How would you "reform" education?

Progressives should tackle a challenge all but ignored by Bush: strengthening the quality of teachers. As the Education Trust notes, good teachers are the single most important factor in good schools--affecting student achievement more than race, poverty, or parental education. Three years of good teachers can lift students' scores by 50 percentile points compared with three years of lousy teachers, according to researcher William Sanders. But, as talented women have moved on to other professions, teacher quality has declined. Education majors score below national averages on standardized tests. Most schools do little to draw or keep more talented teachers: Onerous hiring procedures discourage able candidates, while the lockstep pay scale rewards seniority and accumulated degrees, not success. Schools offer $80,000 salaries to middle-aged and mediocre gym teachers while losing bright young chemistry teachers who make only $40,000. Today, a middling performer can get a routine grant of tenure after three years, then become virtually impossible to remove for three decades. One North Carolina study showed that school superintendents would have liked to remove about one in 25 tenured teachers per year, but actually removed fewer than one in 600. Teacher quality is lowest in the poorest schools, where good teachers are needed most. Students at high-poverty schools are nearly twice as likely to be taught by teachers who lack even a minor in the relevant subject.

Strengthening teaching requires changes to the pay system and school culture that abet mediocrity. Standing alone, the usual liberal solution--across-the-board pay hikes--perpetuates the maldistribution of good teachers and reinforces the irrelevance of achievement. High-poverty schools need to attract more teachers with bonuses, and all schools need to attract better teachers with the promise of higher earnings for better results. Teachers reasonably worry about arbitrary merit bonuses, but performance pay need not be arbitrary. Sanders and others are developing methods to measure each teacher's contribution, accounting for students' starting points and their expected progress. Together with peer and principal reviews, these methods promise at least as rich a basis for evaluation as those available in other professions where performance pay is the norm.

While schools need better pay to attract good teachers, they also need better systems to remove bad ones. Today dismissal can take years, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and require proof of outrageous conduct. That is unfair to students and good teachers who want peers who work as hard as they do. Faculty deserve protection against dismissals based on politics or personal animus, but schools should extend the periods needed to get tenure and streamline procedures so dismissals are fair but fast. Finally, talented young people seeking to enter teaching should not be required to get education degrees with no proven link to classroom performance.

Another quote from Gordon:

Progressives remain uncomfortable with market pressures in education. They prefer to talk about teachers as saints who never worry about money. Most teachers are great people, and many perform heroically in impossible circumstances. But it is no insult to say that teachers are also human beings who vary in talent, who respond to incentives, and who need to be accountable like other professionals. At a time when capitalism has enhanced productivity around the world, there is something sad about liberals stopping performance pressure from improving the public institutions they hold dear.

I am not a teacher because of the pay. But there's no way I'd do it if I got paid what the teachers a mile north of me (Detroit) are paid.

-- More and stronger charter schools -- there are not enough different models of education out there, and there need to be ways to allow innovation and flexibility. School choice is a good idea, but you have to do it right.

-- Change licensing requirements for middle and high schools so that people with personal and professional expertise in the subject areas can actually teach them if they're interested. Then create econimic/tax incentives for employers to let their employees go teach for a year or two if they're interested. I mean imagine a country where everyone who's been in some profession for 15 or 20 years spent at least 2 of those years teaching.

-- Find some way to better equalize funding and resources. The local property tax model has created enormous inequities.

And that's just for a start.

It's all about property taxes. People in affluent suburbs can afford to pay exorbitant fees for their local school districts. Teachers max out in the upper double figures in places like Long Island and the North Shore of Chicago, whereas in the inner cities, education funding depends in stingy-ass government allotments. But close your eyes, and plug your ears, and repeat, "There is no class system in the US, there is no class system in the US, there is no class system in the US. . . ."

I think I just had an aneurysm.

I think changing licensing requirements could have a more direct impact in a lot of ways than just paying an extra 10 or 20K per year per teacher.

What about what is taught,

I would like to see a move away from standardized testing which leads to nothing but rote memorization. Basically I think we're heading completely in the wrong direction due to financial interests and political influence of textbook and test-writing corporations.

or the parents' role in education,

This is one of the biggest problems, but what can you do about it? It's a larger problem with society, not the school's fault. Presumably smaller class sizes and more personal attention to each student might help this out a bit. I also think that if our society as a whole valued education more highly (by putting more money into it and showing that it's a financial priority) we might see improved attitudes from parents. But I think all of the pro-privatization, anti-teacher, anti-union, negative doom and gloom propaganda has driven a lot of parents away into apathy because they think it's a lost cause.

