"No Child Left Behind" Issues in Tucker

[Ben E Lou]

Article in this morning's AJC...

School transfers a burden in DeKalb

When Tucker Middle School opened last year, parents thought they had found educational utopia: a grand new school with wide hallways, classrooms with new lab equipment and a staff where half the teachers are qualified to teach gifted children.

This year the parents got a surprise. More than 300 students from outside the neighborhood transferred to Tucker Middle under the No Child Left Behind law. Nearby Tucker High School got more than 100 transfers. Shamrock Middle School, a high-performing school in north DeKalb, got almost 200.

About 1,500 DeKalb County students sought transfers this year, up from about 270 last year and 30 the year before. Almost all of this year's transfers are middle or high school students.

Now Tucker Middle School students are sharing lockers, the car pool line at dismissal time snakes around the parking lot, and the cafeteria is serving lunch earlier to get everybody fed.

"There is a lot of frustration coming from Tucker Middle and Tucker High," said Lauren Fofana, who has children at both schools. "Even my kids are saying, 'Wow, it's crowded.' "

Fofana said her initial frustration has softened. "We've got to open our arms and our hearts and make these kids feel welcome," she said.

But not all parents feel that way. Some have complained that the schools are being penalized for their success and may not meet testing goals this school year because of all the transfers.

No Child Left Behind requires that school officials offer options to parents at schools that fall short of state testing goals for at least two years in a row.

In DeKalb, so many schools didn't meet goals that only a few middle and high schools are available to receive transfer students. Some of those schools are excused because they are already overcrowded.

Other metro Atlanta school systems have reported far fewer transfers. Gwinnett County, for example, had about 150. Unlike DeKalb, Gwinnett does not provide bus service to students transferring under the law; instead, Gwinnett reimburses parents for mileage expenses.

But there's more behind DeKalb's surge in transfers than bus service.Though school officials don't know why the transfer numbers skyrocketed this year, Superintendent Crawford Lewis has acknowledged that "there's a lot to be done" in the system's middle schools. "We have to figure out how to make our middle schools better — that's the long and the short of it," Lewis said.

Thomas Gathers Jr. transferred his daughter, Tommasia, to Tucker Middle after a year at Freedom Middle School, near Clarkston. When Freedom missed the state testing goals two years ago, Gathers decided to give the school a chance to improve. But after a year, he didn't think his daughter was being challenged. "The school she was at, they held her back," Gathers said.

At Tucker Middle, administrators have worked hard to calm parents, telling them that 11 new teachers are coming, along with an additional campus security officer and an assistant principal.

Principal Jerry Hogan says the school does not need to add trailer classrooms, though he says they could be needed later.

Hogan said many of the transfer students are gifted and high-achieving. Tucker Middle teaches gifted and motivated children in separate classes led by specially trained teachers.

He downplayed any resentment toward transfer students. "Our community has been very receptive to the students coming in," the principal said. "They understand the law. They understand we're complying with the law."

Jerry makes a comment in the article that is very telling, and identifies one of the two major groups that, from what I'm noticing so far this year, comprise the bulk of the transfer students. It seems that the vast majority of the transfers are:


1. High achievers from the failing schools

and

2. Athletes, particularly football players, who are wanting to get into a high -visibility program with far superior coaching to almost anywhere else in DeKalb.

MY THOUGHTS ON THE FIRST GROUP...

• By removing the high achievers from struggling schools, are we getting rid of light in dark places?
• Are we removing kids that might inspire and tutor other kids at struggling schools?
• Study after study has shown that *the* primary determining factor in achievement is parental involvement in the school. Are we removing "good" parents who might push, motivate and encourage faculty members at failing schools?
• Are we handicapping their kids somewhat by moving them to Tucker, farther away from home, where mom and dad might be less inclined to be involved in the school than in their home district?
• On the other hand, the fact is that most of the kids who have changed schools are black. There is *much* less of the "achievement-is-a-white-thing-to-do" vibe in the Tucker schools than at the schools they're coming from.

MY THOUGHTS ON THE SECOND GROUP...

DeKalb County's athletic department has brought this on themselves. Most would agree that DeKalb has more pure athletic talent than any county in Georgia--maybe in the entire Southeast. However, we have less per capita funding for athletics (specifically, coaches' salaries) than any county in metro Atlanta, and you get what you pay for. For example, the county only pays for 6 football coaches per program. That's supposed to cover Varsity, JV, Freshman, and Middle School teams. Tucker has the advantage of having a rich football tradition and some "old money" individuals and businesses willing to pony up. We have 17 coaches as a result. There's a HUGE disparity there, and kids know it. Plus, coaching salaries are lower in DeKalb than in other nearby counties. Fortunately, we have some coaches that feel truly called to Tucker. There are three schools less than 10 miles away in Gwinnett County whose Head Coaches/AD's that make nearly (if not more than) twice as much as Tucker's Head Coach/AD (who is the probably the highest-paid in DeKalb County...), AND they don't have to teach five classes a day. It is easy to see why most of the better coaches have left DeKalb County, and it is easy to see why kids are wanting to transfer when there are right now really only two high schools (out of 22 in the county) that can truly develop talent. Sure, a natural like Chamblee High's Roddy Jones (remember that name...) can earn a scholarship no matter where he goes, but kids and parents are starting to notice that more and more kids with second and third-tier talent are earning college scholarships at Tucker.

Now, don't even get me started on the DeKalb school administration for the way they botched this whole transfer thing to begin with. I can say for a fact that either they misrepresented themselves to the AJC, or the AJC is giving them a free pass, with regard to the availability of other schools for transfer students. Plus, any FOOL could have told them that opening up a high-achieving middle school which happens to have a brand-new, beautiful building would open the floodgates of transfers. The county reps talking to the reps from our community are saying that they were caught completely off-guard by the number of kids that came to the Tucker schools. They are either liars, idiots, or a little bit of both.

[ISiddiqui]

I wonder though, if you take the high achievers out of failing schools, doesn't that doom the failing schools with no chance of getting out of the pit? Ie, they'll always be failing because their best students will leave.

Second point. I'm a very big believer that sports shouldn't dominate a school's resources. So I actually like what Dekalb has done with its coaches, though I agree that you are going to end up with a lot of football transfers as a result to schools better supported by backers.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm a very big believer that sports shouldn't dominate a school's resources.

