- This topic has 265 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 6 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 31, 2011 at 7:51 PM #715230August 1, 2011 at 2:15 AM #714039
CA renter
Participant[quote=AN]CAR, did you skip over the class size point on purpose or accident? You’re comparing apple to oranges. Why not compare well off areas vs good private schools? Again, the class size is still smaller for private school vs the public school in rich areas and some are charging less than we are paying per student in public school.[/quote]
Sorry, that was not intentional. I’m not sure how private schools calculate costs, but the ones I’m familiar with strongly “encourage” parents to contribute a lot of money outside of the official tuition. This is also done at public schools, but only those with a higher-SES population.
The low-income schools get much more funding, but as a condition of some of that funding, they are not allowed to ask for any financial support from parents, to the extent that they are not even able to ask parents to supply a single pencil or piece of paper. The students at these low-income schools also tend to get 100% free breakfasts and lunches, and I’m not sure how that’s calculated in there, either. You also have to add the cost for special education, which can be EXTREMELY expensive — the vast majority of private schools do not offer any kind of special ed.
Just for example, my former school employed a full-time nurse, full-time psychologist, full-time bilingual coordinator, 2-3 full-time vice principals, three full-time secretaries, a full-time attendance coordinator, a full-time P.E. teacher, etc. We also had various resource teachers and other support staff on P/T schedules. We had these positions at our school because we had more students than most schools, and because of our low-income, and mostly “bilingual/ELL” population. ALL books, school supplies, breakfasts, lunches, etc. were supplied by the school — parents had to pay nothing.
The public schools, especially those who serve low-income populations, most definitely cost more than the “rich” private schools, and for good reasons. They take care of all the **expensive** students that the private schools can’t or won’t take.
In order to compare apples-to-apples, we’d need to know exactly how much the private schools and high-income public schools take in from parents, corporate/business sponsors, and other revenue sources. I’m not sure where we could find those numbers.
The numbers you see for public school costs would include both the high-income and low-income schools. Additionally, California public schools (and maybe some other states) have seen a radical shift in student demographics. Forty years ago, the majority of students were middle-class whites. Now, the majority of students are Hispanic — many of whom are low-income and/or English Language Learners.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/enreth.asp
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefstudentracecomp.asp
Here, you can see the numbers of students who are ELLs (English Language Learners/not fluent in English) from 1993-2000. Look at the numbers for the Spanish-speaking population.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ellang93s.asp
Also, the death knell for public schools in California was when they started the desegregation/busing policies in the 1970s. Not sure if you were around at the time, but the vast majority of middle/upper-class parents I knew pulled their kids out of the public school system and put them into private schools as a result. The public school system in California never recovered from that, IMHO.
Some history (about Pasadena SD, but this happened everywhere):
In 1971, in the case of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971), the Supreme Court ordered the forced busing of poor black students to suburban white schools, and suburban white students to the city to try to integrate student populations. In the case of Milliken v. Bradley (1974), the dissenting Justice William Douglas observed that “the inner core of Detroit is now rather solidly black; and the blacks, we know, in many instances are likely to be poorer. . . .” Likewise, in 1977, the Federal decision in Penick v. The Columbus Board of Education (1977) accelerated white flight from Columbus, Ohio. Although the racial desegregation of schools affected only public school districts, the most vehement opponents of racial desegregation have sometimes been whites whose children attended private schools.{{!<--Where? When? This covers more than 20 years and specifics are important-->!}}[32][33]
A secondary, non-geographic consequence of school desegregation and busing was “cultural” white flight: withdrawing white children from the mixed-race public school system and sending them to private schools unaffected by U.S. federal integration laws. In 1970, when the United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered the Pasadena Unified School District desegregated, the white-student proportion (54%) of the schools approximately reflected the school district’s proportional white populace (53%). Once the federally ordered school desegregation began, whites who could afford private schools withdrew their children from the racially diverse Pasadena public school system. By 2004, Pasadena had 63 private schools educating some 33% of schoolchildren, while white students made up only 16% of the public school populace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight#Desegregation:_public_schools_and_student_busing
When one understands the demographic shifts that have been going on in California’s public schools, one can understand why our scores have been going down over time. We’ve created a situation where we’ve largely emptied the public schools of the students who are most likely to succeed, and filled them with low-income, low-performing, high-needs students. Yes, these students cost FAR more than their higher-income (and everything that goes with that) peers in private and high-income schools.
IMHO, vouchers would only exacerbate this problem because the only kids who would be left in public schools are the ones whose parents don’t care, or aren’t capable of researching and sending them to better schools (for physical, financial, mental, or emotional reasons).
August 1, 2011 at 2:15 AM #714131CA renter
Participant[quote=AN]CAR, did you skip over the class size point on purpose or accident? You’re comparing apple to oranges. Why not compare well off areas vs good private schools? Again, the class size is still smaller for private school vs the public school in rich areas and some are charging less than we are paying per student in public school.[/quote]
Sorry, that was not intentional. I’m not sure how private schools calculate costs, but the ones I’m familiar with strongly “encourage” parents to contribute a lot of money outside of the official tuition. This is also done at public schools, but only those with a higher-SES population.
The low-income schools get much more funding, but as a condition of some of that funding, they are not allowed to ask for any financial support from parents, to the extent that they are not even able to ask parents to supply a single pencil or piece of paper. The students at these low-income schools also tend to get 100% free breakfasts and lunches, and I’m not sure how that’s calculated in there, either. You also have to add the cost for special education, which can be EXTREMELY expensive — the vast majority of private schools do not offer any kind of special ed.
