Schools use novel ways to boost attendance

[deadparrot]

California students reportedly are increasingly being begged, bribed and badgered to go to class and it's not only for educational purposes.

There's also a need to boost the coffers of cash-strapped school districts that rely on state funding largely determined by daily attendance, the Los Angeles Times says.

For example, Temecula schools, losing about $30,000 a day because of absences, are raffling a car, Disneyland vacations and iPods to pupils with near-perfect attendance.

Santa Ana educators are encouraging teen moms to come to class by opening a day-care center. Other districts are urging parents who take their kids on vacation to reimburse them for lost state revenue.

http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=205252&cat=World

[bammertheblue]

1. I read about this in People

I think the day-care center is a good idea. The rest of it I think is dumb. If parents want to give their kids rewards because of good grades or attendance, that's okay. (Especially if it's a little thing like buying them a small gift or letting them pick the dinner, which my parents did once in a while if I got all As).
But when the school raffles off a car or something else huge, that's just teaching the kids that they are entitled to rewards for doing something they should be doing already. Kids are spoiled enough.

[William769]

2. If they would stop cutting funds for extra curricular activities

They might be able to keep the kids in school. When I was in High school (78-82) I was in the marching band, the High scholl that I attended has had to cut back so much on programs like these, I don't think I would stay at school either.

[bammertheblue]

4. That's true too

I hated school but I liked the extracurrics...I probably would have cut more too if they got rid of those.

[geubanks]

7. The extra curricular activities that are cut...

are usually in the Fine Arts area lo-o-ong before any cuts to athletics, too, which seems odd since the Fine Arts are intellectual, emotional and physical (anyone who plays an instrument or sings knows this). Sad....

[GoddessOfGuinness]

29. Welcome to DU!

In my opinion, the Fine Arts should not be considered "extra" curricular activity, because they provide a direct application ofr so many of the skills that are taught in the standard curriculum.

Math, history, chemistry, physics, foreign language, geometry, anatomy...
All these and so much more can be applied to painting, sculpture, instrumental and vocal music, dance, theater.

Of course, it requires intellect to perceive that; and there are so many ignorant people making the rules these days.

[old blue]

53. as an ex-high school jock, I say,

cut football before choir.

One in a million high school athletes will become a professional jock. The skills learned in fine arts curricula are more likely to carry over into a profession. Beyond mere practicality, fine arts enrich the culture, whereas the jock mentality leads to flag-waving, chest-thumping, and blind loyalty.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. My dad was a principal and he used to say that a lot of kids only came to

school so they could go to football practice after school.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

30. When I was in high school, the band director recruited

new members from the kids he'd find in the hall who were skipping class.

He gave those kids something to work hard on that would give them a sense of pride. And they stayed in school. They didn't always graduate with the best grades, but they learned what it was like to accomplish something.

I wonder what drop-out rates are like these days...

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. Since most schools now have no pass no play policies,

the dropout rate has gone up.

[Greyhound]

42. I was in HS in Cali when prop 13 went into effect. Remember prop 13?

That was the piece of brilliance out of Sacramento that said property owners will never have another tax increase and all they had to do was let the school system fall from the number 1, envy of the nation, model public education system to 49th. In 1 year they eliminated my entire curriculum. No art, no music, no theater, no after school activities, no gymnastics, no girls sports, no language classes, no honors classes, no remedial classes... in fact the only things that weren't cut were administration salaries and the football program, Surprise! We dropped out and got GEDs.

[yorkiemommie1]

3. i work in an adult school (ESL)

and they do all kinds of things to encourage attendance from spacing out tests, to changing break times, to manipulating the times of their parties/sing-along programs to extending the sessions an extra week.

this year the admins were 10 days late in notifying staff as to the extension ( per district rules ) and many had already made travel plans. needless to say they got their hands slapped for not being 'team players.' next term, i bet they will beat the deadline.

i'm sure they were balancing their projected ADA against the costs of keeping the school open and paying staff for the extra week.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. That sucks

Sorry you have to deal with that.

[chelaque liberal]

5. Funding based on ADA is part of the problem with public schools.

My husband teaches at a pretty rough high school. He routinely has to put up with highly disruptive students in his class, who are effectively preventing the students who actually want an education from getting it, because the administration bends over back-wards to keep the numbers up. Whose kids would be out on their butts in a private school.

I'm absolutely not advocating private schools, just stating that this system, along with many other things, are hurting public schools.

[Trillo]

6. Private schools also like to lie about reasons for expulsion.

For example, they'll fail to tell you rule that'll get you expelled, then act all incensed that you broke this rule they damn well know they didn't have. I know this from experience.

Much better to just eliminate compulsory attendence. It'll fix a lot of problems, like those that are created when someone is forced to do something they don't want to be doing, and for which they are never compensated for having done.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. So what do you suggest we do

if we get rid of compulsory atendance?

Shouldn't there be SOME standard? I'd hate to see kids sit at home all day or roam the streets cause no one makes them go to school.

[Trillo]

14. I think they should be paid.

Having a lottery doesn't teach kids they will get paid for labor, it teaches gambling, which by its very nature, disappoints the majority, and certainly doesn't teach a work ethic of reward.

I used to think that raising the minimum wage to $21 per hour, or thereabouts, at least would compensate former high-school students for the time they spent in a schoolroom seat versus what professionals currently and in the recent past make. I still think its a good idea, but not much in the realm of possibility these days. The next best thing I can think of is to pay students for their performance in school.

In later years, working is supposed to get one compensated. Working well is supposed to get one raises and/or promotions. So why isn't it that way K-12 school? (because school's punishment is my conclusion, part of the employers' system--corporatists' system--for teaching the majority they're worthless, and worth-less pay later in life)

The above are just some thoughts.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. How are you going to pay for that?

[Trillo]

18. How are the schools paying for lottery-like bribes?

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. Grants

[anotherdrew]

22. why on earth should you pay ignorant children to learn?