My brother has a son at Brookwood. He and I compare notes a good bit. From what I can tell, it is an issue of how the resources are managed, rather than the amount, that creates great resentment. For example, Tucker, Stephenson, and (to a slightly lesser degree) Southwest DeKalb are the "marquee" football schools for DeKalb County. The county has five stadiums. When scheduling games, those three schools clearly get priority for the "prime time" slot of 7:30pm on Friday night. Tucker *very* rarely gets the 5:30 Friday game, or one of the Saturday slots. Why? Revenue, of course. Those schools can consistently fill or come close to filling their side of the stadium. Want to take a guess at what percentage of gate revenue goes back to the participating schools in DeKalb County? 50%? 25%? Nope. That would be a big, fat ZERO. No other district that I know of does it that way. Another example is that Tucker would like to play strong opponents in both of its non-region games, and make traveling a priority in at least one of those games. It prepares the kids for the nearly-inevitable long bus ride to play a tough team when the playoffs roll around. Guess what? DeKalb County wants their revenue, though, so they "graciously" allow Tucker to play one travel game (taking a large percentage of our revenue, of course). In return, Tucker has to play its other non-region game against one of DeKalb's patsies in a DeKalb stadium so that DeKalb can get 100% of the revenue. I'm sure they do the same kind of crap to Stephenson and Southwest, too. When word filters back into those three communities that they're footing the bill for the whole dang county, people are going to be less-inclined to help financially at the county level, and instead just give to their own district's booster club. There are people in Tucker (and probably in the other two districts as well) who would be willing to give to help ALL the programs in DeKalb County, but we just don't trust the county; they've given us no reason to do so.

I wonder though, if you take the high achievers out of failing schools, doesn't that doom the failing schools with no chance of getting out of the pit? Ie, they'll always be failing because their best students will leave.

Well, one would think so. The problem that could then rear its head would be not having enough room for the transfer students at any of the achieving schools.

[albionmoonlight]

I'm not a Bush fan, but having done pretty in-depth research during law school on the Texas educational system on which No Child is based, I will say that I beleive that the motivations behind No Child are pure. Bush really does not want children left behind. I disagree with some of the base axioms on which the program is based, but, accepting the program axioms as true, No Child is not an insidious program.

That said, there are two main problems with No Child that I think come into play here. First, it is the poster child for unfunded mandates. The federal government puts a huge burden of achievement on the states without providing the resources to make it possible. I know that it is easier to pass the legislation without paying the freight, but you are starting to see some of the negative effects of that come to light.

Second, with very limited exceptions, the fed should not be involved in education. It was wrong when the liberals started doing it in the 60's, and it is wrong with the neocons doing it now. What works in inner city Detroit may not work in rural Arkansas. Education is too state/county/district/school/classroom/student specific to pretend that one size fits all. In this case Georgia/DeKalb loses the ability to try to solve its problems itself.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'm not a Bush fan, but having done pretty in-depth research during law school on the Texas educational system on which No Child is based, I will say that I beleive that the motivations behind No Child are pure. Bush really does not want children left behind. I disagree with some of the base axioms on which the program is based, but, accepting the program axioms as true, No Child is not an insidious program.

Oh, I'm not questioning the motivation. In general, Bush has shown a strong tendency to do what he believes to be right in spite of opposition. Depending on whether or not one agrees with the particular thing he's doing, he's either "arrogantly pursuing his own course of action despite the outcry to do otherwise" or "showing bold and strong leadership in the face of opposition."

First, it is the poster child for unfunded mandates. The federal government puts a huge burden of achievement on the states without providing the resources to make it possible

Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winnah!!!

Second, with very limited exceptions, the fed should not be involved in education. It was wrong when the liberals started doing it in the 60's, and it is wrong with the neocons doing it now. What works in inner city Detroit may not work in rural Arkansas. Education is too state/county/district/school/classroom/student specific to pretend that one size fits all. In this case Georgia/DeKalb loses the ability to try to solve its problems itself.

In general, I'd have to agree with you there, although my esteemed colleague from Middle Georgia can make a persuasive case for a dissenting point of view.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Skydog

From what I can tell, it is an issue of how the resources are managed, rather than the amount, that creates great resentment.

Hmmm.. that's a strange county (well, which I live in). I wonder who came up with that system?

[JonInMiddleGA]

While the transfers certainly may not be the best thing that can happen to the failing schools, I strongly believe the gains possible for the best & brightest make that worthwhile. Too long have we encouraged mediocrity, it's high time those who have the ability to acheive are matched with an environment that increases their chances.

Their primary obligation at this stage in life isn't to "inspire & tutor", it's to maximize their own opportunities. Otherwise, flat out, we waste our "A" students trying to elevate a bunch of "D & F" students to maybe a "C" at most -- virtually by definition, that's encouraging mediocrity at the expense of excellence.

By my count (which could be off if the word "middle school" isn't in the name, I don't know all of the schools on sight), over half the middle schools in DeKalb County (9 of 17) failed to make AYP. And Shamrock looks like a potential star among those who passed, with solid numbers that "Exceed Expectations". That number, btw, is very impressive to me when you look at Tucker High School, around 60% scored advanced/exceeds on the two GHSGT's & that's not the sort of number I'm accustomed to seeing too many places

As for the athletic transfers, you raise a potentially interesting situation here.
I don't recall what the guidelines are for controlling transfers (i.e. how much of the destination school is up to the parents & how much is up to the school system) but this could become an issue that the GHSA will have to address at some point. The number of students becoming eligible for transfer statewide continues to grow, this is going to become a more common situation before it improves, and at some point I expect it will have to be addressed from an athletic standpoint as well.

They are either liars, idiots, or a little bit of both.[/left]

This is a Georgia school system we're talking about here Ben ... I believe "a little bit" is likely far too kind a modifier in this situation.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'm not a Bush fan, but having done pretty in-depth research during law school on the Texas educational system on which No Child is based, I will say that I beleive that the motivations behind No Child are pure. Bush really does not want children left behind. I disagree with some of the base axioms on which the program is based, but, accepting the program axioms as true, No Child is not an insidious program.

That said, there are two main problems with No Child that I think come into play here. First, it is the poster child for unfunded mandates. The federal government puts a huge burden of achievement on the states without providing the resources to make it possible. I know that it is easier to pass the legislation without paying the freight, but you are starting to see some of the negative effects of that come to light.

OK, let's assume this all is true. Why then would Bush push through NCLB without proper funding? Is that an oversight? A mistake?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

OK, let's assume this all is true. Why then would Bush push through NCLB without proper funding? Is that an oversight? A mistake?

First, just to be clear, this isn't Bush specific.

It happens a lot in government. It's easy to get Senators and Representatives to sign their name to a bill that promises great things (like leaving no child behind). It is much harder to get them to sign a bill that actually pays the freight.

Another great example is Medicaid. If you look at what the federal Medicaid program promises, you would be impressed. Its easy to get votes for increasing benefits to sick kids. If, however, you look at what the federal government gives to the states to run their medicaid programs, you realize that getting votes to pay for it is another matter.