BTW, my comments obviously apply to the US only.

OT - if throwing someone in a gym locker was considered (as it should be) aggravated assault and kidnapping, we'd see some big changes in classroom behavior.

Another issue tied to money is how cool it is to act dumber than you are. I remember meeting a dude from France over here studying Shakespeare at Iowa, where I did my undergrad. We got to talking about high school. He told me that not only was there no stigma attached to achievement where he'd been, but that kids all across the social spectrum valued competing for the best grades possible. An attitude like that is social suicide in the States, at least around where I'm from, and adolescents simply should not be expected to have the character to override prevailing prejudices against trying hard in school and "being smart." Pay teachers more, and maybe the motivated kids would have in-class role models, standing at chalk boards, demonstrating day in and out the real material rewards of doing homework.

There are many problems with this idea though. Why shouldn't local areas be given control over their curriculum? It's a much easier battle to fight if you're trying to stop say, anti-evolution absurdity in local areas in the South than it is to fight insanity at the Federal level.

This is of course a flaw with my desire to see more federal funding for education. Along with the funding would come a desire for more control. I think it's clear that the idea of "standards" that would be put in place would focus entirely on standardized testing. This is already happening where you have teachers doing nothing but drilling students, and preparing them for these multiple choice tests just so they can get a bonus or see more funding for their classroom.

OTM. Gordon also suggests this.

I agree that it would be a good idea to raise teacher pay in general, but I think that politically that will be a tough sell without some new reforms to show that we are not just throwing money at the problem. Voters want to see that there money is being well spent.

Ha, apparently some of it wasn't, in the case of my own education.

The kids are not stupid; the system has simply failed them.

My point? Before we start talking about giving teachers raises, let's make sure we graduate smarter TEACHERS. Some friends who teach elementary and high school are barely smarter than their students (they got into teaching because 'they love children," etc.).

So you think this is a problem with the teachers rather than the environment? Do you think if you took an ideal teacher and placed him in a classroom with 40 students and the pressure to reach certain goals on standardized tests your college freshmen would coming in any smarter? Or do you think better results might come from those same mediocre teachers if they were given a class of only 20 students, all of the proper materials they need, and the freedom to teach the students about John Adams or WWII in the way they see fit?

that said, i think that goes hand in hand with pay raises.

- Public funding of extra-curricular sports at the secondary level is way out of hand, and frankly I'm a little uncomfortable with the (dwindling) support of extra-curricular arts as well.

- smaller schools and multiple choices within a district. students should be able to attend any school supported by their tax dollars.

- MUCH less federal control systemwide

- end tenure

- year round calendar

- paying teachers more is a nice idea but it would have to be a significant amount more before it's going to have measureable effect on performance. in my state, public school teachers make more than the private school teachers and student performance is much better in private schools. And that's of course because the biggest determinant in student performance is the home. Although there are significant problems in the system, the much bigger problem is the class of people in my area who simply do not value education. That isn't the teacher's fault, that isn't my fault, and it isn't your fault. But unfortunately it's our problem.

(1) School districts with no money
(2) Obsession with standardized testing
(3) Poorly educated teachers
(4) Lousy wages

it isn't always the case, but I think that you're going against too much history and personal experience--a parent who got nothing out of school, who knows nobody who got anything out of school, who sees the school system as something set up for the middle- and upper-classes' benefit only, is not likely to treat school as much more than daycare for his/her kid. I agree that people will value something that they pay for more than something they get for free, but that's not the main part of the problem.

1. Make it easier for people who are educated in a particular subject, rather than in education, to get certification to teach in public schools. I've had plenty of math teachers who couldn't answer my questions in class, but hey, I suppose they were good at keeping order in a classroom or something. A lot of the really brilliant people I know who are excited about their subjects end up teaching in private schools due to lack of certification in education. I don't know much in detail about teacher certification but I'm a little doubtful that it's so valuable that it should keep people who are otherwise qualified out of teaching in high schools. Also, having someone teach who also has the qualifications to work in a number of other careers based ont he subject might make the subject actually seem more relevant.

