"Liberals must refight the battles of the past".

Without having time to click on the link to see what he is talking about, I have to say this statement right here is correct. I have heard it said several times over the last few days and it makes perfect sense.

When we instituted Social Security, we then dropped the issue and moved on. Conservatives have spent a generation criticizing it and tearing it apart. Redefining it as a 'redistribution of wealth'. When we created welfare, we justified it as helping to establish a middle class. Then we moved on. Conservatives have spent a generation defining it as 'entitlement' and have been working to destroy it. When we created the public educational system, we moved on. Conservatives have spent a generation advocating and working for it's demise. Progressive taxation, cultural tolerance, etc. the list goes on.

When patriotic Americans accomplish something to further the true ideals of Democracy, we then move forward, but conservatives do not stop in their attempt to tear things down.

Now we must go back and reeducate the populace as to the purpose of Social Security. We must reclarify why we define the civil rights of the people being held in Gitmo. We must reexplain to people what political correctness means and why it used to be good to the religious and the non-religious alike, and why now it is a burden for those of faith, (because it has been redefined). We must tell people again why public education is a cornerstone of Democracy. We, Progressivists, must start all over. It is the only way to preserve Democracy.

No more satire, no more snide remarks, no more gloom and doom. Those bolster the rhetoric of the Right. Education. That is all that is needed to win this 'last war'.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Steve. I don't agree, and want to explain why.

Fundamentally, one of the core tenets of conservative thinking is that there is a strong dynamic interaction between policy or law and individual behavior. Incentives provided by law have a strong impact on people's behavior. That is why, for example, we favor lower incremental tax rates. Conservatives believe that all policies operate in highly dynamic, not static, environments. Good policy must take this into account, and also must be modified in response to the observed behaviors which may be "unintended consequences" of past law or policy. Let me use 3 examples you cited:

Social Security - Here the dynamic is caused primarily by changing demographics. There will be far fewer workers per retiree in the future than in the 1930s when the program started. Also the program's tax burden has become a larger and more regressive tax. The law needs to be adjusted to reflect these changes.

Welfare - Here the conservative argument was behaviorist. We argued that the old AFDC system created incentives for long-term welfare dependency and for a growing fraction of children born out of wedlock. These ideas are shared by "conservatives" like the late Senator Pat Moynihan and Bill Clinton. Conservatives believe that the reforms enacted by Congress during the Clinton administration (with support from most Republicans + a few moderate Democrats) were generally successful. Certainly the liberal predictions of mass destitution which were so common at the time have proven false.

Public Schools - Any number of changes in population, demographics, and culture have caused public schools, especially in large cities, to fail in educating children compared with historical performance. The remedies for this situation are being debated now. These proposed remedies include greater measurement of academic achievement, formation of charter schools, government tuition vouchers, etc. The focus of conservative policy is to support changes which give greater ranges of choice to parents, as we believe that in most situations they will choose most wisely for their own children.

Does that help?

That is why, for example, we favor lower incremental tax rates.

Most conservatives I hear from, favor a flat tax.

Social Security - the program's tax burden has become a larger and more regressive tax

I thought conservatives favored regressive taxes, like the flat tax. That's all they seem to talk about. Could there be a disconnect between conservative bloggers and their policy makers?

The law needs to be adjusted to reflect these changes.

Yes, as I point out on the social security thread, in comment 7, that is what Democrats are trying to do, with a bill that Dem. Obey has introduced. As I explain on that thread, privatizing SS would add upwards of 1 trillion to the national debt, jeopardize the financial security of our nation and open the door to the possibility of millions of retirees having their entire retirement savings go bust, depending on the fluctuations of the stock market.

Welfare - These ideas are shared by "conservatives" like the late Senator Pat Moynihan and Bill Clinton

That's wierd. I consider myself a Progressive Liberal and took the political ideology challenge at blogthings, and was defined as a New School Democrat, right in line with Clinton. I guess you would consider me a conservative then, since I feel he is one of the best Presidents we've ever had and agree with most all of his ideologies.

I agree with Clinton's analysis of Welfare and what he did to fix it. All I hear from conservatives is how much it needs to be shut down because it is nothing more than 'entitlement'. I have absolutely never heard a conservative give your rationale of it.

Public Schools - These proposed remedies include greater measurement of academic achievement, formation of charter schools, government tuition vouchers, etc.

It's unfortunate that the creation of No Child Left Behind by Bush does not measure academic achievement correctly. What other remedy do conservatives propose to measure achievement? Teachers all across America are saying that they are having to devote less time to teaching the basics and spending more time making sure kids pass one test. The vouchers and charter schools help the upper middle class and above kids but not the kids in poverty and in the inner cities, it actually harms them. It's too bad that none of the remedies here help all citizens achieve a good decent education to better their lot in life.

Does that help?

Well, other than your example of welfare, which is a new one on me (hearing it come from a conservative), it's all pretty much the same ole, same ole. Thanks though for taking the time to respond.

How does giving a poor family a voucher so their children can attend a private school hurt them?

A single poor family or a small number of poor families would obviously benefit if they could take a full-tuition voucher and send their child to the private school of their choice.