Of course, cutting against my argument, both No Child and Medicaid are voluntary programs. One could argue that if the fed was asking the states to spend more than it gave them, that States would simply refuse the federal funds and release themselves from the mandates.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm sure we're going to see comments from across the nation on this thread, heck, probably from around the world, so I think it's important to highlight something that could very easily get lost in translation.

Please remember, when you look at the specific situation, we're not talking about something that is happening in an "average" state, we're talking about something that's going on in a state that's at/near the bottom of virtually every known educational performance indicator, in spite of having lower than average student/teacher ratios, pay that's above the national median, the highest teacher pay increase in the nation over the past decade, and at/above national average spending per student by virtually every measure.

In other words, please keep in mind how bad the public education system is here when you consider what might appear to be drastic measures.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

While the transfers certainly may not be the best thing that can happen to the failing schools, I strongly believe the gains possible for the best & brightest make that worthwhile. Too long have we encouraged mediocrity, it's high time those who have the ability to acheive are matched with an environment that increases their chances.

I can't argue with you there. The whole situation is just sad, though. There are so many kids on the lower end of the achievement scale due primarily to crappy parents who won't be transfered to better schools--due to their parents not giving enough of a damn to make it happen. That's what frustrates me about the whole thing.

Their primary obligation at this stage in life isn't to "inspire & tutor", it's to maximize their own opportunities. Otherwise, flat out, we waste our "A" students trying to elevate a bunch of "D & F" students to maybe a "C" at most -- virtually by definition, that's encouraging mediocrity at the expense of excellence.

OK. For the most part I agree with you there. My bleeding-heartness there probably comes from a particular kid I know who has a 1.6 GPA and a 980 SAT (old version). All he needs is someone to inspire him and he's an A-B student, not just a C student.

By my count (which could be off if the word "middle school" isn't in the name, I don't know all of the schools on sight), over half the middle schools in DeKalb County (9 of 17) failed to make AYP. And Shamrock looks like a potential star among those who passed, with solid numbers that "Exceed Expectations". That number, btw, is very impressive to me when you look at Tucker High School, around 60% scored advanced/exceeds on the two GHSGT's & that's not the sort of number I'm accustomed to seeing too many places

I'm lazy. Where is that data online?

As for the athletic transfers, you raise a potentially interesting situation here.
I don't recall what the guidelines are for controlling transfers (i.e. how much of the destination school is up to the parents & how much is up to the school system) but this could become an issue that the GHSA will have to address at some point.

I haven't been directly involved in the community push-back against the county on this, but two members of my local YL board of directors have been, so after our b.o.d. meeting last Sunday, the two of them stuck around to plot strategy for the next meeting with the Superintendent. I stuck around as well to better understand the issues. I'm pretty sure I have this part right: the system set up here was pretty straightforward. There were x number of slots at Tucker Middle, y number of slots at Shamrock Middle, etc. Parents could choose any school they wanted as long as an open slot was still available there. For some reason, when they ran out of open slots for middle schools, they routed the rest into Tucker. THAT fact is the biggest bone of contention in the Tucker community right now.

The number of students becoming eligible for transfer statewide continues to grow, this is going to become a more common situation before it improves, and at some point I expect it will have to be addressed from an athletic standpoint as well.

Agreed.

This is a Georgia school system we're talking about here Ben ... I believe "a little bit" is likely far too kind a modifier in this situation.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm sure we're going to see comments from across the nation on this thread, heck, probably from around the world, so I think it's important to highlight something that could very easily get lost in translation.

Please remember, when you look at the specific situation, we're not talking about something that is happening in an "average" state, we're talking about something that's going on in a state that's at/near the bottom of virtually every known educational performance indicator, in spite of having lower than average student/teacher ratios, pay that's above the national median, the highest teacher pay increase in the nation over the past decade, and at/above national average spending per student by virtually every measure.

In other words, please keep in mind how bad the public education system is here when you consider what might appear to be drastic measures.

...and of all the counties in Georgia, I'd venture a guess that DeKalb has a greater disparity between "passing" and "failing" schools than most, if not all. We have a few schools performing above national averages, and others that are just in the gutter. The national average SAT score in 2004 was 1026. Georgia's average was 987. (Now, 2/3 of Georgia students took the SAT, while only 48% of the nation's students did...) At any rate, here are the numbers for DeKalb.

High School	City	Average Total Score
Lakeside	Atlanta	1105
Chamblee	Chamblee	1092
Dunwoody	Dunwoody	1020
Dekalb School of the Arts	Atlanta	1019
Druid Hills	Atlanta	998
Tucker	Tucker	967
Stephenson	Stone Mountain	906
Stone Mountain	Stone Mountain	902
Southwest DeKalb	Decatur	899
Clarkston	Clarkston	874
Martin Luther King, Jr.	Decatur	863
Cedar Grove	Ellenwood	860
Redan	Stone Mountain	855
Cross Keys	Atlanta	854
Columbia	Decatur	853
Towers	Decatur	829
Lithonia	Lithonia	820
Avondale	Avondale Estates	795
Open Campus	Atlanta	772
McNair	Atlanta	768

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I'm lazy. Where is that data online?

Georgia DOE website

the system set up here was pretty straightforward. There were x number of slots at Tucker Middle, y number of slots at Shamrock Middle, etc. Parents could choose any school they wanted as long as an open slot was still available there.

That sounds pretty much like how I understand this works everywhere, essentially that the local system can control where the transfers go. And, as I understand it, that goes so far as to allow them to establish a hard & fast cut-off point for the number of transfers any school has to accept, even if it means there are more requests than their are available slots -- I won't swear to that, but that's how I understand it after covering the NCLBA locally since it was introduced.

For some reason, when they ran out of open slots for middle schools, they routed the rest into Tucker. THAT fact is the biggest bone of contention in the Tucker community right now.

Sounds like something that shouldn't have happened if the admin was on top of the situation (which isn't limited to DeKalb by any means, transfers haven't been handled well in hardly any county as far as I've been able to tell).

As an aside, mostly for those who are following this from a distance, the situation in DeKalb is actually better than most counties in the state. I'll use my own current home county as an example. Students here could become transfer eligible, but it would do them no good at all ... because like the majority of Georgia counties, there's only 1 high school in the entire district. Ditto only one middle school. The only way they could transfer anywhere, regardless of eligibility, is if a contract could be reached with a neighboring system. And those contracts, just as you would expect, are going to be few & far between, other systems don't want to have their own performance dragged down by accepting other systems students.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

First, just to be clear, this isn't Bush specific.