2. Avoid tracking kids into "ability levels" at early ages! Maybe in high school it's okay, although I really think by that point kids will track themselves anyway (like by taking lots of science instead of home ec electives, or vice versa). But when you separate kids into "smart," "average", and "dumb" as early as elementary school I think that does a disservice to the kids in the average and dumb groups.

3. (This is dependent on individuals and policies within particular schools, not national reform) To help avoid the concerns about classes with mixed ability #2 might bring up, there need to be fewer bureaucratic hurdles to individualizing classes. For instance, advanced kids should be able to make up interesting extra credit projects, take independent studies, or take classes with other grades instead of being told "what if everyone in the jr class wanted to take a senior only class?!" And kids with IEPs for disabilities should be given the resources to follow them (as they are legally mandated), which is partially an issue of funding but partially an issue of administrations just not being willing to try new things.

4. Don OTM about ending tenure - why do elementary school music teachers need their academic freedom protected?

(massive xpost)

A couple of years ago, when I was a counsellor for graduating students at a high school, I met with a group of university professors in following up on our graduates' progress. They all complained at the level of (many of) the students that they were getting out of high school. I replied that I was often shocked about who they accept into their program, knowing their marks in high school. Unfortunately, the expansion of the university system has led to two specific problems;

1/ More first year seats to fill - the profs wanna keep their jobs, don't they?

2/ Because of more students getting accepted into university, most parents have blinkers on and only envision their children going to university. So, often, the bulk of the energy the parents expend is fighting for marks for their children in high school. I will never be anything less than shocked as to how many times parents demand to see the principal because their little Ken or Barbie is getting shafted by Mrs. Crabtree. (This is all associated with the notion that most people believe that a school is somewhere that you go and prove yourself at, and not to gain skills and knowledge.)

(again, I'm in Canada)

May humanity be happy when the last bureaucrat is hung with the guts of the last capitalist,
Situationists Internationale

I never purported it to be; it's your reflexive negative reaction Rasheed against any sort of market application to the public education system. And is intellectual rigor now a component of reform or improving the system? Because that's going to shoot down every "improve the funding" solution that's been pitched in the past 20 years or more. Finally, if some sort of incentive-based application isn't going to work on a consumer (i.e. student) level, then how can it be argued successfully ("intellectually rigorously") on any other level (i.e. teacher/school district/federal funding)? Not to mention the fact that if you read my original post, I pretty much disclaim my assertion as being unrealistic.

I agree that people will value something that they pay for more than something they get for free, but that's not the main part of the problem.

And of course, I didn't assert that it was either. But I really don't see any reason to ignore this component entirely, as if it's irrelevant.

elimnate sats.

me--
1-6 public
7-8 private
9--instution
10-12 public

I have a reflexive negative reaction to market applications for public education because I don't accept the notion that basic primary and secondary public education is a "market." And I think your disclaiming of this sort of Tech Central Station-style thought experiment displays that at the basest level you don't really think it's a market, either.

And is intellectual rigor now a component of reform or improving the system?

If it's not, it should be. And if that means shooting down every "improve the funding" solution that's been pitched in the past 20 years or more then so much the better. They've gotten us nowhere to this point, have they?

It's not that I don't think it's a market Rasheed. It's that I think that it's a closed market very poorly managed by the government. And the past five decades have turned the public education system into a cultural vaccuum, a place where market forces are purposely restricted, contested, and purged. Throughout post-secondary education, where there is a lack of compulsory participation and a system far more open to competition, the free market is at least acknowledged if far from perfect. Federal grant money--a voucher system in any other name--is pervasive at all levels of post-secondary education and completely accepted by the public (as well as private) education sector. Why is it so unacceptable at lower levels of education? Or is the admission and acceptance of free market enterprise at the post-secondary level just another form of Tech-Station brainwashing?

If you don't see primary and secondary education as a market, then how do you explain demand for alternatives to the public education system (private schools, charter schools, home schools, etc.)

Also I think teaching ethics and social behavior may be as important as teaching math and language. But it's harder to do that.