But you're assuming that all kids will be able to attend what are now the cream of the crop. That won't be the case.

The problems will arise if/when students head toward private schools en masse. There aren't enough private schools right now to handle all the students, so obviously more will open.

1. There is no guarantee that a bunch of new private schools will be better than the public schools that they're replacing. You're basing your view of private schools on a very different model than the one that will emerge. Right now, they're exclusive and they reach an exclusive market. If vouchers become the norm, only a few will remain exclusive. The rest will fall along the bell curve, just like public schools do now.
2. In some communities, vouchers will be small and won't cover full tuition at a private school. So some poor students will still not be able to afford the private schools in their communities, even with a voucher. Those "left behind" will be stuck in whatever remnants of the public schools remain, after all the money and resources have been drained from them. These kids, the ones who need the most assistance, will indeed be left behind.
3. Who do you think will teach at these private schools if the public schools get closed? That's right, all those horrible public school teachers you hate so much!
4. For-profit private schools, I believe, will not have the students' best interests at heart. Their educational decisions will be profit-driven, rather than eeducation-driven. Look out especially for the for-profit schools owned by publicly traded corporations: shareholders will determine how the schools are run -- as cheaply as possible. I'm all for fiscal responsibility, but we've seen companies lay off workers merely to increase profits. The same thing will happen in private schools, and the kids will suffer. And they won't have public schools to fall back on.

I think that vouchers are one piece of a short-term, temporary solution to a very big problem. But the long-term goal should not be to shut down public schools in struggling communities by shipping the kids off to private schools. The goal should be to do the best for as many kids as you can right now, sending some to private school if you can, while simultaneously rethinking and reforming the public schools for the long-term.

I believe that public education is an important foundation of our society, but I also believe that real reform, if not revolution, is needed.

Oh, and 5. If the norm for schooling becomes for-profit in this country, then it's very conceivable that companies will decide that it's just not profitable to open a school in a rural area or in an expensive, depressed urban area, for example. So if the public schools are not reformed/revolutionized, the problems for those communities won't go away. They'll still have the same public school problems, which nobody bothered to try fixing because they expected an business or two to fix it for them. And the businesses decided it/they wasn't/weren't worth the money.

bhw - and you call me chicken little???

You make an awful lot of assumptions...A voucher would be a voucher the way I understand it. You don't know that a voucher would be less in any given area. Between you and Steve I'm trying to figure out which one is chicken little and which one is turkey lurky!

The horrible teachers can go to work at walmart...the good ones can teach at the good schools!

I really envy the 2 of you. That you live in an area/areas in the country that ONLY have good administrators and good teachers is incredible to me! I bet you only have good politicians too! I'm starting to believe it wouldn't matter what position I took on an issue with you 2, you'd disagree just for the sake of it!

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVE EVE!

A voucher would be a voucher the way I understand it.

Then you don't understand it. Vouchers have a specific dollar value because the parents turn them in to the school and then the school submits them to the school district to get paid that specific dollar amount for that child's tuition. The school district is saying it will give the family X dollars toward tuition. If there's a difference between tuition and the voucher value, the school and/or family have to make it up. In Washington DC, the voucher value is fairly high, around $7K per year per child, I think. I've also seen them proposed as low as $2K per year per kid.

The horrible teachers can go to work at walmart...the good ones can teach at the good schools!

Yes, Andy. But the ratio of good to poor teachers favors the good. There are bad teachers in excellent school districts, and there are excellent teachers in bad school districts.

Of course, some good teachers will probably choose to go work in an industry where they can have decent benefits and pay, which they are less likely to get working for a private school.

I really envy the 2 of you. That you live in an area/areas in the country that ONLY have good administrators and good teachers is incredible to me!

I never said that. I talked about my TOWN. There are bad apples in every bunch, Andy. But overall, the bunch is good in my town, even though I don't agree with some of their decisions or teaching methods.

You were the one talking about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I'm talking about the downside of privatization and offering an alternative to it so that public schools can be saved while we try to help as many kids as possible right now.

another thing people need to remember about vouchers is that just because you've got one does not mean that you child can get into the private school of your choice.

Or into a private school at all. There are no reserved seats. So what happens to the kids who don't get in after their public school district has had all its funds taken away?

Andy, I have no problem with the inclusion of vouchers as one method to improve education, but if you look at the methods that the Right is using to attack public education:

1) Testing, which the commission itself has stated that the majority of schools will fail, which then pulls funding away from the school. Teachers are also telling us that in order to prepare for this test, less time is being devoted to teaching the skills kids need to survive in the world. This does not improve public education, this stifles it. It is already doing so.

2) Charter schools, as bhw pointed out, for-profit corporations are going to begin the dangerous practice of teaching-for-profit in the most profitable areas. This does not help public education, this punishes it.

3) Vouchers, again, as bhw pointed out, this pulls kids out of public schools. That does not improve public schools.

All the remedies that Bush is putting in place harm the public school system, there isn't a one that seeks to address the faults that you insist run rampant in the educational system (and we're Chicken Little?) and correct them. There isn't one bit of legislation put forth to help improve public schools, everything put in place is to it's detriment.