Just for example, my former school employed a full-time nurse, full-time psychologist, full-time bilingual coordinator, 2-3 full-time vice principals, three full-time secretaries, a full-time attendance coordinator, a full-time P.E. teacher, etc. We also had various resource teachers and other support staff on P/T schedules. We had these positions at our school because we had more students than most schools, and because of our low-income, and mostly “bilingual/ELL” population. ALL books, school supplies, breakfasts, lunches, etc. were supplied by the school — parents had to pay nothing.
The public schools, especially those who serve low-income populations, most definitely cost more than the “rich” private schools, and for good reasons. They take care of all the **expensive** students that the private schools can’t or won’t take.
In order to compare apples-to-apples, we’d need to know exactly how much the private schools and high-income public schools take in from parents, corporate/business sponsors, and other revenue sources. I’m not sure where we could find those numbers.
The numbers you see for public school costs would include both the high-income and low-income schools. Additionally, California public schools (and maybe some other states) have seen a radical shift in student demographics. Forty years ago, the majority of students were middle-class whites. Now, the majority of students are Hispanic — many of whom are low-income and/or English Language Learners.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/enreth.asp
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefstudentracecomp.asp
Here, you can see the numbers of students who are ELLs (English Language Learners/not fluent in English) from 1993-2000. Look at the numbers for the Spanish-speaking population.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ellang93s.asp
Also, the death knell for public schools in California was when they started the desegregation/busing policies in the 1970s. Not sure if you were around at the time, but the vast majority of middle/upper-class parents I knew pulled their kids out of the public school system and put them into private schools as a result. The public school system in California never recovered from that, IMHO.
Some history (about Pasadena SD, but this happened everywhere):
In 1971, in the case of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971), the Supreme Court ordered the forced busing of poor black students to suburban white schools, and suburban white students to the city to try to integrate student populations. In the case of Milliken v. Bradley (1974), the dissenting Justice William Douglas observed that “the inner core of Detroit is now rather solidly black; and the blacks, we know, in many instances are likely to be poorer. . . .” Likewise, in 1977, the Federal decision in Penick v. The Columbus Board of Education (1977) accelerated white flight from Columbus, Ohio. Although the racial desegregation of schools affected only public school districts, the most vehement opponents of racial desegregation have sometimes been whites whose children attended private schools.{{!<--Where? When? This covers more than 20 years and specifics are important-->!}}[32][33]
A secondary, non-geographic consequence of school desegregation and busing was “cultural” white flight: withdrawing white children from the mixed-race public school system and sending them to private schools unaffected by U.S. federal integration laws. In 1970, when the United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered the Pasadena Unified School District desegregated, the white-student proportion (54%) of the schools approximately reflected the school district’s proportional white populace (53%). Once the federally ordered school desegregation began, whites who could afford private schools withdrew their children from the racially diverse Pasadena public school system. By 2004, Pasadena had 63 private schools educating some 33% of schoolchildren, while white students made up only 16% of the public school populace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight#Desegregation:_public_schools_and_student_busing
When one understands the demographic shifts that have been going on in California’s public schools, one can understand why our scores have been going down over time. We’ve created a situation where we’ve largely emptied the public schools of the students who are most likely to succeed, and filled them with low-income, low-performing, high-needs students. Yes, these students cost FAR more than their higher-income (and everything that goes with that) peers in private and high-income schools.
IMHO, vouchers would only exacerbate this problem because the only kids who would be left in public schools are the ones whose parents don’t care, or aren’t capable of researching and sending them to better schools (for physical, financial, mental, or emotional reasons).
August 1, 2011 at 2:15 AM #714731CA renter
Participant[quote=AN]CAR, did you skip over the class size point on purpose or accident? You’re comparing apple to oranges. Why not compare well off areas vs good private schools? Again, the class size is still smaller for private school vs the public school in rich areas and some are charging less than we are paying per student in public school.[/quote]
Sorry, that was not intentional. I’m not sure how private schools calculate costs, but the ones I’m familiar with strongly “encourage” parents to contribute a lot of money outside of the official tuition. This is also done at public schools, but only those with a higher-SES population.
The low-income schools get much more funding, but as a condition of some of that funding, they are not allowed to ask for any financial support from parents, to the extent that they are not even able to ask parents to supply a single pencil or piece of paper. The students at these low-income schools also tend to get 100% free breakfasts and lunches, and I’m not sure how that’s calculated in there, either. You also have to add the cost for special education, which can be EXTREMELY expensive — the vast majority of private schools do not offer any kind of special ed.
Just for example, my former school employed a full-time nurse, full-time psychologist, full-time bilingual coordinator, 2-3 full-time vice principals, three full-time secretaries, a full-time attendance coordinator, a full-time P.E. teacher, etc. We also had various resource teachers and other support staff on P/T schedules. We had these positions at our school because we had more students than most schools, and because of our low-income, and mostly “bilingual/ELL” population. ALL books, school supplies, breakfasts, lunches, etc. were supplied by the school — parents had to pay nothing.
The public schools, especially those who serve low-income populations, most definitely cost more than the “rich” private schools, and for good reasons. They take care of all the **expensive** students that the private schools can’t or won’t take.