"The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be ignited." Plutarch

When the rubber of federally subsidized primary and secondary school choice meets the road of already intolerably bloated federal budget deficits, well, what then? I have a pretty good idea of where libertarians and conservatives would come down in the debate on reducing governmental red ink vs. continuing to subsidize K-through-B.A. "markets," and it ain't on the latter.

And if we want to talk about markets in education, then let's talk about asymmetric information.

Market competition at the school level introduces a lot of problems: Are all the schools going to cost the same? If not, then how will we ensure that the system is fair? Do we want to give parents an option to spend less on their children's education? Don't we as a society have an interest in having everyone receive a good education? What about thinly populated areas where it doesn't make sense to have more than one school within driving distance? Are we going to lose the social benefits of having a consistent socialization environment for kids?

If the market is functioning properly then cost would follow demand. Each market participant would have the same information about the present value and potential return of all market options, and make their selection accordingly. Demand would rise for better-performing schools, and since the supply of available slots in that school would be limited (not just because of number of chairs, but also because of the quality of the faculty, spending per student on school resources, etc.), the cost of attending the high-demand schools would also rise. But then, seeing a demand for high-quality learning institutions, other school managers would then presumably target the high-price markets, meeting the growing demand and then presumably driving costs down in the interim. However, the imperatives of market competition being what they are, the original education sectoral leaders would have to find some way to increase returns for their shareholders/students, lest they be abandoned as students hunt for value elsewhere. Presumably this process would continue in perpetuity, or until each and every school was a shining citadel (this would be the bubble phase).

Utopias sure are nice!

But we're stuck with a monopoly to a large degree and I think most citizens are happy with this; despite the obvious shortcomings, citizens think free education through 12th grade is a proper function of government. Rasheed's assessment of market forces is already true to some extent in that single-dweller property demand is largely related to the quality of the school system and pricing consistently demonstrates this.

My proposals for reforming education upthread--hey Rasheed, I'd be interested in seeing yours--don't include anything specific with regards to market-based solutions and I think I was clear why. But again, I wonder why anyone would be so closed minded that, given that there are obvious markets at work, why we shouldn't even consider addressing those markets in any way shape or form. Because in the long run, those markets will continue react to whatever changes we might implement elsewhere.

So what if we provide some sort of bulwark against market risk for those weakest market participants? Well, then you don't really have a market-based solution any more at all, do you? And then we're right back at square one, wondering about the troubling socioeconomic variance in the quality of public education.

Inasmuch as we have gradiations of market participants, that's something that exceeds the boundaries of even government control. We don't even have mandatory participation after a certain age. Serving the weakest market participants is a necessity of our system, but when many of those participants are compulsary, how do we motivate those students to engage? Is there a carrot to hold out or are there cultural barriers that the government cannot overcome without compulsory action? If the latter is the case, then what other options are there to change the culture? If the government doesn't have solutions, then who does?

No, no, no, a thousand times, no. Education has relationships with markets, like the above-cited example of real estate, but public education itself, in my view, is not a some kind of market. Public education attempts to address the failure of markets to provide an education for all citizens of the republic. If you open public schools to all sorts of pseudoeconomic engineering, you're dangerously subverting that original mission.

I don't accept the totalizing model that says that everything under the sun can be reduced to a package of incentives and market relationships. Apparently we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement on that score. So be it.

Commentary (U.S.)
Free to Choose
By MILTON FRIEDMAN

Little did I know when I published an article in 1955 on "The Role of
Government in Education" that it would lead to my becoming an activist
for a major reform in the organization of schooling, and indeed that
my wife and I would be led to establish a foundation to promote
parental choice. The original article was not a reaction to a
perceived deficiency in schooling. The quality of schooling in the
United States then was far better than it is now, and both my wife and
I were satisfied with the public schools we had attended. My interest
was in the philosophy of a free society. Education was the area that I
happened to write on early. I then went on to consider other areas as
well. The end result was "Capitalism and Freedom," published seven
years later with the education article as one chapter.