True, the problem of unfunded mandates isn't specific to Bush. In fact, it's more of a congressional problem than one of the Executive Branch.

However, I meant in this specific instance. NCLB is a Bush proposal, a Bush program. Why would he push it through without proper funding? An oversight? A mistake?

Of course, cutting against my argument, both No Child and Medicaid are voluntary programs. One could argue that if the fed was asking the states to spend more than it gave them, that States would simply refuse the federal funds and release themselves from the mandates.

I believe some states have that under consideration.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

True, the problem of unfunded mandates isn't specific to Bush. In fact, it's more of a congressional problem than one of the Executive Branch.

However, I meant in this specific instance. NCLB is a Bush proposal, a Bush program. Why would he push it through without proper funding? An oversight? A mistake?

Choice, but you know the answer to that.

[digamma]

Same ol' shit. Different day.

Having had two grandparents and three parents (one step) employed by this school system, nothing DeKalb does really surprises me.

[SnDvls]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I wonder though, if you take the high achievers out of failing schools, doesn't that doom the failing schools with no chance of getting out of the pit? Ie, they'll always be failing because their best students will leave.

with my wife being a teacher here in AZ I hear a lot about this. In AZ the schools have to show improvement to be considered "passing" so in essence by all these high level students transfering to a high achieving school they might hurt the new school. If the new school's scores don't improve from year to year or maintain the same they will be "underperforming" or worse "failing" even though their scores are still well above the other schools. That is at least how it works here in AZ.

This is a very touchy subject with teachers and parents. The bottom line is involvement in your child's life and education only improves it and makes it better.

[ISiddiqui]

Jesus... that's retarded. Why don't they also look at the raw numbers as well as whether they are 'improving'.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Jesus... that's retarded. Why don't they also look at the raw numbers as well as whether they are 'improving'.

So, in theory, this system engenders mediocrity: poor performing schools will fall by the wayside, while high performing schools will lose their funding once they achieve the upper-bound of testing performance, eventually pulling their performance towards the mean. What is left is a bunch of average performing schools.

In a related note to NCLB, my home state of Connecticut has brought a lawsuit against the federal government this week over NCLB's unfunded mandates. The truth is, most states can't just blow off participation in NCLB, since most states depend on federal funding to at least fill in the gaps in their education budgets. So, CT is a good candidate to bring forth this kind of lawsuit, since we already have well-funded schools and have much less to lose than other states, since any federal funding retaliation will hurt our state less.

Also, ironically, CT's testing is more rigorous than the NCLB mandate. There is more of a written component to these tests that are of course more expensive to score. NCLB will only pay for multiple-choice only tests. Again, NCLB trying to do things on the cheap instead of doing them right...

[RainRaven]

NCLB I would agree with most people is not bad in the view of what it is trying to achieve. Can't argue with improving education. However, am a history major who will be teaching here in Maryland I hope. About a year away from my student teaching at this point. The small amount of educators I have spoken to about this issue in a middle school and at my college all agree that the intention is good. However the biggest bone is the same one harped on here: Show us the money. I also have the contention that the feds should not be in education beyond assuring no discrimnation in schools. Classrooms should be about teaching students to the best of our ability.

Switching students around schools may sound great but is short-sighted. Students become friends with many in that school, switching "may" help the academic on some level but maybe the student misses out on friendships and loses interest in school due to that influence. So many factors go into making a student successful but parents are key. Every single teacher I have spoken to has stressed that to me. That having a good working relationship with parents will help you in the end goal of achievement. NCLB doesn't address that, it says improve performance or esle. Schools are not perfect in the least, but our nation needs to rally behind the kids instead of questioning the creditials of every teacher in the classroom or shifiting kids around like pegs on a board. Hopefully NCLB can be tweaked in time to meet the demands of our children, until then, let's hope it doesn't damage it too much in the meantime.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainRaven

Show us the money.

The reply is "show us some performance, some reason to continue throwing money down an increasingly dry hole"

(Remember, I can't help but have my feelings colored by the situation in Georgia -- YMMV.)

... instead of questioning the creditials of every teacher in the classroom

Again, answering that from my vantage point -- we've only just begun to question them, and it's way past high time we started doing so. Those who don't create obvious cause for concern aren't nearly as likely to face those sort of questions.

Hopefully NCLB can be tweaked in time to meet the demands of our children

I disagree completely, frankly, the children have no business making any "demands" because they have too little understanding of the goals, much less adequate judgement to make decisions about what the acceptable goals are. It's time that the people who've been forced to foot the bill start being heard in the process & NCLBA is at least a step in the right direction.

[RainRaven]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I disagree completely, frankly, the children have no business making any "demands" because they have too little understanding of the goals, much less adequate judgement to make decisions about what the acceptable goals are. It's time that the people who've been forced to foot the bill start being heard in the process & NCLBA is at least a step in the right direction.

Maybe I made my statement a little too general. I meant demands in the sense of meeting the expectation of solid education to all students in the country. You are completely right in that they have no demands to be met in the sense your using it. I too think NCLB is a step in the right direction but I think some of the facets of the law could be tweaked to better meet the needs of our students.

Having a quality educator in every classroom is great but meeting that standard by having a degree isn't really nescessary if a teacher has taught for 25 years with a solid track record in job peformance in the reviews. I just want the law to be flexible to some degree for the requirements. I also think that standardized testing is not the way to go eithier. We shove more and more high stakes testing on our kids.

Learning can be hard enough let alone worrying about a test on top of the other million tests kids take. Many kids don't do well in tests and that's why teachers use more then that to judge student achievement in a classroom. Other creative projects, classwork, papers and a whole bunch of other things can be used to judge if a student has progressed well during a year. A multiple choice test just doesn't show me that we are trying to guage overall student achievement. Instead it's natural bias will be to those who are most comfortable taking that sort of assessment. It's a one shape model that being used for a variety of different holes that need to be filled.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainRaven

in the sense your using it.

I misread what you were saying there, my bad, sorry 'bout that.

...with a solid track record in job peformance in the reviews

Again, keeping in mind what I'm seeing on a daily basis -- there's such a low percentage of teachers in Georgia who could legitimately claim a "solid track record in job performance" that what you're talking about there is virtually a non-issue here.

I just want the law to be flexible to some degree for the requirements.

And I believe that's a very slippery slope to create, largely because of the role that "flexibility" played in rendering our state education system such a shambles.

I also think that standardized testing is not the way to go eithier.

We disagree 100% there & probably aren't going to agree on that point at all.
IF the tests are designed properly in terms of the questions (and I'm certainly open to improving the tests) asked matching the subject matter supposed to be taught, then I firmly believe that standardized testing is not only valid but virtually the only verifiable valid method of testing.