In order to compare apples-to-apples, we’d need to know exactly how much the private schools and high-income public schools take in from parents, corporate/business sponsors, and other revenue sources. I’m not sure where we could find those numbers.
The numbers you see for public school costs would include both the high-income and low-income schools. Additionally, California public schools (and maybe some other states) have seen a radical shift in student demographics. Forty years ago, the majority of students were middle-class whites. Now, the majority of students are Hispanic — many of whom are low-income and/or English Language Learners.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/enreth.asp
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefstudentracecomp.asp
Here, you can see the numbers of students who are ELLs (English Language Learners/not fluent in English) from 1993-2000. Look at the numbers for the Spanish-speaking population.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ellang93s.asp
Also, the death knell for public schools in California was when they started the desegregation/busing policies in the 1970s. Not sure if you were around at the time, but the vast majority of middle/upper-class parents I knew pulled their kids out of the public school system and put them into private schools as a result. The public school system in California never recovered from that, IMHO.
Some history (about Pasadena SD, but this happened everywhere):
In 1971, in the case of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971), the Supreme Court ordered the forced busing of poor black students to suburban white schools, and suburban white students to the city to try to integrate student populations. In the case of Milliken v. Bradley (1974), the dissenting Justice William Douglas observed that “the inner core of Detroit is now rather solidly black; and the blacks, we know, in many instances are likely to be poorer. . . .” Likewise, in 1977, the Federal decision in Penick v. The Columbus Board of Education (1977) accelerated white flight from Columbus, Ohio. Although the racial desegregation of schools affected only public school districts, the most vehement opponents of racial desegregation have sometimes been whites whose children attended private schools.{{!<--Where? When? This covers more than 20 years and specifics are important-->!}}[32][33]
A secondary, non-geographic consequence of school desegregation and busing was “cultural” white flight: withdrawing white children from the mixed-race public school system and sending them to private schools unaffected by U.S. federal integration laws. In 1970, when the United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered the Pasadena Unified School District desegregated, the white-student proportion (54%) of the schools approximately reflected the school district’s proportional white populace (53%). Once the federally ordered school desegregation began, whites who could afford private schools withdrew their children from the racially diverse Pasadena public school system. By 2004, Pasadena had 63 private schools educating some 33% of schoolchildren, while white students made up only 16% of the public school populace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight#Desegregation:_public_schools_and_student_busing
When one understands the demographic shifts that have been going on in California’s public schools, one can understand why our scores have been going down over time. We’ve created a situation where we’ve largely emptied the public schools of the students who are most likely to succeed, and filled them with low-income, low-performing, high-needs students. Yes, these students cost FAR more than their higher-income (and everything that goes with that) peers in private and high-income schools.
IMHO, vouchers would only exacerbate this problem because the only kids who would be left in public schools are the ones whose parents don’t care, or aren’t capable of researching and sending them to better schools (for physical, financial, mental, or emotional reasons).
August 1, 2011 at 2:15 AM #714885CA renter
Participant[quote=AN]CAR, did you skip over the class size point on purpose or accident? You’re comparing apple to oranges. Why not compare well off areas vs good private schools? Again, the class size is still smaller for private school vs the public school in rich areas and some are charging less than we are paying per student in public school.[/quote]
Sorry, that was not intentional. I’m not sure how private schools calculate costs, but the ones I’m familiar with strongly “encourage” parents to contribute a lot of money outside of the official tuition. This is also done at public schools, but only those with a higher-SES population.
The low-income schools get much more funding, but as a condition of some of that funding, they are not allowed to ask for any financial support from parents, to the extent that they are not even able to ask parents to supply a single pencil or piece of paper. The students at these low-income schools also tend to get 100% free breakfasts and lunches, and I’m not sure how that’s calculated in there, either. You also have to add the cost for special education, which can be EXTREMELY expensive — the vast majority of private schools do not offer any kind of special ed.
Just for example, my former school employed a full-time nurse, full-time psychologist, full-time bilingual coordinator, 2-3 full-time vice principals, three full-time secretaries, a full-time attendance coordinator, a full-time P.E. teacher, etc. We also had various resource teachers and other support staff on P/T schedules. We had these positions at our school because we had more students than most schools, and because of our low-income, and mostly “bilingual/ELL” population. ALL books, school supplies, breakfasts, lunches, etc. were supplied by the school — parents had to pay nothing.
The public schools, especially those who serve low-income populations, most definitely cost more than the “rich” private schools, and for good reasons. They take care of all the **expensive** students that the private schools can’t or won’t take.
In order to compare apples-to-apples, we’d need to know exactly how much the private schools and high-income public schools take in from parents, corporate/business sponsors, and other revenue sources. I’m not sure where we could find those numbers.
The numbers you see for public school costs would include both the high-income and low-income schools. Additionally, California public schools (and maybe some other states) have seen a radical shift in student demographics. Forty years ago, the majority of students were middle-class whites. Now, the majority of students are Hispanic — many of whom are low-income and/or English Language Learners.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/enreth.asp
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefstudentracecomp.asp
Here, you can see the numbers of students who are ELLs (English Language Learners/not fluent in English) from 1993-2000. Look at the numbers for the Spanish-speaking population.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ellang93s.asp
Also, the death knell for public schools in California was when they started the desegregation/busing policies in the 1970s. Not sure if you were around at the time, but the vast majority of middle/upper-class parents I knew pulled their kids out of the public school system and put them into private schools as a result. The public school system in California never recovered from that, IMHO.