With respect to education, I pointed out that government was playing
three major roles: (1) legislating compulsory schooling, (2) financing
schooling, (3) administering schools. I concluded that there was some
justification for compulsory schooling and the financing of schooling,
but "the actual administration of educational institutions by the
government, the 'nationalization,' as it were, of the bulk of the
'education industry' is much more difficult to justify on [free
market] or, so far as I can see, on any other grounds." Yet finance
and administration "could readily be separated. Governments could
require a minimum of schooling financed by giving the parents vouchers
redeemable for a given sum per child per year to be spent on purely
educational services. . . . Denationalizing schooling," I went on,
"would widen the range of choice available to parents. . . . If
present public expenditure were made available to parents regardless
of where they send their children, a wide variety of schools would
spring up to meet the demand. . . . Here, as in other fields,
competitive enterprise is likely to be far more efficient in meeting
consumer demand than either nationalized enterprises or enterprises
run to serve other purposes."

Though the article, and then "Capitalism and Freedom," generated some
academic and popular attention at the time, so far as we know no
attempts were made to introduce a system of educational vouchers until
the Nixon administration, when the Office of Economic Opportunity took
up the idea and offered to finance the actual experiments. One result
of that initiative was an ambitious attempt to introduce vouchers in
the large cities of New Hampshire, which appeared to be headed for
success until it was aborted by the opposition of the teachers unions
and the educational administrators -- one of the first instances of
the oppositional role they were destined to play in subsequent
decades. Another result was an experiment in California's Alum Rock
school system involving a choice of schools within a public system.

What really led to increased interest in vouchers was the
deterioration of schooling, dating in particular from 1965 when the
National Education Association converted itself from a professional
association to a trade union. Concern about the quality of education
led to the establishment of the National Commission of Excellence in
Education, whose final report, "A Nation at Risk," was published in
1983. It used the following quote from Paul Copperman to dramatize its
own conclusion:

"Each generation of Americans has outstripped its parents in
education, in literacy, and in economic attainment. For the first time
in the history of our country, the educational skills of one
generation will not surpass, will not equal, will not even approach,
those of their parents."

"A Nation at Risk" stimulated much soul-searching and a whole series
of major attempts to reform the government educational system. These
reforms, however extensive or bold, have, it is widely agreed, had
negligible effect on the quality of the public school system. Though
spending per pupil has more than doubled since 1970 after allowing for
inflation, students continue to rank low in international comparisons;
dropout rates are high; scores on SATs and the like have fallen and
remain flat. Simple literacy, let alone functional literacy, in the
United States is almost surely lower at the beginning of the 21st
century than it was a century earlier. And all this is despite a major
increase in real spending per student since "A Nation at Risk" was
published.

* * *
One result has been experimentation with such alternatives as
vouchers, tax credits, and charter schools. Government voucher
programs are in effect in a few places (Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, the
District of Columbia); private voucher programs are widespread; tax
credits for educational expenses have been adopted in at least three
states and tax credit vouchers (tax credits for gifts to
scholarship-granting organizations) in three states. In addition, a
major legal obstacle to the adoption of vouchers was removed when the
Supreme Court affirmed the legality of the Cleveland voucher in 2002.
However, all of these programs are limited; taken together they cover
only a small fraction of all children in the country.

Throughout this long period, we have been repeatedly frustrated by the
gulf between the clear and present need, the burning desire of parents
to have more control over the schooling of their children, on the one
hand, and the adamant and effective opposition of trade union leaders
and educational administrators to any change that would in any way
reduce their control of the educational system.

We have been involved in two initiatives in California to enact a
statewide voucher system (in 1993 and 2000). In both cases, the
initiatives were carefully drawn up, and the voucher sums moderate. In
both cases, nine months or so before the election, public opinion
polls recorded a sizable majority in favor of the initiative. In
addition, of course, there was a sizable group of fervent supporters,
whose hopes ran high of finally getting control of their children's
schooling. In each case, about six months before the election, the
voucher opponents launched a well-financed and thoroughly unscrupulous
campaign against the initiative. Television ads blared that vouchers
would break the budget, whereas in fact they would reduce spending
since the proposed voucher was to be only a fraction of what
government was spending per student. Teachers were induced to send
home with their students misleading propaganda against the initiative.
Dirty tricks of every variety were financed from a very deep purse.
The result was to convert the initial majority into a landslide
defeat. This has also occurred in Washington state, Colorado and
Michigan. Opposition like this explains why progress has been so slow
in such a good cause.