We shove more and more high stakes testing on our kids.

Stakes that pale in comparison to the stakes lost if they aren't taught -- namely, their future, their quality of life, and the continued viability of an entire nation.

Many kids don't do well in tests and that's why teachers use more then that to judge student achievement in a classroom.

And many of those same kids fail throughout the rest of their life. Not all, we can both find exceptions, but not enough to approach a majority either. Maybe instead of excusing the failure as some sort of "Johnny/Jane just doesn't test well", we ought to make sure they improve those test skills.
Hell RR, every day at work each one of us is "tested", and we pass/fail/are graded by whether we keep that job, and by our pay advancement. The workforce is where we're sending the vast majority of these students, I scoff at arguments that we're somehow "damaging" them by preparing them for the rest of their lives.

Instead it's natural bias will be to those who are most comfortable taking that sort of assessment.

Again, just to state my disagreement in a different way, I believe the dominant "natural bias" that occurs is bias toward those who have actually bothered to learn the subject matter.

I also want to back up revisit something you said, because it really provides a springboard into another issue entirely.

Many kids don't do well in tests and that's why teachers use more then that to judge student achievement in a classroom.

Along with my original comments on that point, I was struck hard by something else -- at this point, I don't really want "teachers judging student acheivement" ... because I have virtually no confidence left in the judgement of the average teacher (or the median teacher for that matter).

Again here, YMMV (obviously), but when I sit in a college classroom at a large state university & find Freshman English classes reduced to teaching "a sentence has two parts, a noun & a verb" & 80% of students completely incapable of writing in even the vaguest semblance of paragraph form ... yet more than 90% of those same Freshmen are HOPE scholarship recipients (meaning they had at least a B average in high school) ... well, at that point, I've lost any & all faith in the competence of those teachers to "judge acheivement".

And when you consider that more than 40% of those college students I'm talking about were EDUCATION MAJORS ... that's not exactly a confidence boost for the future either.

No Raven, I don't trust the teachers or administrators (mostly ex-teachers) to make many calls at this point. We allowed that here for too long & we've got nothing short of a disaster on our hands in return. I see scant interest in anything other more than covering their own asses,saving their own jobs, and covering up their own failures. Well, the rest of us have been paying their salaries & dealing with their failures for long enough ... and a lot of us hae grown determined that it's time to at least try to do something to stop the bleeding.

[RainRaven]

I respect your opinion on this Jon, you have alot of personal experience in Georgia that plays into your thinking. I have my own personal experiences that impact my thinking. In short, I agree with most of your premises. I think educators need to be held accountable for the results that we send out to the world. I won't reply to every point you make back because I understand to an extent why you make them. I just think we are looking at the problem with different perspectives and hence think different things are the real problem in education. The most important thing is that you give a damn. Alot better then some of people I am sure you have observed and I as well. As long as parents or people in general give a damn about education and want to see it improved it can be a postive force. I may not agree with every single step we take but at least it is on the forefront because frankly we can't allow it to fall behind in our national thinking. It was allowed to stay out of it for far too long and we have all suffered for it.

[Buzzbee]

General question:

I've seen parent involvement cited numerous times in this thread. From what I gather it is a generally held belief that parents have the biggest impact on student performance. That being the case, why is there such a focus on the teachers and the school resources rather than giving parents incentives/mandates to get involved?

I agree that parent involvement is important, which is why I'm curious about the lack of focus/effort/drive to motivate parents to get involved.

Is it because of fear of negative involvement by parents? I would imagine that teachers least favorite thing to deal with is "Why did my little Johnny get a bad grade?" or "Why did precious Sally get detention?" or similar parental actions. Is that a factor in the lack of parent involvement? Fear of conflict or perhaps even lawsuits?

[Mr. Wednesday]

How do you mandate that parents get involved?

My exposure to teachers (mainly via my mother, who was a substitute teacher for a long time and now works as an instructional aide) indicates that although teachers get exasperated with the types of "negative involvement" that you cite, they still attempt to encourage "positive involvement" through things like having things parents need to sign off on. Ultimately, though, it's nigh onto impossible to force parents to take an active role if they don't want to.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Buzz, I'd pretty much have to echo Mr.Wednesday's thoughts on this.

Mandate would seem both unenforceable & likely unconstitutional as well. And given the number of single parent students, it becomes even more unrealistic to mandate.

As for incentive, well damn, if you can't get motivated to at least give your own kid a fighting chance in life, I'm not sure anything is going to turn the trick. If you (or somebody) is thinking financial, God help you to survive the reaction that would get from every already involved parent out there. "Let me get this straight, you're going to pay these sorry sacks of shit to do what any decent parent is doing already? What's next, you pay people not to commit crimes?[/i].

Seriously, if the motivation to be involved isn't intrinsic, and can't be financial, what's left to use as the carrot here?

[Buzzbee]

Jon - I realize that if parents are ambivalent toward their child's education that it will be tough to motivate them. This was really a set up question.

If parents are a primary factor in a student's success, but we can't motivate parents to become involved, how can we expect NCLB or any other program to have significant impact?

For a student with involved parent/s, having a 'better' school might make a slight difference because of more resources or 'better' teachers, but based on comments here it seems that effect would be marginal, and not worth the cost. After all, parents are the driving force.

Either the effect of the parent is being overstated, or the role of the school environment is being understated, or both.

2+2 is equalling 5. I was ejeecaytid in jorja, but I'm pritty shur that 5 ain't rite.

[AZSpeechCoach]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Jesus... that's retarded. Why don't they also look at the raw numbers as well as whether they are 'improving'.

At least AZ uses a test (the AIMS) that has a definite pass/fail score. In theory, every student could pass the test. That meets our state testing requirement as well as the federal requirements. Some states use tests like the Stanford 9, which rank on percentile. With a percentile test, there will ALWAYS be 50% who "fail." It guarantees that half of all schools will fall below the national average, and be subject to puntitive measures. We are not Lake Wobegon, where every child is above average.

[AZSpeechCoach]

I disagree completely, frankly, the children have no business making any "demands" because they have too little understanding of the goals, much less adequate judgement to make decisions about what the acceptable goals are. It's time that the people who've been forced to foot the bill start being heard in the process & NCLBA is at least a step in the right direction.

Darnit Jon, don't you care about the kids? We are here to do what the kids want. Or are you a cancer who only cares about himself? A real teacher only cares about what it takes to make the kids happy.

Sorry...I was channelling my Principal during our staff meeting earlier this month. Back to your regular programming.

[AZSpeechCoach]

Three in a row...

