawsuits where parents are trying to get quackery (vitamin therapy) introduced and publicly funded to treat their kids' ADHD, and they reject this program out of principle.

Others are offended that their 'perfect' kids were identified as problems. None should be surprised, since part of the criteria is that the kid must have had at least one police report filed, or three incidents that required parental involvement.



There *is* acceptance of a lot of special programs in Vancouver, just not this one which was targetted toward behavior. For example, dyslexic kids have a program, mentally challenged and autistic kids have an integrated program &c. That isn't controversial. This program was a new module, based on the existing framework.

It's for the 18-year-old who just walks into the classroom and locks herself in a cubpoard and has no program, unfortunately. Or the kid who cuts herself in class.

My son was immediately put into a program that specifically targetted behaviour because of his Tourrettes and ADHD diagnosis. There were no other programs that addressed his problems with impulsiveness, anger, frustrations, and inability to show empathy towards others, or even acknowledge their need for personal space, etc. Nothing else addresses what these kids need as far as time to learn at their pace, time to deal with outbursts during the day, a space to go and chill if need, etc. There are IPPs that address strengths and areas where there is needed improvement, and goals set with realistic ways to reach the goals.

It's scary there is no program in Vancouver. Is that the case? Parents are going to waste time and money and quackery, but that is going to drive the kids up the wall, ouch.

Heck, these programs are 99% non-drug interventions. A lot of kids are taking no meds if the parents feel they have to go "all natural". But at least the kids are in small classes getting individual attention. They learn impulse control, anger management, how to take responsibility for their actions, and how to make goals for when they are done high school. They even learn social skills and get issues like depression addressed if they need it.

It's downright disheartening if Vancouver, of all places, has NO program to address behaviour. We pretty much had no choice with my son, since he disrupted classes so much, if not by trying to drive his desk around, then by his noisy tics.

Might I say, it's no wonder gangs are notoriously troublesome in that area?

[blutoski]

It's downright disheartening if Vancouver, of all places, has NO program to address behaviour. We pretty much had no choice with my son, since he disrupted classes so much, if not by trying to drive his desk around, then by his noisy tics.

You asked if there were "no" programs in Vancouver (be mindful that Vancouver school district is actually a relatively small district in the Lower Mainland, which has dozens of school districts)

As for ADHD/Tourettes, these are organic illnesses, not personality disorders. There is a program framework for these in Vancouver, and there are even respected standards against which the programs must be held accountable. It's the purely behavioral problems, mostly personality disorders, that are at risk.


Might I say, it's no wonder gangs are notoriously troublesome in that area?

Gangs are a different problem - that's criminal behavior, and the school district works with the police to counter that. A school district doesn't really have the skillset or scope to develop programs for this type of problem.

[Eos of the Eons]

As for ADHD/Tourettes, these are organic illnesses, not personality disorders.

Kids with ADHD/Tourettes, etc. have behavorial problems. They are not "personality disorders", but what are "personality disorders"?.

There are kids with behavioral problems that don't have "organic illnesses", and these kids are in the same programs with the kids here that do have organic illnesses because the behavioral problems need to be addressed in similar ways. They all respond to the various programs and treatments available, but particularly to the small class sizes and individual attention they get.

[blutoski]

Kids with ADHD/Tourettes, etc. have behavorial problems. They are not "personality disorders", but what are "personality disorders"?.

The ones described as such in the DSM-IV. Pretty much anything with "personality disorder" in its title. Examples are narcissism, histrionic, OCPD, avoidant, &c.



There are kids with behavioral problems that don't have "organic illnesses", and these kids are in the same programs with the kids here that do have organic illnesses because the behavioral problems need to be addressed in similar ways. They all respond to the various programs and treatments available, but particularly to the small class sizes and individual attention they get.

I would say that that's only sometimes true, and this was the point of the proposed program. The argument is that they may benefit from a specialised program.

I didn't produce the example with the intention of provoking an argument. This thread is not a debate about a cancelled Vancouver school district initiative. My point is that support is very dependent on parental involvement, and I'm going to leave it at that.