If they are stupid enough to choose to forgo their FREE education, and their parents weak and stupid enough to let them, that's just one less person for me to compete against for a real job. Social Darwinism in action. I hope these ignorant kids who won't go to school really really enjoy the life of utter poverty and servitude their republican masters have in store for them.

[Trillo]

27. Ignorant is as ignorant does.

Let me tell you a quick and true story. When I was sent to private school (not my choice, my parents choice), during the campus change from 6th to 7th grade, the school tested all its students, and I was tested to have college-level reading and writing comprehension. Curiously, the private school spent the next year convincing me I couldn't read (specifically that I shouldn't read science fiction--it was a waste of time according to them), and that I couldn't write.

In hindsight, I think I've decided that it was in the schools financial interest to keep me in low-level English classes. The slower all students learned, (or in my case unlearned), the more money the school made.

There is something insidiously abusive about slowing kids down when they have learned and are learning on their own without the aid of a teacher. Teaching them in little tiny 1-hour blocks of English broken up with 1-hour blocks of other subjects isn't real smart, either. In fact, there are so many points of error in how schools teach, the only conclusion that makes sense is that they are in the business of destroying the majority of kids and their futures, so that a privileged few can prey on them.

There is something explicitly wrong with an ignorant adult attitude that assumes all kids are stupid and ignorant.

Speaking of FREE public schools, why can't they get their bully problem under control? Perhaps because it serves some purpose they don't want the public to know?

[anotherdrew]

28. indeed

yep I agree with you - slowing kids down is a crime, also the methods used to teach are awful. Also the mass culture we live in denigrates learning and education in as many ways as possible. Still, there is learning to be had there and a library to read from independently if need be (I sure made use of my school libraries).

by ignorant here I specifically mean to use the word in the sense of "lacking detailed knowledge"

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. Are you now a teacher?

Because you seem to know all the solutions on how to teach. How effective has it been - can you point to your results? How long are the blocks you use to teach in - and for what age children? Mixed ability - or high and low ability?

How have you got your bullying problem under control?

[Trillo]

45. I don't believe that I've offered many solutions.

Please back up your wild assertion with data.

I am not a teacher. I'm a high-school dropout. I was expelled from too many private schools.

As a school supporting taxpayer, I suggest everyone read: "34. Why kids DON'T come to school" below. There is some wisdom in that article.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. Well, you claimed to know what was wrong

so I thought that must mean you knew what should be done instead.

"Teaching them in little tiny 1-hour blocks of English broken up with 1-hour blocks of other subjects isn't real smart, either. In fact, there are so many points of error in how schools teach, the only conclusion that makes sense is that they are in the business of destroying the majority of kids and their futures, so that a privileged few can prey on them.

There is something explicitly wrong with an ignorant adult attitude that assumes all kids are stupid and ignorant.

Speaking of FREE public schools, why can't they get their bully problem under control? Perhaps because it serves some purpose they don't want the public to know?"

So you know that teaching in 1 hour blocks is wrong - you must be able to tell us what the correct length of time is. If you know schools are doing many things wrong, you must know what's right. And if you accuse them of letting bullying go on for their own purposes, you must know how it could be stopped. So why didn't you tell us? You seem to know so much about what schools are doing wrong that you surely must have experience of what's right. But now you seem to be admitting that you're just guessing that something else would work better. Post #34's main point is that smaller classes would mean teachers would know their pupils better. That might be true (and when I was in school, I certainly felt that when I was in smaller classes, I learnt more), but you never suggested that.

[Trillo]

55. So you can't back up your assertion

in post #39 that I "know all the solutions" Was that statement of yours a deliberate deception? Or was it a debating tactic?

>So you know that teaching in 1 hour blocks is wrong - you must be able to tell us what the correct length of time is.

Interesting implication of yours, that if there isn't a hard and fast rule of "correct length of time", then all is lost. It seems to me a narrow, limited view, at best.

Perhaps there is no one correct length of time that works best for all individuals at all times. It was wrong for me, most of the time. I've read elsewhere in a variety of places that it doesn't work well for quite a large number of kids. An educator once told me this back in the 70's, as well. I think I remember reading that some other countries don't use the 1-hour blocks method, but rather concentrate on singular topics for several weeks at a time.

>If you know schools are doing many things wrong, you must know what's right.

Why does it follow from the existence of bullying, and my having been bullied, in public schools, that the messenger of such realities has the solution to them? (more below)

>And if you accuse them of letting bullying go on for their own purposes, you must know how it could be stopped.

Since when is asking a question, an accusation? You so consistently make the same logical fallacies, I'd swear you're doing it deliberately, but for what purpose? To disrupt discussion?

I can say "from my experience" that student bullies weren't a problem in private schools. Since I've read elsewhere over the years that bullies are less of a problem in private schools, I'd have to deduce that the problem of bullies are not only well known, but that the solution is known as well. It begs the question I asked. Still, it was a question, not an assertion.

as·ser·tion n.
1. a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason: a mere assertion; an unwarranted assertion.


> You seem to know so much about what schools are doing wrong that you surely must have experience of what's right.

You consistently make the same type of logical error. Why does it follow that knowing "what is right" follows from an experience of "what has gone wrong"? Why can't it simply be about what has gone wrong?

>But now you seem to be admitting that you're just guessing that something else would work better.

Where is that admission of mine? I see you are telling others here I have made it. Point out "my words," that you refer to. Can I expect the same bait and switch type of non-answer that your post #51 was to my request in post #45?

>Post #34's main point is that smaller classes would mean teachers would know their pupils better.

Disagree about it being the main point, but would agree that the article makes more than one point. I think there may have been an implication therein for more school funding, but I don't believe an implication rises to "main point." Perhaps disussing what the article's main point is would be a good, constructive idea.

>That might be true (and when I was in school, I certainly felt that when I was in smaller classes, I learnt more), but you never suggested that.

My experience in private schools that had smaller class sizes, was poor, much worse overall than living with the bullies of public schools. Perhaps smaller classes work better when other administrative realities of private schools do not exist, but that IS a guess.

