Parliamentary maneuver or thwarting the will of the people?

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I believe teacher quality is almost incomparably more important than class size. U.S. schools have almost twice the number of teachers per student than they did 50 years ago, and spend about twice the number of (inflation-adjusted) dollars -- yet they achieve poorer results. Something obviously ain't working. One of the main problems is that the system protects bad teachers and fails to sufficiently reward the good ones. If we continue doing that, we'll just sink further and further behind the rest of the world. Nothing will change until teachers unions make our kids a greater priority than our more poorly qualified and unmotivated teachers. Let's get rid of the bad ones and pay the good ones better. Teaching should be an honored and rewarded profession.

I think Bill Gates made some excellent points in this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

I agree with you. I used to think teaching was a gift...you couldn't train a teacher. But the article referenced below changed my mind. I think what we need to do is give all teachers an opportunity to improve through the methods described in this article, and if they don't, kick them to the curb in favor of ones that can achieve success.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-teacher/7841/

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

One of the main problems is that the system protects bad teachers and fails to sufficiently reward the good ones.

I have several friends and acquaintances in education, and they argue that one of the main problems we have today is that the system protects bad students. They don’t mean to infer that any child is innately unable to learn. That’s simply not true. Their experiences cause them to believe many (10% or so) students today place no value on gaining an education and an increasing number have no respect for teachers (legacy of the ‘60s?) nor fear the consequences of misbehaving while in school. Some of these kids think it’s a badge of honor to have gone to jail and to have a parole officer. Do you think they’re afraid of any punishment that might be meted out by a teacher or a principal? It only takes one such child in a classroom to negatively impact the education of the other 30.

When I was in school, this type of kid dropped out or was expelled. By current law, a student such as this must be accommodated by the school system—and s/he knows it. When I was in school, this type of behavior guaranteed an individual a little one-on-one remediation with a coach after school. Teachers today don’t dare share a stick of gum with a student for fear they might get sued and/or lose their jobs.

Another distracter is many kids today are trying to go to school and raise their own families. Similarly, they work part-time jobs to help make both ends meet at home. I recommend that you watch the second season of “The Wire” by HBO. It offers a grimy depiction of what it’s like to teach in a failing school system. It depicts conscientious teachers struggling against students brought down by poverty, gangs and drugs. It’s not the teacher’s who are failing, it’s society.

[pjorourke]

We need to blow up the current educational business model and start over. It doesn't work and its too expensive.

[Texas Contrarian]

I. B., I understand your point...and I agree with you that societal/discipline issues are serious problems. But I don't think we're ever going to get anywhere without improving teacher quality and encouraging those unsuited to the profession to find employment elsewhere.

Perhaps I'm simply unaware of the extent to which bad kids sobotage our educational system in some urban school districts. When I was growing up in Dallas in the '50s and '60s, it wasn't too hard for schools to deal with punks. If a couple of warnings and relatively minor punishments didn't suffice, the specter of a transfer to what was then called "reform school" might do the trick.

Apparently such methods have been deemed unacceptable by today's authorities. But then, maybe today's punks are simply a lot more ruthless and vicious.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

We need to blow up the current educational business model and start over. It doesn't work and its too expensive.

Nothing like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I guess we could satisfy your tastes with a system that only educates the landed gentry at the expense of the general population.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Perhaps I'm simply unaware of the extent to which bad kids sobotage our educational system in some urban school districts. When I was growing up in Dallas in the '50s and '60s, it wasn't too hard for schools to deal with punks. If a couple of warnings and relatively minor punishments didn't suffice, the specter of a transfer to what was then called "reform school" might do the trick.

Apparently such methods have been deemed unacceptable by today's authorities. But then, maybe today's punks are simply a lot more ruthless and vicious.

Yeah, dealing with punks now is a much more complicated process. I grew up in the 50s & 60s like you.

I attribute the schools' ineptitude to a series of things the morphed the schools' power over the years.

Currently, schools are afraid of lawsuits...but they shouldn't be. Schools are invested with more inherent defense protections than most institutions.

Second, the schools (and I think this was their primary downfall) wanted to take the place of the parent so they could make on-the-spot decisions with regard to the student, and were granted in loco parentis status. They had the power, but didn't exercise it, again, due to fear of lawsuits.

Third, they developed "systems" to keep bad students or students who acted badly (read "criminals"). They tried to keep them in the schools, and the schools were not equipped to deal with them.

Outside the schools, was the juvenile delinquency system. It also was not equipped to deal with these kids. Their history was with truancy and incorrigibility. Not with crimes against persons and property. They weren't used to 14 yos who carry guns in schools.

So, the institution was always way behind where it needed to be.

There should have been a bright line and it should have been the commission of a crime. Crime never belonged in the school system. Once a student committed a crime, he should have gone to prison/jail and been kicked out of school for good. A real Zero Tolerance policy.

Instead, we have a system that's attempting to accomplish multiple goals at the same time, and failing miserably at all of them.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Nothing like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I guess we could satisfy your tastes with a system that only educates the landed gentry at the expense of the general population.

Did I say that? I realize that is your preconceived opinion, but its not mine.