Andy, if all these 'solutions' help middle to upper class kids and not the kids in poverty or the inner cities, then those kids are going to grow up needing to be dependent on welfare, aren't they? The way to decrease a person's dependence on society for survival involves education. This is why we need to improve public education, not punish it.

Why hasn't Bush addressed smaller class sizes? Better qualifications for teachers, better standards for what is taught? Simple, Andy, because improving the public school system is not a concern of this Administration.

One clarification, Steve. Charter schools are public schools that are run by private non-profit organizations. They have to be non-profit, I believe, because they are considered public schools.

As public schools, they're not allowed to discriminate in their admissions policies. All kids from the district are eligible to apply, simply because they live in that public school district. Most charter schools run some sort of lottery to fill their open slots.

I don't see charter schools as a big problem for public schools. In fact, if we allowed our school districts to stop thinking of having "the regular schools" and "the charter schools," and instead adopted a small, charter-school-like approach in each district, we'd satisfy parents' desires for school choice and students' differing interests.

So, I'd LOVE it if my town decided to scrap the 4 k-8 schools that house 1400 kids each and instead create 8-10 small schools with different teaching styles and curriculum design. I'll sign my kids up for the school that maxes out at 250 kids, that has a small student:teacher ratio, that allows them to choose what to learn and when [freedom AND responsibility], and that incorporates the arts in an integrated curriculum. [Andy can choose the school that mimics the Catholic school model for his kids.]

These types of schools would definitely cost more, simply from an overhead perspective, if nothing else: more facilities to maintain, more principals to hire, etc. But the huge conglomerated schools aren't my cup of tea because I don't think the one-size-fits-all approach works well for many kids, and I'd much rather have a school district with true public school choice than what I have now, which is no choice within the district. All the schools are esentially the same.

So I'd say the problem with charter schools is that they're not the norm.

my mistake, I was thinking of the possibility of a large exodus to private schools and gave them the charter school label. Since charter schools are privately owned, even if they are non-profit, won't they be selective in the areas they open schools?

And if they are non-profit, where do they get their money? The taxpayer, same as a public school?

Yes, yes, and yes.

But I don't if charters are actually privately owned. They may just be privately operated. I'm not sure what the distinction is, to be honest. I also don't know what happens to funds/assets they raise/acquire on their own. We need someone with more knowledge to chime in.

Charters do get their funding from two places [in MA, anyway], from the state for startup help and from the local school district on a per-pupil basis. So right now, the "regular" public schools sometimes don't like it when a charter wants to open in their town because it directly takes money out of their pockets: one year's tuition cost per kid that goes to the charter school. But often, the parents are clamoring to get their kids in these schools, so clearly there's a need for them.

So, in my public school utopia, you wouldn't necessarily need private groups to run the schools. You'd just have a bunch of small, specialized little public schools that were different from each other. Instead of going to the school that's closest to your house [or however your district is carved up], you'd go to the one that interested you and your parents the most.

Of course, we'd have to do away with this silly notion of state-level standardized testing to make my utopia a reality. There's no reason each child needs to know the answers to all the same questions on the same test. The educational equality we should offer should be come from the quality of the curricula, not from the content.

I'm a product of both public and private schools, and my kid's will be, too. I can agree with most of the points made but I'm not sure I understand why there's a problem with standardized testing. In my mind having at least a measurable minimum standard as a benchmark of a school's performance is a good thing.

I could swallow standardized testing used as a benchmark. But there should be other benchmarks, too, not just one. One thing that standardized tests measure is how well students can take standardized, high-stakes tests under a time constraint. They don't measure some other things, such as how well students solve real-world problems in real-time.

Unfortunately, today, standardized tests aren't being used as benchmarks. They're being used as the single graduation criterion and the single criterion for declaring a school successful or unsuccessful. Nothing else matters but standardized test scores. So guess what teachers have to teach and students spend their days preparing for?

Agreed. I think there should be numerous benchmarks, but if they can't be successful with an isolated single criterion, why we should we be confident in their ability to be successful with additional criteria?

From what I read about NCLB, one of the primary problems with it, is that the disabled children, and children who do not have English as their primary language are the ones most affected negatively. More time is spent having to prepare them to take a specific test, and so less time is spent teaching them English, or catering to the special needs of the disabled child.

When you consider for example, that the test is really a test on the school and not on the child, it becomes important for the school to have as many kids as possible pass this one specific test. So a school that has a ratio of 85% white kids and 15% hispanic kids, who are struggling to learn English, the school needs to focus on getting a majority of kids to pass a test. So the needs of 15% (or more actually) of that schools students are no longer being addressed.

It's problematic, how it's set up.

but if they can't be successful with an isolated single criterion, why we should we be confident in their ability to be successful with additional criteria?

Because different types of evaluations and assessments assess different skills, knowledge, and abilities than standardized tests do?