I really would have preferred to have been schooled solely in public schools, perhaps I wouldn't have learned the lessons I did. I believe that others, who had better experiences in private and/or public schools, simply were luckier.

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. You haven't even understood what I wrote

I said "you seem to know all the solutions on how to teach" - note the word 'seem'. That's because you claim there are many errors in the way pupils are taught. If you say that what is currently done is wrong, you give the impression that you have alternatives - and that you have evidence they work. You didn't say what your alternatives were in earlier posts, and now it seems that you're just guessing - you say some countries concentrate on a single topic for weeks at a time, but you haven't yet pointed to any results from this.

"Interesting implication of yours, that if there isn't a hard and fast rule of "correct length of time", then all is lost. It seems to me a narrow, limited view, at best."

Yours was the narrow, limited view - you said "teaching them in little tiny 1-hour blocks of English broken up with 1-hour blocks of other subjects isn't real smart" - a simple statement that teaching in one hour blocks was wrong. I never said all was lost. I just said you must be able to tell us what the correct length of time is - because you told us that 1 hour was wrong.

"Since when is asking a question, an accusation? You so consistently make the same logical fallacies, I'd swear you're doing it deliberately, but for what purpose? To disrupt discussion?"

Your 'question' clearly implied that public schools let bullying happen on purpose: "Speaking of FREE public schools, why can't they get their bully problem under control? Perhaps because it serves some purpose they don't want the public to know?" That last question is rhetorical. You are saying that it is your opinion that they do want bullying - though you don't back it up with any details. From my own experience in private schools, bullying happens there too. Private schools have the choice of expelling the worst bullies, throwing them into the public system. They also get the backing of the parents - parents who are paying for education will accept the decisions of the school (which they temselves chose as a good school), while some in the public system don't give a toss. Both of these might explain why bullying in public schools can be worse. Yet you have ignored these possibilities, and instead gone straight to an implication that public schools want bullying.

No, I'm not disrupting discussion; but I am challenging your assertion that schools are trying to destroy most children. It's a stupid assertion, and highly insulting to teachers. I've never met a teacher who hates children - they all want their pupils to succeed, because they like them, as a whole, and it also reflects well on the teachers.

You were admitting that you're just guessing about what would be better by your complete absence of evidence of what else has worked. When I asked you for specifics, you gave nothing.

Post #34 is worth discussing - I suggest that discussion is done in reply to it, rather than here where our argument about your accusations against schools will get in the way.

[Trillo]

74. You argue with consistent duplicity.

>You haven't even understood what I wrote

Then why have you been arguing that you need more information from me for you to understand what I've written if the problem is what you just claimed, that I don't understand what you wrote?

>If you say that what is currently done is wrong, you give the impression that you have alternatives - and that you have evidence they work.


An example, a hypothetical:

Let's say you build a small model rocket. Unfortunately, it goes up ten feet then travels horizontally for a moment then crashes, but the motor continues to burn for a time. A critic comes to you and says: It doesn't go up into the sky very high. Your response: How can I build it so it flies better?
The critic says: I don't know, you built the rocket, you're the rocket scientist, why are you asking me? I simply noted it crashed.
You say: Well, if you're going to note that it crashed, then surely you must know how to build a better rocket, one follows from the other. By stating the rocket crashes, you give the impression you have alternatives that work better, and that you have evidence that they work better. Critic says: No, I simply noted that your rocket crashed and burned.
You say: You stated above that you had evidence on how to fix the rocket.
Etc.... end example

>You didn't say what your alternatives were in earlier posts, and now it seems that you're just guessing - you say some countries concentrate on a single topic for weeks at a time, but you haven't yet pointed to any results from this.

I previously wrote the following phrases, relating to alternatives and 1-hour blocks, and you just claimed I didn't say what my alternatives were:

1. "It was wrong for me, most of the time."
2. "I've read elsewhere in a variety of places that it doesn't work well for quite a large number of kids."
3. An educator once told me this back in the 8th grade, as well.

A. I also wrote about the bully problem, but you don't seem to understand reducing that problem as being an 'alternative,' except when you want to argue some other facet of bullies.
B. I suggested paying students to attend.
C. I suggested decreasing the bully problem in public schools.
D. I suggested eliminating the compulsory element of schooling.

Yet, you claim, "You didn't say what your alternatives were."

I read in the newspaper back in the 80s about a country that taught single subjects for several weeks. I might be able to find that article on microfiche if I was willing to spend the necessary time and money for physical travel to a metropolitan library looking for it. I'm not willing.

>Yours was the narrow, limited view - you said "teaching them in little tiny 1-hour blocks of English broken up with 1-hour blocks of other subjects isn't real smart" - a simple statement that teaching in one hour blocks was wrong. I never said all was lost. I just said you must be able to tell us what the correct length of time is - because you told us that 1 hour was wrong.


If I state that a fixed amount of time is wrong, then you ask what fixed amount of time is right, the question doesn't include the possibility that it's the "fixed" amount of time that is the issue. My prior post said: "Perhaps there is no one correct length of time that works best for all individuals at all times."

Narrow means, generally, the opposite of wide or broad. I'm suggesting something broader than the limiting 1-hour blocks.

Think of the following hypothetical. Lets say there are two people: one is gifted in subject A, and challenged in subject Z; the other is gifted in subject Z, and challenged in subject A (opposites of each other). Further, we know the first person learns subject A in 10 hours, but subject Z takes them 20 hours to learn (how we know this is unimportant, it's hypotetical); with the second person the times for each subject are exactly reversed. Now, lets say the hypothetical school says each person can have 1 hour learning blocks in each subject, but only a total of fifteen such blocks of each subject, and further, only that one subject will be taught during those 1 hour blocks. The student will be tested on both subjects and will need to pass both to graduate at the end. The students are allowed no extra home study.

The hypothetical school structure is a system that will fail both students, neither will graduate. It allocated a 'fixed' amount of time for both subjects that will allow each student to learn the subject each is gifted at, but without giving enough time for the subject which challenges them.