Some history (about Pasadena SD, but this happened everywhere):
In 1971, in the case of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971), the Supreme Court ordered the forced busing of poor black students to suburban white schools, and suburban white students to the city to try to integrate student populations. In the case of Milliken v. Bradley (1974), the dissenting Justice William Douglas observed that “the inner core of Detroit is now rather solidly black; and the blacks, we know, in many instances are likely to be poorer. . . .” Likewise, in 1977, the Federal decision in Penick v. The Columbus Board of Education (1977) accelerated white flight from Columbus, Ohio. Although the racial desegregation of schools affected only public school districts, the most vehement opponents of racial desegregation have sometimes been whites whose children attended private schools.{{!<--Where? When? This covers more than 20 years and specifics are important-->!}}[32][33]
A secondary, non-geographic consequence of school desegregation and busing was “cultural” white flight: withdrawing white children from the mixed-race public school system and sending them to private schools unaffected by U.S. federal integration laws. In 1970, when the United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered the Pasadena Unified School District desegregated, the white-student proportion (54%) of the schools approximately reflected the school district’s proportional white populace (53%). Once the federally ordered school desegregation began, whites who could afford private schools withdrew their children from the racially diverse Pasadena public school system. By 2004, Pasadena had 63 private schools educating some 33% of schoolchildren, while white students made up only 16% of the public school populace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight#Desegregation:_public_schools_and_student_busing
When one understands the demographic shifts that have been going on in California’s public schools, one can understand why our scores have been going down over time. We’ve created a situation where we’ve largely emptied the public schools of the students who are most likely to succeed, and filled them with low-income, low-performing, high-needs students. Yes, these students cost FAR more than their higher-income (and everything that goes with that) peers in private and high-income schools.
IMHO, vouchers would only exacerbate this problem because the only kids who would be left in public schools are the ones whose parents don’t care, or aren’t capable of researching and sending them to better schools (for physical, financial, mental, or emotional reasons).
August 1, 2011 at 2:15 AM #715245CA renter
Participant[quote=AN]CAR, did you skip over the class size point on purpose or accident? You’re comparing apple to oranges. Why not compare well off areas vs good private schools? Again, the class size is still smaller for private school vs the public school in rich areas and some are charging less than we are paying per student in public school.[/quote]
Sorry, that was not intentional. I’m not sure how private schools calculate costs, but the ones I’m familiar with strongly “encourage” parents to contribute a lot of money outside of the official tuition. This is also done at public schools, but only those with a higher-SES population.
The low-income schools get much more funding, but as a condition of some of that funding, they are not allowed to ask for any financial support from parents, to the extent that they are not even able to ask parents to supply a single pencil or piece of paper. The students at these low-income schools also tend to get 100% free breakfasts and lunches, and I’m not sure how that’s calculated in there, either. You also have to add the cost for special education, which can be EXTREMELY expensive — the vast majority of private schools do not offer any kind of special ed.
Just for example, my former school employed a full-time nurse, full-time psychologist, full-time bilingual coordinator, 2-3 full-time vice principals, three full-time secretaries, a full-time attendance coordinator, a full-time P.E. teacher, etc. We also had various resource teachers and other support staff on P/T schedules. We had these positions at our school because we had more students than most schools, and because of our low-income, and mostly “bilingual/ELL” population. ALL books, school supplies, breakfasts, lunches, etc. were supplied by the school — parents had to pay nothing.
The public schools, especially those who serve low-income populations, most definitely cost more than the “rich” private schools, and for good reasons. They take care of all the **expensive** students that the private schools can’t or won’t take.
In order to compare apples-to-apples, we’d need to know exactly how much the private schools and high-income public schools take in from parents, corporate/business sponsors, and other revenue sources. I’m not sure where we could find those numbers.
The numbers you see for public school costs would include both the high-income and low-income schools. Additionally, California public schools (and maybe some other states) have seen a radical shift in student demographics. Forty years ago, the majority of students were middle-class whites. Now, the majority of students are Hispanic — many of whom are low-income and/or English Language Learners.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/enreth.asp
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefstudentracecomp.asp
Here, you can see the numbers of students who are ELLs (English Language Learners/not fluent in English) from 1993-2000. Look at the numbers for the Spanish-speaking population.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ellang93s.asp
Also, the death knell for public schools in California was when they started the desegregation/busing policies in the 1970s. Not sure if you were around at the time, but the vast majority of middle/upper-class parents I knew pulled their kids out of the public school system and put them into private schools as a result. The public school system in California never recovered from that, IMHO.