[Zbu]

In my experience in the American Public School System, I've found that it's a lack of power the teachers have that really foul things up. Kids like to run rampant in the classrooms out of some psychological need and the teachers are powerless to stop them: if a teacher takes pains to correct a child's behavior, they get the riot act from the superintendent and the always-outraged parents who dish out abuse to the usually-underpaid teacher who's not under tenure and who probably gets frustated with the system and just gives up. The same rule applies to putting the kids to the next grade. Since it's expected, it takes a lot for a kid not to go to the next grade or otherwise the parents and the school board come in as a deus ex machina to save the child's hide, outside of the child's ability. As a teacher, how are you supposed to deal with this childish mentality of not being able to control your class under threat of termination? And all it teaches the child is that if you pressure your parents, they'll make you get your way at a detrimental cost to you later down the road.

Plus the disruptive behavior continues onto high school. In my grade alone there were a bunch of wiseasses who would disrupt because they could and it wasn't until they started failing classes and going into strict remedial studies that I finally started learning something. In this aspect, the only thing Americans learn at schools is how to con someone and avoid doing any actual work. Many of my former high school peers are now working at menial jobs and wasting their lives away, simply because at some point they weren't told to shut up and learn something. While I could blame them for not taking responsibility for their own lives, maybe the right teacher at the right time could have changed that to some extent. We'll never know.

Another issue I had was with the work given. Or rather, the LACK of work given. I'm an avid reader and in high school I read plenty of books on my own. Classwise, however, I read about four. Reading a book was considered this very big deal that some people could not get into and it was accepted for some reason. Why? I haven't a clue. Apparently reading a fiction book and doing a simple report on what it contained--nothing really stretching as deciding on a theme or such--is considered hard work. Huh? This is unexcusable and stinks of laziness. Reading one book over the course of a whole school year in high school just boggles my mind now. It's such a low standard. Surely our kids need to be challenged more. It seems that we're holding down our kids with the fear of low expectations. It's just shocking that we don't expect more from our kids when they're at their most vulnerable educationally.

So, I don't see it wholly as a money issue. I just think we tend not to think that highly of our children as responsible amongst other issues. Many things are to blame, but teachers aren't really that much a part of it.

[Hindmost]

In my experience in the American Public School System, I've found that it's a lack of power the teachers have that really foul things up. ......

So, I don't see it wholly as a money issue. I just think we tend not to think that highly of our children as responsible amongst other issues. Many things are to blame, but teachers aren't really that much a part of it.

You make a lot of good points...a fair amount of the lack of power of teachers is due to the high density of lawyers.

glenn:boxedin: I refuse to dumb-down my classes.

[Zbu]

Thanks. And good for you not dumbing down your classes. I wish more teachers would take the time to stand up for their principles instead of just letting the parents keep their delusions about their little monster being a good student just because it makes their life so much easier.

[Ceritus]

I'm not a big Stossel fan. He seems to me like the Michael Moore of the right. But like Moore he sometimes makes a good point, even if he has a dishonest way of making the point.

Private schools would have a lot more freedom to innovate and improve themselves then public schools do. Its almost impossible to suspend a student these days unless they bring a gun or drugs to school or something equally agregious. Private schools wouldn't have that limitation. Those students who were causing problems in those clips would not last long at a private school.

And private schools have total freedom when it comes to how they teach. They aren't beholden to some school board, aren't forced to try every lame brained new teaching gimmick that comes along. No discovery learning. No "new" math. Not if what the teachers doing is affective.

There are definately some advantages there to a more privatized system.


Very true. I was kicked out of 3 private highschools. I had the desire to learn but I just liked to do it standing persay,

[Hindmost]

Very true. I was kicked out of 3 private highschools.

Were you sent back to public school?---we usually pick up students that are sent packing. Most of the time I can refocus a student that has been reasigned, but not always...you can lead a horse to water, but shoving their head under enough times to force them to drink drowns the horse and can be exhausting.

glenn:boxedin:

[Ceritus]

Yes for my last year of highschool. All in all I graduated with like a 2.1 or so but I never really wanted to learn until I was about 19. Not because of fear of not getting a good job or feeling stupid. I just woke up one day wondering why it took light about 8 min to get here from the sun and then more questions ensued after that and eventually I obtained my degree in meteorology and am currently working on a 2nd degree in science and tech management from devry.

I just can't stop reading now its silly where as when I was 16 I utterly hated books, science and math.