Now imagine a broader, more flexible system where the 5 hours extra (not needed) from the time to learn the subject each student is gifted in can be applied to the subject each student is challenged in. This minor adjustment allows both students to pass both subjects under the hypothetical scenario. Since it allows both students to pass both subjects, it is broader than the narrow unadjusted hypothetical system that didn't allow either student to graduate.

(Yet you say, "Yours was the narrow, limited view")

Another way to fix the hypothetical is to increase the time both students sit in both classes. This will likely create boredom for the students in the classes they are gifted in, risking 'turning them off' from their gift. It increases expense, and it is inefficient and bloated.


>Your 'question' clearly implied that public schools let bullying happen on purpose: "Speaking of FREE public schools, why can't they get their bully problem under control? Perhaps because it serves some purpose they don't want the public to know?" That last question is rhetorical.

Disagree. It was two questions, there was also a conditional such as "perhaps" in the second. I also gave my deductive reasoning for the question based upon my experience elsewhere in the text.

>You are saying that it is your opinion that they do want bullying - though you don't back it up with any details.

I do not know absolutely what the education establishment truly intends, nor do I trust those high up who do know to be honest and forthright, nor do I know whether the average dedicated teacher in the classroom would even know what those at the top intend.

>From my own experience in private schools, bullying happens there too. Private schools have the choice of expelling the worst bullies, throwing them into the public system. They also get the backing of the parents - parents who are paying for education will accept the decisions of the school (which they themselves chose as a good school), while some in the public system don't give a toss. Both of these might explain why bullying in public schools can be worse. Yet you have ignored these possibilities, and instead gone straight to an implication that public schools want bullying.

First, I want to congratulate you for writing something lacking duplicity.

I don't think your rationale explains what I experienced, though it certainly appears to explain a very real phenomenon at a different level than in the first few grades. I don't really want to share more anecdotes, otherwise I'd explain further.

What is the possible rationale for forcing bullies to attend only public schools, but not private ones? Is it to deliberately or even unitentionally create a two-tiered educational system, the American equivalent of People's Schools and Realschules?

>No, I'm not disrupting discussion; but I am challenging your assertion that schools are trying to destroy most children.

Fair enough. In addition to mentioned problems in the schools, 75% of high school students are later victimized by a financial system which pays them unfair wages compared to other more highly educated groups based upon a relative time-spent-in-a-classroom-seat model. I've posted on this before on DU, the math for this is simple, pretty much anyone with basic math skills can calculate it with Census data: take the average pay of HS graduates without higher education and divide by the amount of time spent in school, compare that to the average pay of professionals divided by the amount of time they've typically been in school.

Yet, all educators seems to be able to say to those HS graduates is to get more education and to pay outrageous sums to get it! (creating a 'feedback loop' supposedly justifying professional's higher wages, so they can pay back their college loans) Um, lets see, HS failed many of us, so we're supposed to go to more continuation of what failed us? Why would it ever make sense to keep trying what has proved overall (to those such as myself) to not work?

I have read that a schools have helped destroy the self-esteem of some students. Google 'self-esteem school' It looks like some groups are trying to fix some of the problems, unintentional or not.

>It's a stupid assertion, and highly insulting to teachers. I've never met a teacher who hates children - they all want their pupils to succeed, because they like them, as a whole, and it also reflects well on the teachers.

Your judgement of "stupid" in the first sentence is irrelevant. Is the "insulting" portion duplicity, or truthful? It's not possible for me to tell, but my guess is duplicity, due to your preponderant use of it.

My intent is not to insult all teachers, but simply to explain my perspective and experiences, and I get jumped on frequently by some here when I do (using all sorts of deceptive debate tactics). I also had some well-meaning teachers, who clearly liked their students, and appeared to want the best for them. Unfortunately, I also had some really bad ones, one I remember actually liked to tell the whole class they were "stupid" (sound familiar?) and "losers" everyday for several weeks at the start of the semester.

>You were admitting that you're just guessing about what would be better by your complete absence of evidence of what else has worked. When I asked you for specifics, you gave nothing.

Nope.

You simply didn't like the anecdotes and alternatives I did give you, so, it seems that you're suggesting that I didn't write something that I did, therefore there's more duplicity from you.

I offered at least several suggestions, one was minimize the bullying of kids, and further suggested that this could be done with the elimination of the compulsory element of education. Further, you claimed I had evidence, to please point to the data. Instead, I offered anecdotes to be understood, if not accepted, but they're apparently not good enough evidence. So be it.

Another place for the evidence you seem to seek would be the phrase 'Prussian school' at Google. You'll find a wealth of information on precisely what short broken up blocks of learning do, and possible rationales for why public and private schools have likely used this structure.

It would appear the Prussian School's methods were adopted here in the U.S., in a plan that is apparently designed to destroys children's desires, and therefore, happiness. What happened to the "inalienable" right of "pursuit of happiness"? If one takes away this right, does one destroy the child?

I think the named New York State Teacher of the Year, 1991, figures into this somehow.

Perhaps future schools can correct some of these errors; if so, it remains to be seen.

:hi:

[noamnety]

62. Yes, why DON'T they get bullying under control?

What is the matter with teachers? By the time kids are in high school, the teachers have 20-30 students at a time, for hour long classes. That's 2 whole minutes per student! With two minutes a day with a kid, why can't they eliminate their ego problems, all racism, all sexism, and all the bigotry they bring from their families? Why can't they solve all the mental problems kids have - regardless of if they take medication, don't take medication, whether they are abused at home, etc?

If only teachers were doing their jobs properly, everyone would be nice to each other, even when the teachers aren't there - and there would be no crime in America.

:eyes:

[Trillo]

65. Nah, teachers don't demand perfection, not at all...

Curious that you would uphold a perfect ideal as an object of sarcastic scorn. In class, and on tests, isn't perfection required to get that "A+"?

Why would the educational system seek to hold itself to a lower standard than what is requested of students for that "A+ grade"? A little hypocrisy, perhaps?