Some history (about Pasadena SD, but this happened everywhere):
In 1971, in the case of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971), the Supreme Court ordered the forced busing of poor black students to suburban white schools, and suburban white students to the city to try to integrate student populations. In the case of Milliken v. Bradley (1974), the dissenting Justice William Douglas observed that “the inner core of Detroit is now rather solidly black; and the blacks, we know, in many instances are likely to be poorer. . . .” Likewise, in 1977, the Federal decision in Penick v. The Columbus Board of Education (1977) accelerated white flight from Columbus, Ohio. Although the racial desegregation of schools affected only public school districts, the most vehement opponents of racial desegregation have sometimes been whites whose children attended private schools.{{!<--Where? When? This covers more than 20 years and specifics are important-->!}}[32][33]
A secondary, non-geographic consequence of school desegregation and busing was “cultural” white flight: withdrawing white children from the mixed-race public school system and sending them to private schools unaffected by U.S. federal integration laws. In 1970, when the United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered the Pasadena Unified School District desegregated, the white-student proportion (54%) of the schools approximately reflected the school district’s proportional white populace (53%). Once the federally ordered school desegregation began, whites who could afford private schools withdrew their children from the racially diverse Pasadena public school system. By 2004, Pasadena had 63 private schools educating some 33% of schoolchildren, while white students made up only 16% of the public school populace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight#Desegregation:_public_schools_and_student_busing
When one understands the demographic shifts that have been going on in California’s public schools, one can understand why our scores have been going down over time. We’ve created a situation where we’ve largely emptied the public schools of the students who are most likely to succeed, and filled them with low-income, low-performing, high-needs students. Yes, these students cost FAR more than their higher-income (and everything that goes with that) peers in private and high-income schools.
IMHO, vouchers would only exacerbate this problem because the only kids who would be left in public schools are the ones whose parents don’t care, or aren’t capable of researching and sending them to better schools (for physical, financial, mental, or emotional reasons).
August 1, 2011 at 8:55 AM #714044gromit
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=eavesdropper][quote=captcha][quote=eavesdropper]
Given your interest in the situation, and your high level of mathematics literacy, perhaps you can volunteer your time to your local public school system, either providing support to overworked teachers there, or tutoring struggling students. [/quote]Here is an idea – take some of the money spent on TSA and pay skilled and educated people to teach. If you depend on volunteers you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt. It is not her fault, it is the system.[/quote]
Captcha, what, precisely, do you mean by “you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt”? What leads you to believe that she is unqualified for her position? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious.
BTW, I agree with you that some reorganization of our societal priorities is in order. But chronic underfunding of education has always been a problem, and in the current political atmosphere – one in which the trashing of educated people and academic pursuits has become a popular way for many of our political office holders and citizens to feel better about themselves – I don’t anticipate that this will change.
Upping salaries and benefits will certainly attract more people to teaching, and some will have flawless academic credentials. But, in teaching elementary and secondary school students, that is only half (and not the most important) of the battle. In these grades, you have students of widely varying socioeconomic/cultural backgrounds and academic capabilities. What’s more is that these students did not choose to attend school, and don’t understand why they need to be there. For the most part, they are not, in any way, receptive to learning. Truly skilled teachers (grades 1-12) are able to find ways to reverse that. Learning CANNOT occur in the absence of curiosity. Good teachers find a way to reach their students, and expose them to the rewards of learning. They know that once a student’s curiosity is piqued, they will actively SEEK knowledge. They will want to know more, and will go after it — on their own, if they have to.
This is why early childhood education is so important: children are at their most imaginative and curious at that age, and if they do not acquire the basic building blocks of academics in the beginning, they will be totally incapable of learning anything that comes after that. Yet, there is no area of education that is more underfunded than that of early childhood.
For whatever reason, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was one of these: the kids that fall through the cracks and are permitted to graduate, despite being functionally illiterate. Fortunately, when exposed to an instructor who took a genuine interest in the students she was teaching, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was able to see that this could represent the difference between a student leading a life of accomplishment and self-confidence, as opposed to setting off on a path of frustration and failure. This inspired her to try to make a difference in the lives of other young students.
As for “topology, predicate calculus or at least Euclidean geometry”, I saw nothing in the article that enabled me to determine that these were not included in the curriculum, or were not areas of interest or skill for Ms. DeRegnaucourt (I have my own opinions on that topic, but they are just that). Likewise, I have no evidence that she is incapable of enthusiastic discussion of the Newton vs. Leibniz controversy or Fermat’s last theorem.
What I DID get from the article is that she uses her education, experience, and her love of mathematics to excite curiosity in her young, at-risk students. And, in my book, that is what constitutes “skill” in teaching. It doesn’t matter in the least if a teacher is excited by the subject matter he/she is charged with teaching. It only matters if he/she can get their students excited about it.[/quote]
Excellent post, Eaves.[/quote]
Hear, hear, Eaves. You were far more diplomatic than I could have been in the face of such assholery.
August 1, 2011 at 8:55 AM #714136gromit
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=eavesdropper][quote=captcha][quote=eavesdropper]
Given your interest in the situation, and your high level of mathematics literacy, perhaps you can volunteer your time to your local public school system, either providing support to overworked teachers there, or tutoring struggling students. [/quote]Here is an idea – take some of the money spent on TSA and pay skilled and educated people to teach. If you depend on volunteers you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt. It is not her fault, it is the system.[/quote]
Captcha, what, precisely, do you mean by “you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt”? What leads you to believe that she is unqualified for her position? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious.
BTW, I agree with you that some reorganization of our societal priorities is in order. But chronic underfunding of education has always been a problem, and in the current political atmosphere – one in which the trashing of educated people and academic pursuits has become a popular way for many of our political office holders and citizens to feel better about themselves – I don’t anticipate that this will change.
