Life as a public school teacher in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2021(adamcadre.ac)
adamcadre.ac
Life as a public school teacher in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2021
http://adamcadre.ac/calendar/202105m.html
762 comments
I have taught for multiple years in a southern state in the US within Behavior Support units for the "emotionally disturbed or distracted students." These classes range from neurotypical, ADHD, autism spectrum, to learning disabilities.
These students being the so called "bullies and disruptive kids" many people in this thread have directly judged as poor ROI and "not worthwhile."
Many of these comments trivialize the complex issues surrounding the school system. They widdle down the problem to "lazy teachers", "not worthwhile" students, and "teacher unions" as a few examples. These comments also ignore contributing factors that happen outside the school system, such as homelife, cultural and societal shifts, economic and technological gaps, and policy changes, which in effect directly impact how the school system behaves.
I'm chiming in to this discussion because I have first hand experience from me and my peers, troves of data collected on students' performances (not anonymized, so I can't dispense it), funding resources and student allocation receipts, and ample secondary resources from my peers that mostly corroborate the experiences many teachers are forced into within poorly managed and maintained school systems.
I think overall the school system is an easy lumbering target to hit with our worries and hatreds. Corrupt or inept school boards, poorly functioning officials and administration making ineffective changes that seem to directly or indirectly impact students' lives and their potential future prospects. Teachers who are "lazy and uninterested" who are "unwilling to work harder at representing students within a fading, failing American school system." I think many of these comments come from not understanding school systems' inner workings, and more importantly, not knowing what the inside of a classroom is like on a daily, weekly, monthly, yearly basis.
:Continued below:
Many of these comments trivialize the complex issues surrounding the school system. They widdle down the problem to "lazy teachers", "not worthwhile" students, and "teacher unions" as a few examples. These comments also ignore contributing factors that happen outside the school system, such as homelife, cultural and societal shifts, economic and technological gaps, and policy changes, which in effect directly impact how the school system behaves.
I'm chiming in to this discussion because I have first hand experience from me and my peers, troves of data collected on students' performances (not anonymized, so I can't dispense it), funding resources and student allocation receipts, and ample secondary resources from my peers that mostly corroborate the experiences many teachers are forced into within poorly managed and maintained school systems.
I think overall the school system is an easy lumbering target to hit with our worries and hatreds. Corrupt or inept school boards, poorly functioning officials and administration making ineffective changes that seem to directly or indirectly impact students' lives and their potential future prospects. Teachers who are "lazy and uninterested" who are "unwilling to work harder at representing students within a fading, failing American school system." I think many of these comments come from not understanding school systems' inner workings, and more importantly, not knowing what the inside of a classroom is like on a daily, weekly, monthly, yearly basis.
:Continued below:
Continued from above:
Let's start at the top with administration. I'm not going to speak in detail on administration actions because my expertise is within the classroom and working the policy decisions made by school boards and administration into my daily lessons. Over the course of my career as an educator (27 years) I have had 16 different principals. Teachers call this the "admin churn." This is when budgeting experts and superintendents look at collected data on schools and make decisions about what schools need from a budgetary and grade performance standpoint. Out of this comes the decisions to move principals and assistant principals around the county to "help increase or stabilize" schools' performances. This leadership churn is devastating to morale. The devastation comes from having to relearn an entirely new leadership's expectations and personality. This churn can happen at any time, the beginning, middle or the end of the year. This churn has a deleterious effect on teachers' morale because teachers who settle-in and get their classes following the codes and ethics of the school are suddenly given new guidelines to teach students. These guidelines, much of the time, upend the previous guidelines already established in the classroom. That means curriculum must be placed to the side and the new school guidelines are taught. It's important to note that teaching guidelines is not as simple as telling students "these are the new guidelines. Please follow them." Instead it can take weeks or months, depending on grade level, to incorporate new guidelines into a classroom. This is due to how children and young adults ingest information. This accounts for mostly all students, including neuro-divergent students. All information must be practiced and students reminded hundreds, possibly thousands of times as a group or as individuals before information becomes concrete. A fantastic example of concretififaction are the mask mandates we recently went through in our country. Getting students, whether in highschool, middle, or elementary to wear masks required a bunch of practice and reminders. In my county, admin changed the rules partially through the school year at the behest of the school board's policy decisions. At one point students in my county had to wear face shields and masks, then just face shields, then just face masks, then back to both. All this change paused academics mostly so that the mask mandates could be incorporated into the classroom. This is a small example of how policy decisions from the top directly impact teachers and students, yet these same policy decisions can have a consequential effect on important structures like school lunches, students grades, teacher teaching styles, and funding allocation.
Let's start at the top with administration. I'm not going to speak in detail on administration actions because my expertise is within the classroom and working the policy decisions made by school boards and administration into my daily lessons. Over the course of my career as an educator (27 years) I have had 16 different principals. Teachers call this the "admin churn." This is when budgeting experts and superintendents look at collected data on schools and make decisions about what schools need from a budgetary and grade performance standpoint. Out of this comes the decisions to move principals and assistant principals around the county to "help increase or stabilize" schools' performances. This leadership churn is devastating to morale. The devastation comes from having to relearn an entirely new leadership's expectations and personality. This churn can happen at any time, the beginning, middle or the end of the year. This churn has a deleterious effect on teachers' morale because teachers who settle-in and get their classes following the codes and ethics of the school are suddenly given new guidelines to teach students. These guidelines, much of the time, upend the previous guidelines already established in the classroom. That means curriculum must be placed to the side and the new school guidelines are taught. It's important to note that teaching guidelines is not as simple as telling students "these are the new guidelines. Please follow them." Instead it can take weeks or months, depending on grade level, to incorporate new guidelines into a classroom. This is due to how children and young adults ingest information. This accounts for mostly all students, including neuro-divergent students. All information must be practiced and students reminded hundreds, possibly thousands of times as a group or as individuals before information becomes concrete. A fantastic example of concretififaction are the mask mandates we recently went through in our country. Getting students, whether in highschool, middle, or elementary to wear masks required a bunch of practice and reminders. In my county, admin changed the rules partially through the school year at the behest of the school board's policy decisions. At one point students in my county had to wear face shields and masks, then just face shields, then just face masks, then back to both. All this change paused academics mostly so that the mask mandates could be incorporated into the classroom. This is a small example of how policy decisions from the top directly impact teachers and students, yet these same policy decisions can have a consequential effect on important structures like school lunches, students grades, teacher teaching styles, and funding allocation.
Continued from above again:
Admin churn and policy changes have a direct and deleterious impact on teacher, student, and school performance. I can't focus on teaching academics if I am supposed to reteach classroom policy changes at random times throughout the year. Policy changes can take weeks to months to integrate into a classroom. Teachers who are whipped back and forth between admin and policy changes don't have a moment to settle in and focus on what they were hired for. Instead they juggle the ever changing classroom culture, incorporating morphing policy decisions about how their classroom should be run, and socially adjusting to staffing and admin changes. There is no time to settle in and so burn out and nihilistic expectations take shape in many teachers. This description is only a small part of the problem with admin and policy churn in school systems.
Parents and parenting styles are other pernicious issues that are extremely controversial. These issues directly affect students and indirectly affect teachers. Whether it hurts or not to admit, parents have power over the school system. Many people outside of the school system focus on teacher unions and large scale public school administration as a main pain point.
Yet when teachers and school administration are under threat from being sued due to happenings in class because parents don't like what occurrs, the school system adjusts to accommodate those parents' wishes. At some point the school system begins to become an inane policy labyrinth to avoid lawsuits. There are plenty of lawsuit examples if searched on any search engine. These lawsuits set precedents in our county for how policy will look in coming years. As for parenting styles, these are varied and diverse. Every household has their way of rearing children. Yet when you take diverse children and put them into a class of 20+ students and typically one teacher the varied rearing styles become a pain point when applying teaching standards. In one highschool class you can have students reading on a college level, while others are emerging eighth grade. Has the system failed them? Sure, the system didn't catch them in time before they moved on and moving them now would take months due to admin churn and County backlogs on the other hundreds of thousands of students issues weighing down a bloated inept system. Or maybe the previous school was worried that funding would be cut causing admin to push through many students that should have been retained because if not the "greater good" of hundreds of other students would be impacted by funding cuts. But it isn't just the school systems that have failed students, so have the parents. Sometimes students aren't held back because of parental intervention. These interventions can be lawsuits or putting up enough of a fight that the county relents and allows the student to progress. The latter has happened four times in my classes and many more times to my other teaching peers. When teachers hold students back and parents put up a fight by bringing in the county, the school's admin and teacher have to follow the county dictates, which almost always fall on the parents' side. A cause for this is teachers are not considered experts when it comes to education. There are a myriad of reasons for this ranging from poorly funded college education degree programs, to society's mistrust of experts, to a belief parents know their children the best. As exemplified by the recent pandemic and social media post hating "lazy teachers who want to get out work" , mistrust in teachers and their teaching abilities are pretty apparent.
Admin churn and policy changes have a direct and deleterious impact on teacher, student, and school performance. I can't focus on teaching academics if I am supposed to reteach classroom policy changes at random times throughout the year. Policy changes can take weeks to months to integrate into a classroom. Teachers who are whipped back and forth between admin and policy changes don't have a moment to settle in and focus on what they were hired for. Instead they juggle the ever changing classroom culture, incorporating morphing policy decisions about how their classroom should be run, and socially adjusting to staffing and admin changes. There is no time to settle in and so burn out and nihilistic expectations take shape in many teachers. This description is only a small part of the problem with admin and policy churn in school systems.
Parents and parenting styles are other pernicious issues that are extremely controversial. These issues directly affect students and indirectly affect teachers. Whether it hurts or not to admit, parents have power over the school system. Many people outside of the school system focus on teacher unions and large scale public school administration as a main pain point.
Yet when teachers and school administration are under threat from being sued due to happenings in class because parents don't like what occurrs, the school system adjusts to accommodate those parents' wishes. At some point the school system begins to become an inane policy labyrinth to avoid lawsuits. There are plenty of lawsuit examples if searched on any search engine. These lawsuits set precedents in our county for how policy will look in coming years. As for parenting styles, these are varied and diverse. Every household has their way of rearing children. Yet when you take diverse children and put them into a class of 20+ students and typically one teacher the varied rearing styles become a pain point when applying teaching standards. In one highschool class you can have students reading on a college level, while others are emerging eighth grade. Has the system failed them? Sure, the system didn't catch them in time before they moved on and moving them now would take months due to admin churn and County backlogs on the other hundreds of thousands of students issues weighing down a bloated inept system. Or maybe the previous school was worried that funding would be cut causing admin to push through many students that should have been retained because if not the "greater good" of hundreds of other students would be impacted by funding cuts. But it isn't just the school systems that have failed students, so have the parents. Sometimes students aren't held back because of parental intervention. These interventions can be lawsuits or putting up enough of a fight that the county relents and allows the student to progress. The latter has happened four times in my classes and many more times to my other teaching peers. When teachers hold students back and parents put up a fight by bringing in the county, the school's admin and teacher have to follow the county dictates, which almost always fall on the parents' side. A cause for this is teachers are not considered experts when it comes to education. There are a myriad of reasons for this ranging from poorly funded college education degree programs, to society's mistrust of experts, to a belief parents know their children the best. As exemplified by the recent pandemic and social media post hating "lazy teachers who want to get out work" , mistrust in teachers and their teaching abilities are pretty apparent.
Are there studies that show a statistical relationship between admin churn and student performance?
> to turn one of those kids into someone worthwhile
The basic insight here is: kids with learning disabilities, or who have a home environment not conducive to learning, are worthwhile people. And school as the institution taking care of those kids should do more than just send them to another building to rot.
It's a very straightforward thing to want your upper middle class privileged kid get all the support they need to become a future surgeon, but school is just very bad at recognizing and enhancing the chances of people who aren't neurotypical white privileged background kids.
Enforcing standardized testing as a key KPI isn't really the right solution here, but there's enough examples outside of the US how this can be done better than just writing off people as "not worthwhile".
The basic insight here is: kids with learning disabilities, or who have a home environment not conducive to learning, are worthwhile people. And school as the institution taking care of those kids should do more than just send them to another building to rot.
It's a very straightforward thing to want your upper middle class privileged kid get all the support they need to become a future surgeon, but school is just very bad at recognizing and enhancing the chances of people who aren't neurotypical white privileged background kids.
Enforcing standardized testing as a key KPI isn't really the right solution here, but there's enough examples outside of the US how this can be done better than just writing off people as "not worthwhile".
> school is just very bad at recognizing and enhancing the chances of people who aren't neurotypical white privileged background kids.
It is also bad recognizing and enhancing the chances of people who are neurotypical white privileged background kids.
I went to pretty good primary and secondary schools which actually tried to get the best out of pretty much everyone. Remedial teaching was taken seriously and wasn't just a bin into which difficult children were dumped. But even then the results left a lot to be desired. It's really difficult even in the absence of political interference.
The surrounding society makes a big difference. I count myself as lucky growing up where and when I did.
It is also bad recognizing and enhancing the chances of people who are neurotypical white privileged background kids.
I went to pretty good primary and secondary schools which actually tried to get the best out of pretty much everyone. Remedial teaching was taken seriously and wasn't just a bin into which difficult children were dumped. But even then the results left a lot to be desired. It's really difficult even in the absence of political interference.
The surrounding society makes a big difference. I count myself as lucky growing up where and when I did.
"school as the institution taking care of those kids"
But that's the question, right? Are schools facilities for education, or for taking care of kids?
The format is reasonable for education, but not for complete rearing of children. When children, for whatever reason, are not being raised effectively, a classroom is not going to do a great job with education.
But that's the question, right? Are schools facilities for education, or for taking care of kids?
The format is reasonable for education, but not for complete rearing of children. When children, for whatever reason, are not being raised effectively, a classroom is not going to do a great job with education.
Both.
The public school system goes behind education because it's the only state service where most children can be reached. They're crucially important for providing food security and shelter to millions of children whose parents can't or won't.
The public school system goes behind education because it's the only state service where most children can be reached. They're crucially important for providing food security and shelter to millions of children whose parents can't or won't.
Aren't those goals in tension? Isn't that a big part of the problem?
They're only in contention if we use the same measures for both, which is the root problem imo. In the United States our schools are more than places to expose children to literature, mathematics, and civics. It's a crucial social service and one with massive reach - if you want to affect change for the children and youth of America, schools are the place to go.
The contrary is also true. When we don't effectively use schools as these crucial public services, we wind up with the "school to prison pipeline" as it's called.
In my opinion the notion of "no child left behind" shouldn't equate to every kid going to college or becoming a doctor. We can design schooling metrics better than test scores and academic outcome. Like criminal justice outcomes, health outcomes like obesity, voting or civic participation, or even social outcomes. The goals of schooling shouldn't be wholly academic. That is why secondary education exists.
The contrary is also true. When we don't effectively use schools as these crucial public services, we wind up with the "school to prison pipeline" as it's called.
In my opinion the notion of "no child left behind" shouldn't equate to every kid going to college or becoming a doctor. We can design schooling metrics better than test scores and academic outcome. Like criminal justice outcomes, health outcomes like obesity, voting or civic participation, or even social outcomes. The goals of schooling shouldn't be wholly academic. That is why secondary education exists.
It feels like people just aren't in agreement on the goals of school. And without agreement on the goals, it's going to be hard to succeed.
As far as I can tell, in most of the world and for a long time, school has been a place for academic education. Those that could not be educated for whatever reason were dismissed.
The idea that school should be a general social service for children seems popular among politicians and school administrators, but less accepted among parents and teachers. Furthermore, there was no explicit decision to move away from a focus on academics, it just kind of happened. That's not a recipe for good results.
As far as I can tell, in most of the world and for a long time, school has been a place for academic education. Those that could not be educated for whatever reason were dismissed.
The idea that school should be a general social service for children seems popular among politicians and school administrators, but less accepted among parents and teachers. Furthermore, there was no explicit decision to move away from a focus on academics, it just kind of happened. That's not a recipe for good results.
It's not an idea, it's reality. Schools are state run childcare and child rearing facilities in the United States. Academics are one of their activities.
But it's an inconsistent and ad hoc reality. Let's coalesce on the real goals, and document them, and communicate the goals to everyone, and move on.
Right now we are in limbo. The meaning of "school" is drifting and that obviously creates confusion and arguments, as well as bad results.
Right now we are in limbo. The meaning of "school" is drifting and that obviously creates confusion and arguments, as well as bad results.
Teachers don't like teachers being social services. They are right. That doesn't mean they are opposed to schools providing social services.
Families getting fed at school like getting fed. They aren't opposed to eating.
Families getting fed at school like getting fed. They aren't opposed to eating.
I didn't say "opposed". Parents expect teachers to teach and teachers expect to teach. But the job decription is changing and inconsistent -- both at the high level of "what is a school" and the low level of "what should I, as a teacher, try to accomplish today?".
Goals are unclear right now. That, by itself, is bad. We need an explicit decision here, and that needs to be communicated to everyone involved.
Goals are unclear right now. That, by itself, is bad. We need an explicit decision here, and that needs to be communicated to everyone involved.
> Parents expect teachers to teach and teachers expect to teach
As the child of a public grade school teacher (early childhood), I would suggest you go visit some Title I schools and ask lower income parents there what they expect from the school with respect to their children.