On a more compassionate note, I've always heard that identification of a problem is the first step in solving it. Curiously, solving a known problem doesn't always happen right away....

Oh, and BTW, statistical wizardry aside, you don't have 2 minutes with each child, you have the full hour with all of them.

[noamnety]

69. There are ideals, and there is reality

No school sets an ideal as having bullies, the ideal is always no bullying. The reality is different. This is like asking what's wrong with the mayor of (insert large city)? Why was there a murder in his city last year? Why hasn't he solved that whole crime thing? The answer is because it is (obviously) impossible for the mayor to have absolute control over the behavior of everyone he's responsible for.

If you live in a world of ideals, where every teacher is supposed to be perfect - and that perfection is defined by each of their students being perfect students as well as perfect angels, I'm guessing you're also a big fan of NCLB.

Here's a news flash - kids have all sorts of issues, just like adults do. And they bring those issues to school. Teachers can't "cure" a child with asperger's syndrome any more than their parents can cure it. And they can't cure aggressive behavior, they can't cure ADD, they can't cure racism. If a teacher works with a student and improves their behavior; if they can teach them how to control some small part of their behavior, they're doing good - making progress. They try to balance the needs of the individual with the needs of a school. You can adopt zero tolerance policies where one act results in expulsion. I've lost good students who were completely nonviolent, students who stayed after school to volunteer on projects - because of the zero tolerance policies. A member of the peace club brings a one inch pocket knife to school because it's a new gift from his dad, he doesn't threaten anyone witih it at all - he brings it to show a friend how cool it is. Bam, he's kicked out of high school forever. That's what your "perfect" standard gets you. It destroys lives.

In your world of perfection, there's no room for progress with individuals to be seen as a success. If every student doesn't hit perfection, the school fails.

You are right. I hold the standard of absolute perfection for an entire school as an object of sarcastic scorn, because we're dealing with humans, not robots.

[Trillo]

76. None of us can deal with everything.

It was my experience that private schools had a vastly smaller problem with bullies. Perhaps studying this disparity would lead to some solutions. I understand a lot of the very real problems you point out in your post about not being able to cure many things, and especially like your observations about zero tolerance. An expulsion like the lesbians received, is absurd, and surely has unintended consequences.

In your guess about me being for NCLB, you'd be wrong. I think it's likely designed to reduce the ability of children to think, and to emphasize memorizing the test questions and answers, but this is deductive based upon secondhand information. The NCLB system is likely great for promoting official propaganda, and perhaps for collecting personal information for inclusion in private databases. That NCLB seems to be occurring at the same time in U.S. history that the Constitution is being openly shredded by the Executive Branch, is revealing.

Thanks for being mostly reasonable. I write 'mostly' because of you still haven't dealt with the issue of slowing faster students down, and that was a big part of what I wrote about when you replied with sarcastic scorn to my post #27.

But that's okay, none of us can deal with everything.

[noamnety]

78. I was replying to the bullying statement specifically

That was the comment of yours that struck a chord with me, so that's what I responded to.

As far as your reading experience goes, my daugher had the same in kindergarden. She could read books on her own by the time she entered school. When I went to the parent-teacher conference a month or two after school started, they told me she was a little slow, and had only mastered the letters A through F. I told the teacher that was crap, she could read. The teacher figured I was one of those parents who couldn't come to terms with her kids being slow. Parents are like that, you know, they never know as well as a teacher what the standard is, and they are so easily fooled by kids memorizing their books so it looks like they're reading.

Needless to say, I elevated this to the principal, who called my kid in from class, pulled a book off her own bookshelf and asked Claire to read a page. Which she did with no problem. I had to compromise with my kid and the school, coerce my kid into doing the stupid "trace a letter" exercises, explaining it would just take her 20 seconds - just do it. So she made it through the self-paced alphabet crap in the next day or two.

I feel bad that it went on as long as it did, but it worked out okay. My kid learned a lesson about just doing crap cause that's how life is sometimes, and once she got through the stuff that was too easy, she had time to do her own thing, without getting harrassed. I learned a lesson about not allowing the teacher to be so passive. As a parent, you HAVE to be involved, because teachers can't always tell when a student is bored vs. when they don't understand the material. All they see is a kid staring dumbly at their sheet of paper.

And I learned you have to find the right school/situation for your kid. That was a Montessori school, which I had thought would be best. I liked their philosophy. But the reality is that they are very rigid about the order in which you do things. If you already know how to read and write, you still have to trace each freaking letter before you're allowed to just read a book. So she ended up in a traditional public school for a while, which was way better. And then the high school years were in a public charter school which was a whole different experience. We talked about her leaving high school early to go to Simon's Rock, but she was happy in the charter school and wanted to stay.

The one thing I didn't do was keep her in a school that sucked (for her), and let her be absent whenever she felt like it, with no consequences. If the Montessori school had been the only option in our community, she would have stayed there, because I was a single mom and couldn't quit my job to homeschool her. But we wouldn't have gone the passive-aggressive route of her being allowed to stay home whenever she felt like it because the school sucked. The message to the teachers (you are worthless) as well as the message to the child (education is worthless) is, like I said, counterproductive all around. Better to do alternative projects on the side that enhance what the class is trying to teach, if they aren't delving deep enough into the material and it's too easy.

[proud2BlibKansan]

77. Well why don't you try to give each student the individual attention they

need in an hour - and teach too? I'll go easy on you and give you only 15 kids. ;)

[manic expression]

15. You could give them a choice

they could take a government or skilled worker job or go to school.

Seems a bit authoritarian to me, but it beats having them end up in the streets, uneducated, destitute and desperate.

If anything, it gives someone a positive choice to make something out of their lives even if they do it outside of a classroom.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. I like the idea of giving them a choice.

That could work.