The current system is designed to fit the needs of the education bureaucracy, not the children or the country. Its a model with roots in an agrarian society (where only 2% of us work) that takes a quarter of the year off. The system is built around warehousing kids and elapsed time not learning. This is particularly acute at the higher education levels where the ballooning cost of a 4 year beer bash is rapidly eclipsing the incremental earning from that learning. We need to rethink the entire process and incorporate computerized instruction and demonstrated proficiency into the core of the system -- not as "enrichment".

We also need to incorporate free market principles like funding through vouchers so that poor kids have the same opportunity to go to good schools that the "landed gentry" do.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Yeah, dealing with punks now is a much more complicated process. I grew up in the 50s & 60s like you.

I attribute the schools' ineptitude to a series of things the morphed the schools' power over the years.

Currently, schools are afraid of lawsuits...but they shouldn't be. Schools are invested with more inherent defense protections than most institutions.

The teachers feel vulnerable also. Sometimes a school board's or administrator's only concern is CYOA and leave the teacher out to hang.

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Second, the schools (and I think this was their primary downfall) wanted to take the place of the parent so they could make on-the-spot decisions with regard to the student, and were granted in loco parentis status. They had the power, but didn't exercise it, again, due to fear of lawsuits.

This has led to a dependence on LE for the most mundane school infractions.

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Third, they developed "systems" to keep bad students or students who acted badly (read "criminals"). They tried to keep them in the schools, and the schools were not equipped to deal with them.

It's the law: "No Child Left Behind."

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Outside the schools, was the juvenile delinquency system. It also was not equipped to deal with these kids. Their history was with truancy and incorrigibility. Not with crimes against persons and property. They weren't used to 14 yos who carry guns in schools.

Where I went to school, we commonly carried rifles and shotguns in our trucks and cars so that we could go hunting after school. We were responsible and never had an incident, so it was never an issue.

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

So, the institution was always way behind where it needed to be.

There should have been a bright line and it should have been the commission of a crime. Crime never belonged in the school system. Once a student committed a crime, he should have gone to prison/jail and been kicked out of school for good. A real Zero Tolerance policy.

Instead, we have a system that's attempting to accomplish multiple goals at the same time, and failing miserably at all of them.

Prisons cost more than schools, but somehow these kids must have their priorities adjusted so as not to hold back the rest of society.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

A real Zero Tolerance policy.

Most Zero Tolerance policies are just a means for faceless bureaucratic dweebs to avoid making decisions and having to defend them.

We treat a punk with a switch blade the same as an honor student whose mother accidentally packs a kitchen knife in their lunch. Or treat crack cocaine the same as Excedrin. The height of stupidity.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Most Zero Tolerance policies are just a means for faceless bureaucratic dweebs to avoid making decisions and having to defend them.

We treat a punk with a switch blade the same as an honor student whose mother accidentally packs a kitchen knife in their lunch. Or treat crack cocaine the same as Excedrin. The height of stupidity.

The only Zero Tolerance policy ever enforced uniformly is every company's Violence in the Workplace Policy. Commit an act of violence and you're fired. Simple as that.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Most Zero Tolerance policies are just a means for faceless bureaucratic dweebs to avoid making decisions and having to defend them.

We treat a punk with a switch blade the same as an honor student whose mother accidentally packs a kitchen knife in their lunch. Or treat crack cocaine the same as Excedrin. The height of stupidity.

lawsuits and lawyer twisting of facts and discrimination and racism charges have contributed to the one size fits all mentality

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

lawsuits and lawyer twisting of facts and discrimination and racism charges have contributed to the one size fits all mentality

+1
True statement. Teachers and administrators are afraid they will be sued for unequal application of punishment for violation of the rules. The rule says "no knives." Little Susie's butter knife and little Johnny's switchblade are both knives. Therefore, both students are expelled. If the principal let little Susie stay in school, while at the same time expelling little Johnny, then little Johnny's lawyer has a case for a discrimination suit.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

lawsuits and lawyer twisting of facts and discrimination and racism charges have contributed to the one size fits all mentality

I guess lawyers are responsible for ALL the ills of the world, huh?

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

+1
True statement. Teachers and administrators are afraid they will be sued for unequal application of punishment for violation of the rules. The rule says "no knives." Little Susie's butter knife and little Johnny's switchblade are both knives. Therefore, both students are expelled. If the principal let little Susie stay in school, while at the same time expelling little Johnny, then little Johnny's lawyer has a case for a discrimination suit.

I know you know this. But let's be clear here. This case, as presented, is not a discrimination case. At best, it's an unequal application of the rules. But to be discrimination, the allegation would have to be based on a suspect classification. If Johnny alleged the unequal treatment was due to gender...then that's a discrimination suit. But just an application of the school's rules without some suspect classification reference is not, in and of itself, a discrimination case.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I know you know this. But let's be clear here. This case, as presented, is not a discrimination case. At best, it's an unequal application of the rules. But to be discrimination, the allegation would have to be based on a suspect classification. If Johnny alleged the unequal treatment was due to gender...then that's a discrimination suit. But just an application of the school's rules without some suspect classification reference is not, in and of itself, a discrimination case.

Correct. I meant it both ways. Unequal application of punishment and/or gender bias. Either way, it's grounds for a suit.