Do you assess a basketball player's total skill level on his/her ability to shoot freethrows? Does your boss assess you only in one area? It's very rare in real life that we're given only a standardized test to prove what we can do. I don't want my kids practicing to take tests for 12 years. It's not only boring, it's only a partial education.

bhw-
That's an answer to a question I didn't ask. I agree with your point but again, look at what I'm asking and try to answer that question.

I think I did, Joe. Kids are good at different kinds of things. Just because they may not do well on one type of assessment at one school doesn't mean they won't do well on another.

Why would you assume [if you do] that standardized tests are a good test of whether or not students can do other things well?

I can't shoot a freethrow very well, but I'm a good defender. If you just look at my freethrow scores, what does it tell you about my defense?

No, I'm not a great fan of standardized tests, but I think they are probably an adequate measurement of determining whether a minimum standard of performance has been met. I'm not saying that they won't do well on another type of assessment or that there isn't any value to that, but in order to do an apples to apples comparison of school's performance I don't think there is anything better available.

To extend your analogy, you've been asked to set up a game of horse between 4 people, up until now you haven't been able to do so for various reasons but you would like to set up an tournament involving several teams.

Omigod, is that a word problem you just gave me? I suck at word problems!

Ha! Well, that was actually an SAT question, but the sentiment still applies.

bhw and Steve - can you point to one place in ANY thread where I talked about closing down ALL public schools? Where I said ALL teachers and admin types were bad? I didn't think so.

Steve - You can pretend to be "progressive" all you want, you're a SCREAMING liberal and no matter what title you try to give yourself, I think you'll ALWAYS be a screaming liberal. And because of that, it won't matter what Bush and his administration do, it will NEVER be right!(or always be RIGHT). And also Steve, I guess my kids should be punished because someone elses kids can't speak english? IN AMERICA!!! That's liberal thinking! My taxes, educating illegal aliens and you want MORE of my taxes to go to make sure they can speak english too! It's bad enough that schools have to make the effort in this country to print the stuff they send home in multiple languages. THIS IS AMERICA, we speak ENGLISH here! Learn it or LEAVE!

bhw - class size MAY be an issue, but I don't think it's the primary issue. As I've stated before, I spent most of my life in private school. Most of those class sizes were over 30. I know for a fact that I got a better education than most of the kids that went to public school. It had nothing to do with class size. It has to do with parent involvement and class discipline. You can pack kids in classes like sardines and if they all behave and they all pay attention then they all should learn. I'm not saying that class size is not an issue, I'm just saying that it's not the MAIN issue.

bhw and Steve - since you seem to be the 2 that are dead set against standardized testing, how should schools be measured for success? Or maybe we should just continue to let them graduate illiterates?

Andy, class size is a big issue in publi schools. It's not as big of an issue in private schools, because private schools can pick their students. So, naturally, they pick the ones who best fit their classroom model. Public schools have to educate everyone, no matter what their behavior or learning style may be. So I think that in public schools, significantly smaller classes would make a very big difference. It's only one piece of the puzzle, but I think it's a big piece, particularly with younger kids.

You can measure a school's performance by doing something called authentic assessment, which is task and real-world oriented instead of being based on multiple choice questions. You can also do portfolio evaluations, which measure student accomplishment over the school year, as opposed to at a fixed point in time during the school year.

These types of assessments cost more to implement, but they're far more valuable in determining what individual students really know and can really do.

Another problem with standardized tests is that they tell you content areas that students may be weak in. They don't tell you why they're weak in those areas, or at least why they're not performing well on the test in those areas [and those two things are not the same]. So you don't know how to help students improve their test scores because you don't know where they need help. All you have is the wrong circle filled in on the answer sheet.

Authentic and portfolio assessments help you see where AND why students need help.

On another thread, Andy, you said:

Administrators make deep into 6 figures and for what? Hiring incapable teachers, promoting BS curricula. They take money away from students and teachers and for the most part perform no useful function other than buffer between the community and teachers that suck! Good teachers rarely have issues with parents, it's the bad ones that need saving!

You didn't say ALL, but you surely imply that there is something fundamentally wrong with the role and pay of administrators. This statement shows that you generally believe that they're overpaid in the first place and don't do a good job [hire bad teachers and promote "bs curricula"] in the second place. They "take money away" from teachers and students and perform "no useful function" except to protect the bad teachers they hire from upset parents.

How is anyone supposed to think that you DON'T think administrators should be fired? Do you think you've painted a balanced picture of their jobs and their performance? Puhleeze.

Also, this last line is telling: d teachers rarely have issues with parents, it's the bad ones that need saving!

That statement and other statements you've made about kids "behaving" in class and discipline in schools leads me to believe that you think that "good" teachers just do what they're told [by parents] and "good" students just sit quietly and passively "learn" from these "good" teachers.

That's a seriously disturbing view of schools, teachers, students, AND parents. In fact, it sounds a lot like the military to me: take your orders and don't question them. Unfortunately, children aren't soldiers, even though schools seem to be more and more militaristic to me every day. Asking questions shows curiosity and a thirst for knowledge and understanding -- we should encourage it.