[Greyhound]

43. How about compulsory education? Compulsory attendance rules are just

medium security incarceration. "Ain't no education goin on up in that motherfucker"

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. Well figure out how to educate kids who aren't there

and get back to me. :crazy:

[yorkiemommie1]

13. the district put a county 'continuation school'

on our adult school property and installed two teachers at 95k each, plus a principal, a burly guard and an aide ( who worked for * in texas btw, and corroborates all those stories about his nasty temperament ).

even with that program 5 kids of the 20 have been expelled. so sad. where do they go from there?

edited to add last sentence.

[Trillo]

20. And in private schools there are sexual harrassment expulsions.

It's just a lawsuit at this point, but, the expulsion occurred:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051230/ap_on_re_us/students_expelled
RIVERSIDE, Calif. - Two 16-year-olds who were expelled from a Lutheran high school because they were suspected of being lesbians have sued the school for invasion of privacy and discrimination.

These two went to court, but is it the tip of the iceburg?

Such a sad way to learn of hatred--from an educator.

[yorkiemommie1]

23. i was surprised at this

because my daughter went to a lutheran school here in SoCal (k-8)and they were excellent in every way.

[Trillo]

24. I think these types of expulsions are unremarkable in private schools.

The lesson is not even mostly for those expelled, it's also done for its effect on the entire group of kids that remain.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. The Lutheran schools here are good too

[David Dunham]

8. What about failing kids who skip school a lot?

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. In my state, kids are automatically failed when they miss a certain number

of days. It varies, depending on what grade level. Kids in elem school can only miss up to 20 days a year. More than 20 and they are retained. State law.

[depakid]

31. That's the stupidest thing I ever heard

What state is that?

Kids ought to be graded on merit. If a kid aces exams and turns in excellent grade level papers, what difference does it make?

If that were the rule, me and a lot of other TAG kids would have never gotten out of grade school.

[proud2BlibKansan]

33. 99.9% of kids don't learn a darn thing if they don't come to school

And what are we teaching them when we let them come when they want and stay home when they want? Name one job in the real world where an employer allows that.

[depakid]

37. It's not a job-

In fact, for most intelligent or gifted kids- it's more like being babysat and bored to tears with busy work.

There's a reason why gifted kids have lower than average high school completion rates.

If the kids can pass the exams and complete the assignments- that's ALL that counts. "Clocking in" is meaningless- and quite frankly counter productive.

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. Oh yes it is a job

It serves as training in being responsible and learning to be a reliable independent member of society.

I don't care how gifted you are, you have to show up to do the job if you want to get a paycheck.

[depakid]

40. This is exactly why America is now in the position it's in

and why there are so many sheep and so few critical- much less original- thinkers in this country.

Show up or else, be a robot, do what everyone tells you. Don't make waves.

And here I thought that the purpose of education was inquiry, discovery, the pursuit of knowledge and analytical skills.

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. Well how the hell can kids be taught about inquiry, discovery and the

pursuit of knowledge and analytical skills if they don't show up at school?

If you suggest their parents teach them, good luck. I have been teaching for 25 years and most parents don't even help their kids with homework.

[Trillo]

47. Schools punish for lots of reasons,

many times those reasons are unjust. The "suspected lesbians" that I linked to were punished for the perceptions of tyrants. Therefore, your logic is false. Going to school itself teaches, at times, false knowledge and the deliberate deceptions of others.

This is not a statement about individual teachers, their dedication or caring for students. It's a statement about how the educational institution itself, by definition composed of many people, most of which are teachers, reacts as a coordinated unit. It is also a statement of how those at the top can (perhaps unfairly) tarnish the good work of those in the ranks below.

[proud2BlibKansan]

48. The discussion is about attendance

and public schools.

The lesbians were at a private school.

I still want someone to tell me how kids can learn when they don't attend school.

[Trillo]

50. So, kids only go to public, or private, never a mix of both?

I learned many, many things after dropping out of public school in the 10th grade. I knew how to read, a skill the teachers in schools wanted to ignore when they were teaching me I couldn't read or write.

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. And if you drop out of work as an adult what happens?

If I was an employer, I would never hire anyone who dropped out of high school. Staying in school, learning to be a responsible, participating member of society (even when those mean ole teachers don't coddle to you) speaks volumes about the character of a person VS the one who drops out.

[Trillo]

56. Public school attendance? Or now employment?

I thought this was a discussion of public school attendance. <grin>

>And if you drop out of work as an adult what happens?

You find another source of income. But I do agree, it does make it harder, much harder to exist. I think this begins to get into one of the core issues that is so close to my heart about education.

Expulsions taught me that dropping out was a survival tactic--taught deliberately and forcefully to me by educators--and it 'was not' a survival tactic. They lied to me by their powerful actions: educators were supposed to help me learn how to survive, and hopefully, to thrive.

That was one of the larger, wiser points I perceived in post #34's link: that expulsions create worse problems then what the public has often been told by the PR of educators.


>If I was an employer, I would never hire anyone who dropped out of high school.

Thanks for spreading that meme </sarcasm>. You're an educator, aren't you? (I seem to recall that from a prior thread, but memory sometimes fails me)

I recently read of a problem with college graduates who cannot read or understand well: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/24/AR2005122400701_pf.html

I guess if you're an employer and you want someone literate in the position you're offering you'd better not get a college graduate, because often, today, they can't understand what they've read. (In this statement I'm mocking proud2Blib's logic regarding high-school dropouts based upon the information about college graduates in the washingtonpost.com news link)

[proud2BlibKansan]

58. Attending school regularly teaches you the self discipline necessary for

success in the working world.

It's really a no-brainer.

[Trillo]

60. Expelling those who have followed the explicity stated rules

does not teach self-disipline, it teaches that following rules gets one punished. Duh.

[proud2BlibKansan]

63. So let's NOT follow the rules

That sounds like a great idea :sarcasm:

[Trillo]

64. If it's NOT good to break the rules,

then don't teach that it is.

On the other hand, if breaking the rules is a good thing, then simply expel students unjustly, more and more, practice more zero tolerance towards the students, and watch the longer term ripple (likely over the course of a couple of generations or more) as more and more rules are broken and society polarizes itself further, and watch society, generally, fall apart.