I had a student for three days earlier this year. He just got out of jail. He is classified as a junior, but has 1/2 of a credit. This is a freshman english class. His favorite phrase is "fucking bullshit," which he uses to describe the classwork, the classroom, the students, and me. After telling another student in my class to "fuck yourself," he decided that he wanted another English teacher. He needs to get 19.5 credits in 2 years and pass the state mandated tests. He currently reads at a 3rd grade level. He has been removed from three different classes and placed with different teachers. This all took place in the span of 1 week. This kid could keep us from meeting our AYP. What the hell can we do?

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by AZSpeechCoach

Three in a row...

I had a student for three days earlier this year. He just got out of jail. He is classified as a junior, but has 1/2 of a credit. This is a freshman english class. His favorite phrase is "fucking bullshit," which he uses to describe the classwork, the classroom, the students, and me. After telling another student in my class to "fuck yourself," he decided that he wanted another English teacher. He needs to get 19.5 credits in 2 years and pass the state mandated tests. He currently reads at a 3rd grade level. He has been removed from three different classes and placed with different teachers. This all took place in the span of 1 week. This kid could keep us from meeting our AYP. What the hell can we do?

Send him back to elementary school where he belongs?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

2+2 is equalling 5. I was ejeecaytid in jorja, but I'm pritty shur that 5 ain't rite.

But were you taught the new math? To quote one of my faves, Tom Lehrer:

But in the new approach, as you know, the important thing is to understand what you're doing, rather than to get the right answer. Here's how they do it now:

Here's the entire song.

Some of you who have small children may have perhaps been put in the embarrassing position of being unable to do your child's arithmetic homework because of the current revolution in mathematics teaching known as the New Math. So as a public service here tonight, I thought I would offer a brief lesson in the New Math. Tonight, we're gonna cover subtraction. This is the first room I've worked for a while that didn't have a blackboard, so we will have to make do with more primitive visual aids, as they say in the ed biz. Consider the following subtraction problem, which I will put up here: 342 minus 173. Now, remember how we used to do that:

Three from two is nine, carry the one, and if you're under 35 or went to a private school, you say seven from three is six, but if you're over 35 and went to a public school, you say eight from four is six ...and carry the one, so we have 169.

But in the new approach, as you know, the important thing is to understand what you're doing, rather than to get the right answer. Here's how they do it now:


You can't take three from two,
Two is less than three,
So you look at the four in the tens place.
Now that's really four tens
So you make it three tens,
Regroup, and you change a ten to ten ones,
And you add 'em to the two and get twelve,
And you take away three, that's nine.
Is that clear?

Now instead of four in the tens place
You've got three,
'Cause you added one,
That is to say, ten, to the two,
But you can't take seven from three,
So you look in the hundreds place.

From the three you then use one
To make ten ones...
(And you know why four plus minus one
Plus ten is fourteen minus one?
'Cause addition is commutative, right!)...
And so you've got thirteen tens
And you take away seven,
And that leaves five...

Well, six actually...
But the idea is the important thing!

Now go back to the hundreds place,
You're left with two,
And you take away one from two,
And that leaves...?

Everybody get one?
Not bad for the first day!

Hooray for New Math,
New-hoo-hoo Math,
It won't do you a bit of good to review math.
It's so simple,
So very simple,
That only a child can do it!

Now, that actually is not the answer that I had in mind, because the book that I got this problem out of wants you to do it in base eight. But don't panic! Base eight is just like base ten really - if you're missing two fingers! Shall we have a go at it? Hang on...

You can't take three from two,
Two is less than three,
So you look at the four in the eights place.
Now that's really four eights,
So you make it three eights,
Regroup, and you change an eight to eight ones
And you add 'em to the two,
And you get one-two base eight,
Which is ten base ten,
And you take away three, that's seven.
Ok?

Now instead of four in the eights place
You've got three,
'Cause you added one,
That is to say, eight, to the two,
But you can't take seven from three,
So you look at the sixty-fours...

"Sixty-four? How did sixty-four get into it?" I hear you cry! Well, sixty-four is eight squared, don't you see? "Well, ya ask a silly question, ya get a silly answer!"

From the three, you then use one
To make eight ones,
You add those ones to the three,
And you get one-three base eight,
Or, in other words,
In base ten you have eleven,
And you take away seven,
And seven from eleven is four!
Now go back to the sixty-fours,
You're left with two,
And you take away one from two,
And that leaves...?

Now, let's not always see the same hands!
One, that's right.
Whoever got one can stay after the show and clean the erasers.

Hooray for New Math,
New-hoo-hoo Math!
It won't do you a bit of good to review math.
It's so simple,
So very simple,
That only a child can do it!



Come back tomorrow night...we're gonna do fractions!

Y'know, I've often thought I'd like to write a mathematics textbook someday because I have a title that I know will sell a million copies; I'm gonna call it Tropic of Calculus.*

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

While the transfers certainly may not be the best thing that can happen to the failing schools, I strongly believe the gains possible for the best & brightest make that worthwhile. Too long have we encouraged mediocrity, it's high time those who have the ability to acheive are matched with an environment that increases their chances.

In a perfect world maybe but in ours I disagree.

My problem is that intelligence is pretty pyramidal and there's way, way, way more dumbasses out there than gifted students.

It makes far more sense to raise this bar and let the overachievers fend for themselves. They'll be fine. Someone will challenge them, financially compensate them, help them through school etc. It's gonna happen. Some won't be able to get this but again, numbers and darwin.

On the other side, the dumbasses fall through the cracks at a horrifying rate and it bothers me. I don't think of them as stupid but unmotivated, underchallenged, just forgotten about etc. We're not talking many Nobel Prize Winners obviously but a whole heck of a lot of ourselves and neighbors. Raising their level of comprehension, communication and cognition would help the world a lot more.

I don't mind that focus at all myself.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

If parents are a primary factor in a student's success, but we can't motivate parents to become involved, how can we expect NCLB or any other program to have significant impact?

Now let me skip ahead a bit ...

Either the effect of the parent is being overstated, or the role of the school environment is being understated, or both.

Or some of both plus other stuff.

First, you'd have to define "parental involvement". Too often, I get the impression that's being determined by how many times the parent shows up at a PTA meeting full of catchphrases & cliches but may otherwise is more smoke than light. I call b.s. on that definition.

I believe that "involvement", the kind that actually makes a difference to the child is ultimately making sure they know that this stuff matters to the parent AND it had better matter to the child too. There's a variety of ways to accomplish that, but I'm convinced that having education be important is the key to the whole impact-of-involved-parenting.

I try pretty hard to avoid darkening the door of my son's school too often -- being there increases the chance of my needing a bail bondsman after choking the life out of some idiot who desparately needs it & that isn't a situation I really want to force my son to go through. But if you ask him whether he thinks I believe education is important, I'm extremely confident that you'd get the right answer.