Upping salaries and benefits will certainly attract more people to teaching, and some will have flawless academic credentials. But, in teaching elementary and secondary school students, that is only half (and not the most important) of the battle. In these grades, you have students of widely varying socioeconomic/cultural backgrounds and academic capabilities. What’s more is that these students did not choose to attend school, and don’t understand why they need to be there. For the most part, they are not, in any way, receptive to learning. Truly skilled teachers (grades 1-12) are able to find ways to reverse that. Learning CANNOT occur in the absence of curiosity. Good teachers find a way to reach their students, and expose them to the rewards of learning. They know that once a student’s curiosity is piqued, they will actively SEEK knowledge. They will want to know more, and will go after it — on their own, if they have to.
This is why early childhood education is so important: children are at their most imaginative and curious at that age, and if they do not acquire the basic building blocks of academics in the beginning, they will be totally incapable of learning anything that comes after that. Yet, there is no area of education that is more underfunded than that of early childhood.
For whatever reason, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was one of these: the kids that fall through the cracks and are permitted to graduate, despite being functionally illiterate. Fortunately, when exposed to an instructor who took a genuine interest in the students she was teaching, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was able to see that this could represent the difference between a student leading a life of accomplishment and self-confidence, as opposed to setting off on a path of frustration and failure. This inspired her to try to make a difference in the lives of other young students.
As for “topology, predicate calculus or at least Euclidean geometry”, I saw nothing in the article that enabled me to determine that these were not included in the curriculum, or were not areas of interest or skill for Ms. DeRegnaucourt (I have my own opinions on that topic, but they are just that). Likewise, I have no evidence that she is incapable of enthusiastic discussion of the Newton vs. Leibniz controversy or Fermat’s last theorem.
What I DID get from the article is that she uses her education, experience, and her love of mathematics to excite curiosity in her young, at-risk students. And, in my book, that is what constitutes “skill” in teaching. It doesn’t matter in the least if a teacher is excited by the subject matter he/she is charged with teaching. It only matters if he/she can get their students excited about it.[/quote]
Excellent post, Eaves.[/quote]
Hear, hear, Eaves. You were far more diplomatic than I could have been in the face of such assholery.
August 1, 2011 at 8:55 AM #714736gromit
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=eavesdropper][quote=captcha][quote=eavesdropper]
Given your interest in the situation, and your high level of mathematics literacy, perhaps you can volunteer your time to your local public school system, either providing support to overworked teachers there, or tutoring struggling students. [/quote]Here is an idea – take some of the money spent on TSA and pay skilled and educated people to teach. If you depend on volunteers you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt. It is not her fault, it is the system.[/quote]
Captcha, what, precisely, do you mean by “you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt”? What leads you to believe that she is unqualified for her position? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious.
BTW, I agree with you that some reorganization of our societal priorities is in order. But chronic underfunding of education has always been a problem, and in the current political atmosphere – one in which the trashing of educated people and academic pursuits has become a popular way for many of our political office holders and citizens to feel better about themselves – I don’t anticipate that this will change.
Upping salaries and benefits will certainly attract more people to teaching, and some will have flawless academic credentials. But, in teaching elementary and secondary school students, that is only half (and not the most important) of the battle. In these grades, you have students of widely varying socioeconomic/cultural backgrounds and academic capabilities. What’s more is that these students did not choose to attend school, and don’t understand why they need to be there. For the most part, they are not, in any way, receptive to learning. Truly skilled teachers (grades 1-12) are able to find ways to reverse that. Learning CANNOT occur in the absence of curiosity. Good teachers find a way to reach their students, and expose them to the rewards of learning. They know that once a student’s curiosity is piqued, they will actively SEEK knowledge. They will want to know more, and will go after it — on their own, if they have to.
This is why early childhood education is so important: children are at their most imaginative and curious at that age, and if they do not acquire the basic building blocks of academics in the beginning, they will be totally incapable of learning anything that comes after that. Yet, there is no area of education that is more underfunded than that of early childhood.
For whatever reason, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was one of these: the kids that fall through the cracks and are permitted to graduate, despite being functionally illiterate. Fortunately, when exposed to an instructor who took a genuine interest in the students she was teaching, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was able to see that this could represent the difference between a student leading a life of accomplishment and self-confidence, as opposed to setting off on a path of frustration and failure. This inspired her to try to make a difference in the lives of other young students.
As for “topology, predicate calculus or at least Euclidean geometry”, I saw nothing in the article that enabled me to determine that these were not included in the curriculum, or were not areas of interest or skill for Ms. DeRegnaucourt (I have my own opinions on that topic, but they are just that). Likewise, I have no evidence that she is incapable of enthusiastic discussion of the Newton vs. Leibniz controversy or Fermat’s last theorem.
What I DID get from the article is that she uses her education, experience, and her love of mathematics to excite curiosity in her young, at-risk students. And, in my book, that is what constitutes “skill” in teaching. It doesn’t matter in the least if a teacher is excited by the subject matter he/she is charged with teaching. It only matters if he/she can get their students excited about it.[/quote]
Excellent post, Eaves.[/quote]
Hear, hear, Eaves. You were far more diplomatic than I could have been in the face of such assholery.
August 1, 2011 at 8:55 AM #714890gromit
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=eavesdropper][quote=captcha][quote=eavesdropper]
Given your interest in the situation, and your high level of mathematics literacy, perhaps you can volunteer your time to your local public school system, either providing support to overworked teachers there, or tutoring struggling students. [/quote]Here is an idea – take some of the money spent on TSA and pay skilled and educated people to teach. If you depend on volunteers you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt. It is not her fault, it is the system.[/quote]
Captcha, what, precisely, do you mean by “you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt”? What leads you to believe that she is unqualified for her position? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious.