Watch as rule breakers start running the major corporations. Watch as they bribe congress to break more rules. Watch rule breakers undermine the elections. Watch a rule breaker get elected to the office of the U.S. President. Watch the Executive Branch break rule, after rule ... watch the U.S. Constitution itself be torn to shreds.

[proud2BlibKansan]

66. Whatever

How's that circular logic workin for ya? :crazy:

[Trillo]

67. Self-deleted

[depakid]

54. No, the discussion is about merit

and equity.

Holding a child back from a grade because they miss some arbitrary number of days in class.

And to abstract- any other rule that penalizes a child academically for non-academic reasons. (obviously, I'm not talking about violance or reasonable expulsions).

I'm sure that, had that rule been in place, I'd have been held back several times due to a combination of sick days, travel or going to my Dad's office. Childcare is also an issue. Didn't seem to affect my ability to ourperform my classmates.

Moreover, such a rule increases dropout rates-

If you're into John Dewey, he'd say both that experiential learning from travel, museums, offices and even home activities is just as important (and maybe more important) than being in today's classrooms. He'd also say that rules like this teach just what I mentioned in my last post- the things about just show-up, etc. Teaches them mediocrity and to either accept unfairness or bolt from the school system.

[noamnety]

61. As one of those TAG kids that dropped out

I fully support the attendance policy.

For those that don't want to attend school, there is already a system in place to grant them degrees based on merit testing - GEDs. Part of a classroom learning experience, on the other hand, is the discussion that goes on. In a creative class, part of the learning process is learning the methods for the industry. How critiques are done in an art class, how a conductor teaches an orchestra to sight read a piece, how to take direction in a theatre class. In science, if you skip the labs, you won't learn the same amount as other students.

If you want to study all that stuff on your own because you think the classroom instruction is worthless, then homeschooling is probably a better option for you. Or if you want to test out of the degree, get a GED.

It doesn't make much sense to waste a teacher's time by announcing - either in words or with your actions - that you think what they are doing is worthless. If you want to be there, great. If not, find an option that suits your situation better.

[depakid]

70. This is elementary school

I don't think they have science labs, nor do I think they teach much about industry. :eyes:

[noamnety]

71. Mu point remains

If the parents don't believe the teachers are providing a valuable service at the school; if they think it's a waste of time, why aren't they looking for alternatives?

[depakid]

72. Actually, a lot of parents try

TAG programs are underfunded or often non-existent, even in places like Oregon, where they are mandated by law. We've had continual problems and several lawsuits over the matter in and around Portland alone- and this is very progressive community with a comparatively good school system.

Home schooling isn't an option for most people, especially single mothers or families where both parents work. So keeping an already over-qualified kid (who's already bored) from moving on to the next grade over some arbitrary number of absences is absurd. So is keeping any qualified kid back. It's an invitation to worse problems down the road.

I'm sure you know what it's like to be reading literature at home and being required to do book reports on "Old Yeller" or "The Red Badge of Courage" for school. Yeah, you go through the motions- and maybe some teachers let you do other things- but most neither have the time to deal individually with you (because other student really need their help) nor do they relate to you. Once you get into a public high school, it's even worse- you may end up knowing more and having better insights than your instructors on certain subjects. They don't like that much- especially since your emotional maturity is still largely stuck in teenage crap.

One of the best things that happened to me is getting kicked out and ending up in an alternative school, where I could pretty much do what I wanted. Good thing they had one, or I might have ended up un jail, instead of going on to college and getting advanced degrees.

[noamnety]

73. If the parent(s) are working full time

Who is watching the kid on those 20 days they miss school? Something there isn't adding up. If they're using the school as nothing more than a free babysitter, there wouldn't be that many absences.

If the school isn't doing the best job, you try to improve the school, you put up with the school, or you look for alternatives. But it's bad form to sabotage the school. It's hard enough to run a class without rampant absenteeism. You can't do group projects if half the group is missing. You can't give projects that last longer than a single day if half the kids are missing on the day you explain the project - unless you're willing to repeat the same lecture again and again each day it's going on, for the benefit of the missing kids. Kids that show up for only the second half of a movie will be lost.

When kids are absent, you have to work with them individually to get them caught up on what's going on, which takes time away from the other kids that have already been through it. To some extent that goes with the territory, kids get sick, there are funerals, stuff happens. But to deliberately add to it is counterproductive. It lessons the quality of education for your kid and for the others.

We get the occasional day when only half our students show up (a day when other local schools are closed for snow, or for a holiday we didn't close for). The teachers have to rework their lesson plans on the fly to not cover anything critical, because half the kids will miss it.

If you're adding to that, you are part of the problem.

[melissinha]

21. how about $5 a day?

How about an incentive program that kinda works like school grants?

For every day you go to school from 9-12 you earn $5 that is collectible upon graduation.

That way people could pay for college or if they didn't want to, buy a house, start a business.

that could help towards university education. 475 days times $5 times 4 years is $9500, a real nice starting point for tuition. And $5 a day is a little below minimum wage.


Personally I think bribery doesn't belong in schools, I am a firm believer in attendance.... in fact I favor attendance vs not going and cramming.... I always figured that going to class and paying attention gave me most of the information I needed to well on tests with little need of studying. It worked for me.

[Trillo]

49. Be careful what you ask for!

You might be targeted by advocates that view your suggestion as a threat to their current methods.

When I was in public elementary school, the students who had better grades (that I knew personally) were paid for their grades by their parents. I suspect this is one mechanism by which students of wealthier families reinforce the importance of learning, whereas, most poor families likely cannot afford to pay their children for their grades, they don't have that disposable income left after paying the required bills to even consider doing so.

[VegasWolf]

26. More sex with the teacher might help.

[Greyhound]

44. LMAO!

Would've improved my attendance. :rofl: :rofl:

[Miss Chybil]

32. How about making society feel like an education is important?

We're fucked.

[donco6]

34. Why kids DON'T come to school.

Before we come up with solutions to a problem, why not find out what the real problem is first?
_________
Dropouts or 'push outs'?