The good news is that, despite these setbacks, public interest in and
support for vouchers and tax credits continues to grow. Legislative
proposals to channel government funds directly to students rather than
to schools are under consideration in something like 20 states. Sooner
or later there will be a breakthrough; we shall get a universal
voucher plan in one or more states. When we do, a competitive private
educational market serving parents who are free to choose the school
they believe best for each child will demonstrate how it can
revolutionize schooling.

Mr. Friedman, chairman of the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation,
is a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a Nobel
laureate in economics.

(BTW thanks for posting that Teeny. I meant to do that earlier when Uncle Miltie and I were reading the paper and talking about ILX.)

But to correct your assumption: when I refer to those who don't want to conform, I am referring to the 25% or so who don't graduate from the high school in my district and not whomever it is who can't afford to pay their way out of a system that is failing them. I don't want those people cast aside, despite their freewill decision to do so. It is that group of students that worries me most. I wonder what it is that will keep those kids in school, and frankly I'm about 30 years sick of waiting to find out if new computers, higher paid teachers, midnight basketball, and a new football field is the solution. I don't know if I should blame their parents or their grandparents or evil Republicans who fite teacher's unions and the rich people who devote their whole life to exploiting the poor. All I know is that my kids are going to have to put up with a significant sector of kids who don't give a shit about school. It's fucking alarming, and that hasn't even brought us to discussing the violence, the weapons, and the drugs that they'll have to deal with on campus.

1) Lack of staff.
Three main causes here;
a) poor salaries
b) staff leaving because of two main reasons;
b1) student behaviour
b2) government beaureaucracy

2) Student behaviour. Enough said. Main problem here - parents. Enough said I think.

3) Ludicrous hoops to be jumped through to gain senior status.

But the main problems are all based in point 1. I work in a faculty that should have 9 staff. We have 5. One is leaving this July, and we have no replacement. This means that come September, we will have five temporay staff working for us. This will raise issue (especially) b1 above. I'm not whingeing about my salary - I am experienced and senior enough not to do that - but hence lies our problems. We are staff starved. And who can blame them? Would you rather leave college and drop into a school on £18K ($30K) or go and work for a private company at 150% the rate? Hmmmm, tricky one. We have a system to convert people from industry into teachers (the GTTP programme) which works well with the right people, but ..... many people that apply and run throught it aren't the right people.

Our students are suffering. Even the bright ones. Anyone suggest an answer??

Concerned that public schools are becoming sites of liberal indoctrination, activists have generated a wave of efforts to limit what teachers may discuss and to bring more conservative views into the classroom.

After all, they say, if related campaigns can help rein in doctrinaire faculty on college campuses, why not in K-12 education as well?

So far this year, at least 14 state legislatures have considered bills aimed at colleges that would restrict professors and establish grievance procedures for students who perceive political bias in teaching. None have become law, but the movement has momentum: Four state universities in Colorado, for instance, adopted the principles under legislative pressure in 2004.

"The last six months [have] been kind of a watershed for the academic-freedom movement," says Bradley Shipp, national field director for Students for Academic Freedom, a group founded by conservative activist David Horowitz in 2003. "It is going to filter itself down to the K-12 level."

I had thought university might be different. I envisioned an educational utopia where students were free to learn and discuss etc. Yet I have spent another three years subject to the same demands of coursework and exams. With university in Britain increasingly - it seems to me - simply the newly-defined end to the secondary education system (not the optional extra it should be), I have been put through another three (newsflash! now increasing to four!) years of hell. Maybe it was always the way, but it seems to me that the educational system in the UK is currently exceptionally abhorrent, failing everybody. I think my reaction stands as evidence to this situation.

I don't know what to replace assessment with - clearly there has do be some method of understanding capability that can be used by those outside the system - but I do believe, with thought, something else can be tried. I really do think (with the full realisation of the utter snobbish horridity of this remark) that too many people in the UK are in higher education. The UK has scrapped (some might say, anyway) the aristocracy receiving guaranteed places in higher education and not utilising the experience in the way it was intended. Good. Yet the UK has now let the rest of the population have the chance to do *exactly the same thing*. People should be at university because they want the chance to learn and develop their critical faculties, not because they were told/presumed they should go/wanted to spend another three years not doing anything before they finally got a job. If university changes - loses the numbers and then perhaps starts to sort out its assessment system - perhaps change will filter down. Until then, we're fucked.