BTW, I agree with you that some reorganization of our societal priorities is in order. But chronic underfunding of education has always been a problem, and in the current political atmosphere – one in which the trashing of educated people and academic pursuits has become a popular way for many of our political office holders and citizens to feel better about themselves – I don’t anticipate that this will change.
Upping salaries and benefits will certainly attract more people to teaching, and some will have flawless academic credentials. But, in teaching elementary and secondary school students, that is only half (and not the most important) of the battle. In these grades, you have students of widely varying socioeconomic/cultural backgrounds and academic capabilities. What’s more is that these students did not choose to attend school, and don’t understand why they need to be there. For the most part, they are not, in any way, receptive to learning. Truly skilled teachers (grades 1-12) are able to find ways to reverse that. Learning CANNOT occur in the absence of curiosity. Good teachers find a way to reach their students, and expose them to the rewards of learning. They know that once a student’s curiosity is piqued, they will actively SEEK knowledge. They will want to know more, and will go after it — on their own, if they have to.
This is why early childhood education is so important: children are at their most imaginative and curious at that age, and if they do not acquire the basic building blocks of academics in the beginning, they will be totally incapable of learning anything that comes after that. Yet, there is no area of education that is more underfunded than that of early childhood.
For whatever reason, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was one of these: the kids that fall through the cracks and are permitted to graduate, despite being functionally illiterate. Fortunately, when exposed to an instructor who took a genuine interest in the students she was teaching, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was able to see that this could represent the difference between a student leading a life of accomplishment and self-confidence, as opposed to setting off on a path of frustration and failure. This inspired her to try to make a difference in the lives of other young students.
As for “topology, predicate calculus or at least Euclidean geometry”, I saw nothing in the article that enabled me to determine that these were not included in the curriculum, or were not areas of interest or skill for Ms. DeRegnaucourt (I have my own opinions on that topic, but they are just that). Likewise, I have no evidence that she is incapable of enthusiastic discussion of the Newton vs. Leibniz controversy or Fermat’s last theorem.
What I DID get from the article is that she uses her education, experience, and her love of mathematics to excite curiosity in her young, at-risk students. And, in my book, that is what constitutes “skill” in teaching. It doesn’t matter in the least if a teacher is excited by the subject matter he/she is charged with teaching. It only matters if he/she can get their students excited about it.[/quote]
Excellent post, Eaves.[/quote]
Hear, hear, Eaves. You were far more diplomatic than I could have been in the face of such assholery.
August 1, 2011 at 8:55 AM #715250gromit
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=eavesdropper][quote=captcha][quote=eavesdropper]
Given your interest in the situation, and your high level of mathematics literacy, perhaps you can volunteer your time to your local public school system, either providing support to overworked teachers there, or tutoring struggling students. [/quote]Here is an idea – take some of the money spent on TSA and pay skilled and educated people to teach. If you depend on volunteers you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt. It is not her fault, it is the system.[/quote]
Captcha, what, precisely, do you mean by “you’ll get people like Ms. DeRegnaucourt”? What leads you to believe that she is unqualified for her position? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious.
BTW, I agree with you that some reorganization of our societal priorities is in order. But chronic underfunding of education has always been a problem, and in the current political atmosphere – one in which the trashing of educated people and academic pursuits has become a popular way for many of our political office holders and citizens to feel better about themselves – I don’t anticipate that this will change.
Upping salaries and benefits will certainly attract more people to teaching, and some will have flawless academic credentials. But, in teaching elementary and secondary school students, that is only half (and not the most important) of the battle. In these grades, you have students of widely varying socioeconomic/cultural backgrounds and academic capabilities. What’s more is that these students did not choose to attend school, and don’t understand why they need to be there. For the most part, they are not, in any way, receptive to learning. Truly skilled teachers (grades 1-12) are able to find ways to reverse that. Learning CANNOT occur in the absence of curiosity. Good teachers find a way to reach their students, and expose them to the rewards of learning. They know that once a student’s curiosity is piqued, they will actively SEEK knowledge. They will want to know more, and will go after it — on their own, if they have to.
This is why early childhood education is so important: children are at their most imaginative and curious at that age, and if they do not acquire the basic building blocks of academics in the beginning, they will be totally incapable of learning anything that comes after that. Yet, there is no area of education that is more underfunded than that of early childhood.
For whatever reason, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was one of these: the kids that fall through the cracks and are permitted to graduate, despite being functionally illiterate. Fortunately, when exposed to an instructor who took a genuine interest in the students she was teaching, Ms. DeRegnaucourt was able to see that this could represent the difference between a student leading a life of accomplishment and self-confidence, as opposed to setting off on a path of frustration and failure. This inspired her to try to make a difference in the lives of other young students.
As for “topology, predicate calculus or at least Euclidean geometry”, I saw nothing in the article that enabled me to determine that these were not included in the curriculum, or were not areas of interest or skill for Ms. DeRegnaucourt (I have my own opinions on that topic, but they are just that). Likewise, I have no evidence that she is incapable of enthusiastic discussion of the Newton vs. Leibniz controversy or Fermat’s last theorem.