What you're being told in this thread: they will say they're happy to have a place that will take care of their kids while they're working, keep them reasonably safe, provide them food, keep them busy, and educate them
What you seem to think they would say: education their kids to the highest level possible
When there aren't consistent meals, access to health care, or clothing at home, and when home is a place of violence and/or substance abuse, priorities look a lot different.
All of these are things that were not uncommon, year after year. That's the reality public school teachers and administrators have to deal with.
As the child of a public grade school teacher (early childhood), I would suggest you go visit some Title I schools and ask lower income parents there what they expect from the school with respect to their children.
What you're being told in this thread: they will say they're happy to have a place that will take care of their kids while they're working, keep them reasonably safe, provide them food, keep them busy, and educate them
What you seem to think they would say: education their kids to the highest level possible
When there aren't consistent meals, access to health care, or clothing at home, and when home is a place of violence and/or substance abuse, priorities look a lot different.
All of these are things that were not uncommon, year after year. That's the reality public school teachers and administrators have to deal with.
It's exactly these low performers who never study, are always late, interrupt, and bully who make school living hell for the neurodiverse students that actually try. They can go into a coal mine and move piles of rocks for the rest of their lives for all I care as long as they can no longer disrupt everyone else.
In my country parents can choose which school they send their kids to.
You get "white schools". Parents always want the best for their children and this predictably leads to full segregation. I am actually surprised how egalitarian and inclusive the US is when it comes to education!
You get "white schools". Parents always want the best for their children and this predictably leads to full segregation. I am actually surprised how egalitarian and inclusive the US is when it comes to education!
> Parents always want the best for their children and this predictably leads to full segregation.
More likely, segregation happens because parents don't always want the best for their kids. A lot of it is simply self-segregation, driven by varying parental attitudes to education and the like.
More likely, segregation happens because parents don't always want the best for their kids. A lot of it is simply self-segregation, driven by varying parental attitudes to education and the like.
There are many good reasons to de-racialize the discussion around US public education. One is that the "white school" trope is increasingly out of date. Instead, we've begun to see "Asian schools" wherever high-performing public high school schools admit students based on standardized testing. The top-ranked high school in the entire US, Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, is 65% Asian and 23% white in a county that is 17% Asian and 62% white [0][1]. Stuyvesant High School in New York City, another high-performing public magnet school, is 74% Asian while Asian residents make up just 14% of the city's population [2][3].
In my view, there's a degree to which such lopsided admissions represent a greater Asian American cultural emphasis on education (good) coupled with a marginal standardized test score advantage produced by many hours of after-school test prep (bad). As repeated studies have shown, the advantage of e.g. SAT test prep courses is consistently relatively small, but enough of an edge to matter when you're looking at a ~10% admissions rate [2][4]. Not all applicants have parents who can afford or are aware of the value of such test prep, so it represents an uneven advantage. Crucially, this advantage is not inherently racial, but rather an artifact of culture, parental choice, and socioeconomic background. To mitigate this uneven advantage without completely eliminating merit-based admissions, a blurring filter e.g. random lottery might be applied to the top X% of test scorers.
And there is absolutely value in merit-based admissions. It makes these magnet schools what they are [5]. Despite their distorted demographics, it's what enables schools like Stuyvesant to still function as effective ladders out of poverty for many students:
>What makes these schools so good? The general consensus is the academic rigor. But what’s come out clearly in our interviews with Stuyvesant graduates is something arguably more important: a peer-driven expectation of achievement. What Stuyvesant does is take 3,000 pretty bright kids and put them in a building together. Then magical things happen. They push each other, they strive to be like each other, they learn from each other.
>Nearly all of these kids went to college, often selective ones, and most went on to do well professionally. The poorer students became middle or upper-middle class, and the middle-class students often did better than their parents. And they were happy—most (though not all) felt that Stuyvesant had had a big effect on their lives. For instance, Elizabeth Reid Yee, a white 1985 graduate who grew up poor in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, fully credits Stuyvesant with keeping her from a life of poverty.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_High_School_f...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairfax_County,_Virginia
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_High_School
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City
[4] https://www.thoughtco.com/are-sat-prep-courses-worth-the-cos...
[5] https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/06/new-yo...
In my view, there's a degree to which such lopsided admissions represent a greater Asian American cultural emphasis on education (good) coupled with a marginal standardized test score advantage produced by many hours of after-school test prep (bad). As repeated studies have shown, the advantage of e.g. SAT test prep courses is consistently relatively small, but enough of an edge to matter when you're looking at a ~10% admissions rate [2][4]. Not all applicants have parents who can afford or are aware of the value of such test prep, so it represents an uneven advantage. Crucially, this advantage is not inherently racial, but rather an artifact of culture, parental choice, and socioeconomic background. To mitigate this uneven advantage without completely eliminating merit-based admissions, a blurring filter e.g. random lottery might be applied to the top X% of test scorers.
And there is absolutely value in merit-based admissions. It makes these magnet schools what they are [5]. Despite their distorted demographics, it's what enables schools like Stuyvesant to still function as effective ladders out of poverty for many students:
>What makes these schools so good? The general consensus is the academic rigor. But what’s come out clearly in our interviews with Stuyvesant graduates is something arguably more important: a peer-driven expectation of achievement. What Stuyvesant does is take 3,000 pretty bright kids and put them in a building together. Then magical things happen. They push each other, they strive to be like each other, they learn from each other.
>Nearly all of these kids went to college, often selective ones, and most went on to do well professionally. The poorer students became middle or upper-middle class, and the middle-class students often did better than their parents. And they were happy—most (though not all) felt that Stuyvesant had had a big effect on their lives. For instance, Elizabeth Reid Yee, a white 1985 graduate who grew up poor in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, fully credits Stuyvesant with keeping her from a life of poverty.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_High_School_f...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairfax_County,_Virginia
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_High_School
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City
[4] https://www.thoughtco.com/are-sat-prep-courses-worth-the-cos...
[5] https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/06/new-yo...
That is true its more about economic status now. We have made some considerable progress in opening up the middle class to immigrants.
To paraphrase MLK "judged not on the colour of their skin but on the size of their parents' bank accounts". So many doors magically open to you when your parents have money.
To paraphrase MLK "judged not on the colour of their skin but on the size of their parents' bank accounts". So many doors magically open to you when your parents have money.
That's part of what makes "Asian schools" interesting. Many Asian American students at high-performing US public schools come from solidly middle and working-class backgrounds. Their parents simply chose to invest every cent in their child's education, sometimes at great personal financial risk. Anecdotally, I know one Korean American couple of extremely modest means who took out a second mortage just to get their oldest through undergrad.
To a significant extent, Asian American parents and students have shown that merit-based admissions _do_ work as a socioeconomic equalizer (see above Atlantic article). The problem as I see it is how to replicate this success among other demographics, including white Americans of middle and working-class backgrounds. Another part of the solution in my view is just making more magnet schools.
To a significant extent, Asian American parents and students have shown that merit-based admissions _do_ work as a socioeconomic equalizer (see above Atlantic article). The problem as I see it is how to replicate this success among other demographics, including white Americans of middle and working-class backgrounds. Another part of the solution in my view is just making more magnet schools.
It’s not about economic status. At TJ, where I went, the Asian majority is comfortably middle class, but less so than the white kids there. Stuyvesant, despite being 75% Asian, is 50% low income, and eligible for Title I funding a result: https://nypost.com/2014/07/19/why-nycs-push-to-change-school...
This was the explicit and intended result of No Child Left Behind.
Schools were only given incentives to make kids pass, not to help them excel.
Schools were only given incentives to make kids pass, not to help them excel.
If we're being honest, no one was willing to work at or fund helping kids excel. It's just too huge of a problem.
Honestly, I think viewing it as an exclusive choice is harmful.
Schools need resources for both kinds of students, and if they have to choose who gets the attention they are simply underfunded.
Schools need resources for both kinds of students, and if they have to choose who gets the attention they are simply underfunded.
Some of these failing school systems (Baltimore, MD & Prince George’s County, MD) have some of the highest budgets per pupil in the country. The problem isn’t money.
I'd be interested in how those budgets are broken down. Are those schools spending the money on finding the best teachers, counselors, mentors, etc. for their struggling students? Or are they spending it in more questionable areas?
That's a genuinely curious question. I haven't researched any specifics about those schools or how they use their money.
It's possible for a vicious cycle to develop between waste/corruption in a school system and poor academic performance, wherein additional money doesn't help improve outcomes. That doesn't mean that withholding resources is the solution; rather, it means that a more fundamental restructuring than American municipal governments may be comfortable with is in order.
That's a genuinely curious question. I haven't researched any specifics about those schools or how they use their money.
It's possible for a vicious cycle to develop between waste/corruption in a school system and poor academic performance, wherein additional money doesn't help improve outcomes. That doesn't mean that withholding resources is the solution; rather, it means that a more fundamental restructuring than American municipal governments may be comfortable with is in order.
I think numbers might lie a bit there.
If the function of education is to provide an even starting point for kids regardless of their personal environment, it stands to reason that in places where those personal environments are worse you'd need brutal amounts of resources, since you'll indirectly be covering for parents' neglect, psychological issues, and other factors that should have been handled somewhere else but are being stuck in the education budget. If you see it under that scope, absolute numbers might not tell you much.
If the function of education is to provide an even starting point for kids regardless of their personal environment, it stands to reason that in places where those personal environments are worse you'd need brutal amounts of resources, since you'll indirectly be covering for parents' neglect, psychological issues, and other factors that should have been handled somewhere else but are being stuck in the education budget. If you see it under that scope, absolute numbers might not tell you much.
Bingo.
One kid has access to books and parents who read with them at home every night.
Another kid has no books at home and no learning support after they leave school.
How much is it going to cost to teach each child to read at the same proficiency level?
One kid has access to books and parents who read with them at home every night.
Another kid has no books at home and no learning support after they leave school.
How much is it going to cost to teach each child to read at the same proficiency level?
Agreed. The problem I see is that certain failing school systems (and individual pupils elsewhere) are quagmires of spending. There are cohorts of students you could spend infinite resources on at school and they would not learn. This is why the top-level parent comment focuses on ROI, and I think it is a harsh perspective which is necessary nonetheless.
A school can only do so much to offset the negative impacts of poor home-life. Learned helplessness is real and debilitating and it is often learned at home at a young age. I empathize with the tax payers in this area who see above-average taxes for below-average results.
A school can only do so much to offset the negative impacts of poor home-life. Learned helplessness is real and debilitating and it is often learned at home at a young age. I empathize with the tax payers in this area who see above-average taxes for below-average results.
I get your point, but (also with a harsh perspective) the point isn't really to create engineers and doctors from the downtrodden.
The point is that even if you get those kids even 10% of the way of others, that might be what buys you one less person between bars. Or suffering from substance abuse. Or fueling Ponzi schemes, MLM or cults as a victim. Or living in the streets. Or voting irrationally for the next populist policy maker (in any part of the political spectrum, not being political here).
The moment you renounce to killing all of those who misbehave, you have to accept that these people are going to be your neighbors for the foreseeable future, and so it really pays to take care of the problem as early as possible, because frankly, you'll be spending resources either way.
The point is that even if you get those kids even 10% of the way of others, that might be what buys you one less person between bars. Or suffering from substance abuse. Or fueling Ponzi schemes, MLM or cults as a victim. Or living in the streets. Or voting irrationally for the next populist policy maker (in any part of the political spectrum, not being political here).
The moment you renounce to killing all of those who misbehave, you have to accept that these people are going to be your neighbors for the foreseeable future, and so it really pays to take care of the problem as early as possible, because frankly, you'll be spending resources either way.
ROI is only irrelevant in a post-scarcity society. Everywhere else, choices have to be made. :(
Highest budgets still aren't very high though. It's anchored low.
The "difficult" kids in school are the ones who need help the most.
They either have learning disabilities or difficult family/social situations that lead them to either not try or not care about school.
To say that teachers should put less effort into these kids due to "low ROI" is frankly very privileged.
They either have learning disabilities or difficult family/social situations that lead them to either not try or not care about school.
To say that teachers should put less effort into these kids due to "low ROI" is frankly very privileged.
> The "difficult" kids in school are the ones who need help the most.
Schools do very little to help these kids. There are ways to teach low-performers efficiently (they go under the general rubric of "direct instruction") but they go unused simply because teachers do not want to feel regimented in such a rigid structure, even if that's exactly what yields the best outcomes. (So, I'd definitely disagree with GP that "this segment is by its nature low ROI". It's not 'natural', it's pure dysfunction.)
Schools do very little to help these kids. There are ways to teach low-performers efficiently (they go under the general rubric of "direct instruction") but they go unused simply because teachers do not want to feel regimented in such a rigid structure, even if that's exactly what yields the best outcomes. (So, I'd definitely disagree with GP that "this segment is by its nature low ROI". It's not 'natural', it's pure dysfunction.)
Very little? In my town's school district, something like 30% of the school's budget is allocated to these "difficult kids". Who make up less than 5% of the student body. They get a LOT of attention and extra help. As far as I can tell though, it doesn't help much.
> something like 30% of the school's budget is allocated to these "difficult kids". ...
Much of that money and effort is simply wasted if teachers aren't going to adopt effective approaches towards teaching and helping these kids.
Much of that money and effort is simply wasted if teachers aren't going to adopt effective approaches towards teaching and helping these kids.
0% should be wasted on the incorrigible. And yes, they exist.
Even the incorrigible will perform (much) better given 1-on-1 instruction. Less kids per teacher yields better results.
The problem is that performance is exponential. That same 1-on-1 instruction will take a well performing kid to "surgeon".
It will take the incorrigible ... maybe ... to only quit school at 10th grade. Which does directly translate to money for the school these days.
What teachers/schools also effectively like about the incorrigible is that any (lowest wage) idiot that sticks to it will help the incorrigible. Not to surgeon levels, but better than before, sure. For obvious reasons you don't need much math. Some, yes, but not much. Whereas it takes a capable teacher to get good performers even higher.
Teachers are protecting the incompetent among them by doing this.
The problem is that performance is exponential. That same 1-on-1 instruction will take a well performing kid to "surgeon".
It will take the incorrigible ... maybe ... to only quit school at 10th grade. Which does directly translate to money for the school these days.
What teachers/schools also effectively like about the incorrigible is that any (lowest wage) idiot that sticks to it will help the incorrigible. Not to surgeon levels, but better than before, sure. For obvious reasons you don't need much math. Some, yes, but not much. Whereas it takes a capable teacher to get good performers even higher.
Teachers are protecting the incompetent among them by doing this.
Many of these difficult kids are legit toxic to everyone around them. They make life hell for other students and any of the faculty that dares interact with them.
At my school of ~2,000 I'd say at any given moment there would be at least 30 of these kids (they didn't last long). They were violent. They hit teachers. They were regularly dragged out of classes by police officers. After a few of these interactions, they would be transferred to the problem child school. Our school actually had some great teachers that really cared about the students, but many of these kids were broken. Their home lives were just horrid. Most ended up in juvie and later jail.
Those were the worst of the bunch, but a good 20% of the school was beyond help. Daily fights, constant police presence, tons of kids brought weapons to school, lots of theft, vandalism every day, I could go on... That school was a nightmare, and it wasn't even the worst one in the city.
Point is, there is nowhere near enough teachers and resources to fix these broken kids. Their broken homes are what need to be fixed.
At my school of ~2,000 I'd say at any given moment there would be at least 30 of these kids (they didn't last long). They were violent. They hit teachers. They were regularly dragged out of classes by police officers. After a few of these interactions, they would be transferred to the problem child school. Our school actually had some great teachers that really cared about the students, but many of these kids were broken. Their home lives were just horrid. Most ended up in juvie and later jail.
Those were the worst of the bunch, but a good 20% of the school was beyond help. Daily fights, constant police presence, tons of kids brought weapons to school, lots of theft, vandalism every day, I could go on... That school was a nightmare, and it wasn't even the worst one in the city.
Point is, there is nowhere near enough teachers and resources to fix these broken kids. Their broken homes are what need to be fixed.
> Point is, there is nowhere near enough teachers and resources to fix these broken kids. Their broken homes are what need to be fixed.
The problem with that is if you can't fix their environment for 8 hours a day (most schools are more like 6 these days but for argument's sake), and you propose fixing their environments 24 hours a day ...
This is not going to work for those kids.
So it depends who you want to help. You want to help disadvantaged kids? This will, certainly in the short term, make it worse for them and make life better for advantaged kids.
The problem with that is if you can't fix their environment for 8 hours a day (most schools are more like 6 these days but for argument's sake), and you propose fixing their environments 24 hours a day ...
This is not going to work for those kids.
So it depends who you want to help. You want to help disadvantaged kids? This will, certainly in the short term, make it worse for them and make life better for advantaged kids.
> The problem with that is if you can’t fix their environment for 8 hours a day (most schools are more like 6 these days but for argument’s sake), and you propose fixing their environments 24 hours a day …
No one is saying you can’t fix it for 8 hours a day, its saying that fixing the 8 hours a day environment doesn’t address the problem because that’s not the environment that’s brokenness is causing the problems.
No one is saying you can’t fix it for 8 hours a day, its saying that fixing the 8 hours a day environment doesn’t address the problem because that’s not the environment that’s brokenness is causing the problems.
Well, sure, but what you say "needs" fixing has a lot of problems:
(e.g. https://www.kansascity.com/news/special-reports/article23820... )
Which leads to:
And not helping those kids do better is not acceptable. Even aside from the obvious observation that homelessness, drugs and crime don't just impact the people directly involved.