That's going to come from a combination of things -- involvement with homework, regular talks about not only what they're studying but expanded conversations about those subjects, about how what he's learning gets applied in everyday life (for both kids & grownups), and regular direct reminders that "this is important". Sometimes there's a value in simply saying out loud some of the simplest things.

He's also growing up in a household where things like The History Channel are standard fare, and that probably shouldn't be underestimated. Involved parents, those who make an effort to integrate their world, their child's world, AND the rest of the real world into a total package that provides perspective about how it all works, how one thing leads to the next, what the relationships between different things are ... it creates a situation where they're learning constantly. It's a combination that has produced a 7 y/o who can name all the U.S. Presidents in order (something he learned largely on his own, not anything we pushed on him, Hell, I can't do that myself to this day),
and who knows what the Battle of Midway was & can name half the capital ships involved... while his upcoming history lesson at school consists of "The Pilgrims traveled across the ocean on a boat". And that's at a private school that is more than 2 grade levels / 200 points avg SAT score ahead of the local public school.

Studies also routinely show that the educational attainment of the parent, and the parental/household income is also a pretty good predictor of overall success in school. Neither is a sure thing (just like involvement isn't foolproof) but it sure seems to improve the odds. But what does this really mean? Some suggest that it's all about money but I disagree there too. I believe it goes right back to the same thing that I said about involvement -- the importance of education has to be made real to the student at some point. More educated / higher income households seem pretty doggoned likely to have a higher emphasis on education and often goes so far as to give the child some pretty vivid examples of what education (and a work ethic) can lead to down the road in life.

Now, I've tried to cover how the involved parents make a difference, but what about the other part of your question, how can schools overcome a lack of parental involvement.

I think the answer ultimately winds up in the about the same place -- they have to try to make it matter. And just as parental involvement/more evolved parents don't guarantee academic success, the lack thereof doesn't guarantee failure either.

Better teachers, above all else, at least know how to actually get the most basic concepts across. Without the foundations, the battle becomes much more difficult as the students go through their academic career. IF you get those foundations laid, then you need better teachers who can find the right balance between the often dry next-level material & relating that material to the real world -- both the student's current world AND their life in the future.
And that isn't done easily, throwing money at the problem isn't the solution either. It's about cleaning out those who can't do either of the two things, replacing them with people who can and will, and making it clear that excuses for failing to do so aren't acceptable. And that includes excuses that blame the parents, the government, everyone & everything except the people who accepted & are paid to do the job.

So Buzzbee, there's probably an optimal situation -- involved, education, well-off parents who have their kids in a school environment with qualifed, talented teachers, where excellence isn't just encouraged, it's demanded.

But reality says that every situation isn't going to be optimal. Where you lack the parents, you need the school to provide more of the "propulsion" for the students academic path. And although it wouldn't/shouldn't be accepted by the parents in question, I think you could honestly get away with a little lower quality school if the parents are doing a high caliber job themselves (although I think that quickly reaches a point where homeschooling is more beneficial, just to avoid the damage done by the environment). What you can't have, and still find consistent academic success, is the complete lack of either the parents OR the school doing a good job. And too often, that's what we seem to get around here.

{insert to add -- you're about to get a longer than I planned anecdote here, but I promise, if you make it through it, it does lead to a relevant point I'm trying to make}

One of the nastiest arguments I've been part of in the past 10 years or so happened in a "Leadership Training Course" here in the local community. The scenario was basically a brainstorming session that asked the group of 20 or so to list what we thought were "shared community values". Somehow or another, "education" made it on the initial list. It was a free-form, speak your mind setting, so I spoke my mind (imagine that ). I candidly questioned how that could possibly be considered something that this community placed any value on when we've spent years languishing in the bottom quarter of all schools in the lowest-ranked state in education & there was rarely a word of complaint spoken about that fact. Talk about touching the third-rail, you should have seen the 2 teachers & 1 administrator that were part of the class taking me apart with tirade after tirade. I stood my ground for a good 20 minutes, daring them to show a single positive sign from the local schools in the past decade, and then a voice from the back of the room spoke up ...
"Ya'll ought to listen to him, he's the only one in the room that's been willing to speak the truth". The comment came from a retired educator in the local system, a woman who had been around since before those arguing with me were born, and a woman who provided the biggest single public shock of my entire life by stepping up to my side on the subject -- she's 65, black, and is as liberal as they come. I, of course, am the me you know & love. Heck, it seemed to shock her as much as it did me. Well, that turned the tide. One by one, the floor went to a county commissioner, a social worker, a cop, a minister, a housewife ... they all agreed that, while education was important to those of us in the room, it definitely didn't meet the definition of a "shared
community value". The only people left arguing that it did were the 3 school employees, 1 school board member, and a businessman who has no less than 4 relatives working for said school system.

Now the point of that anecdote is this -- there's a growing number of people who realize what a clusterfuck education is in Georgia. There's also a large contingent of people in the education industry who are in denial, so deeply that I really don't believe they can be brought out. The latter are not the people to look to for all the answers, especially not when even acknowledging the problems is an indictment of themselves unless they have an ample supply of people to point accusing fingers at.

And now, the really depressing part I find in the whole subject -- we're looking for answers to a question that may simply not have an answer. Or at least, not any answers that we're going to like (or appear likely to admit anytime soon). I think things like NCLB are a valiant effort, I believe charter-schools are worth further exploration, I believe home-schooling is an viable option as well, I'm open to a lot of options/experiments/efforts IF each of them is exposed to quantifiable & verifiable analysis of results. But I'm terribly afraid that the real answer is that the system here is broken beyond any substantial repair, a case where we're trying to operate on a patient that's already dead.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Raising their level of comprehension, communication and cognition would help the world a lot more.

And that does indeed appear to be our fundamental disagreement.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AZSpeechCoach

Sorry...I was channelling my Principal during our staff meeting earlier this month. Back to your regular programming.

Unexpected ... and absolutely funny as hell

Thanks for the coffee-enhanced spit-take & nose-snort, after writing my thoroughly depressing War & Peace epic post, I sure as hell needed the laughter.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And that does indeed appear to be our fundamental disagreement.

But how can it?

It's a fundamental belief of mine that the problems this species faces is due to the overwhelming level of stupidity/apathy we have and yet you seem to be encouraging just that.

Are you simply making a predatory statement simply defending against the loss of your prey or do you see a legitimate advantage to being undereducated in general?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Axxon

But how can it?

It's a fundamental belief of mine that the problems this species faces is due to the overwhelming level of stupidity/apathy we have and yet you seem to be encouraging just that.