What I DID get from the article is that she uses her education, experience, and her love of mathematics to excite curiosity in her young, at-risk students. And, in my book, that is what constitutes “skill” in teaching. It doesn’t matter in the least if a teacher is excited by the subject matter he/she is charged with teaching. It only matters if he/she can get their students excited about it.[/quote]
Excellent post, Eaves.[/quote]
Hear, hear, Eaves. You were far more diplomatic than I could have been in the face of such assholery.
August 1, 2011 at 9:04 AM #714049UCGal
ParticipantI was a student in San Diego unified when the busing was going on. San Diego did NOT have forced busing. They were able to achieve their numbers with volunteer busing and magnet schools.
My junior high (before they called it a middle school) and high school had kids bused in.
There was some racial tension… but this was the 70’s – we students did a sit-in to get the administration to help deal with it. LOL. (I’ll admit – for many it was an excuse to ditch a class to do the sit-in.)
I don’t know of ANY parents that pulled their kids when the voluntary busing started. And UC was pretty affluent. Very few of my friends went to private school. One friend went to a magnet school – for the performing arts. This was before UC high and Standley middle – UC kids went to Marston and Clairemont.
There’s a reason magnet schools in San Diego unified are often in less desirable neighborhoods – it’s a way of drawing the white kids from the neighborhood schools to the more inner city neighorhoods – look at what used to be San Diego High (near downtown), south end of Balboa Park. It was a pretty poor performing school, very inner city in it’s demographics – now it’s a cluster of magnet schools – schools within the larger campus. And it draws from all over the district For the leadership school, the arts school, the business school, international studies. The demographics changed with the magnet programs.
http://www.sandi.net/20451072011457293/blank/browse.asp?a=383&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&c=66267August 1, 2011 at 9:04 AM #714141UCGal
ParticipantI was a student in San Diego unified when the busing was going on. San Diego did NOT have forced busing. They were able to achieve their numbers with volunteer busing and magnet schools.
My junior high (before they called it a middle school) and high school had kids bused in.
There was some racial tension… but this was the 70’s – we students did a sit-in to get the administration to help deal with it. LOL. (I’ll admit – for many it was an excuse to ditch a class to do the sit-in.)
I don’t know of ANY parents that pulled their kids when the voluntary busing started. And UC was pretty affluent. Very few of my friends went to private school. One friend went to a magnet school – for the performing arts. This was before UC high and Standley middle – UC kids went to Marston and Clairemont.
There’s a reason magnet schools in San Diego unified are often in less desirable neighborhoods – it’s a way of drawing the white kids from the neighborhood schools to the more inner city neighorhoods – look at what used to be San Diego High (near downtown), south end of Balboa Park. It was a pretty poor performing school, very inner city in it’s demographics – now it’s a cluster of magnet schools – schools within the larger campus. And it draws from all over the district For the leadership school, the arts school, the business school, international studies. The demographics changed with the magnet programs.
http://www.sandi.net/20451072011457293/blank/browse.asp?a=383&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&c=66267August 1, 2011 at 9:04 AM #714741UCGal
ParticipantI was a student in San Diego unified when the busing was going on. San Diego did NOT have forced busing. They were able to achieve their numbers with volunteer busing and magnet schools.
My junior high (before they called it a middle school) and high school had kids bused in.
There was some racial tension… but this was the 70’s – we students did a sit-in to get the administration to help deal with it. LOL. (I’ll admit – for many it was an excuse to ditch a class to do the sit-in.)
I don’t know of ANY parents that pulled their kids when the voluntary busing started. And UC was pretty affluent. Very few of my friends went to private school. One friend went to a magnet school – for the performing arts. This was before UC high and Standley middle – UC kids went to Marston and Clairemont.
There’s a reason magnet schools in San Diego unified are often in less desirable neighborhoods – it’s a way of drawing the white kids from the neighborhood schools to the more inner city neighorhoods – look at what used to be San Diego High (near downtown), south end of Balboa Park. It was a pretty poor performing school, very inner city in it’s demographics – now it’s a cluster of magnet schools – schools within the larger campus. And it draws from all over the district For the leadership school, the arts school, the business school, international studies. The demographics changed with the magnet programs.
http://www.sandi.net/20451072011457293/blank/browse.asp?a=383&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&c=66267August 1, 2011 at 9:04 AM #714895UCGal
ParticipantI was a student in San Diego unified when the busing was going on. San Diego did NOT have forced busing. They were able to achieve their numbers with volunteer busing and magnet schools.
My junior high (before they called it a middle school) and high school had kids bused in.
There was some racial tension… but this was the 70’s – we students did a sit-in to get the administration to help deal with it. LOL. (I’ll admit – for many it was an excuse to ditch a class to do the sit-in.)
I don’t know of ANY parents that pulled their kids when the voluntary busing started. And UC was pretty affluent. Very few of my friends went to private school. One friend went to a magnet school – for the performing arts. This was before UC high and Standley middle – UC kids went to Marston and Clairemont.
There’s a reason magnet schools in San Diego unified are often in less desirable neighborhoods – it’s a way of drawing the white kids from the neighborhood schools to the more inner city neighorhoods – look at what used to be San Diego High (near downtown), south end of Balboa Park. It was a pretty poor performing school, very inner city in it’s demographics – now it’s a cluster of magnet schools – schools within the larger campus. And it draws from all over the district For the leadership school, the arts school, the business school, international studies. The demographics changed with the magnet programs.
http://www.sandi.net/20451072011457293/blank/browse.asp?a=383&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&c=66267 -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.