1) it's double or quadruple the time (8/6 vs 24h) vs school
2) kids aren't arranged per 20 (or 40 these days). You really need someone in a location per 2/3 kids.
(e.g. https://www.kansascity.com/news/special-reports/article23820... )
Which leads to:
a) we can't "fix the home situation", beyond providing some education on how kids should be raised
(seriously, someone in government make a fucking youtube series about it ... talk about useful spending of CPS budget!)
b) current attempts to do just that anyway make the situation worse for everyone involved (toxicity + crime + lack of opportunities), and don't improve things for those kids.
c) I don't see b changing.
d) we *still* do want to "fix" those kids
And not helping those kids do better is not acceptable. Even aside from the obvious observation that homelessness, drugs and crime don't just impact the people directly involved.
I don't think this issue is solvable by the school. This is 100% an issue with the home. It's like having police attempt to solve the mental health crisis.
Incorrigible literally means they cannot be helped, and the fact is there are kids for whom that is accurate. Giving them one on one instruction doesn't help, because they genuinely do not care. It does take up the time of teachers and burn them out, though, so they're less able to help the kids who are struggling but actually want help.
It's important to distinguish kids who just do not care at all from kids who are struggling, but it's also important to recognize that the former really do exist.
It's important to distinguish kids who just do not care at all from kids who are struggling, but it's also important to recognize that the former really do exist.
That's true, but you can't expect these people to accept that, and we live in a democracy. This is not going to be a popular viewpoint in most places.
You are correct, but there are going to be cases where the help should come in the form of UBI or NIT. Otherwise people on the unfortunate end of the ability spectrum are going to have to get gainful employment somehow.
We should definitely take care of them as a society built on solidarity, but we can be efficient about it too.
We should definitely take care of them as a society built on solidarity, but we can be efficient about it too.
> take care of them
It sounds like you want to just pay people to stay alive without helping them to gain the skills necessary to make that life worthwhile to themselves.
Before we try to be efficient we need to agree on what we are being efficient about.
It sounds like you want to just pay people to stay alive without helping them to gain the skills necessary to make that life worthwhile to themselves.
Before we try to be efficient we need to agree on what we are being efficient about.
The wrinkle in this discussion is the inevitable march of technology. It’s simply a lot more difficult to make a valuable contribution to society today than it was a few decades ago. It takes a lot more education and specialized training to gain the skills that put oneself in demand.
The idea that we can push water uphill, and bring the most struggling students up above an ever-rising bar, is becoming a controversial one these days. There is a small but growing chorus of voices saying “enough already”, on both [1] sides [2] of the spectrum.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36319077-the-case-agains...
[2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51087394-the-cult-of-sma...
The idea that we can push water uphill, and bring the most struggling students up above an ever-rising bar, is becoming a controversial one these days. There is a small but growing chorus of voices saying “enough already”, on both [1] sides [2] of the spectrum.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36319077-the-case-agains...
[2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51087394-the-cult-of-sma...
The logical conclusion of this thought process is a question of what to do with laggards and I do not see it being addressed. Ignoring it is not a real option.
Please don't label people as laggards. It is dehumanizing. They could be your lost identical twin who had a chemical accident at a young age and never got the opportunity to develop properly.
Is it? I kind of understand the argument behind not calling someone 'last', but the language like this exists for a reason. What are you supposed to call segment of a population that is 'not top tier'? The last winner? It gets silly fast. We better get over the emotional component of words fast if we are to get to an actual solution.
For the record, I did not even try to dehumanize. I just applied the language of technology adoption to adoption of knowledge. It seemed applicable.
https://ondigitalmarketing.com/learn/odm/foundations/5-custo...
For the record, I did not even try to dehumanize. I just applied the language of technology adoption to adoption of knowledge. It seemed applicable.
https://ondigitalmarketing.com/learn/odm/foundations/5-custo...
Oh, okay. Yeah I have made that mistake myself too I guess.
I agree that words have meaning, but IMO we want to focus the narrative on people who may have been unfortunate through no fault of their own. We want to treat them with compassion and take the time to find the right words for them. Words that they might describe themselves with. ...But they might say "I'm dumb" and think nothing of it.
The goal is to remove friction from the path to policy change, because we desire an outcome of improved efficiency. We may have to be creative with language to do it.
I agree that words have meaning, but IMO we want to focus the narrative on people who may have been unfortunate through no fault of their own. We want to treat them with compassion and take the time to find the right words for them. Words that they might describe themselves with. ...But they might say "I'm dumb" and think nothing of it.
The goal is to remove friction from the path to policy change, because we desire an outcome of improved efficiency. We may have to be creative with language to do it.
The unfortunate truth about IQ is that the distribution is on both sides of the mean. Some people are unteachable, but it sounds like you want to ignore the inconvenient.
* remedial and the kids who were really trying would never be sent to remedial because that’s where the true losers were sent (in a different building) where they couldn’t disrupt anyone else’s learning.*
This just isn't true. Do you honestly believe that a kid with a learning disability is simply not trying? I know that was the attitude of the schools of yesteryear - but they were wrong.
There are lots of reasons for remedial classes: Dyslexia, for example. A kid might have anxiety issues that make finishing homework near impossible: ADHD is a real thing that folks struggle with. All of these can be worked through - but back in history, they would be sent away to rot. Lots of them are bright kids, and a fair number of them can be a future surgeon or researcher.
This just isn't true. Do you honestly believe that a kid with a learning disability is simply not trying? I know that was the attitude of the schools of yesteryear - but they were wrong.
There are lots of reasons for remedial classes: Dyslexia, for example. A kid might have anxiety issues that make finishing homework near impossible: ADHD is a real thing that folks struggle with. All of these can be worked through - but back in history, they would be sent away to rot. Lots of them are bright kids, and a fair number of them can be a future surgeon or researcher.
> This just isn't true. Do you honestly believe that a kid with a learning disability is simply not trying?
You injected the words "learning disability". That's not that OP said.
You injected the words "learning disability". That's not that OP said.
OP mentioned not “showing up”, not “putting in effort”, not doing homework and disruptiveness as indications that a child is a loser and not worth the resources it would take to make them productive adults. All those things are either signs of a difficult home environment or a learning disability.
I haven’t read all the replies yet but I’m surprised at the lack of reactions to OP classifying some children as losers because of their performance at school.
I haven’t read all the replies yet but I’m surprised at the lack of reactions to OP classifying some children as losers because of their performance at school.
Equating low effort and disruptiveness with "the kid has a learning disability or a broken home environment" is certainly an interesting way of absolving schools for the broken, chaotic environment they put kids through. Could it be that not enforcing meaningful school discipline might also be a factor into students "not showing up", being disruptive and not putting in effort?
> All those things are either signs of a difficult home environment or a learning disability.
That's not true, some kids are just shitheads and don't feel like listening to anyone or doing what they're told. Personal responsibility has to come into play at some point, you can't just blame every problem on external factors.
That's not true, some kids are just shitheads and don't feel like listening to anyone or doing what they're told. Personal responsibility has to come into play at some point, you can't just blame every problem on external factors.
As an extreme case re: your point, OP mentions students who were actually setting stuff on fire at their school. Why the heck is police not getting involved at that point? We're talking actual, serious criminal behavior that can also be predictive of further crimes later in life if unaddressed, so some very real consequences are definitely called for, to try and set these kids straight. An ounce of prevention can save a pound of cure.
We had kids regularly setting trash cans on fire in my school. Police got involved sometimes (we had an officer on campus at all times). Those kids definitely received consequences, and they would be put into programs to help turn their lives around, but it did them no good. Just further cemented their fate. A good 20% of the school of about 2,000 kids were way beyond help. The parents, their home life, and the kid's upbringing are really the issue here. The school can't do anything about that. I always felt so bad for the teachers, the abuse they had to put up with was something nobody should go through.
This right here is the thing that nobody wants to say but is just true.
I had some good friends in high school (a large, below-average public school in CA) who were solidly middle class or better, had supportive parents, and were just shitheads when it came to education. They were disruptive in class, didn't do homework and just generally didn't care.
I'm all for giving kids who are struggling the benefit of the doubt and trying to help them, but if they don't want that help, at some point you have to weigh the cost of trying to force it on them against the cost of wasting the time of the students who are actually there to learn.
I had some good friends in high school (a large, below-average public school in CA) who were solidly middle class or better, had supportive parents, and were just shitheads when it came to education. They were disruptive in class, didn't do homework and just generally didn't care.
I'm all for giving kids who are struggling the benefit of the doubt and trying to help them, but if they don't want that help, at some point you have to weigh the cost of trying to force it on them against the cost of wasting the time of the students who are actually there to learn.
“Remedial” was for the kids who disrupted class, started fights, were frequently absent. I am saying that the kid who was making a decent effort no matter how incompetent they were, was kept at the standard level.
The theory behind this is NOT that the poor students will become productive and valuable members of society.
It is that they will become criminals if you don’t do everything you can for them, and one criminal is more costly to society than the marginal benefits of that money to 100 successful students.
It is that they will become criminals if you don’t do everything you can for them, and one criminal is more costly to society than the marginal benefits of that money to 100 successful students.
I'm going to repeat some stuff I said in a sibling comment, but OP mentions students who actually set $#!+ on fire at their school, and the only semblance of correctional action for this serious, criminal behavior was five days(!) of in-school suspension. No mention of police being seriously involved, as would be entirely proper given these circumstances. This is emphatically not how you'd try to save these kids from a life of crime; it has the exact opposite effect.
I’m not sure that is exactly true. I’m not personally concerned with agents of chaos, but I am concerned with those that would victimize others to get what they want. I don’t know how to stop that. Some say the option of stable employment helps, so they get pushed through to graduation. I would personally choose a different path, such as holding public trial as in the real world, with academic punishments, and juvie if they don’t comply. But it’s probably far more complicated than I imagine.
This is the less political correct top HN comment I see in years. There is still hope.
The word "worthwhile" was a poor choice — you're probably intending to talk about economics, about the price someone's labor might justify in the future. But it sounds like you're talking about transcendent moral value, because that's what we associate with the term "worth." Hopefully you don't actually mean to say that lesser academic ability equates to lesser import as a human being.
> the effort in takes to turn those kids into someone worthwhile
Hell, you know you talk about human beings here, not some production ressource, right? The number of posts in this thread along the very same line, why bother with all those loosers at all if the bright ones could become a brain surgeon, is mind boggling. And IMHO hints at the cause of a lot of problems wr have in our society right now.
Let me guess, your kids definitely fall into the future researcher category, don't they? Just imagine, these other kids have parents too!
Hell, you know you talk about human beings here, not some production ressource, right? The number of posts in this thread along the very same line, why bother with all those loosers at all if the bright ones could become a brain surgeon, is mind boggling. And IMHO hints at the cause of a lot of problems wr have in our society right now.
Let me guess, your kids definitely fall into the future researcher category, don't they? Just imagine, these other kids have parents too!
A productive education system should dedicate resources to students equally with voluntary options for students who perform outside the norm. That means not disproportionately dedicating resources to students who fail aside from tutoring outside class. Some students just deserve to fail. It is better find that out early instead of lying to children that everything is great and kicking the can down the road to the shock of adulthood.
Teachers are not parents. They have limited time and resources to devote to a specified area of instruction divided amongst a number of students. Some parents are extreme failures in their responsibility which performs the greatest disservice to a child. This is how I ended up with a foster child with emotional trauma. Teachers must not be expected to perform the job of a parent just because some parents are so horribly bad at being parents.
Teachers are not parents. They have limited time and resources to devote to a specified area of instruction divided amongst a number of students. Some parents are extreme failures in their responsibility which performs the greatest disservice to a child. This is how I ended up with a foster child with emotional trauma. Teachers must not be expected to perform the job of a parent just because some parents are so horribly bad at being parents.
IMHO education is about giving everyone the u same opportunity, regardless of social circumstances. Evey study I know of shows, that the later you start to separate children the better of they are globally. That means that a school system faced with tremendous social imbalances has to ready to cope, and cover, those.
Higher educated parents have it easier helping their children with homework. They have the money and time for extra tutoring. Lower education equals less capabilities to support with homework, most often less time and certainly less money for extra tutoring. If a system is such you only succeed when you fall in the first group, it sucks. Supporting such a system, wholeheartedly as some on here seem to, is just cold hearted.
Higher educated parents have it easier helping their children with homework. They have the money and time for extra tutoring. Lower education equals less capabilities to support with homework, most often less time and certainly less money for extra tutoring. If a system is such you only succeed when you fall in the first group, it sucks. Supporting such a system, wholeheartedly as some on here seem to, is just cold hearted.
So what should we do? throw children in the steet to die?
Quality foster homes are in extreme low suppply.
Children need care, and schools are whar we have. We need more therapists and parental substitutes, not fewer.
Dedicating resources equally has never been how government works in any area. If that's how government works, why have government at all? Just let people handle themselves.
Quality foster homes are in extreme low suppply.
Children need care, and schools are whar we have. We need more therapists and parental substitutes, not fewer.
Dedicating resources equally has never been how government works in any area. If that's how government works, why have government at all? Just let people handle themselves.
I believe a large portion of HN visitor got their lunch money stolen and toys broken by these loser kids. Bullied kids grow up to despise bullies, and bullying usually goes hand-in-hand with being a poor student
The worst bullies I saw where from well off families. Still weren't the brightest, but that had definitely nothing to do with social circumstances. In fact, those socially handicapped kids were those being bullied. That was on a German Gymnasium, so on the road to higher education.
Obviously, social dynamics will be different in lower tier schools. I do have the impression that we are not discussing those here.
Also, being bullied is a poor excuse of becoming a bully yourself.
Obviously, social dynamics will be different in lower tier schools. I do have the impression that we are not discussing those here.
Also, being bullied is a poor excuse of becoming a bully yourself.
I think this is the case everywhere. Here in the UK they wasted huge efforts trying to turn Es into Ds and no one gave a shit as long as you got a C.
Where I went to school, they put all of the effort into the kids who were failing and if you were doing well, you got no help because hey you seem to be doing ok.
Results?
The kids who were failing still failed because no matter how much teachers do, it's still up to them to study.
Results?
The kids who were failing still failed because no matter how much teachers do, it's still up to them to study.
There are also many, less intuitive reasons why continued commitment over time on the student's part is critically important. A student who is not sufficiently committed to her education might manage to "cram" for a test (often with strenuous, even painful effort!) and perhaps pass it, but then not put any attention into reviewing what she has learned, which sets her up to fail later when she will be expected to be familiar with that content and tackle new material that depends on it. It can be a self-sustaining cycle of failure.
That’s because there is greater ROI now in the population being productive. There is no utility in marginalizing anyone anymore.
The US attracts talent whether they were educated here or not. The US got to that place with poor schools while only heterosexual cisgender men were working. While the rest of the marginalized population was a drag on society and its security as they fought for scraps. The US becoming more inclusive in all facets amplifies its society much more, it doesnt mean turning any troubled youth into a surgeon or researcher. It means giving them a baseline to be productive at all.
If you want your child to be doing something else, look elsewhere.
The US attracts talent whether they were educated here or not. The US got to that place with poor schools while only heterosexual cisgender men were working. While the rest of the marginalized population was a drag on society and its security as they fought for scraps. The US becoming more inclusive in all facets amplifies its society much more, it doesnt mean turning any troubled youth into a surgeon or researcher. It means giving them a baseline to be productive at all.
If you want your child to be doing something else, look elsewhere.
In North America, teachers are grossly underpaid and their ability to discipline poor performance has been entirely eviscerated. It’s not just SF, look at what’s happening in Vancouver: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-cutting-honours-...
The problem is the administration: The board that sets the standards and the parents and politicians who sit on those boards.
The solution is this: Ban anyone without a minimum teaching experience of x years from participating on boards, bring all teacher salaries up to comfortable middle-class in every district and give them back their authority in the classroom. Otherwise this downward slide into illiteracy will continue until North America is dominated by an idiot majority.
The problem is the administration: The board that sets the standards and the parents and politicians who sit on those boards.
The solution is this: Ban anyone without a minimum teaching experience of x years from participating on boards, bring all teacher salaries up to comfortable middle-class in every district and give them back their authority in the classroom. Otherwise this downward slide into illiteracy will continue until North America is dominated by an idiot majority.
https://www.heritage.org/education/report/assessing-the-comp...
> Workers who switch from non-teaching jobs to teaching jobs receive a wage increase of roughly 9 percent. Teachers who change to non-teaching jobs, on the other hand, see their wages decrease by roughly 3 percent. This is the opposite of what one would expect if teachers were underpaid.
https://www.heritage.org/education/report/critical-issues-as...
> Our recent report, “Assessing the Compensation of Public-School Teachers,” [1] concluded that, on average, public-school teachers receive total compensation that is roughly 50 percent higher than what they would receive in private-sector employment. While salaries are at appropriate levels, fringe benefits push teacher compensation far ahead of what private-sector workers enjoy. Consequently, recruiting more effective teachers for public schools will be much more difficult than simply raising salaries.
> Workers who switch from non-teaching jobs to teaching jobs receive a wage increase of roughly 9 percent. Teachers who change to non-teaching jobs, on the other hand, see their wages decrease by roughly 3 percent. This is the opposite of what one would expect if teachers were underpaid.
https://www.heritage.org/education/report/critical-issues-as...
> Our recent report, “Assessing the Compensation of Public-School Teachers,” [1] concluded that, on average, public-school teachers receive total compensation that is roughly 50 percent higher than what they would receive in private-sector employment. While salaries are at appropriate levels, fringe benefits push teacher compensation far ahead of what private-sector workers enjoy. Consequently, recruiting more effective teachers for public schools will be much more difficult than simply raising salaries.