Sadly, some teachers think the way you do, too, Andy. My daughter had an experience last fall with a public school teacher who rewarded only the quiet kids who literally said nothing all day. This small number of children got a gold sticker at the end of the day, every day, from the teacher. When I asked my daughter what the girl next to her did to earn the gold sticker, my daughter said, "She didn't do anything. She just sits and doesn't say anything."

And that's public school education for you. Sit still and don't say a word, and you'll get the label of a "good kid."

BTW, that teacher was the example I gave from my school district of someone who doesn't belong in the classroom.

I'm not talking about kids asking questions and YOU KNOW it! If you're gonna take the stuff I say and twist it into stupidity then I guess we're done! Happy New Year!

Steve - you're a SCREAMING liberal and no matter what title you try to give yourself, I think you'll ALWAYS be a screaming liberal.

LOL. What I am trying to do is turn how the debates go, back to something more fair. The Right continually defines the Right. The Right continually defines the Left (and erroneously at that). And then the debate goes from there, and the Left has to defend a position that it doesn't even hold because it got labeled as holding that position by the Right. I'm not a debater, just someone who sees how discussions between the Left and Right go, and I'm not letting it go that way anymore where I am involved. And right now, attempting to make the debate more fair, it is making me come across as screaming. So that's a label I'll have to wear, until I can figure out the best way to approach it. Apparently, the definition of a screaming liberal, is one who will not let the Right define and co-opt the debate.

So far Andy, in two days, I've had the Right tell me here at BC, that the ideology of Progressivism is to make all incomes equal, that it's the equivalent of slavery, that it's intent is to deny your kids a quality education,, the list goes on. None of it is right. I have to speak out and say 'no, that's not right'. If that makes me a screaming liberal, then so be it.

I guess my kids should be punished because someone elses kids can't speak english? IN AMERICA!!! That's liberal thinking!

See what I mean here? There isn't a liberal around, including myself, who says "The children of immigrants should learn english at the expense of Andy's kids".

you want MORE of my taxes

No. No. I don't. I never called for a tax increase. Another erroneous comment.

THIS IS AMERICA, we speak ENGLISH here! Learn it or LEAVE!

How can they learn it, when we now have to spend less time teaching it?

Andy, I have said that NCLB is problematic how it is set up. It measures too narrowly and is not good as a stand alone item. Teachers are telling us that it takes away from the education kids need for the real world. So we need testing that can work in conjunction with standardized testing, and be a more accurate reflection on how well kids are learning.

Or maybe we should just continue to let them graduate illiterates?

No liberal has advocated that. But correcting you (yet again) makes me appear to be 'screaming' at you, doesn't it?

Is it an either/or? Under the Bush administration which does not compromise, apparently it is. But in the real world, there are multiple solutions, not just a 'one size band-aid fits all' approach.

As far as me never agreeing with Bush, it's because we define the role of government differently. I'm not a polluter, corporatist, opportunist, militarist or demogogic absolutist.

You make one comment to bhw here:
It has to do with parent involvement and class discipline.

That's how you say that kids can get a better education. But how does NCLB address that? If it doesn't (and it clearly doesn't), then NCLB shouldn't be considered an effective remedy as a stand alone tool, should it?

Class discipline is a big problem. I'd agree with you on that. My sister says she has to spend more time being a baby sitter and disciplining kids than teaching, because the parents haven't instilled the right values in the kid. There are kids in her class that talk through lessons, that stand up and throw things, that run around, etc. Discipline has had to be curtailed from the educators viewpoint to avoid being sued, but parents aren't instilling it either. Unfortunately, no solution from EITHER side addresses this issue. People don't know how to address it.

Andy, you continue to say how much better your Catholic school education was than your public school education. My understanding of Catholic school education, handed down by my father, is that it's a sit-down-and-listen-to-the-lecture-and-speak-when-spoken-to environment. Maybe that's not universal, but none of my peers who went through Catholic school offered a different picture.

bhw - you were still allowed to raise your hand and ask questions. You just weren't allowed to ask questions like..How could a virgin have a kid? That one got you a good smack.

I don't ever recall getting in trouble for asking questions, other than the one stated above. I DO remember getting in trouble for blurting shit out, or generally disrupting the class.

I think the big difference between now and then is class discipline in both private and public schools. I remember my cousins telling me that they usually got a choice between a couple of whacks or detention, they usually took the whacks. In catholic school, you got it all, a couple of whacks, detention and then a couple more whacks when I got home.

I'm not advocating corporal punishment! Let me say that again, I'M NOT ADVOCATING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT! I would not want a teacher touching one of my daughters. But all this feel good shit that goes on in schools today is for the birds! There are schools in this country that don't grade because someones "feelings" might get hurt! WTF is that?

In this part of VA I think the public schools do an adequate job. My daughters have learned. I just moved back here from AZ and I got to tell you, those public schools suck! I saw a difference in parent attitude out there as well. I went to a school function one night and when it came time to start, none of the parents would shut up! The school admin wouldn't do anything about it...they let the kids start there little show with all these parents talking and BS'ing. It was pathetic. I finally stood up and yelled in the cafeteria, SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR THESE CHILDREN! They finally settled down. I think in this day and age, do to all the PC Bullshit and that's what it is, PC Bullshit, an administrator can't do what I did that night. They might want to, but they can't and that's a big part of the problem with SOME public schools.

Steve - I guess we finally did agree on something, that discipline is a problem! As far as Bush goes on this education issue, I'll say this; at least he's trying to do something. Of course your conspiracy theory says he's doing it to try to close public schools down, but I don't believe that. I believe he's doing it because he knows public schools are a problem. They were when he was in TX and nothing's changed. I guess if your boy kerry were president, we could do away with NCLB and just throw more money at it!

So, let's see. We can't discipline them, we can't test them, we can't close them, we can't move them to better schools. I guess we'll just leave them the way they are! But just for good measure, let's throw some more money at them!

There are schools in this country that don't grade because someones "feelings" might get hurt! WTF is that?

They don't do it because feelings might get hurt. They do it because they believe giving grades is counter productive to the overall goal of education because grades induce students to focus on how they are doing instead of on what they are doing. In fact, some studies have shown that student performance goes down when students believe the work they're doing will count toward their final grade.

A lot of this has to do with the psychology of intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation and which one is more powerful in education.

So, typically, schools that forgo grades aren't concerned with sorting kids into groups by ability/conformance and are more interested in helping kids pursue they're motivated to learn.

If I could, I would send my kids to schools that a) don't grade and b) don't test at all.

Andy, you say you're not condoning corporeal punishment, but then you don't offer an alternative to it after you point out how effective it was with you.

What would you recommend teachers do with students who are consistently a problem? If discipline is a problem and you don't recommend "whacking" kids, what DO you recommend?

bhw - Kicking them out of school and letting their parents deal with their BS! They are the reason that they're like that in the first place. That really is the only option left. You know what part of all that worked the best for me? It wasn't the threat of what might happen in school, it was KNOWING what was gonna happen when I got home.

You really believe that not grading or testing kids is a good idea? If that's the case, I'd say that there really is nowhere that we can go. The 2 of us are so opposite on this issue that there actually is no middle ground. How do you know if they're actually teaching your child anything?

I just wonder what happens to a child years down the road when they start getting graded in everything they do. It is part of life.

I guess we should have school sports with no scoring? Track meets with no winners? No National Honors Society? Oh no, your way EVERYONE would make NHS. Kid must get an awful shock when s/he sits down to take that SAT or ACT!

But hey, your way, teachers don't have to show any REAL progress! They can just TELL you they're teaching your kid and you, being the trusting soul that you are, will believe them!

Focusing on how they are doing...as in, doing it right? Following direction? You're right, that's a bad idea! HA!!! That's the kind of attitude I want working for me...I did it the way I wanted to...not the way you told me to do it! or the right way...but the way I was taught to do stuff in school...any FUCKING way I pleased!

I bet those studies you're talking about are NEA studies....

You're one of those parents that let's their kid throw a tantrum in the grocery store, aren't you? You try to "reason" with your 5 or 6 year old??? I'm not trying to be offensive here bhw. Honestly!

I think we take a completely different approach on raising our children. But hey, if that works for you...more power to you!

I like the fact that my daughter is in honors and Advanced Placement classes. In a class room where the other kids around her WANT to learn. For the most part she's away from the trouble makers. You group kids together and some will be bored to tears and others will be swamped with things they don't understand. And somehow, that's a good thing? Alrighty then!

Andy, are you sitting down? I have something to tell you: the Earth is not flat.

Why are you so afraid of ideas that are new or different from what you know, to the point that you rant and rave and make assumptions and sweeping generalizations about the people who advocate them?

Well, here's another shocker for you: many successfull schools, looooong in existence, do not give grades or tests. Montessori schools fit this mold, for example. They've been around for many decades, and they are founded on the belief that children are natural, active learners who don't need tests or grades to motivate them. Lately, Montessori has become a favorite public school charter model. Guess what: no tests and no grades in these public schools.

And the sun will still rise in the morning, Andy.

If you actually read Comment 26, I said that authentic assessment and portfolio assessments are good alternatives to tests. Montessori schools do assess their students' progress, they just don't give tests or grades. Why is that so horrible?

Plus, you do realize that grades are subjective, don't you? Ever have a teacher bump you up to an A because of your effort, even if your scores didn't add up to an A? That's subjective. Ever have a teacher who was a tougher grader than your friends? That's subjective. Ever think that one of your friends was the teacher's pet and therefore got all the breaks? That's subjective. And therefore, to me, just about meaningless.

I just wonder what happens to a child years down the road when they start getting graded in everything they do. It is part of life.

Actually, grading is not a part of life; it's a part of school. I've never gotten a grade on any work I've done in the real world, only in school. I have had performance reviews, but those tended to be -- get this -- authentic assessments based on real work in real life, not fabricated tests.

You know what part of all that worked the best for me? It wasn't the threat of what might happen in school, it was KNOWING what was gonna happen when I got home.

Well, I prefer a school that doesn't use threats to coerce certain behaviors from students. Unfortunately, most public schools do use threats [carrots and sticks, if you will]. And as a parent, I choose not to use the threat of physical violence. My parents used to hit my brothers and me. It wasn't really very effective. If it had been, we would have been hit once and never again. But I definitely recall being hit on more than one occasion. So, maybe my parents liked the feeling of power and retribution, but smacking us didn't keep us from doing things that pissed them off.

Andy, you and I are definitely from different educational worlds. All I can say is that I have advocated a having variety of public school models from which parents can choose. What works for one family might not work for another. But you seem to think your limited view of the world -- based on, I would guess, no actual experience as an educator -- is the only way things should be, and that any other options are laughable. I think your haughty attitude, given your lack of knowledge about alternatives to the status quo in education, is laughable.

haughty??? Me??? I actually have been and am right now, an instructor. I'm a navy trained Master Training Specialist, actually.

I taught electronics for about 5 1/2 years in the navy. I'm also trained in curriculum development.

Right now I work for a company and my function is training.

I know about Montesorri, I have a relative that went to one in NYC. I'm not impressed.

I never said any other options were laughable. I've never hit my daughters. All I said was what worked for me specifically. YOu read WAY to much into shit don't you? I said kick them out and let their parents deal with them.

But I get the feeling I saw you in the grocery store one day...letting your kid stomp and scream and kick...that why you calling me haughty??? I never called you any names...Never said anything about your opinions other than we're miles apart...why you gotta get shitty with me? Haughty...laughable...

And if you think that performance assesment ain't a grade...well...I don't know what to say...get a shitty one and see if the grade doesn't affect your pay! That's the grade on the test of life...I see it every 2 weeks...

life is school, bhw...and it's full of tests...either you pass, fail or get left back!

Life is not school, Andy. YOUR life might be, but not everyone's is. And I'm not getting shitty with you, I'm just responding to the things you have said.

I stand corrected on your background as an instructor. But I have a background in both adult and child education and I can tell you that there are significant differences between them. So I can only imagine the differences in teaching military personnel from teaching in the corporate world, not to mention teaching kids.

I've never hit my daughters.

I never said you did. I was talking about how I'm not going to do what my parents did, partially because it didn't work.

Andy, you say you didn't laugh at other options? You ridiculed them and jumped to conclusions:

I guess we should have school sports with no scoring?

Track meets with no winners?
No National Honors Society? Oh no, your way EVERYONE would make NHS.

Kid must get an awful shock when s/he sits down to take that SAT or ACT!

But hey, your way, teachers don't have to show any REAL progress!

They can just TELL you they're teaching your kid and you, being the trusting soul that you are, will believe them!

Focusing on how they are doing...as in, doing it right? Following direction? You're right, that's a bad idea! HA!!!

I bet those studies you're talking about are NEA studies....

You're one of those parents that let's their kid throw a tantrum in the grocery store, aren't you? You try to "reason" with your 5 or 6 year old???

Andy, you definitely have a pattern in these BC comments. You say a bunch of stuff and make assumptions and generalizations, and then you claim you never did it. Am I supposed to just let it go when you jump to conclusions and misrepresent what I'm talking about?

I know about Montesorri, I have a relative that went to one in NYC. I'm not impressed.

You don't have to be. Other people are. Other people find value in a different style of education than is currently offered in the pubic schools. But you only want the model that works for you and your kids and the rest of the families be damned. Don't try other methods that might work for those troublemakers -- just kick them out!

One of the things that strikes me about this thread is that everyone and everything is to blame for what goes wrong in schools ... except the model of education itself. It's the parents or the teachers or the administrators or the bad kids who don't want to learn, but it just cannot be the way education itself is handled. Why is that?

Why is that? I don't know...maybe because it's always worked in the past? How did we manage? How did our parents manage?

What's changed? If not the attitudes of the people we've been talking about...parents...teachers...administrators...students...if it worked before...why isn't it working now?

bhw - you can call me out on anything...I have no problem with that...but haughty? laughable? because I don't agree with you...that makes me haughty? makes my opinions laughable? I respond to what I see written...I don't consider your opinions laughable...

I maybe a self-centered egotistical bastard...but I'm not haughty!!!

Andy, if you don't consider the ideas laughable, then why did you ridicule them?

bhw - Like I said..you read WAY to much into things...I don't mean to ridicule, I type the things that come into my mind. I lack tact, I have all my life. I'm not PC, at all!

and yeah, you're right...I think if it works for my kid then it should work for your kid...why do we have to work around the problem children(I'm not saying you have a problem child)...maybe they should fit into the mold...and stop wasting our kids time.

all the things you talk about doing cost money...that's all we've been doing is giving the educational system in this country more and more money and it just seems to get worse and worse. But this system worked before, didn't it? You seem pretty literate! Maybe those beatings you got worked better than you think.

As far as Montesorri goes...the way I hear it, you need a pretty hefty wallet and I don't wanna pay that kind of money to educate some punk kid that doesn't want to learn anyway. And revamping the entire education system would cost way way to much money and it's not necessary.

The bottom line is that the education system in this country needed something...the guy that was there for 8 years didn't do a FUCKING thing about it...a new guy came in and at least tried to create some accountability and all I see is bitching! I'm glad that states are creating a standard that I can use to help me judge a school. I personally don't think they need it, but I also don't think it's a bad thing. They already have the Stanford 9's and I can't think what the other set of tests are right off hand. They already measure students performance.

If the tests cover the basics and teachers have to teach so that kids can pass the tests, shouldn't the teachers be teaching the basics? If the test checks performance in math, shouldn't the teacher be teaching math? Wouldn't the teacher then be teaching what's needed to pass the test?

When I was a navy instructor, we gave tests and practical exams. I never wanted to see one of my students fail a test so I made sure that I covered ALL THE MATERIAL. You see, that way, I knew that my students had what they needed to pass the test. I didn't teach the test. I taught the material that the test covered. Now, if you have a problem with the tests your state is giving, don't blame that on the president. He mandated that schools show a measurable standard. What's so wrong with that idea?

maybe they should fit into the mold...and stop wasting our kids time.

Or maybe the mold should change if it's not working. Or maybe there should be more than one mold, since people are not all alike and learn differently and thrive in different environments.

all the things you talk about doing cost money...

Yes, they do. But so do the results of poor schools. And if the things I'm talking about work better than what we have now, which is a one-size-supposedly-fits-all system that doesn't work for all, then it will be worth it.

that's all we've been doing is giving the educational system in this country more and more money and it just seems to get worse and worse.

And what does that tell you? That pouring more money and effort into the same thing without seeing a change in the results is a smart thing to do? Isn't one of the symptoms of insanity to keep doing the same thing but expecting a different result the next time? Well, that's what NCLB does: it requires schools to do more of the same thing.

But this system worked before, didn't it? You seem pretty literate!

It worked for SOME. I was one of the kids that was able to work inside the mold. My older brother was not. You'd be surprised at the difference between the educations we got at the same schools, and even with some of the same teachers, and of course with the same parents.

Maybe those beatings you got worked better than you think.

Ha!

I wouldn't call them beatings, though. But we were hit.

I think a few things have changed since the good old days when teachers were permitted to hit kids. One thing is obviously that teachers generally aren't allowed to hit kids anymore. I agree with you that that's a good thing.

But another thing that has changed is that school districts are now required to educate all the children in the community, even the ones who are difficult or whose parents are not going to be helpful in the process.

But seriously, it's not like problems didn't exist in the past. My mother went to public school in Newark, NJ in the 50's. You know, that Donna Reed era when everything was perfect? Well, she's told me on more than one occasion that the black kids in her school were, as a group, the ones who struggled academically. We have always had problems in our schools with providing a quality education to all kids from all backgrounds.

As far as Montesorri goes...the way I hear it, you need a pretty hefty wallet

That's for private school. The Montessori model is now being implemented in some public schools.

and I don't wanna pay that kind of money to educate some punk kid that doesn't want to learn anyway.

That punk kid, like all children, started life with an innate thirst for learning and an innate curiosity. Where did it go? Is it only his fault or his parents' fault? Why is it never the school's fault? And at what age is it okay to write off a kid who "doesn't want to learn anyway"?

And revamping the entire education system would cost way way to much money and it's not necessary.

I would argue that it *is* necessary and wouldn't cost too much money. It might cost more than we're spending now, but probably just in the short run. In the long run, costs could be streamlined, I think.

The bottom line is that the education system in this country needed something...the guy that was there for 8 years didn't do a FUCKING thing about it...

Not true, but I'm not going to get into it.

a new guy came in and at least tried to create some accountability and all I see is bitching!

You see bitching because he's not just trying to create accountability. He's created a system that is underfunded and therefore actually costs districts more money. He's also created a system that's designed to take money away from public schools and put it in the pockets of private companies.

I'm glad that states are creating a standard that I can use to help me judge a school.

States were doing this before NCLB.

If the tests cover the basics and teachers have to teach so that kids can pass the tests, shouldn't the teachers be teaching the basics?

Sure, teachers should teach the basics. But they were doing that before the tests, weren't they? Now that we have these "accountability" tests, the problem is that the basics will only be taught in a way that prepares students for one kind of assessment, a multiple choice test. The test is determining and limiting the kinds of instruction teachers can use in the classroom.

A good educational standard is assessment-independent. That is, it states the goal but not the method of achieving or measuring it, so that teachers can customize their lessons and assessments to fit their particular students' needs and learning styles. When the standard implies a certain type of assessment, then it limits the ways in which the teacher can approach it. So you get cookie-cutter instruction that focuses on answering mutliple choice questions correctly.

There are a million other problems with it, but in general, when you have only one type of assessment for determining success or failure, teachers will teach to that assessment because that's all that counts. And students will learn to care about only what's on the test ["Is this going to be on the test?" or "Will this count toward my grade?"] and then stop when they get to something that's not on the test. This is true in general of any schoolwork that's graded -- students will do just enough to get the grade they and their parents can live with, and no more.

I can go on about this forever, but at some point, that poor schlump Henry Forbes is going to get pissed.

Now he's really going to get pissed because his name is Harry, not Henry.