In their 1994 study, Will Jordan and James McPartland of Johns Hopkins University's Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students described kids' decisions to drop out. Across all racial/ethnic and gender groups, the pattern was consistent: Most frequently students cited within-school factors (such as poor relationships with teachers); less frequently they cited out-of-school factors (such as needing a job).

Jordan and McPartland identified certain school practices, such as suspension and expulsion, as "push effects" that move kids closer to the school door. Students who were suspended and expelled, the researchers found, became convinced that teachers and administrators no longer wanted them in their school. Predictably, perhaps, these students became more disruptive, were chronically absent, and gave up trying to pass their courses. Just as predictably, many of them eventually dropped out.

Another factor pushing some kids out of school is high-stakes testing. Brian Jacobs of the University of Chicago's Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies recently determined that mandatory high school graduation exams increase the probability that low-achieving students will drop out. Students in states that use these mandatory tests are 25 percent more likely to drop out of high school than comparable peers in nontest states, Jacobs reported.

http://www.asbj.com/2002/12/1202research.html

How do we improve relationships between teachers and students? By bribing kids to come to school? IMO, that's a band-aid solution.

First, you have to make it POSSIBLE for teachers to relate to students. You have to narrow down the number of kids teachers come in contact with each day. Our current school structures at elementary facilitate this; at secondary they most certainly do not. Hence, we have much higher satisfaction at elementary grades than secondary. We have to blow up the factory line model at secondary by eliminating middle school, shrinking high schools to less than 400 enrollment, paying for teachers to get dual endorsements, paying teachers for time spent after school, allow for more release time for calling and contacting parents, etc.

Second, you have to make the learning RELEVANT. You can't do this in a large school setting either. You have to know the kids. Then you have to have the freedom to wrap the curriculum around them, not vice versa. State-mandated curriculum denies communities the flexibility to teach kids what is important in THEIR world; and what's important in their world is what is relevant.

Third, you have to keep the instruction rigorous. Kids crave challenge! If you have a relationship with them, and the learning is relevant, they will rise as far as they possibly can to reach the goal. And that rigor has to be individualized. The kid that can already write a good research paper shouldn't have to keep demostrating that over and over again. Give them a bigger challenge - maybe have them conduct some actual research. I don't know. But if I knew that kid well enough, I bet I could think of something.

[mbperrin]

46. You have hit the nail on the head. I teach in a high school of more

than 3000 enrollment in Texas, and our two biggest enemies are: teaching 186 students a day in 6 sections, including a 9th grade class in World Geography for those who have failed it one or more times (when do we schedule these at-risk students? Last period of the day, when they're tiredest and so is their teacher). Yes, kids are being pushed out, and it's a shame, because this is seen as the solution for disruptive behavior, which in my experience is always caused by boredom or defeat.

I graduated from this same high school 35 years ago, when it was just as large, but had many fewer problems, and there were three big reasons for it: I was never in a class with more than 20 kids, nearly 100% of teachers had master's degrees, and there was a varied curriculum, including certficated programs in paint and body, locksmithing, plumbing, carpentry (and I don't mean woodshop - this group built a house which was sold on the commercial market each year to fund the next, and they did it all, from digging the footings to painting the last bit of trim), auto mechanics, welding, and a number of other real trades, not McJobs. On the academic side, we had 4 years of Latin, a Humanities course, advanced senior English where we read 8 novels (this would later let me place out of the first two years of college English), German, Japanese, Russian, European History, and a lot more. We also had a 640 acre working farm for agriculture students.

We had an award-winning band and orchestra, a choir which toured Europe annually, and a football team which won three games in 3 years! We produced several National Merit Scholars each year, and the dropout rate was very low (so low I can only think of two classmates who did so). Where is this paradise? Read all about it in Friday Night Lights, 17 years later and 6 years into mandatory state testing and all the rest of the soul-killing junk. We were the "other" high school in town, and believe me, Odessa was not and is not a paradise. So what do you do inside the system?

You vary the instruction for all the different levels of kids in the room, including gifted and talented, who have no place to go with their program eliminated (that's my second certificate), and you have to let them know and show in every way that you are their advocate, not their apologist. Design large flexible projects with a range of assessment instruments and variable outcomes, instead of cookie-cutter assignments. Take the time to set up an online component so that kids can contribute thoughts to discussions when and where they occur (yes, even in other classes).

Perfect? Hardly. But I live in the neighborhood where I teach, and everywhere I go, I get friendly treatment and affection. Last year, I had 56 kids accepted to college who would be the first in their family to attend (like me). I came late to teaching at age 45, and I'm sort of glad I did. My principals like my ADA (virtually 100%), but they hate just about everything else, because it just seems a little too insubordinate and independent to them. Fortunately, principals come and go (I'm on my 3rd), but I'll be here and so will my kids.

So kill one size fits all tests, get all kinds of programs for all kinds of kids, get more educated educators, and come out swinging. My two cents (okay, it's probly more like 37 cents) worth.

[Massacure]

36. My highschool used to bribe us.

As I've said in several posts during my time here, I'm a highschool senior. With high grades and enough attendance we used to be able to skip final exams. That ended this past year when the school board decided to axe the policy. Truancy has already trippled last years total now that the policy is gone.

[Rex]

57. If only we could spend 600 billion dollars a year on education.

We'd rather build bombs than by new school books.

[oblivious]

75. Well, gee, if it's just money they need, try this:

Beijing's power ebbs away

...The problem is a breakdown in the apparatus of government control and authority. Outside the country, it is widely thought that Beijing controls everything, but that has more to do with the past than today's reality. When central government inspectors visit local offices, they are met, at best, by polite officials who say "yes" to everything but do nothing. At worst, the locals are defiant and drunk.

Some outspoken central officials deplore the situation. Former vice-minister of education Zhang Baoqing decried repeatedly the tragedy of national funding failing to reach local schools due to graft, and new systems of teachers selling top grades to rich parents.
(no url: pay to view)