From the same report, the bullet point above your first quote:
> The wage gap between teachers and non-teachers disappears when both groups are matched on an objective measure of cognitive ability rather than on years of education.
That “objective measure” is based on human capital model of wages, and it seems to me pretty biased to apply to such a specialized profession.
Being wonderful at making a group of 6 years old engaged in your teaching and making them progress seems pretty hard to directly transfer to any other non teaching job.
I feel it’s like asking a pro sax player to transfer skills in another domain and ponder they lose a lot of market value.
Which is also part of the other quote you bring in. If I were to move to a teaching position, I’d look damn hard to be better paid or I wouldn’t move. And it’s not like an Amazon factory worker could just move into teaching tomorrow when he can’t take it anymore. So the pool going into teaching is extremely self selected and also biased.
> The wage gap between teachers and non-teachers disappears when both groups are matched on an objective measure of cognitive ability rather than on years of education.
That “objective measure” is based on human capital model of wages, and it seems to me pretty biased to apply to such a specialized profession.
Being wonderful at making a group of 6 years old engaged in your teaching and making them progress seems pretty hard to directly transfer to any other non teaching job.
I feel it’s like asking a pro sax player to transfer skills in another domain and ponder they lose a lot of market value.
Which is also part of the other quote you bring in. If I were to move to a teaching position, I’d look damn hard to be better paid or I wouldn’t move. And it’s not like an Amazon factory worker could just move into teaching tomorrow when he can’t take it anymore. So the pool going into teaching is extremely self selected and also biased.
In my experience, teachers are strong communicators, highly self-organized, aware of organizations, able to work with others, and able to create and follow a plan. They have a demonstrated history of continued learning - and know a lot about how to learn. Teachers, when I've been lucky enough to hire them, have been excellent additions.
> specialized profession.
Color me skeptical that it's a specialized profession. It does not appear to me that decades of education majors have done any better than those who didn't possess such a degree, or that there are any special skills involved beyond knowing the subject and good interpersonal skills. When I think back to my best teachers, none of them had any special skills. They were just passionate. It doesn't help that when you delve into it, all this 'specialized knowledge' about how to learn turns out to be junk science: cf. 'learning styles' or 'three cueing', which destroyed the ability of millions of kids to actually read. [1]
Let's try a model where yes, we pay teachers more - much more. But instead of hiring "teachers", we hire experts who are passionate about their subject and want others to learn about it. Let's do this from middle school onward.
In elementary school, we can focus on getting kids to read and do basic arithmetic, and otherwise let it basically be daycare. A lot of underperformance at that age goes away if you simply give the kid more time to mature - for some mad reason at least in my school district, kindergarteners are expected to already know their letters and numbers and be able to read a few words.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20790600
Color me skeptical that it's a specialized profession. It does not appear to me that decades of education majors have done any better than those who didn't possess such a degree, or that there are any special skills involved beyond knowing the subject and good interpersonal skills. When I think back to my best teachers, none of them had any special skills. They were just passionate. It doesn't help that when you delve into it, all this 'specialized knowledge' about how to learn turns out to be junk science: cf. 'learning styles' or 'three cueing', which destroyed the ability of millions of kids to actually read. [1]
Let's try a model where yes, we pay teachers more - much more. But instead of hiring "teachers", we hire experts who are passionate about their subject and want others to learn about it. Let's do this from middle school onward.
In elementary school, we can focus on getting kids to read and do basic arithmetic, and otherwise let it basically be daycare. A lot of underperformance at that age goes away if you simply give the kid more time to mature - for some mad reason at least in my school district, kindergarteners are expected to already know their letters and numbers and be able to read a few words.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20790600
I believe teaching is a somewhat specialized profession, or at least a very separate skill from knowing the subject. I am just getting into teaching now, at a college level, and finding it is a completely different beast than everything else, even though I know the subject very well. I mean, we've all had teachers that sucked, or professors who cared more about research than teaching; it's not something that people can 'just do'.
> none of them had any special skills
Great teachers make it look easy. What you don't see is the preparation and the previous iterations of their ideas. It's like acting - good actors make it look like an easy profession. But try "acting naturally" in front of a camera sometime. For most people, even walking becomes awkward.
Or programming. Behind most great programmers is a trail of terrible code that they have written over the years.
>They were just passionate. It doesn't help that when you delve into it, all this 'specialized knowledge' about how to learn turns out to be junk science: cf. 'learning styles' or 'three cueing', which destroyed the ability of millions of kids to actually read.
There are quite a few people who can read, even at a high level. But how do you teach it, and teach it in a scalable way? It's not as easy as you think.
Also, what field doesn't have fashion and missteps? Doesn't HN regularly complain about how various programming paradigms and languages were terrible ideas? What makes you think that anyone can do something complex by going from zero to the best implementation in one iteration?
> none of them had any special skills
Great teachers make it look easy. What you don't see is the preparation and the previous iterations of their ideas. It's like acting - good actors make it look like an easy profession. But try "acting naturally" in front of a camera sometime. For most people, even walking becomes awkward.
Or programming. Behind most great programmers is a trail of terrible code that they have written over the years.
>They were just passionate. It doesn't help that when you delve into it, all this 'specialized knowledge' about how to learn turns out to be junk science: cf. 'learning styles' or 'three cueing', which destroyed the ability of millions of kids to actually read.
There are quite a few people who can read, even at a high level. But how do you teach it, and teach it in a scalable way? It's not as easy as you think.
Also, what field doesn't have fashion and missteps? Doesn't HN regularly complain about how various programming paradigms and languages were terrible ideas? What makes you think that anyone can do something complex by going from zero to the best implementation in one iteration?
I read down the rest of the thread after commenting, and another commenter posted a link to a study showing teachers with education degrees perform no better than teachers without them.
heritage really isn't going to be a good source on this kind of thing fwiw
>heritage really isn't going to be a good source on this kind of thing fwiw
There is no good source on "this kind of thing"!
This is a type of "Wicked Problem"[1] and also a political darling of every political group.
And since every social scientist is just a person, with political, personal, and moral beliefs, any papers that they are willing to release typically reflect that. Further, any "peers" that review those papers will have similar beliefs because they know which places they would like that info published.
If you have pretty progressive beliefs, you will "know" that more money, in combination with identity awareness and additional help to those that match historically oppressed identities, is the answer.
If you have pretty conservative beliefs, you will "know" that it is the environment, "brainwashed" and "lazy" teachers and students (but not your kids, of course!) that are the blame. Vouchers and private schools (letting the market work) are the answer.
And there are people with beliefs everywhere on that spectrum. And not matter your beliefs, you can find research to back it up.
Education is just something that will forever be argued about and there is no clear-cut solution, even though nearly everyone thinks that there is, if only everyone else could just understand their point of view!.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem
There is no good source on "this kind of thing"!
This is a type of "Wicked Problem"[1] and also a political darling of every political group.
And since every social scientist is just a person, with political, personal, and moral beliefs, any papers that they are willing to release typically reflect that. Further, any "peers" that review those papers will have similar beliefs because they know which places they would like that info published.
If you have pretty progressive beliefs, you will "know" that more money, in combination with identity awareness and additional help to those that match historically oppressed identities, is the answer.
If you have pretty conservative beliefs, you will "know" that it is the environment, "brainwashed" and "lazy" teachers and students (but not your kids, of course!) that are the blame. Vouchers and private schools (letting the market work) are the answer.
And there are people with beliefs everywhere on that spectrum. And not matter your beliefs, you can find research to back it up.
Education is just something that will forever be argued about and there is no clear-cut solution, even though nearly everyone thinks that there is, if only everyone else could just understand their point of view!.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem
True. I guess it is worth watching what people are doing regardless of their political beliefs. Have you noticed for example that in US people target specific locations for their kids? Hell, my wife was pushing hard to get a house in a 'good' district and we didn't even have kids yet. Social proof and all that, but there is a reason it exists to begin with.
Yes as soon as I saw Heritage I knew that they would be pushing a agenda that would make Ayn Rand blush.
Is there a rule against this?
If you have better facts, please provide them. Disparaging a source of information adds nothing to the conversation.
If you have better facts, please provide them. Disparaging a source of information adds nothing to the conversation.
Regarding the first quote, it’s not the opposite of what you’d expect if teaching was a low-status profession that could only attract weaker, lower paid labourers.
Teaching doesn’t attract highly paid workers because in addition to a big pay cut those workers would be considering likely worse working conditions as well.
If teaching is low-status it is no wonder that education standards are low and thus educational achievement is low, as they note in the article. The alternative is failing most students and having a labour supply problem. In my country, Australia, you occasionally see news articles describing some shockingly bad final year high school scores (ATAR scores) being accepted into teaching degrees. Unfortunately, the fact that this happens further entrenches teaching as low status and puts downward pressure on the minimum bar for ATAR scores.
Remarkable, but unsurprising, that the Heritage foundation then suggests _lowering_ wages even further. You’ll get even worse candidates heading for teaching and they may even be able to next time show the same 9% positive bump.
Teaching doesn’t attract highly paid workers because in addition to a big pay cut those workers would be considering likely worse working conditions as well.
If teaching is low-status it is no wonder that education standards are low and thus educational achievement is low, as they note in the article. The alternative is failing most students and having a labour supply problem. In my country, Australia, you occasionally see news articles describing some shockingly bad final year high school scores (ATAR scores) being accepted into teaching degrees. Unfortunately, the fact that this happens further entrenches teaching as low status and puts downward pressure on the minimum bar for ATAR scores.
Remarkable, but unsurprising, that the Heritage foundation then suggests _lowering_ wages even further. You’ll get even worse candidates heading for teaching and they may even be able to next time show the same 9% positive bump.
> Teaching doesn’t attract highly paid workers because in addition to a big pay cut those workers would be considering likely worse working conditions as well.
You could double teacher pay and it wouldn't make a lick of difference.
As a teacher, you have no control over your classroom.
Disruptive students that destroy everybody else's learning environment? Too bad. No Child Left Behind! Wait, that's the old slogan, what's the new one? Equity Uber Alles? Equity Macht Frei?
It changes so often, I keep forgetting.
Assaulted by the kids? Suck it up, we don't want to be sued! Better to have a battered teacher -- the Unions will keep them in check -- than a lawyered-up parent.
I have seen this first-hand.
Want to actually teach kids things they need to learn to succeed? This is the wrong job for you.
I know a lot of motivated folks that went into teaching, with big salary bonuses, full scholarships for their degrees, everything. None of them lasted more than four years.
Public education in the US selects for Dolores Umbridge, and against Remis Lupin.
You could double teacher pay and it wouldn't make a lick of difference.
As a teacher, you have no control over your classroom.
Disruptive students that destroy everybody else's learning environment? Too bad. No Child Left Behind! Wait, that's the old slogan, what's the new one? Equity Uber Alles? Equity Macht Frei?
It changes so often, I keep forgetting.
Assaulted by the kids? Suck it up, we don't want to be sued! Better to have a battered teacher -- the Unions will keep them in check -- than a lawyered-up parent.
I have seen this first-hand.
Want to actually teach kids things they need to learn to succeed? This is the wrong job for you.
I know a lot of motivated folks that went into teaching, with big salary bonuses, full scholarships for their degrees, everything. None of them lasted more than four years.
Public education in the US selects for Dolores Umbridge, and against Remis Lupin.
Stuff like this drives the push for things like vouchers. I’m lucky to be able to send my kids to a good private school. We chose it after a tour and discussion with the headmaster about exactly how it operates.
The teachers as a group research and plan curriculum. They coordinate across grade levels and determine how to roll out changes in the most effective way possible for students and parents as well. They rolled out common core math over 5 years with great success well before it was forced on public schools.
In other words, they let the people who have studied to be professional educators make decisions about the best way to…educate. There’s no school board, no state level involvement, no federal disruption every time there’s an election.
And it’s fantastic. I see this work and my first instinct is that EVERYONE should have an option like this, not just the people who can afford it.
For that reason, I support some type of voucher program that could achieve these goals. Yet for some reason in the US this is a political hot button, which doesn’t make any sense to me. Currently, the only people who have all the options are people who can afford them out of pocket. Everybody else is stuck with either public school or home school and home school is on the rise.
The teachers as a group research and plan curriculum. They coordinate across grade levels and determine how to roll out changes in the most effective way possible for students and parents as well. They rolled out common core math over 5 years with great success well before it was forced on public schools.
In other words, they let the people who have studied to be professional educators make decisions about the best way to…educate. There’s no school board, no state level involvement, no federal disruption every time there’s an election.
And it’s fantastic. I see this work and my first instinct is that EVERYONE should have an option like this, not just the people who can afford it.
For that reason, I support some type of voucher program that could achieve these goals. Yet for some reason in the US this is a political hot button, which doesn’t make any sense to me. Currently, the only people who have all the options are people who can afford them out of pocket. Everybody else is stuck with either public school or home school and home school is on the rise.
> Yet for some reason in the US this is a political hot button, which doesn’t make any sense to me.
I share in your bafflement. Charitably, perhaps they reason that parents will pick schools that are worse on average than public schools, but I suspect it is more of a “equality demands poor schooling regardless of class” with a side of “the state gets to determine the values your child is taught”.
I share in your bafflement. Charitably, perhaps they reason that parents will pick schools that are worse on average than public schools, but I suspect it is more of a “equality demands poor schooling regardless of class” with a side of “the state gets to determine the values your child is taught”.
The problem isn't what school the parents pick, it's that the voucher schools cherry pick high scoring kids to hold up stats and aren't accountable to the state for the education the state is paying for.
But isn't it a good thing where birds of feather flock together? Just not being dragged down from low scoring kids is worth it. Why can't they select for criteria they are looking for?
In practice this means discriminating against students who are non-native English speakers, students with learning disabilities, etc.
> Just not being dragged down from low scoring kids is worth it.
It depends on the kind of society you want to live in. I would rather live in a society that prioritizes decreasing inequality rather than exacerbating it.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/success-academy-charter-sc...
> Just not being dragged down from low scoring kids is worth it.
It depends on the kind of society you want to live in. I would rather live in a society that prioritizes decreasing inequality rather than exacerbating it.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/success-academy-charter-sc...
I could equally (and accurately) argue that in practice public school means discriminating against people by wealth, using zip code as a proxy.
And anyway, why would "discriminating based on competence" exacerbate inequality? Shouldn't competence-based discrimination lessen inequality e.g. by giving bright, poorer schools a shot at more prestigious institutions while financially-but-not-intellectually privileged kids move to more middling institutions?
Given the choice between wealth discrimination and merit discrimination, I would prefer the latter.
And anyway, why would "discriminating based on competence" exacerbate inequality? Shouldn't competence-based discrimination lessen inequality e.g. by giving bright, poorer schools a shot at more prestigious institutions while financially-but-not-intellectually privileged kids move to more middling institutions?
Given the choice between wealth discrimination and merit discrimination, I would prefer the latter.
My understanding is that vouchers still put the most power in the parents about what school their children go to, when the parents themselves aren’t necessarily good judgements of what would make a good school. Additionally, tools that parents would use (how students are graded in standard tests) are opaque. There are even cases where private schools don’t have to disclose how well or poorly their students score, which means they can effectively present as being a great school without any proof, while public schools have to provide proof and therefore look worse as they can’t lie.
I taught for a few years, and I met many parents and students. The old adage is right: judge the tree by its fruit. Voucher-funded charter schools don't even have to cherry-pick students to surpass public schools: the biggest factor is that parents have to make a conscious decision to send a child to a charter school over the default public school. The worst-performing students belong to parents who will not put in the effort to choose a school instead of sending their kids to the default public school. There is a direct correlation between the parents' (or more likely parent's or grandmother's) lack of involvement in the child's education on the child's performance in school. The easiest filter to separate the bottom of the population from the average and top is to provide a choice of schools, because the lowest segments simply will not make any choice.
Fair enough, but my impression of lots of public schools is that they are abysmal and the few that aren’t are typically only available to rich people anyway (in practice, not principle) so the current system addresses neither overall quality of education nor inequality.
Yes, currently. But we should be looking to improve that system for everyone, not allowing a privileges few to opt out.
Wouldn’t a better system have more options with different approaches rather than a single lowest common denominator?
Just from a scientific perspective, more experiments that are able to learn from each other and adapt things they see working elsewhere into their approach should naturally lead to constantly improving schools.
A single lowest common denominator that nobody is allowed to escape from is doomed to failure by comparison.
Just from a scientific perspective, more experiments that are able to learn from each other and adapt things they see working elsewhere into their approach should naturally lead to constantly improving schools.
A single lowest common denominator that nobody is allowed to escape from is doomed to failure by comparison.
Vouchers aren’t about letting the privileged few opt out, not more so than the current system anyway. And shooting down vouchers without a better plan for improving the current system is just prolonging a system that is bad for everyone (mostly the poor).
That’s the ultimate issue though. If parents don’t have the choice then we never really know that.
Right now, the only parents with a choice are the ones who can afford all the options, including moving to a better public school district.
Right now, the only parents with a choice are the ones who can afford all the options, including moving to a better public school district.
Vouchers add power to parents, and we've (I think) already agreed that parents are a large part of the problem. Even worse: unlike policies, standards, regulations, boards, administrations, and rules, you can't change parents. Even worst: you can manipulate parents, and perverse incentives all but guarantee that evil people will be attracted to this opportunity.