Are you simply making a predatory statement simply defending against the loss of your prey or do you see a legitimate advantage to being undereducated in general?

Actually, neither.

I've reached the conclusion that there's only so much you can do for much of the bottom rows of the pyramid right now, and that any hope of doing anything substantial for them lies in trying to maximize the ability of those with the greatest potential. Not exclusively nor neccessarily in perpetuity, but at least under the current conditions.

Otherwise, you're bound to end up at a place where we may already be (or at least are dangerously close to) -- not enough at the top to teach the bottom anything at all.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I'm not going to quote anything from Jon's anecdote, but I think it's surprising that the educators were so adamant about education actually being valued in the community given the serious problems they apparently face. The educators I've had contact with (my mother, a middle school teacher neighbor when I was in Houston) seemed to be pretty realistic about the degree of support they were getting. In a setting like that, I couldn't see them being dishonest.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually, neither.

I've reached the conclusion that there's only so much you can do for much of the bottom rows of the pyramid right now, and that any hope of doing anything substantial for them lies in trying to maximize the ability of those with the greatest potential. Not exclusively nor neccessarily in perpetuity, but at least under the current conditions.

Otherwise, you're bound to end up at a place where we may already be (or at least are dangerously close to) -- not enough at the top to teach the bottom anything at all.

But that really has never happened in history as far as I can recall. After all, all but the really, really stupid can surely see the benefit of promoting those who have excelled academically simply for their survival/luxury needs and the positions these people hold, when one isn't athletically gifted, seem quite desirable.

I just don't think society as a whole will "sacrifice" their gifted students even if the road to the gifted student's education becomes a bit rockier.

I don't think it works that way. I had no desire to go to a catholic high school but they convinced me to when I was in a public middle school. Oh, and I had to go as a scholarship student so yes, I paid my own way through high school.

It was a pretty good deal and I certainly wasn't the only one who got this opportunity. There's opportunity where there's talent, period. Where there isn't???

That's where the need is. IMHO.

[Axxon]

dola - scholarship in this high school simply meant we didn't have to pay the entire tuition. I was expected to work and give most of my salary to the school while I attended. Again, heck of a bargain and a super opportunity for me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

I'm not going to quote anything from Jon's anecdote, but I think it's surprising that the educators were so adamant about education actually being valued in the community given the serious problems they apparently face. The educators I've had contact with (my mother, a middle school teacher neighbor when I was in Houston) seemed to be pretty realistic about the degree of support they were getting. In a setting like that, I couldn't see them being dishonest.

Remember, the experience was Houston ... where I actually happen to know a current teacher oddly enough, and based on a lot of things she's told us over the past couple of years, I have no reason to believe the realism you describe is anything other than a reasonable expectation.

But sadly, backwater Georgia isn't Houston, apparently not by a long shot.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Where there isn't???

Where there's insufficient talent to create the opportunity, then perhaps the artificially created opportunity is ultimately a waste of resources.

Here, we seem to cover a lot of that under the Hope Scholarship program these days.

[Mr. Wednesday]

The middle school teacher was Houston. My mom is Massachusetts... originally more rural (a seven-town regional district with the largest town having a pop of 7,000, my high school class was ~140), now a large suburban town of >20,000.

Obviously, MA is even less to your point than Houston is.

[Buzzbee]

Jon - I believe that you and I are pretty close in our views. Yours are a tad more extreme (okay more than a tad), as is the case with most of our views. The jist that I got from your novel was that parents pull the most weight, but teachers/schools can help pull up the slack. However, in some areas the level of apathy on both parts prevents either from getting the job done. Ideas such as NCLB can help improve things, but to certain degrees in some areas, things are too far gone.

I personally don't think things are quite that dire. Thinking long term, I believe things are somewhat cyclical. It reminds me of a discussion I had with a college buddy.

I was graced with having parents who could and did provide most anything I needed. I had summer jobs but it was more out of boredom than need. My buddy had to work all through high school and college.

It led to two totally different viewpoints on how to raise children. My attitude was (and is) that since I had it fairly easy, I didn't learn the value of hard work, sacrifice, or to appreciate how good I had it. Therefore I had (and have) a strong desire for my kids to work to earn money, to not have things handed to them, and to be able to stand on their own two feet. Dan on the other hand had the opposite view. He didn't want his kids to have to do anything. He wanted to spoil them so that they didn't have to go through what he did. He wanted them to be able to enjoy things that he was never able to.

Two different viewpoints as a result of two different experiences. The point? At some point I believe that harsh reality will swing the pendulum away from ambivalence and more toward involvement. Naive? Probably, but it is what gives me hope that our kid's kids won't be the total fuckups that their parents were.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Where there's insufficient talent to create the opportunity, then perhaps the artificially created opportunity is ultimately a waste of resources.

Here, we seem to cover a lot of that under the Hope Scholarship program these days.

That's what I meant of course. Where there is insufficient talent at the top end, why devote resources to those who won't ever reach such grandious heights but are above average when you can use the same resources to reach the far vaster number of those on the lower end who can aspire for average?

Those who truly have the talent will succeed anyway.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Axxon

... when you can use the same resources to reach the far vaster number of those on the lower end who can aspire for average?

And I believe that's where we're disagreeing. Right now, to be far "below average" you've got to be scraping the bottom of the raw ability barrel. I'm not convinced you can bring those people up enough to be worthwhile, and certainly not at the expense of limited resources that could be put to use in elevating those at average to better than (current) average or better yet, to propel our best & brightest to possibly unique heights.

This is where you have to remember that I'm supportive of efforts like NCLB for reasons beyond the usual primary selling point.

[Buzzbee]

Jon's view reminds me of a Planet of the Apes episode/movie. The human 'captives' were talking about growing corn with their ape 'captors.' The apes were complaining that the crops were producing less corn each year and the stalks were less healthy.

The humans asked if the apes ate the good ears of corn and saved the lesser ears of corn for planting, or if they ate the lesser corn and planted the good.

The apes ate the good ears of corn because it was more desireable, and planted the lower quality kernels.

The humans pointed out that this was why the crops were declining. The seeds they were using were of lower and lower quality.

Not comparing children to corn, but I think it illustrates Jon's point. Cultivate those with the best chance for success. Don't waste resources on those that have little chance of producing a quality result.


I don't agree or disagree. Just making an illustration.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And I believe that's where we're disagreeing. Right now, to be far "below average" you've got to be scraping the bottom of the raw ability barrel.

That's indeed where we disagree. My job has me dealing with a huge number of people on a daily basis and of a wide subsection of society. I think you're being far too optomistic in defining average.

The dedicated ability of those who can think to choose not to so truly is remarkable to me in a thoroughly depressing way.