All you need to do is look at some of the entries on that conservative list of harmful books, to see that they consider education itself to be liberal indoctrination.

Seeing the Toll, Schools Revise Zero Tolerance

Fucking trail of tears behind these policies.

These policies don't address the psychology behind offenses like vandalism and drug use! Teens see that, in a competitive and very materialistic society, they are labeled a community threat en masse - not as individuals with dreams and goals.

This year I started volunteering with ex-offenders and I am horrified at the extent of personal neglect these people have experienced. Imagine growing up in an impoverished setting where you receive the message everyday that you are a burden. And then you expect them to believe education is the way out. But the kids who do "make it" had people in their lives encouraging their unique talents and skills.

Institutionally, I have to say I was shocked too see the extent to which people responsible for at-risk people make EXCUSES - "compassion fatigue", "I'm underpaid". I mean some people talk to these kids like they are dumb animals...and it gets rationalized because those responsible feel their own lives are "hard enough". Economic segregation is doing a lot of damage.

Some school kids never hear from "the middle class" except when they complain about crime on radio or tv.

Imagine growing up in an impoverished setting where you receive the message everyday that you are a burden. And then you expect them to believe education is the way out.

somewhat otm

i would outlaw ALEC, for a start

http://www.alec.org/

Finger snaps to that.

smaller classes
physical activity every day (recess or gym)
creative activity every day (art, music, non-trad projects, etc.)
bring back practical skills-based classes (what used to get called home ec, shop, etc.)
eliminate long summer vacations
weaken (but I'm not sure about eliminating) tenure and seniority
strengthen ability to discipline and/or remove especially bad teachers (but this has to be done carefully)

T/S "Zero tolerance" vs. the death penalty: which is the more effective deterrent?

My own take on this is that the death penalty, poor as it is in deterring crime, works better than "zero tolerance" policies, because those who are intended to be deterred by zero tolerance are children with judgments that are more the product of a rich fantasy life than of any real life experience.

Institutionally, I have to say I was shocked too see the extent to which people responsible for at-risk people make EXCUSES - "compassion fatigue", "I'm underpaid".

It's a little rich of you to lodge this criticism at people who have been doing the work for years when you're someone who just started volunteering (meaning what, 5 hrs a week? 10?)

I mean your post isn't entirely wrong, but if it were as easy as just teaching everyone who works with at-risk populations to have a better attitude, it would be a wonderful world indeed.

any child-on-child harassment/bullying that would get adults fired if engaged in in grown-up workplaces would get the junior bullies' parents fined

i think society is more in need of reform than education

otm

i think the best way to reform society is to educate it

true but there are some barriers/hurdles to achieving "education" that i can only blame on society

you can't educate people who don't want to be educated. a lot lot lot of people don't appreciate the value of education, and who can blame them?

are you sure we just haven't found the right group activity yet that would make them want to be educated

yeah

some factors

1) lack of growth mindset among americans, particularly regarding math / science

2) people don't see education as linked to economic advancement (maybe rightfully so in today's economy)

there are others but my brain is not working great this morning

A person who grows up in a neighborhood where almost no one goes to college and/or joins a "profession" is going to, a sense, very realistically believe that education past a certain point is wasting their time. High school becomes an exercise in the absurd when you know that college is not in your future and there aren't many opportunities for people with a high school diploma.

A person who grows up in a neighborhood where almost no one goes to college and/or joins a "profession" is going to, a sense, very realistically believe that education past a certain point is wasting their time.

this + the fact that by the time they get to high school they (in general, exceptions exist) are woefully underprepared to compete for spots in college w/ kids from "nice neighborhoods" whose parents are doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc

i think people understand that education is important, real life just gets in the way

x-post: the growing emphasis on school being solely for 'getting a good job' has sort of led the way to this: if getting an education is just a stepping-stone to a career and nothing else, kids who don't see any realistic path to college/high-paying jobs are gonna think 'why bother.'

Mobility within society is much less fluid than people like to think it is. Poverty brings a whole constellation of problems that can't be solved by any single approach.

gap between rich and poor undermines teachers. i'd issue each one a benz or a porsche, their choice

i think people understand that education is important, real life just gets in the way

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Lack-of-Faculty-to-Blame-for-Nursing-Shortage-234174971.html