>we've (I think) already agreed that parents are a large part of the problem
I'd be interested in seeing data showing this.
I'd be interested in seeing data showing this.
> we've (I think) already agreed that parents are a large part of the problem.
No.
> Even worst: you can manipulate parents, and perverse incentives all but guarantee that evil people will be attracted to this opportunity.
Of course, those evil people would never think of becoming teachers or professors in order to brainwash thousands of students over their careers.
Because that would be, what, wrong and stuff?
No.
> Even worst: you can manipulate parents, and perverse incentives all but guarantee that evil people will be attracted to this opportunity.
Of course, those evil people would never think of becoming teachers or professors in order to brainwash thousands of students over their careers.
Because that would be, what, wrong and stuff?
Forgive my ignorance, I’m from another land. What are vouchers in this context?
It’s about giving parents a voucher (like a gift card) to spend on a school. The idea is that instead of subjecting everyone to a one size fits all public school system, which can have various problems and inefficiencies, you give parents money that can only be spent on schools but let them choose which provider to spend it on (whether public or private or homeschooling or whatever). It introduces an element of competition between schools but also choice, and the ability for parents to seek out what is best for their child. For example: teacher union avoiding accountability via test scores? Switch schools. School policies not properly managing disruptive students? Switch schools. Curriculum not appropriate for your child? Switch schools.
Usually a government program to give parents fixed annual tuition voucher which they can use to enroll their child at a private school. The voucher may cover part or all of the tuition at the private school and the parent would pay the remainder if there is one. It often goes under other monikers such as School Choice. Parents usually don't have much say as to which public school their child goes to, as it is assigned by address. These programs aim to let parents who are in the district of a poorly performing school to transfer their kids to a school they think will benefit them. Wealthier parents already have this option, but private schools are too expensive for even most middle class parents.
It is often related to efforts to create charter schools which are essentially private schools funded by taxes but run by a commercial or non-profit management company. These schools are usually regulated similarly to other private schools, having fewer regulations than the public schools and not under any direct authority of elected officials.
It is often related to efforts to create charter schools which are essentially private schools funded by taxes but run by a commercial or non-profit management company. These schools are usually regulated similarly to other private schools, having fewer regulations than the public schools and not under any direct authority of elected officials.
"Vouchers" are effectively tuition money for a school of a parent's choice, funded by the government. They would in theory allow parents to choose the "right" kind of schooling for their child, rather than having their child attend a school based on where they live.
This system does not exist today, but there are many who would like to see it. Lots of people are fed up with what they perceive as the failings of public schools. Very few who advocate for vouchers seem to advocate for education funding in general - most seem to simply want their kids somewhere else.
Historically, the push for vouchers is a right-wing, small-government kind of effort intended to further undermine the public school systems, and also to allow government funds to support religious education which, under the current system, is not permitted.
This system does not exist today, but there are many who would like to see it. Lots of people are fed up with what they perceive as the failings of public schools. Very few who advocate for vouchers seem to advocate for education funding in general - most seem to simply want their kids somewhere else.
Historically, the push for vouchers is a right-wing, small-government kind of effort intended to further undermine the public school systems, and also to allow government funds to support religious education which, under the current system, is not permitted.
Well right, because they can kick out students who are disruptive and make them the public school systems problem. When the public school system becomes insolvent, what’s your solution for those students? They just don’t get an education? We hope someone else has a solution? Vouchers are a great way to permanently cement the cradle to prison cycle.
Why should disruptive students be tolerated in public school classrooms? Does the disruptive student actually get an education simply by virtue of being in the classroom? He certainly drags his peers down, but how much is he actually educated in the process, and is that worth the harm he does his peers?
> Vouchers are a great way to permanently cement the cradle to prison cycle.
I could as easily say they are a way out of the cradle to prison cycle for many at risk youths.
> Vouchers are a great way to permanently cement the cradle to prison cycle.
I could as easily say they are a way out of the cradle to prison cycle for many at risk youths.
> what’s your solution for those students? They just don’t get an education?
You want the brutal truth? Yes, that's exactly the solution. Want an education? Learn to behave in class.
And note that this is the only workable answer even in public school systems that aren't insolvent. No amount of money can educate a kid who refuses to be educated.
You want the brutal truth? Yes, that's exactly the solution. Want an education? Learn to behave in class.
And note that this is the only workable answer even in public school systems that aren't insolvent. No amount of money can educate a kid who refuses to be educated.
> Learn to behave in class.
Who’s the job to teach those kids how to behave in class ? Their parents ? And what do you do if their parents don’t care (which is the common case with those kids) ? What do you do if the student has undiagnosed mental illness ? Entire generations of misbehaved children were in fact suffering ADHD. How do you manage a misbehaving children that is bullied every single morning when he comes to school ?
Not educating a kid is ruining its life and, since you speak with « brutal truth », yeah, just sentence those students to jail for life already, at least they’ll not have to struggle with hunger and homelessness during years.
Who’s the job to teach those kids how to behave in class ? Their parents ? And what do you do if their parents don’t care (which is the common case with those kids) ? What do you do if the student has undiagnosed mental illness ? Entire generations of misbehaved children were in fact suffering ADHD. How do you manage a misbehaving children that is bullied every single morning when he comes to school ?
Not educating a kid is ruining its life and, since you speak with « brutal truth », yeah, just sentence those students to jail for life already, at least they’ll not have to struggle with hunger and homelessness during years.
> Who’s the job to teach those kids how to behave in class ? Their parents ?
Yes.
> what do you do if their parents don’t care
Then other family members should pitch in. Or other adults in the kid's life should pitch in. Or, if you believe the government can exercise such power with good judgment (I personally don't), you could have the parents' rights terminated and put the kids up for adoption.
What you can't do is ask schools to do the job, because that isn't what schools are for. Schools are not supposed to be rehabilitation centers for kids who can't be educated because they have bad parents. They're supposed to be places where kids who can be educated, are educated. Trying to make them into rehabilitation centers just ruins the education of all the other kids who can be educated.
> Not educating a kid is ruining its life
I entirely agree. But that doesn't change the fact that a kid who refuses to behave in class cannot be educated. Even if it's not the kid's fault, that's still the fact.
Also, if kids who can't be educated are put in schools, now you don't just have them not being educated, you have all the kids not being educated because of the constant disruptions. How is that an improvement?
[Edit: I see you mentioned specialized schools elsewhere in the thread. I'll respond to that point there.]
> just sentence those students to jail for life already
I didn't do that; the kids' parents did, by making them unable to be educated. So why aren't you all on fire to hold the parents accountable? Why are you going after me, who had nothing to do with it?
Yes.
> what do you do if their parents don’t care
Then other family members should pitch in. Or other adults in the kid's life should pitch in. Or, if you believe the government can exercise such power with good judgment (I personally don't), you could have the parents' rights terminated and put the kids up for adoption.
What you can't do is ask schools to do the job, because that isn't what schools are for. Schools are not supposed to be rehabilitation centers for kids who can't be educated because they have bad parents. They're supposed to be places where kids who can be educated, are educated. Trying to make them into rehabilitation centers just ruins the education of all the other kids who can be educated.
> Not educating a kid is ruining its life
I entirely agree. But that doesn't change the fact that a kid who refuses to behave in class cannot be educated. Even if it's not the kid's fault, that's still the fact.
Also, if kids who can't be educated are put in schools, now you don't just have them not being educated, you have all the kids not being educated because of the constant disruptions. How is that an improvement?
[Edit: I see you mentioned specialized schools elsewhere in the thread. I'll respond to that point there.]
> just sentence those students to jail for life already
I didn't do that; the kids' parents did, by making them unable to be educated. So why aren't you all on fire to hold the parents accountable? Why are you going after me, who had nothing to do with it?
The problem is keeping those kids in school ruins the education of all of the kids in that class. How is it fair to damage the potential of so many kids, because one kid is disruptive, and their parents don’t care.
The options here are not binary. There are other possibilities than keeping them ruining the class or abandoning them.
A lot of countries have dedicated schools for those children, so they damage nothing around them and can be treated individually. And in lot of cases, since it requires removing them from families where their problems comes, it’s a breadth of fresh air for them.
A lot of countries have dedicated schools for those children, so they damage nothing around them and can be treated individually. And in lot of cases, since it requires removing them from families where their problems comes, it’s a breadth of fresh air for them.
As an outsider, it looks to me like the options in America are binary. Either the student can be removed from the class, or they can’t. The problem as I understand it, is that in regular schools teachers are disempowered from removing trouble-making students for a number of reasons, including “equity”.
I agree, that special programs and schools are required for challenging students. But that is a different question.
I agree, that special programs and schools are required for challenging students. But that is a different question.
Someone has to be there for that kid to say 'shut up and study'. Failing that, disruptive student is a drag on the rest.
I am sympathetic to the thought process behind it but the end results are hard to argue with.
I am sympathetic to the thought process behind it but the end results are hard to argue with.
I agree. But if their parents are not able to say « shut up and study », it should be the role of the public power to say it, even if it means transferring them into specialized schools, but letting them aside of the road should never be an acceptable option, because it will hurt them and it hurts the society (by making up future criminals and spreading wrong values)
> if their parents are not able to say « shut up and study », it should be the role of the public power to say it, even if it means transferring them into specialized schools
Who pays for the specialized schools? If it's we, the taxpayers, then we have a right to expect that those schools do their jobs. Do they? Do you have any specific references you can give?
Who pays for the specialized schools? If it's we, the taxpayers, then we have a right to expect that those schools do their jobs. Do they? Do you have any specific references you can give?
> When the public school system becomes insolvent, what’s your solution for those students? They just don’t get an education?
Are they getting an education now?
According to most metrics - including this article - more and more students are passed without meeting the requirements for their grade level.
Are they getting an education now?
According to most metrics - including this article - more and more students are passed without meeting the requirements for their grade level.
Vouchers are a great way to permanently cement the cradle to prison cycle.
You don't solve a problem by making it worse. Making smart and/or motivated kids stay in the same classrooms as disruptive and demotivated kids just turns the motivated kids into more disruptive and demotivated kids. Right now it looks like we can choose between some people getting educated, and almost nobody getting educated because of the disruptive environment.
You don't solve a problem by making it worse. Making smart and/or motivated kids stay in the same classrooms as disruptive and demotivated kids just turns the motivated kids into more disruptive and demotivated kids. Right now it looks like we can choose between some people getting educated, and almost nobody getting educated because of the disruptive environment.
Perhaps any voucher system could be calibrated to: A) allow some more students to go to private schools by providing a fraction of what would be spent on them, and B) increase remaining resources per-pupil in the public school system.
Of course, it still takes thought to make sure that the public schools improve in this scenario, because they will also be fighting an adverse-selection headwind of being stuck with students from lower classes and those that the private schools don't want. But if you can shrink classes and cater classes to similar ability levels, I'd think this would win out.
Of course, it still takes thought to make sure that the public schools improve in this scenario, because they will also be fighting an adverse-selection headwind of being stuck with students from lower classes and those that the private schools don't want. But if you can shrink classes and cater classes to similar ability levels, I'd think this would win out.
I'm not sure your math works. If the goal of vouchers is to take the total education budget, divide it by the number of students, then disperse the pot equally.
In other words is it simply a case of $10 000 per child per year, so here's a voucher for 10k, go wherever you like?
There are no extra resources here for underperforming schools - in fact there are likely fewer resources. Public shools won't get smaller though, they'll just merge together to create fewer schools, and the bad teachers will go away.
And perhaps therein lies the root of the resistance to vouchers. It starts to measure school, and by extension, teacher quality. And that's not a rabbit hole teacher unions want to go down.
In other words is it simply a case of $10 000 per child per year, so here's a voucher for 10k, go wherever you like?
There are no extra resources here for underperforming schools - in fact there are likely fewer resources. Public shools won't get smaller though, they'll just merge together to create fewer schools, and the bad teachers will go away.
And perhaps therein lies the root of the resistance to vouchers. It starts to measure school, and by extension, teacher quality. And that's not a rabbit hole teacher unions want to go down.
> In other words is it simply a case of $10 000 per child per year, so here's a voucher for 10k, go wherever you like?
When vouchers were proposed in California in 1993, it was to be half the amount spent by the state on each child for public education. In 2000, it was to be $4000/year, when the state spent about $7000/year per student.
Of course, there's the big existing population in private schools that would also have been eligible for vouchers-- about 7%-- so these amounts probably still would drive down per-pupil spending in public schools. You'd need to roughly double private school enrollment to "break even" in per-pupil spending.
I favor something like 20-33%-- that might reasonably be expected to both make it significantly easier for parents to send their children to private schools and increase resources per student in public schools.
When vouchers were proposed in California in 1993, it was to be half the amount spent by the state on each child for public education. In 2000, it was to be $4000/year, when the state spent about $7000/year per student.
Of course, there's the big existing population in private schools that would also have been eligible for vouchers-- about 7%-- so these amounts probably still would drive down per-pupil spending in public schools. You'd need to roughly double private school enrollment to "break even" in per-pupil spending.
I favor something like 20-33%-- that might reasonably be expected to both make it significantly easier for parents to send their children to private schools and increase resources per student in public schools.
Although an insanely complex topic, this basically sums up my views (spouse is a 6-8 teacher). Teachers have no autonomy to teach (which discipline is apart of).
Want to actually teach kids things they need to learn to succeed? This is the wrong job for you.
I teach at a community college and for years I've told newcomers to profession that one thing this job is not about is teaching.
I teach at a community college and for years I've told newcomers to profession that one thing this job is not about is teaching.
>and for years I've told newcomers to profession that one thing this job is not about is teaching.
So, what is about then?
So, what is about then?
High passing rate and minimal number of student complaints. No one in administration cares if the high passing rate is because standards were lowered. All they care about is that more than x% pass.
Another sad instance of Strahern's adaptation of Goodhart's law[1]:
"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
[deleted]
I am curious whether there are any systems that let parents choose teachers within a school — and let teachers admit students they will take. So they can make more if they are in demand — and that students that are "problems" will result in greater income for the teachers that take them.
A kind of "choice-based" market system within a school.
A kind of "choice-based" market system within a school.
> You could double teacher pay and it wouldn't make a lick of difference.
I sincerely doubt that. Having a teacher who isn't struggling financially would be a huge improvement.
I sincerely doubt that. Having a teacher who isn't struggling financially would be a huge improvement.
OP is correct. double your salary at your job, but have to take verbal abuse and berated from your 'boss' and see how that paycheck affects your life
Investment bankers barely enjoy their jobs and take a lot of abuse from their bosses, yet there is no shortage of banker aspirants. Some even stay for the long haul, or go to even worse working conditions such as private equity, for more money.
Investment bankers also have autonomy and generally work in small teams. Not responsible for human beings, just capital. Also if a IB gets fired (but is good) they are probably employed within a week. A good teacher that gets fired (for fighting the bad administration? Good luck...
To draw parallels, an investment banker who goes against the system would likewise not be hired, but rather virtually blackballed. And good luck for whistle blowers in any financial institution.
Also investment bankers have as much autonomy as a client allows them to. And MDs and VPs are as much responsible for their subordinates and client relationships (although not in the same way as teachers are for students).
Also investment bankers have as much autonomy as a client allows them to. And MDs and VPs are as much responsible for their subordinates and client relationships (although not in the same way as teachers are for students).
Yet public school teachers do this all the time. They take low pay and a bad work environment, and keep teaching anyway. Why? Because they are passionate about teaching.
I had several high-school teachers who weren't financially comfortable, yet still chose to spend hundreds or even thousands on their students during a school year.
Of course, those teachers would have been much more effective if they were in a financially stable position. I also would have had fewer quality teachers leave.
I had several high-school teachers who weren't financially comfortable, yet still chose to spend hundreds or even thousands on their students during a school year.
Of course, those teachers would have been much more effective if they were in a financially stable position. I also would have had fewer quality teachers leave.
If your salary is high enough that you can save some money then you aren’t required to put up with bullshit in order to keep eating food.
Do you mean that by saving money people can leave the profession sooner or at least move to a school with more favorable working conditions?
If so, maybe you’ve hit on a kernel of truth: we can’t risk paying teachers enough that they’d have the financial security to leave a bad work situation.
If so, maybe you’ve hit on a kernel of truth: we can’t risk paying teachers enough that they’d have the financial security to leave a bad work situation.
Am I the only one who thinks “we should pay teachers more so they can afford a new profession because public education is horrible” is the wrong takeaway? Like, why not fix public education (e.g., more teacher autonomy) or at least support some voucher program so more teachers can be private school teachers?
See my reply above. I didn’t think this idea would be controversial. Working conditions should improve when the workers have other options.
"Working conditions should improve when the workers have other options."
So when the workers have not other options, working conditions can stay low?
So when the workers have not other options, working conditions can stay low?
It’s not a “should” it’s just what happens.
I mean that teachers would have a credible threat of leaving and hopefully administrations and school boards would respond to the threat by improving conditions.
High salaries means more people looking to get in, so it's not like administrators would risk running out of teachers.
(I'm all for financially rewarding good teachers, but because their work is incredibly valuable. It's just ab incredibly hard context in which to separate the good and the bad without creating perverse incentives)
(I'm all for financially rewarding good teachers, but because their work is incredibly valuable. It's just ab incredibly hard context in which to separate the good and the bad without creating perverse incentives)
And ultimately, the teacher doesn't get to choose what they teach either. Somebody else decides that and gives teachers a long list of things that the students have to know.
The analysis is harder than that.
I would imagine education degrees are not particularly versatile: they’re meant to train you to become a teacher, more or less. Given that, it is not particularly surprising that teaching is one of the better-paying options once you commit to that pathway. However, there are plenty of other, career tracks: potential teachers might become accountants or engineers instead.
Zooming in a bit…the big “fringe benefit” is obviously summer vacation. Valuing that correctly is tricky, and the assumption used in that report is that it’s linear in the amount of time off: one week off is worth $X, so the summer vacation must be worth $15X. I would bet that’s not really true and it has declining marginal value like everything else.
I would imagine education degrees are not particularly versatile: they’re meant to train you to become a teacher, more or less. Given that, it is not particularly surprising that teaching is one of the better-paying options once you commit to that pathway. However, there are plenty of other, career tracks: potential teachers might become accountants or engineers instead.
Zooming in a bit…the big “fringe benefit” is obviously summer vacation. Valuing that correctly is tricky, and the assumption used in that report is that it’s linear in the amount of time off: one week off is worth $X, so the summer vacation must be worth $15X. I would bet that’s not really true and it has declining marginal value like everything else.
> I would imagine education degrees are not particularly versatile: they’re meant to train you to become a teacher, more or less.
This would imply that education degrees make their recipients better educators. There is no strong evidence of that.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/who-profits-from-the-mast...
> The fact that teachers with master’s degrees are no more effective in the classroom, on average, than their colleagues without advanced degrees is one of the most consistent findings in education research. In a study published in 2011, Paul Peterson and I confirmed this finding by comparing the student achievement of the same teachers before and after they earned master’s degrees, and found no impact.[1]
> This finding may be non-controversial among researchers, but it has largely been ignored by policymakers.
[1] It's easier to pick a good teacher than to train one: Familiar and new results on the correlates of teacher effectiveness
Neither holding a college major in education nor acquiring a master's degree is correlated with elementary and middle school teaching effectiveness, regardless of the university at which the degree was earned. Teachers generally do become more effective with a few years of teaching experience, but we also find evidence that teachers may become less effective with experience, particularly later in their careers. These and other findings with respect to the correlates of teacher effectiveness are obtained from estimations using value-added models that control for student characteristics as well as school and (where appropriate teacher) fixed effects in order to measure teacher effectiveness in reading and math for Florida students in fourth through eighth grades for eight school years, 2001–2002 through 2008–2009.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02727...
This would imply that education degrees make their recipients better educators. There is no strong evidence of that.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/who-profits-from-the-mast...
> The fact that teachers with master’s degrees are no more effective in the classroom, on average, than their colleagues without advanced degrees is one of the most consistent findings in education research. In a study published in 2011, Paul Peterson and I confirmed this finding by comparing the student achievement of the same teachers before and after they earned master’s degrees, and found no impact.[1]
> This finding may be non-controversial among researchers, but it has largely been ignored by policymakers.
[1] It's easier to pick a good teacher than to train one: Familiar and new results on the correlates of teacher effectiveness
Neither holding a college major in education nor acquiring a master's degree is correlated with elementary and middle school teaching effectiveness, regardless of the university at which the degree was earned. Teachers generally do become more effective with a few years of teaching experience, but we also find evidence that teachers may become less effective with experience, particularly later in their careers. These and other findings with respect to the correlates of teacher effectiveness are obtained from estimations using value-added models that control for student characteristics as well as school and (where appropriate teacher) fixed effects in order to measure teacher effectiveness in reading and math for Florida students in fourth through eighth grades for eight school years, 2001–2002 through 2008–2009.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02727...
> This would imply that education degrees make their recipients better educators.
Not necessarily. It might just be an artifact of mandatory certifications. Suppose that teacher training were completely useless (debatable), but nevertheless legally required (mostly true, esp. for public schools) and expensive in terms of time or money (definitely true). I think you’d still expect increased earnings in those who obtained the certification, if only because they are now eligible for jobs where the supply of potential employees is limited. If they leave the industry, however, that certification often counts for very little, and the pay bump disappears. None of this, of course, tells you anything about conditions across industries.
The quotes in your comment are missing some important context. As §2.1 of the linked paper says, nearly all teachers in the US are somehow licensed, but this can be part of an education degree or an “alternative certification” for those with other degrees. Those two types of training are what the paper compares, not trained vs totally untrained. Critically, both take time and money.
The advanced degree data is also hard to interpret. It could be that a masters is totally worthless. However, selection effects also seem possible: teachers with more training could be given more challenging students or courses, or, as the paper proposes, underperforming teachers could preferentially do a masters to shore up their skills. They could also have more out-of-classroom responsibilities (e.g., curriculum development or admin), which would be consistent with how advanced degrees work in many other fields.
Anyway, all this is to say that “haha teachers are overpaid dummies” is, IMO, too simplistic and not supported by the data either.
Not necessarily. It might just be an artifact of mandatory certifications. Suppose that teacher training were completely useless (debatable), but nevertheless legally required (mostly true, esp. for public schools) and expensive in terms of time or money (definitely true). I think you’d still expect increased earnings in those who obtained the certification, if only because they are now eligible for jobs where the supply of potential employees is limited. If they leave the industry, however, that certification often counts for very little, and the pay bump disappears. None of this, of course, tells you anything about conditions across industries.
The quotes in your comment are missing some important context. As §2.1 of the linked paper says, nearly all teachers in the US are somehow licensed, but this can be part of an education degree or an “alternative certification” for those with other degrees. Those two types of training are what the paper compares, not trained vs totally untrained. Critically, both take time and money.
The advanced degree data is also hard to interpret. It could be that a masters is totally worthless. However, selection effects also seem possible: teachers with more training could be given more challenging students or courses, or, as the paper proposes, underperforming teachers could preferentially do a masters to shore up their skills. They could also have more out-of-classroom responsibilities (e.g., curriculum development or admin), which would be consistent with how advanced degrees work in many other fields.
Anyway, all this is to say that “haha teachers are overpaid dummies” is, IMO, too simplistic and not supported by the data either.
> This would imply that education degrees make their recipients better educators. There is no strong evidence of that.
This is orthogonal to what he is discussing; he's just discussing the relative pay picture (in-profession vs. out of profession) for one who holds such a degree.
> > The fact that teachers with master’s degrees are no more effective in the classroom, on average, than their colleagues without advanced degrees
This is -further- orthogonal and off-topic, because we're not talking about the relative merits of graduate education for teachers compared to bachelors degrees.
This is orthogonal to what he is discussing; he's just discussing the relative pay picture (in-profession vs. out of profession) for one who holds such a degree.
> > The fact that teachers with master’s degrees are no more effective in the classroom, on average, than their colleagues without advanced degrees
This is -further- orthogonal and off-topic, because we're not talking about the relative merits of graduate education for teachers compared to bachelors degrees.
I would say it’s the opposite. Vacation time has more incremental value the longer it goes on. Even a 2 week vacation I’d have trouble fully unwinding from. An entire summer, you can truly have some quality time to yourself to recharge, focus on a hobby, travel a lot, etc. I would say those summers off are easily worth $100k.
It’s tricky.
Taking things to an obviously absurd extreme, being unemployed is clearly not worth $400k/year: people work for far, far less.
As you say, longer blocks of vacation time definitely open up new possibilities, but perhaps there’s an inflection point: an 11-week trip seems like it’d be very nearly the same as a 10 week one.
Things get weird when much of the total comp is in benefits. For example, if your cash salary is $50k, that limits what you can do with your $100k “worth” of vacation.
Taking things to an obviously absurd extreme, being unemployed is clearly not worth $400k/year: people work for far, far less.
As you say, longer blocks of vacation time definitely open up new possibilities, but perhaps there’s an inflection point: an 11-week trip seems like it’d be very nearly the same as a 10 week one.
Things get weird when much of the total comp is in benefits. For example, if your cash salary is $50k, that limits what you can do with your $100k “worth” of vacation.
Too bad it's vacation time when everyone else is having vacation, so everything is crowded.
The saving grace is that it’s synchro with your kids’ vacations.
I had one amazing high school math teacher who graduated from MIT at 18, and was teaching all the way up to diff eq in public schools. He’d made his money and then decided to teach because he was annoyed that his sons’ math teachers sucked. There’s absolutely no way teacher salary+pension was competitive with what he was making in industry. And we should want a lot more people who are like him teaching, without the needing them to be lucky enough to not need to care about money.
Not necessarily. People who are really smart and great in industry are not necessarily great teachers. Frankly, if you are talking about making the salary competitive with one that allows FIRE will have the opposite effect that you want (ideology vs money).
Why is that the opposite? At the high school level, I’m not looking for martyrs, I’m looking for subject matter experts to teach my kids. At the lower levels, maybe empathy is more important, but by the time they get to microbiology or stats, you literally cannot be a good teacher without having a deep understanding.
Soft skills ate essential, more so even than a deep understanding of the material.A basic competence is important but anyone who has ever had a genius level professor that angrily mumbles while scribbling incomprehensibly on the board for an hour and then you leave will understand this.
Sure, they can't be completely uninterested in teaching, since they're high school teachers - they're not being hired primarily for their research ability. Part of offering better salaries is also being able to be more selective with who you keep.
I made the transition from a career in industry to education in the past couple of years. It's been an interesting path.
I'm definitely a subject matter expert. And I'm able to get pretty deep content into middle school and high school classrooms. And working with smaller subgroups of students is a lot like mentoring junior engineers.
But man, dealing with a lot of kids in the room is a challenge-- keeping the lower third of students motivated; modulating strictness up and down so that you can have exuberance but not disruption; picking up on the subtle signs that there is a problem from outside spilling over into the classroom while multitasking and doing 3 other things. And... just coping when there's an entire class period that felt like a waste and you don't know why.
It is -hard-, and I'm dealing with an unusually easy teaching environment (classes of ~18-20 of well-behaved and academically advanced private school kids). I'm also not a core teacher and so I have the benefit of leaning on other professionals to do the heavy lifting in these areas. I still have hope I'll get good at it (this past year was a difficult one for me to self-assess my performance).
I do think that being an expert/having passion for what you teach is a bonus: if you have students that are already inclined to be engaged, that spark will help a little in getting and keeping their attention. But it is not the most important thing day to day.
Actually, my best performance lately was when I was a long-term sub in science classes teaching subject matter that is not my core competence. I could geek out and learn deeper stuff than I knew about volcanoes and share my surprise with the students, and that felt really good for engagement.
I'm definitely a subject matter expert. And I'm able to get pretty deep content into middle school and high school classrooms. And working with smaller subgroups of students is a lot like mentoring junior engineers.
But man, dealing with a lot of kids in the room is a challenge-- keeping the lower third of students motivated; modulating strictness up and down so that you can have exuberance but not disruption; picking up on the subtle signs that there is a problem from outside spilling over into the classroom while multitasking and doing 3 other things. And... just coping when there's an entire class period that felt like a waste and you don't know why.
It is -hard-, and I'm dealing with an unusually easy teaching environment (classes of ~18-20 of well-behaved and academically advanced private school kids). I'm also not a core teacher and so I have the benefit of leaning on other professionals to do the heavy lifting in these areas. I still have hope I'll get good at it (this past year was a difficult one for me to self-assess my performance).
I do think that being an expert/having passion for what you teach is a bonus: if you have students that are already inclined to be engaged, that spark will help a little in getting and keeping their attention. But it is not the most important thing day to day.
Actually, my best performance lately was when I was a long-term sub in science classes teaching subject matter that is not my core competence. I could geek out and learn deeper stuff than I knew about volcanoes and share my surprise with the students, and that felt really good for engagement.
Awesome, good on you for getting into teaching! And thanks for weighing in. I’m surprised that the expertise and passion was only slightly helpful for getting engagement, we found it very contagious in our classes with the teacher I described, especially in the more advanced classes.
"Part of offering better salaries is also being able to be more selective with who you keep."
If you are a private school, sure. This is not the case for unionized public schools. Did you hear of that famous case where a superintendent fired multiple teachers for abysmal performance and even abusive behavior and was forced by the courts/union to reinstate them with back pay? It's very eye opening.
If you are a private school, sure. This is not the case for unionized public schools. Did you hear of that famous case where a superintendent fired multiple teachers for abysmal performance and even abusive behavior and was forced by the courts/union to reinstate them with back pay? It's very eye opening.
Oddly enough, private schools can pay a fair bit less. At a private school, you get to avoid most of the disruption, have smaller class sizes, and teach brighter students on average. If you're passionate about what you're teaching, these are things you may value more than salary, so...
Private schools also have fewer hiring restrictions, which lets them lower salaries. I know a couple people who did not get the qualifications to work at a public school, and now teach at private schools. (Not for lack of ability, by the way).
Really? Our state generally just requires a state teaching certification and FBI background check. I thought that was also a requirement for K-12 private schools.
Generally the state teaching certification is not required for private schools in grades 1-12. The background check is required by most states.
Yeah, salaries competitive enough to draw talent away from other high paying opportunities is just one of many things that need to be fixed to get the public education system doing what it should.
Where's the line of what is high paying? Median salary in the US is about $50k. Many teachers in the US make more than that. Some make less. A lot depends on local cost of living. We would also have to factor in other benefits not typically seen in industry, like pensions, tenure (this is really one of the main problems), and time off.
I'm sure there are states where teachers are underpaid. My state is in the top ten and that is not an issue here. I know a teacher making more than I do as a developer. The local district spends $14k per student per year (about average for the state). Money is not a problem here. There are still districts that have poor performance and test scores.
Instead if just trying to throw money at problems, we need to change the structure. Pay for performance would be a great way encourage good teachers and discourage people who perform poorly. It can be tricky to get the right metrics. The biggest issue is that the teachers unions oppose this.
I'm sure there are states where teachers are underpaid. My state is in the top ten and that is not an issue here. I know a teacher making more than I do as a developer. The local district spends $14k per student per year (about average for the state). Money is not a problem here. There are still districts that have poor performance and test scores.
Instead if just trying to throw money at problems, we need to change the structure. Pay for performance would be a great way encourage good teachers and discourage people who perform poorly. It can be tricky to get the right metrics. The biggest issue is that the teachers unions oppose this.
Yes, trying to apply apply industrial engineering metrics to a squishy social problem has never caused problems before at all. After all, we wouldn't want Any Child to be Left Behind.
Because knowing something and conveying that knowledge are different things. Do you want a tech lead that knows everything but doesn't work to develop the people under them, or do you want someone who acts as a force multiplier by mentoring others and transferring that knowledge?
> People who are really smart and great in industry are not necessarily great teachers.
Is there data on the average effectiveness there?
Is there data on the average effectiveness there?
Are you saying that FIRE type people are ill suited for teaching because their interest is in minimising retirement age and not being good teachers? The ideology of “earning to retire” vs. “living to teach”?
I'm saying that if you pay teachers a salary consistent with an MIT grad that was able to FIRE, that you will attract people solely for the money. If we are compensating teachers at 4-5x the median salary, then I would gladly quit my job and become a teacher even though I have no real interest in it. I believe that the best teachers enjoy their jobs and are not just looking for the money.
Now we could use a performance based pay system that could pay teachers more. Some of those systems fail to capture the right metrics. All of them are opposed by the teachers union. I think a slightly below average salary (factoring in benefits which are not typically seen in industry) with the potential to make more than average based on performance would be a good system.
Now we could use a performance based pay system that could pay teachers more. Some of those systems fail to capture the right metrics. All of them are opposed by the teachers union. I think a slightly below average salary (factoring in benefits which are not typically seen in industry) with the potential to make more than average based on performance would be a good system.
So why should people not go into teaching for the money. Are you saying you are not good at your job because you are motivated by money? That's a weird take, or does that only apply to teachers not other jobs? If so why?
Teaching is both hard AND hard to evaluate, at the same time. This means that money-motivated people will likely do a bad job there AND will be able to hide their poor performance for years, for the sake of accumulating money.
The main difference here is that the teachers are unionized. Their contracts generally make it extremely difficult to remove underperforming teachers or pay for results.
Higher pay under a pay for performance structure and the ability to remove ineffective teachers would be good. This would bring it more in line with industry. It can be tricky to get the right metrics. The bigger issue is that the teachers union opposes any of them.
Higher pay under a pay for performance structure and the ability to remove ineffective teachers would be good. This would bring it more in line with industry. It can be tricky to get the right metrics. The bigger issue is that the teachers union opposes any of them.
I see this happen a lot, where we need to make some kind of practical decision in politics (how much to pay teachers, how to set water rates), and it inevitably descends into an ideology-driven discussion of fairness, the meaning of life, and other similarly non-answerable questions.
We have to reframe this for what it is, a person being paid to do a job.
The overall issue here is that when you let values guide decision-making, there's no "right" answer. There is no "right" answer to how much the US should spend on health insurance. Likewise there is no "right" answer to what to pay teachers.
The only way I see to solve this is to peg it to something set by a market. Markets operate under constraints. Maybe set pay (all-in including vacation, pension, benefits, etc) relative to a local private school that sets wages competitively based on what teachers can get vs what the school can afford to pay from fees. Modulate +/- 10% based on overall funding levels if you want to split hairs.
The alternative is much worse: a big slugging match between taxpayers and well-organized special interests (e.g. teacher unions), and news flash, the special interests usually win, because it matters much more for them than for the average taxpayer, and they're better at playing the long game (e.g. organizing member rolls, getting members to show up to meetings/vote, knowing relevant laws, developing relationships with city management/school board members). This is a big part of why secondary education in the US sucks. In any other business, software development, architecture, law, manufacturing, the management has discretion to manage -- set wages and salaries, hire, fire, supervise, and hand out bonuses. School managers (administrators) are absolutely handcuffed by collective bargaining agreements that restrict how they hire, fire, and promote.
You think I'm being hyperbolic? Tell me one other job, apart from a competitive process at a university, that gives people firing-proof "tenure". That's insane.
We have to reframe this for what it is, a person being paid to do a job.
The overall issue here is that when you let values guide decision-making, there's no "right" answer. There is no "right" answer to how much the US should spend on health insurance. Likewise there is no "right" answer to what to pay teachers.
The only way I see to solve this is to peg it to something set by a market. Markets operate under constraints. Maybe set pay (all-in including vacation, pension, benefits, etc) relative to a local private school that sets wages competitively based on what teachers can get vs what the school can afford to pay from fees. Modulate +/- 10% based on overall funding levels if you want to split hairs.
The alternative is much worse: a big slugging match between taxpayers and well-organized special interests (e.g. teacher unions), and news flash, the special interests usually win, because it matters much more for them than for the average taxpayer, and they're better at playing the long game (e.g. organizing member rolls, getting members to show up to meetings/vote, knowing relevant laws, developing relationships with city management/school board members). This is a big part of why secondary education in the US sucks. In any other business, software development, architecture, law, manufacturing, the management has discretion to manage -- set wages and salaries, hire, fire, supervise, and hand out bonuses. School managers (administrators) are absolutely handcuffed by collective bargaining agreements that restrict how they hire, fire, and promote.
You think I'm being hyperbolic? Tell me one other job, apart from a competitive process at a university, that gives people firing-proof "tenure". That's insane.
> Workers who switch from non-teaching jobs to teaching jobs receive a wage increase of roughly 9 percent. Teachers who change to non-teaching jobs, on the other hand, see their wages decrease by roughly 3 percent. This is the opposite of what one would expect if teachers were underpaid.
Its exactly what I'd expect if tecahers were underpaid but most switches from other jobs into teaching were from jobs taken as a student pre-qualification for entry-level teaching jobs and most switches out were post-retirement-from teaching “have something productive to do” jobs.
Its exactly what I'd expect if tecahers were underpaid but most switches from other jobs into teaching were from jobs taken as a student pre-qualification for entry-level teaching jobs and most switches out were post-retirement-from teaching “have something productive to do” jobs.
Call me surprised that a foundation that wants to kill public schooling says public school teachers are overpaid.
Meanwhile my anecdotal rebuttal is I graduated with 6 folks who went into teaching. All 6 left to do other things and within 5 years were making more than they would have at the end of a 30 year teaching career.
Meanwhile my anecdotal rebuttal is I graduated with 6 folks who went into teaching. All 6 left to do other things and within 5 years were making more than they would have at the end of a 30 year teaching career.
"I'm going to quit this middle class job and go be a teacher, easy money" said literally no one ever including the OP here.
"We just need better teachers" says a group composed of people who are entirely sure the profession is beneath them.
"We just need better teachers" says a group composed of people who are entirely sure the profession is beneath them.
"Consequently, recruiting more effective teachers for public schools will be much more difficult than simply raising salaries."
I agree. I have a friend that took a lower paying job because he could not stand the handcuffs that the administration placed on teachers. Stuff like you have to give people a 50% if they put their name on the paper, you can't discipline students effectively, etc. I also know many teachers at private schools that make less than the public school counterparts but would not switch due to similar reasons.
I agree. I have a friend that took a lower paying job because he could not stand the handcuffs that the administration placed on teachers. Stuff like you have to give people a 50% if they put their name on the paper, you can't discipline students effectively, etc. I also know many teachers at private schools that make less than the public school counterparts but would not switch due to similar reasons.
Teaching (in Australia, but the pattern in the US is similar although lower[0]) is known to have okay starting pay that doesn't scale with experience. I'd expect some interesting effects around tenure, because those who leave or enter teaching probably do so when they're at the start of their career, when their pay is most competitive.
[0] As per https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-teachers-pay-in-..., the US starts out below the bar for tertiary-educated workers and gets even lower
[0] As per https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-teachers-pay-in-..., the US starts out below the bar for tertiary-educated workers and gets even lower
> that doesn't scale with experience
Is this true? I have several friends who are teachers in the US and they say they get pay raises for experience and for any extra accreditation they pursue. Which isn’t to remark on whether the pay is satisfactory, but I get the impression that the pay does increase and can do so pretty significantly.
Is this true? I have several friends who are teachers in the US and they say they get pay raises for experience and for any extra accreditation they pursue. Which isn’t to remark on whether the pay is satisfactory, but I get the impression that the pay does increase and can do so pretty significantly.
As per the linked article, it doesn't scale as well as other tertiary-educated workers.
[deleted]
Linking a heritage foundation study unironically. Is this the standard of this forum now?
> The solution is this: Ban anyone without a minimum teaching experience of x years from participating on boards, bring all teacher salaries up to comfortable middle-class in every district and give them back their authority in the classroom.
"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken
"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken
Its refreshing that there is somewhere left on the internet where someone can point out that a problem might have nuance and not get immediately down voted to oblivion. HN is great.
"HN is great."
In nuances ...
In nuances ...
[deleted]
You say “until we are dominated by idiot majority” as if it hasn’t happened. Just look at the platforms of the peoples vote to represent Americans. Rarely are they platform that would actually matter to the people and most of the time it is identity politics, nationalism, gun rights, and religion. We can’t even have a nuanced conversation about anything in politics that doesn’t devolve into an ideological/tribal argument. I think the US is already dominated by idiots in every state.
> We can’t even have a nuanced conversation about anything in politics that doesn’t devolve into an ideological/tribal argument. I think the US is already dominated by idiots in every state.
Gotta appreciate the irony of this statement. The Idiot Tribe are victims of The System, not driving it. They are not my enemy.
Gotta appreciate the irony of this statement. The Idiot Tribe are victims of The System, not driving it. They are not my enemy.
Agreed. If we're using education and related achievements as a barometer for "not idiots", the American ruling class are hardly uneducated dimwits. Those at the highest rungs of power in politics, academia and the mass media are almost without exception highly educated graduates of top institutes. If they fail, that's clearly on them, and not the "idiot tribe".
They are all victims. Nonetheless, the unfortunate reality is that the state persists precisely because this idiocy broadly holds.
I fear I am feeding a political tangent here, but I think most of the problems you mentioned could be fixed in the US by recognizing (admittedly this would be a timely process) an official third electoral party. It's a lot easier for nuance to prevail when the system isn't designed to be binary.
Recognizing a third party does little with the spoiler effect. Not sure if you are referring to this in your final sentence, but the voting system has to change first to some sort of runoff model so people can express their primary choice without fear of the spoiler.
The spoiler effect is a problem for tribal voters and for politicians but I don't think it matters for the actual outcomes of laws passed. If a minor party steals votes from a major one, that major party has an incentive to win them back by offering those voters what they want.
The spoiler effect is basically a non-issue with ranked choice voting. Some states are already adopting ranked choice.
Nice comment but I think this is a bit wide of the mark. Schools are a state and local issue in the US where party is less significant. Look at the difference between a "republican" in, say, California's central valley vs. the same in Alabama. In most other places, that'd be two different parties.
Though I agree we'd be better off with something more like Germany or the UK, with coalitions.
Though I agree we'd be better off with something more like Germany or the UK, with coalitions.
The issue is not that we need n+1 political parties. Its that people don’t have time or much motivation to read actual policy.
Teachers (or their unions) often lead the charge for the very policies that hinder performance. Some of these are done in the name of equity (local metro school districts are a prime example).
Ultimately, teachers alone can't solve the problem. As seen in both poor white rural schools and poor non-white urban schools alike, if the parents don't care about schooling or enforcing any discipline at home, there will be significant problems at school.
Ultimately, teachers alone can't solve the problem. As seen in both poor white rural schools and poor non-white urban schools alike, if the parents don't care about schooling or enforcing any discipline at home, there will be significant problems at school.
Average salary for teachers is $63k, across all states. In NY or CA, it is about $85k [1]. This does not include benefits (e.g., health care or a ~$50k/y pension for retirement at age 60 [2])
And there are 2.5 months in the summer for r&r or for working additional jobs [3]. You need two wage earners to be solidly middle class, but this is not a "grossly underpaid" profession. For comparison, a university engineering professor salary in Netherlands starts at 65k euros ($77k).
Bottomline: teaching is not going to make you rich but you aren't grossly underpaid.
[1] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_211.60.a... [2] https://www.teacherpensions.org/states [3] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2019/07/11/tea...
And there are 2.5 months in the summer for r&r or for working additional jobs [3]. You need two wage earners to be solidly middle class, but this is not a "grossly underpaid" profession. For comparison, a university engineering professor salary in Netherlands starts at 65k euros ($77k).
Bottomline: teaching is not going to make you rich but you aren't grossly underpaid.
[1] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_211.60.a... [2] https://www.teacherpensions.org/states [3] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2019/07/11/tea...
This. I keep hearing about undepaid teachers, but in my immediate social circle this is simply not true from avg. hh US perspective.
Naturally, statement like that usually then gets attacked as 'but not enough'. Based on results alone, CPS teachers are actually paid too much.
Naturally, statement like that usually then gets attacked as 'but not enough'. Based on results alone, CPS teachers are actually paid too much.
Not in Canada.
Teachers are well paid in Canada, and in many Canadian mid sized cities a teacher with 10 years experience will make more than a software developer with similar years experience. Additionally they have a strong pension, and incredible job stability.
e.g. A teacher in Saskatoon would make about $92K with 10 years experience with a defined benefit pension, and 2 months off in the summer.
It is tougher for teachers in high COL cities like Toronto and Vancouver as they make roughly the same as they do in the rest of the country. (But similarly a Vancouver software developer doesn't get a USA west coast salary)
Source: My wife teaches, and I write software!
Teachers are well paid in Canada, and in many Canadian mid sized cities a teacher with 10 years experience will make more than a software developer with similar years experience. Additionally they have a strong pension, and incredible job stability.
e.g. A teacher in Saskatoon would make about $92K with 10 years experience with a defined benefit pension, and 2 months off in the summer.
It is tougher for teachers in high COL cities like Toronto and Vancouver as they make roughly the same as they do in the rest of the country. (But similarly a Vancouver software developer doesn't get a USA west coast salary)
Source: My wife teaches, and I write software!
Is that a location thing? Like, do places like Saskatoon have problems attracting people (weather)?
Nope. Teachers salaries would be similar to that across Canada. Software dev salaries would be very close, with some exceptions. Winnipeg/Calgary/Edmonton are all very similar to Saskatoon.
There would be some higher paying opportunities in Van/Tor/Mtl. But an $200K individual contributor software dev is a truly a Unicorn in Canada.
Lots of reasons, but the biggest is that simply don't have the ultra profitable FAANGs that drive up salaries.
There would be some higher paying opportunities in Van/Tor/Mtl. But an $200K individual contributor software dev is a truly a Unicorn in Canada.
Lots of reasons, but the biggest is that simply don't have the ultra profitable FAANGs that drive up salaries.
Canadian software engineering salaries are bizarre though. I was making more in Africa than the average SDE in Vancouver
Hey look at that, another Winnipeger. Winnipeg, as well as the other small prairie cities I'd imagine, also have the disadvantage of just not that much competition and not that much in terms of newer rentals. When I moved to Vancouver 6 years ago, I doubled my salary from ~42k to ~80k. Most of the well paying jobs from that time were for Java devs at the big 3 or 4 insurance companies. If I wanted to work there, there weren't really many nice apartments nearby. Some were built way out in burbs, and now there's a few downtown and in Osbourne, but it's slow going.
Eh, I know a teacher in my state that is paid more than I am as a software dev, and that's not too unusual (I know other states might be different as we are in the top 10 for teacher salary). We also spend $14k per student per year at my district. The education is ok.
I feel that the main issue is that the wrong things are being taught. How about things like personal finance, basic mechanical and electrical skills (like for DIY repairs), and logic or philosophy of argument classes? It would also be good to teach the basics of civics since a substantial portion of the population can't pass the citizenship test.
I feel that the main issue is that the wrong things are being taught. How about things like personal finance, basic mechanical and electrical skills (like for DIY repairs), and logic or philosophy of argument classes? It would also be good to teach the basics of civics since a substantial portion of the population can't pass the citizenship test.
Most states in the US require a civics class in high school (normally called us government). Several states require personal financial literacy class. DIY is not one I know anywhere requiring.
But something being required and something being preserved is very different. It's very normal to lose a lot of that knowledge after a couple years so if your goal is they pass a civics test/know basic finance it'll probably continue to fail even with all states requiring it.
But something being required and something being preserved is very different. It's very normal to lose a lot of that knowledge after a couple years so if your goal is they pass a civics test/know basic finance it'll probably continue to fail even with all states requiring it.
Yeah, but most of the civics classes are a joke compared to the citizenship test.
The used to have shop or home economics as required classes.
I do agree that it is up to the student to maintain proficiency. I just feel like many of the tests and classes are ridiculously easy, like to the point of being geared to passing people rather than teaching. But I do also acknowledge that I forget about stuff I don't use, like complex fractions and fraction multiplication.
The used to have shop or home economics as required classes.
I do agree that it is up to the student to maintain proficiency. I just feel like many of the tests and classes are ridiculously easy, like to the point of being geared to passing people rather than teaching. But I do also acknowledge that I forget about stuff I don't use, like complex fractions and fraction multiplication.
Have you taken the citizenship test? I am an immigrant and my dad had to take it. I was a bit under age requirement but did look over it. One example it doesn't even ask for the 3 branches of government, just name a single one. A lot of the questions are nice like that and will let you give a partial answer. You can see questions here,
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions...
The test is longer than many classroom tests but also only needs a 60% to pass. The topics covered are already ones that US government classes cover so new requirements won't help here. You could add a state standardized test for this although still doubtful it would be remembered even a year or two later. I'd also guess it's a toss up on whether current government classes are easier/harder than that.
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions...
The test is longer than many classroom tests but also only needs a 60% to pass. The topics covered are already ones that US government classes cover so new requirements won't help here. You could add a state standardized test for this although still doubtful it would be remembered even a year or two later. I'd also guess it's a toss up on whether current government classes are easier/harder than that.
I get that they standards are pretty low. I remember an article showing that most TX citizens couldn't pass the test. Here is a similar article that shows over a third of US citizens would fail.
https://www.vox.com/2014/4/26/5654020/awkward-americans-cant...
My biggest issue is how can we improve the knowledge of the citizens since this sort of knowledge is necessary for a strong democracy? I'm not sure what the best answer would be, but teaching/testing in school seems like a good start. Looking at the format and rigor would be good, especially if it is already supposed to be taught and we are seeing such low retention.
https://www.vox.com/2014/4/26/5654020/awkward-americans-cant...
My biggest issue is how can we improve the knowledge of the citizens since this sort of knowledge is necessary for a strong democracy? I'm not sure what the best answer would be, but teaching/testing in school seems like a good start. Looking at the format and rigor would be good, especially if it is already supposed to be taught and we are seeing such low retention.
You could require passing the test in order to vote; but that would be a pretty unpopular suggestion right now.
> The test is longer than many classroom tests but also only needs a 60% to pass.
The test itself isn't even very long - 10 of the 100 possible questions.
I hope school civics classes are more than just rote memorization in the US...
The test itself isn't even very long - 10 of the 100 possible questions.
I hope school civics classes are more than just rote memorization in the US...
I'd add statistical reasoning and basic market economics to that list.
Are they grossly underpaid? I don't think that's necessarily true. I think it's true in rural areas, but Chicago Public School teachers are paid above-average, and suburban Chicago teachers make as much as Chicago-area software developers do. And that's without taking into account defined-benefit pension plans and huge amounts of vacation time.
I think the meme about teachers being underpaid is mostly unuseful in conversations like these.
I think the meme about teachers being underpaid is mostly unuseful in conversations like these.
There are several subtleties when comparing teacher’s pay. First it’s 10 months not twelve so you need to adjust for that.
Second the pay also usually includes retirement benefits that can pay you 100% off your salary after 30 years. This is hard to compare to private industry since 401ks have replaced pensions. This is probably worth 2-5m when mature, and is accounted for in their pay. I think this is the biggest issue, since private employers pay higher expecting you to invest in your retirement.
Benefits are also usually good with small if any employee contribution. Probably worth a few hundred dollars a month.
It’s almost impossible to lose your job teaching. It has a factor of security that does not exist in private industry.
Pay raises are automatic. Primarily it’s based on years of service and level of education.
I’ve run the numbers previously and it starts seeming fairer, but due to the retirement impact it makes buying a home in the Bay Area almost impossible.
Second the pay also usually includes retirement benefits that can pay you 100% off your salary after 30 years. This is hard to compare to private industry since 401ks have replaced pensions. This is probably worth 2-5m when mature, and is accounted for in their pay. I think this is the biggest issue, since private employers pay higher expecting you to invest in your retirement.
Benefits are also usually good with small if any employee contribution. Probably worth a few hundred dollars a month.
It’s almost impossible to lose your job teaching. It has a factor of security that does not exist in private industry.
Pay raises are automatic. Primarily it’s based on years of service and level of education.
I’ve run the numbers previously and it starts seeming fairer, but due to the retirement impact it makes buying a home in the Bay Area almost impossible.