[TimmyBerry]

(I'm kinda biased in this matter, having been raised by a greatgrandmother, who used to be one hellishly tough Russian teacher in her earlier years. And who was married to a history teacher... but that's another story)

In my honest opinion, it's up to the parents to instill the love for learning (and books) into their kids. Education of the younger generation (and cost) is definitely a reason for extended family to live with the basic mom/pop unit. It's a piety that it is not all that common in the States.
Aversion to books in particular might be attributed to the widespread of television/video games, stuff that makes it hard for people to focus on something as "boring" as reading on their free time. (Especially if they were introduced to books AFTER being introduced to the TV set.) In fact, I'll go as far as saying that once a person finds an appreciation for reading, with an occasional book thrown at them by a knowing relative, they can pretty much teach themselves everything else they need to know.

Grades 8 through 12 should be like college, imo - you come in and learn for the sake of learning, emphasizing on subjects that you are interested in. Speaking from personal observation/experience, such an environment (with a 0-tolerance for drugs, alcohol and sex on 'campus') not only formed better in-school community, but quickly weeded out people who were uninterested in furthering their education.

Note to self:
Need to homeschool kids for the first decade of their lives, if I'll ever have any. :p

[Zbu]

In my honest opinion, it's up to the parents to instill the love for learning (and books) into their kids. Education of the younger generation (and cost) is definitely a reason for extended family to live with the basic mom/pop unit. It's a piety that it is not all that common in the States.
Aversion to books in particular might be attributed to the widespread of television/video games, stuff that makes it hard for people to focus on something as "boring" as reading on their free time. (Especially if they were introduced to books AFTER being introduced to the TV set.) In fact, I'll go as far as saying that once a person finds an appreciation for reading, with an occasional book thrown at them by a knowing relative, they can pretty much teach themselves everything else they need to know.

I agree: learning should be encourage by parents. I know mine read to me every night and then took me to the library and let me get books. And thanks to that whenever I wasn't in class I would still read and such. It's the best way to go, honestly.

Grades 8 through 12 should be like college, imo - you come in and learn for the sake of learning, emphasizing on subjects that you are interested in. Speaking from personal observation/experience, such an environment (with a 0-tolerance for drugs, alcohol and sex on 'campus') not only formed better in-school community, but quickly weeded out people who were uninterested in furthering their education.

I'd agree but for a slightly different reason: the last four years of any American education has this mythical status to it which is detrimental to learning. It's supposedly the 'best years of your life' according to parents in which their child goes through the 'good times' of just exploring their boundaries and all other stuff that is mere nostagia for people no longer in their teens. Now while being young is great in some respects, it fosters the idea that the only purpose of high school is to socialize. This is wrong: in many cases high school is a pretty good indicator about your future and spending all that time doing nothing but making floats and ignoring any learning is just pointless. It's possible to do both, but the focus in this tradition is more to concentrate on just having fun and not doing anything to really deserve it. It's not fair to the people involved as once they're out of those four years, all they do is go to work and start the slow crawl to a middle life crisis in which they wonder what happened to their lives, and then start a romanticized nostagia in which the circle starts itself over again. Or worse, they believe college is just an extension of that and then blow a few thousands of dollars by going to college merely to party and going into debt with the mistaken belief that either college is too hard for the 'common man' or too hard for them, which is a great tragedy since many people are able to go through college if they know and comprehend what it really entails.

[Hindmost]

Yes for my last year of highschool. All in all I graduated with like a 2.1 or so but I never really wanted to learn until I was about 19. Not because of fear of not getting a good job or feeling stupid. I just woke up one day wondering why it took light about 8 min to get here from the sun and then more questions ensued after that and eventually I obtained my degree in meteorology and am currently working on a 2nd degree in science and tech management from devry.

I just can't stop reading now its silly where as when I was 16 I utterly hated books, science and math.

Glad to hear everything worked out. In the teaching industry, we would say you turned into a "life-long" learner. Always a goal. It is also why teachers really can't tell with absolute certainty if a student is going to succeed or not. You were on what I would call the "knife edge" and you fell to the good side.

glenn:boxedin:

[AmyWilson]

Science makes kids stupid. :)

It's true. :)

Go God and Christanity.

[Hindmost]

Science makes kids stupid. :)

It's true. :)

Go God and Christanity.

If you really don't like science, stop using everything in your life that was made by scientists and engineers. For starters: Turn off your COMPUTER first, then your electricity. Give away your car. And never take any medication and never visit a doctor.

Have fun

glenn:rolleyes: