|
Post by lindaw on Aug 14, 2012 8:41:38 GMT -5
Best move I ever made! He knows the school systems, what's important, what's not, and how to work it to our advantage. Kids already see the benefits! So do I!
|
|
|
Post by naill on Aug 14, 2012 13:17:01 GMT -5
Why not just home school or private?
|
|
|
Post by lindaw on Aug 15, 2012 10:17:35 GMT -5
My daughter is not interested in doing either. I'd send her to private in a heartbeat. And now that I've taken the veil off the utter crap that goes on via the administration, it's only fair that they have to answer to their own ineptitude.
|
|
|
Post by donalgdon on Aug 15, 2012 11:48:59 GMT -5
Nobody has to answer to anything in the public system when it's controlled by the union. It's gone too far in the extreme from the early days where the worker actually was often abused by the system to where the worker often abuses the system because many of the safeguards that should be in place to prevent it are hampered by union rules and contract language which often doesn't allow what needs to be done to actually be done. The system is self-serving, but hides behind the mantra, "It's for the children." Those of us who've actually seen (lived and worked) behind the veil know the truth.
|
|
|
Post by geezerfiddle on Aug 15, 2012 12:55:33 GMT -5
The way I see it, the public schools systems are paid for by the city/county taxes. The Republicans get elected by promising not to raise taxes so the public schools are not properly funded. All this doesn't bother the politicians who send their kids to private school.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Schist on Aug 15, 2012 13:09:05 GMT -5
It seems there are all sorts of educational consultants so I don't know what's up here. It could be that we have a very good district, but with one child that needs some extra services and another years ahead of his peers we've been able to figure out and make happen everything on our own.
I don't know where unions control school districts but know they are among interest groups that influence those who do control school districts - the school boards.
Good luck to all in educating your kids and above all watch the helicopter parenting. It's been a few years now that I've supervised the newer generations of kids who've had that and I see a lot who achieved academic success but don't handle things considered your own problem when I was same age. That has really caused grief for some. That grief has been via first important jobs not working out and in other cases their not being competitive with peers who are more independent and self-sufficient. It also manifests it self in some who have a hard time coming to grips with their not starting out or being at the top.
Again, good luck.
|
|
|
Post by thedude on Aug 15, 2012 19:08:59 GMT -5
Nobody has to answer to anything in the public system when it's controlled by the union. It's gone too far in the extreme from the early days where the worker actually was often abused by the system to where the worker often abuses the system because many of the safeguards that should be in place to prevent it are hampered by union rules and contract language which often doesn't allow what needs to be done to actually be done. The system is self-serving, but hides behind the mantra, "It's for the children." Those of us who've actually seen (lived and worked) behind the veil know the truth. It's not just the unions. I think a lot of it stems from the basic problems of institutions not being responsive to the people they serve when there isn't an efficient feedback loop between the people and the institution. The institution identifies problems and decides what the solutions should be, and while they might get it right, the natural instinct for self preservation hardly ever finds the problem within. FWIW, I think one of the big problems with public school is the incredible burden that special education places on the entire system. It has spread to encompass a LOT of situations, and the extra work for those situations on the teachers, the school, and the district are quite astounding.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Schist on Aug 15, 2012 19:49:41 GMT -5
Nobody has to answer to anything in the public system when it's controlled by the union. It's gone too far in the extreme from the early days where the worker actually was often abused by the system to where the worker often abuses the system because many of the safeguards that should be in place to prevent it are hampered by union rules and contract language which often doesn't allow what needs to be done to actually be done. The system is self-serving, but hides behind the mantra, "It's for the children." Those of us who've actually seen (lived and worked) behind the veil know the truth. It's not just the unions. I think a lot of it stems from the basic problems of institutions not being responsive to the people they serve when there isn't an efficient feedback loop between the people and the institution. The institution identifies problems and decides what the solutions should be, and while they might get it right, the natural instinct for self preservation hardly ever finds the problem within. FWIW, I think one of the big problems with public school is the incredible burden that special education places on the entire system. It has spread to encompass a LOT of situations, and the extra work for those situations on the teachers, the school, and the district are quite astounding. Bingo. I got into it with some over a recent WSJ editorial link and called news describing more than twice as many teachers in the schools since 1970 which is not really true. When I look at the district my kids are in and differences since 1970 it's easy to see why there are more staff members. Most are not teachers. My kids classrooms have students who would have been in institutions when I grew up. My grade school had teacher, gym teacher and music teacher. Now in addition to the basics there kids who were locked in institutions when I grew up. I see my kids had and have science, AP, remedial, ESL and music teachers are vocal, string and band. There are other specialties such as language are there. Add sports and counseling. All of them are probably the answer to that opinion piece. One of my kids had two aids in his first grade class of 25 or 26 because two kids were severely disabled. Later on I realized that it taught my son to love and care for a child who would have been locked up when I was the same age. Sure, it made his education cost more but it let his teacher do her job and it made happen what my own religion says is very important. I'm sure there are examples of barely mediocre and greatness with the extra staff in schools. I noticed two of my kids got help with dyslexia and reading issues early on and it took them from struggling to average and honor student respectively. I see more faults in parenting than I do in school administration, and I see a lot of kids getting the foundation to be competitive so I am willing to take on costs in education before other areas.
|
|
|
Post by donalgdon on Aug 15, 2012 19:53:04 GMT -5
I agree. The comparison that some make with US schools and others, such as those in China for example, is quite unfair, given that US schools cannot exclude students, whereas these students are routinely excluded in such systems for various reasons. It creates an artificially inflated perspective of the "successful" student.
|
|
|
Post by thedude on Aug 15, 2012 20:50:09 GMT -5
It's not just the unions. I think a lot of it stems from the basic problems of institutions not being responsive to the people they serve when there isn't an efficient feedback loop between the people and the institution. The institution identifies problems and decides what the solutions should be, and while they might get it right, the natural instinct for self preservation hardly ever finds the problem within. FWIW, I think one of the big problems with public school is the incredible burden that special education places on the entire system. It has spread to encompass a LOT of situations, and the extra work for those situations on the teachers, the school, and the district are quite astounding. Bingo. I got into it with some over a recent WSJ editorial link and called news describing more than twice as many teachers in the schools since 1970 which is not really true. When I look at the district my kids are in and differences since 1970 it's easy to see why there are more staff members. Most are not teachers. My kids classrooms have students who would have been in institutions when I grew up. My grade school had teacher, gym teacher and music teacher. Now in addition to the basics there kids who were locked in institutions when I grew up. I see my kids had and have science, AP, remedial, ESL and music teachers are vocal, string and band. There are other specialties such as language are there. Add sports and counseling. All of them are probably the answer to that opinion piece. One of my kids had two aids in his first grade class of 25 or 26 because two kids were severely disabled. Later on I realized that it taught my son to love and care for a child who would have been locked up when I was the same age. Sure, it made his education cost more but it let his teacher do her job and it made happen what my own religion says is very important. I'm sure there are examples of barely mediocre and greatness with the extra staff in schools. I noticed two of my kids got help with dyslexia and reading issues early on and it took them from struggling to average and honor student respectively. I see more faults in parenting than I do in school administration, and I see a lot of kids getting the foundation to be competitive so I am willing to take on costs in education before other areas. I very much agree that parents need to be part of their children's education. It makes a huge difference. People like to look at affluent school districts and point to the financial differences as the reason those kids tend to do better in school, but I strongly believe, while the extra resources do help, that the affluent communities tend to have parents with very good educations themselves and make a big effort to participate in their children's education. As far as special education goes, my point was more about the kids who in our generation wouldn't have been institutionalized and who are in most ways normal. There are FAR, FAR more of those kinds of kids in modern special education than those with the obvious disabilities that we all tend to think of when we see the term special ed. Further compounding the problem is that parents quickly realize that when their child isn't doing as well in school as others, that they can get him classified as special ed in order to get more resources from the school. I understand why parents would do this, but they usually don't realize that those kids then require customized teaching plans from the teacher, mandatory meetings that include the teacher, principal (or their representative), a counselor, and the parent. Sometimes more people as well and these meetings usually need to happen at least once a quarter. There is also a lot of paperwork for followup. I think most people would think that doing this for some kids is worth the effort and expense, but the system has gotten abused to the point where most people don't realize it the very real burden placed on teachers and schools.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Schist on Aug 15, 2012 21:10:06 GMT -5
Bingo. I got into it with some over a recent WSJ editorial link and called news describing more than twice as many teachers in the schools since 1970 which is not really true. When I look at the district my kids are in and differences since 1970 it's easy to see why there are more staff members. Most are not teachers. My kids classrooms have students who would have been in institutions when I grew up. My grade school had teacher, gym teacher and music teacher. Now in addition to the basics there kids who were locked in institutions when I grew up. I see my kids had and have science, AP, remedial, ESL and music teachers are vocal, string and band. There are other specialties such as language are there. Add sports and counseling. All of them are probably the answer to that opinion piece. One of my kids had two aids in his first grade class of 25 or 26 because two kids were severely disabled. Later on I realized that it taught my son to love and care for a child who would have been locked up when I was the same age. Sure, it made his education cost more but it let his teacher do her job and it made happen what my own religion says is very important. I'm sure there are examples of barely mediocre and greatness with the extra staff in schools. I noticed two of my kids got help with dyslexia and reading issues early on and it took them from struggling to average and honor student respectively. I see more faults in parenting than I do in school administration, and I see a lot of kids getting the foundation to be competitive so I am willing to take on costs in education before other areas. I very much agree that parents need to be part of their children's education. It makes a huge difference. People like to look at affluent school districts and point to the financial differences as the reason those kids tend to do better in school, but I strongly believe, while the extra resources do help, that the affluent communities tend to have parents with very good educations themselves and make a big effort to participate in their children's education. As far as special education goes, my point was more about the kids who in our generation wouldn't have been institutionalized and who are in most ways normal. There are FAR, FAR more of those kinds of kids in modern special education than those with the obvious disabilities that we all tend to think of when we see the term special ed. Further compounding the problem is that parents quickly realize that when their child isn't doing as well in school as others, that they can get him classified as special ed in order to get more resources from the school. I understand why parents would do this, but they usually don't realize that those kids then require customized teaching plans from the teacher, mandatory meetings that include the teacher, principal (or their representative), a counselor, and the parent. Sometimes more people as well and these meetings usually need to happen at least once a quarter. There is also a lot of paperwork for followup. I think most people would think that doing this for some kids is worth the effort and expense, but the system has gotten abused to the point where most people don't realize it the very real burden placed on teachers and schools. I'm aware of what you say and the abuse that goes on by some who don't realize it.
|
|
|
Post by thedude on Aug 15, 2012 21:32:25 GMT -5
I very much agree that parents need to be part of their children's education. It makes a huge difference. People like to look at affluent school districts and point to the financial differences as the reason those kids tend to do better in school, but I strongly believe, while the extra resources do help, that the affluent communities tend to have parents with very good educations themselves and make a big effort to participate in their children's education. As far as special education goes, my point was more about the kids who in our generation wouldn't have been institutionalized and who are in most ways normal. There are FAR, FAR more of those kinds of kids in modern special education than those with the obvious disabilities that we all tend to think of when we see the term special ed. Further compounding the problem is that parents quickly realize that when their child isn't doing as well in school as others, that they can get him classified as special ed in order to get more resources from the school. I understand why parents would do this, but they usually don't realize that those kids then require customized teaching plans from the teacher, mandatory meetings that include the teacher, principal (or their representative), a counselor, and the parent. Sometimes more people as well and these meetings usually need to happen at least once a quarter. There is also a lot of paperwork for followup. I think most people would think that doing this for some kids is worth the effort and expense, but the system has gotten abused to the point where most people don't realize it the very real burden placed on teachers and schools. I'm aware of what you say and the abuse that goes on by some who don't realize it. I don't know what the solution is. Seems like it would make sense to rethink the whole idea of grouping kids together by age instead of ability. Seems like that would be a better use of resources and it would put kids in an appropriately challenging environment.
|
|
|
Post by naill on Aug 16, 2012 4:45:55 GMT -5
My daughter is not interested in doing either. I'd send her to private in a heartbeat. And now that I've taken the veil off the utter crap that goes on via the administration, it's only fair that they have to answer to their own ineptitude. I am just saying that in the end, you daugher, not the system will be affected most. IOW, you can fix the system and fail the child for all your efforts.
|
|
|
Post by lindaw on Aug 16, 2012 6:00:40 GMT -5
The way I see it, the public schools systems are paid for by the city/county taxes. The Republicans get elected by promising not to raise taxes so the public schools are not properly funded. All this doesn't bother the politicians who send their kids to private school. Actually, the worst schools get the most funding and they still suck. Which is why people raised cain when Obama tried to pull the voucher system in DC.
|
|
|
Post by lindaw on Aug 16, 2012 6:26:41 GMT -5
It seems there are all sorts of educational consultants so I don't know what's up here. It could be that we have a very good district, but with one child that needs some extra services and another years ahead of his peers we've been able to figure out and make happen everything on our own. I don't know where unions control school districts but know they are among interest groups that influence those who do control school districts - the school boards. Good luck to all in educating your kids and above all watch the helicopter parenting. It's been a few years now that I've supervised the newer generations of kids who've had that and I see a lot who achieved academic success but don't handle things considered your own problem when I was same age. That has really caused grief for some. That grief has been via first important jobs not working out and in other cases their not being competitive with peers who are more independent and self-sufficient. It also manifests it self in some who have a hard time coming to grips with their not starting out or being at the top. Again, good luck. My daughter's school is ranked one of the top in the country. The issues we are having seems to be a very weak administration being driven by very unreasonable, very wealthy parents. Teachers that should be easily kept in check by administration, those they know are issues within the school, are left to continue their behavior at the detriment of the student body. They break the law re: assignments or one teacher teaching B class will punish a child, say for attending a mandatory field trip in A class and missing class B because class B is an honors or AP class and that teacher feels HIS class is more important. Ego issues should not translate to the children. I hired the consultant to so that (a) my daughter understand what the school can and can't demand legally (b) what classes are to HER benefit as opposed to what is to the SCHOOL'S benefit and (c) to work as an advocate on not only her's, but the entire student body's benefit by making sure the weak administration complies with state law. An example of the latter? The history dept. gave a mandatory assignment that required the freshman to go down to DC to the Smithsonian, see a particular exhibit, and fill out some worksheets. While on the surface that doesn't seem an issue, multiple kids in my daughter's class were freaking out because getting to DC ( 20 miles) from where they live is dependent on their folk or finding a ride so they were probably facing a zero on the assignment. I know his because my husband took a carload who would not otherwise have had any way to get there. By state law, the school is required to provide transportation unless the assignment is optional. They were offering no such transportation. It is the job of administration to make sure these things do not happen and the administration turned a blind eye. Sometimes they claim ignorance. An educational consultant will advocate for the children in such a situation and remind the school of their responsibility to be legally compliant. In addition, he can actually help the administration, which claim they are being driven by a wealthy, high-pressure parents - I'm sure there's some truth in that!
|
|