Would someone just starting their career in 2021 in the Chicago area get defined-benefit pension plans? Also, does a new teacher get as much as a new software developer? The $80k/year numbers that I keep seeing thrown around often apply to teachers with 20 or more years of experience, but software developers that level of experience make a lot more.
In my state, older teachers get these, but newer teachers including some of my friends have been cut out of them and need to invest in a 401k like other job. Their wages are also much lower, around 35k/year to start with, peanuts when you consider that they take work home every night and weekend (correcting homework and lesson planning are mostly done on their own time).
In my state, older teachers get these, but newer teachers including some of my friends have been cut out of them and need to invest in a 401k like other job. Their wages are also much lower, around 35k/year to start with, peanuts when you consider that they take work home every night and weekend (correcting homework and lesson planning are mostly done on their own time).
> teacher
> software developers
Those are very different jobs, with very different skill sets.
I'm not sure how much you can infer about one from the other.
> software developers
Those are very different jobs, with very different skill sets.
I'm not sure how much you can infer about one from the other.
Nothing, except that nobody reasonable believes that software developers are grossly underpaid.
> I'm not sure how much you can infer about one from the other.
You can certainly infer how much a largely capitalist society values each skill set at this point in time. The GP is claiming that "suburban Chicago teachers make as much as Chicago-area software developers do", presumably implying that capitalist society in the suburban Chicago area values the labor of teachers and software developers equally.
This is a claim that I want to understand better, since I don't think it reflects the statistical reality. Typically, such claims cherry-pick tenured teachers with 15+ years of experience, and compare their wage with the average software developer wage, which is itself a very unclear number – for example, a lot of developers go on to be managers in 15+ years whereas teachers largely remain teachers.
Glad to be wrong on this though, and might consider moving to an egalitarian society like suburban Chicago.
You can certainly infer how much a largely capitalist society values each skill set at this point in time. The GP is claiming that "suburban Chicago teachers make as much as Chicago-area software developers do", presumably implying that capitalist society in the suburban Chicago area values the labor of teachers and software developers equally.
This is a claim that I want to understand better, since I don't think it reflects the statistical reality. Typically, such claims cherry-pick tenured teachers with 15+ years of experience, and compare their wage with the average software developer wage, which is itself a very unclear number – for example, a lot of developers go on to be managers in 15+ years whereas teachers largely remain teachers.
Glad to be wrong on this though, and might consider moving to an egalitarian society like suburban Chicago.
It has basically become a political talking point. My aunt is in rural Ohio making 80k per year as a HS history teacher. She is tenured but money wasn’t ever a struggle for her.
> Ban anyone without a minimum teaching experience of x years from participating on boards
Why do you think you need to be a teacher to direct how our schools are run?
Seems technocratic and anti-democratic.
The same way we have civilian control of the military, we should have civilian control of our schools.
Did you know in the UK there is actually a structure called governors to ensure that schools are being directed by the community, not by education insiders?
Why do you think you need to be a teacher to direct how our schools are run?
Seems technocratic and anti-democratic.
The same way we have civilian control of the military, we should have civilian control of our schools.
Did you know in the UK there is actually a structure called governors to ensure that schools are being directed by the community, not by education insiders?
The problem with civilian control of schools is that it leads to asinine arguments over things like whether to teach sex ed at all or whether creationism belongs in the science classroom. Even in less extreme examples, it will lead to parents pushing for counterproductive and unnecessary reforms that make sense to the layman.
Ultimately the schools are there to serve the people, so if the people want arguments over things like whether to teach sex ed then isn't that their prerogative?
I know it's a problem and I don't agree with some sides of that argument myself... but in a democracy aren't these issues supposed to be devolved to the demos? Isn't that the whole point? Do the teachers 'know better'? Who's determining who knows better?
I know it's a problem and I don't agree with some sides of that argument myself... but in a democracy aren't these issues supposed to be devolved to the demos? Isn't that the whole point? Do the teachers 'know better'? Who's determining who knows better?
"it will lead to parents pushing for counterproductive and unnecessary reforms that make sense to the layman."
This is basically what happens in all areas when practicing democracy, right? For example, the president is only elected because a substantial portion of the population agree with their positions, or more likely the positions/identity of their party, from their prospectives as a laymans.
This is basically what happens in all areas when practicing democracy, right? For example, the president is only elected because a substantial portion of the population agree with their positions, or more likely the positions/identity of their party, from their prospectives as a laymans.
In the military, there are civilians at the top. Right below them, it's career military. Having these standards set by involving parents at a local level is ripe for disaster. As is having local sheriffs, without proper training, elected but I digress. Curriculums should be as standardized as possible. That makes everything comparable.
It would be enough to have have the top brass of education elected. You can even make the curriculum part of election campaigns.
It would be enough to have have the top brass of education elected. You can even make the curriculum part of election campaigns.
I can understand your point of view and to be honest I somewhat agree with it...
But at the same time it sounds technocratic and anti-democratic, right? The teachers' job is to teach as the people want. It's not their job to set policy. It's to get on and teach as directed.
Do you have a way you square that in your mind, as I'm struggling myself?
But at the same time it sounds technocratic and anti-democratic, right? The teachers' job is to teach as the people want. It's not their job to set policy. It's to get on and teach as directed.
Do you have a way you square that in your mind, as I'm struggling myself?
Well, you have elected government that sets curriculums. And the way school systems are set up. Either at state level (Germany) or federal level (France). Then it is up to teachers to teach that curriculum, find someone ambitious enough to become a school principal to run a particular school. All while coping with the stuff the ministry comes up with.
Sure, some teachers go on to set policies ay the ministry. Those are actively teaching anymore. Of course there is so much more nuance to it, but in a nutshell that's it.
You have an elected government setting policies. You have public servants acting on those. Democratic and surely somewhat technocratic. But it works.
Sure, some teachers go on to set policies ay the ministry. Those are actively teaching anymore. Of course there is so much more nuance to it, but in a nutshell that's it.
You have an elected government setting policies. You have public servants acting on those. Democratic and surely somewhat technocratic. But it works.
If a majority of parents in your town think it should be done differently, what moral explanation do you have for denying them that?
(Again, I don't necessarily agree with devolving as far as possible, but isn't it philosophically hard to argue against?)
(Again, I don't necessarily agree with devolving as far as possible, but isn't it philosophically hard to argue against?)
Through state elections. Vote for a government that changes policies. Like every other parent in every other community. I think the main difference is, that Europeans i. general are less individualistic than Americans. Usually, we just accept that kind of things. Except for a small minority.
Philosophically, I would say that a country or nation can only be successful if some common things are equal for everyone. Letting individual groups opt out and in of stuff as they want, just destroys the overall community. And you end up with "haves" picking the cherries while the "have-nots" are left with crap. And nothing in between.
Philosophically, I would say that a country or nation can only be successful if some common things are equal for everyone. Letting individual groups opt out and in of stuff as they want, just destroys the overall community. And you end up with "haves" picking the cherries while the "have-nots" are left with crap. And nothing in between.
But why is the state the right level for decision making?
Why is decision making at a lower level wrong? And why is decision making at a higher level not better? Why did you pick 'state' level and go with that?
Why is decision making at a lower level wrong? And why is decision making at a higher level not better? Why did you pick 'state' level and go with that?
State or federal doesn't matter. County is too small, when town A has a different curriculum than town B 29 km away things break down. Maybe town B is richer, then town B might not want to fund schools in town A, leaving those desolate. But maybe town As curriculum is better suited for higher education, then what? There ia no silver bullet, but going with stuff that works it would be centralised at a certain level. Se goes for law enforcement, emergency services, military, health care... Otherwise there wont be any social fairness left.
> Maybe town B is richer, then town B might not want to fund schools in town A, leaving those desolate.
Ok but I can say 'maybe country B is richer, then country B might not want to fund schools in country A, leaving those desolate'.
Why's that not the same?
Ok but I can say 'maybe country B is richer, then country B might not want to fund schools in country A, leaving those desolate'.
Why's that not the same?
Going down that road you have the EU, to a certain extent. It's a spectrum, don't go to granular but neither go too large, you still want to be able to handle things. E.g. a lot of education issues in Germany come, IMHO, from the fact education is done on the state level and not the federal one. And why stoping at nation level? Culture and history.
FYI there is an entire book at deals with this topic called "10% less democracy". Basic idea is that the US has become too democratic.
Places like Singapore have a different attitude toward this that's worth understanding (not saying it's right, just different and worth understanding, like comparing OSX to Windows). There are parts of the US government that operate this way, like the Federal Reserve.
One interesting proposal from the book is having congress pass a tax law that's very simple, something like "the top 10% of income-earners should pay 15% of all revenue" and giving the IRS (career tax experts) much more leeway to write the tax code, in a way that complies with the stated (democratically accountable) objectives, but maximizes simplicity and ease of enforcement. I think there's something to that.
There's a place for technocrats. But in today's extremely "power to the people" moment that gives us Trump and Sanders, it seems like a harder sell.
Places like Singapore have a different attitude toward this that's worth understanding (not saying it's right, just different and worth understanding, like comparing OSX to Windows). There are parts of the US government that operate this way, like the Federal Reserve.
One interesting proposal from the book is having congress pass a tax law that's very simple, something like "the top 10% of income-earners should pay 15% of all revenue" and giving the IRS (career tax experts) much more leeway to write the tax code, in a way that complies with the stated (democratically accountable) objectives, but maximizes simplicity and ease of enforcement. I think there's something to that.
There's a place for technocrats. But in today's extremely "power to the people" moment that gives us Trump and Sanders, it seems like a harder sell.
The US seem to be very undemocratic on the one hand, and way too democratic on the other. I guess that makes for a dangerous mixture. Examples: The election system makes it intentionally hard to vote, e.g. election day isn't on weekends nor is it a public holiday. Limited number of voting places. And then you have elected law enforcement and elected judges.
Teacher salaries are public in my state (every state?) so I just looked up my local school. For the record, this is a rural location in Minnesota - each grade has a little over 100 students.
My wife’s sister is 33 years old and has worked there for a few years. Her yearly salary is $47,000, and has been rapidly increasing each year - nearly 10% a year. It looks like teachers that I would guess are in their 40s and 50s are capped out at about $74,000 a year.
That’s roughly what my 32 year old accountant wife gets, and they get nearly 3 months vacation a year and much better benefits and retirement stuff than she does. Considering I know more people that have gone in to the teaching profession than anything else, that seems more than fair.
Also, a lot of those older teachers that I looked up would have been fired from any other job if their performance was the same. I’d only be ok with a massive increase in teacher pay if teacher’s unions were abolished. The only firings that have happened to tenured teachers here in the past 20 years have been for sexual misconduct.
That’s roughly what my 32 year old accountant wife gets, and they get nearly 3 months vacation a year and much better benefits and retirement stuff than she does. Considering I know more people that have gone in to the teaching profession than anything else, that seems more than fair.
Also, a lot of those older teachers that I looked up would have been fired from any other job if their performance was the same. I’d only be ok with a massive increase in teacher pay if teacher’s unions were abolished. The only firings that have happened to tenured teachers here in the past 20 years have been for sexual misconduct.
My understanding is that salaries depend on location of the workplace and the surrounding housing market (aka. rich district = above-average-pay teachers).
Just get rid of school boards altogether. Here in Canada we only have 5 ballot questions across our 3 elections:
Federal representative
Provincial representative
Municipal representative
Mayor
School board trustee.
The PM? Head of the party with the most seats. Same with provincial premiere. Judges, crown attorneys, controllers, senators, the governor general, etc? Those are all appointed by our elected representatives.
A central ethos of Canadian governance is that our representatives are there to make decisions and bouncing questions to the public is a tool of last resort.
With that on mind, why the hell do we have elected school boards? We have a provincial ministry that runs education. We have municipalities that manage land-use.
Voters are basically flying blind in trustee elections. There are no debates, no media coverage, no political parties, just a list of names. If they don't happen by your doorstep, you don't get to know who these people are... And even if they do, you've only got their word to go on.
Ax this anachronistic institution and let the education policy professionals within the state/provincial government and school boards do their jobs.
Federal representative
Provincial representative
Municipal representative
Mayor
School board trustee.
The PM? Head of the party with the most seats. Same with provincial premiere. Judges, crown attorneys, controllers, senators, the governor general, etc? Those are all appointed by our elected representatives.
A central ethos of Canadian governance is that our representatives are there to make decisions and bouncing questions to the public is a tool of last resort.
With that on mind, why the hell do we have elected school boards? We have a provincial ministry that runs education. We have municipalities that manage land-use.
Voters are basically flying blind in trustee elections. There are no debates, no media coverage, no political parties, just a list of names. If they don't happen by your doorstep, you don't get to know who these people are... And even if they do, you've only got their word to go on.
Ax this anachronistic institution and let the education policy professionals within the state/provincial government and school boards do their jobs.
In Australia the only elections regarding school are for the parent representatives on school council, which is local to an individual school, and sets some amount of strategic direction, but overall, doesn't do a lot. Curriculum & testing decisions are made by politicians and bureaucrats at the state or federal level. We also don't elect judges, DAs, etc. We just elect politicians; they are ultimately responsible for making sure their respective public servants are doing the will of the people. You could argue the US system is more democratic, and yet most such systems in the US seem to be broken (from an outside perspective), while here they are not (there are certainly problems mind you).
Any perspective how these things work in countries that have a well-regarded, high performing education system, like Finland (apart from having well-trained, highly regarded, and highly trained teachers with a large degree of autonomy)?
Any perspective how these things work in countries that have a well-regarded, high performing education system, like Finland (apart from having well-trained, highly regarded, and highly trained teachers with a large degree of autonomy)?
How about attach the money spent on a school to the child, and let the teachers/administrators compete just like everything else. You can create specialized roles, pay more, focus on X, whatever you want.
The school system is a failing monopoly that should be broken up.
The school system is a failing monopoly that should be broken up.
This has been used successfully in long-term care. The concept is called "Money Follows the Person."
Money Follows the Person (MFP) Rebalancing Demonstration is part of a comprehensive, coordinated strategy to assist U.S. states, in collaboration with stakeholders, to make widespread changes to their long-term care support systems. This initiative will assist states in their efforts to reduce their reliance on institutional care, while developing community-based long-term care opportunities, enabling the elderly and people with disabilities to fully participate in their communities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_Follows_the_Person
Money Follows the Person (MFP) Rebalancing Demonstration is part of a comprehensive, coordinated strategy to assist U.S. states, in collaboration with stakeholders, to make widespread changes to their long-term care support systems. This initiative will assist states in their efforts to reduce their reliance on institutional care, while developing community-based long-term care opportunities, enabling the elderly and people with disabilities to fully participate in their communities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_Follows_the_Person
> The solution is this: Ban anyone...
The solution is to get rid of the monopolistic education system which is prone to imbalances and subpar results.
Charter schools/private school/school choice. Recruit the best teacher, pay the best salaries, achieve the best educational outcomes.
No wonder the educational system looks like it does given the incentives at play.
The solution is to get rid of the monopolistic education system which is prone to imbalances and subpar results.
Charter schools/private school/school choice. Recruit the best teacher, pay the best salaries, achieve the best educational outcomes.
No wonder the educational system looks like it does given the incentives at play.
You're describing the Baltimore school system. I don't think you're arguing for the outcome you think you're arguing for.
It seems education in most first world countries is heading the same way, teacher authority being undermined by weak administration. It should be the case that education standards are protected by strong administration, bothnto hold teachers accountable, and to let them do the job without pandering to helicopter parents.
School choice would go a long way and breakup the teachers unions (through school choice).
School choice effectively allows increased wages for good teachers and yes there's competition so you'll have lower end schools as well. However, it'll be a rising ship, which raises all boats IMO. You can also audit the schools and shutdown poorly run ones, etc.
School choice effectively allows increased wages for good teachers and yes there's competition so you'll have lower end schools as well. However, it'll be a rising ship, which raises all boats IMO. You can also audit the schools and shutdown poorly run ones, etc.
You know what would go a long way towards increasing the effectiveness of schools?
...funding them, equitably. Simple as that. Public school funding is derived from local property taxes, so rich areas have good schools and poor areas are just boned.
Invest in schools and good education results. Look at the States in the 60s and 70s! California was #1 in the nation. Prop 13 passes, capping property taxes (and thus school funding), and now it's at the bottom of the heap. It's not hard to draw the line between inputs and outputs here.
Vouchers will only further weaken our already-starved public education system.
...funding them, equitably. Simple as that. Public school funding is derived from local property taxes, so rich areas have good schools and poor areas are just boned.
Invest in schools and good education results. Look at the States in the 60s and 70s! California was #1 in the nation. Prop 13 passes, capping property taxes (and thus school funding), and now it's at the bottom of the heap. It's not hard to draw the line between inputs and outputs here.
Vouchers will only further weaken our already-starved public education system.
> School choice effectively allows increased wages for good teachers and yes there's competition so you'll have lower end schools as well.
How does school choice allow for increased teacher wages? Presumably they get the same per-student funding.
When the school gets more applicants than places, how does it decide who to let in?
> You can also audit the schools and shutdown poorly run ones, etc.
Shutting down schools is highly disruptive for students currently attending that school. Seems preferable to intervene and improve failing schools before it gets to the point of shutting them down.
I'm not convinced school choice improves results for students overall. The easiest way for a school to improve its results are by attracting parents who are highly invested in their child's education. Those whose parents don't have the knowledge to work the system or the time to transport their children across town for school every day are less likely to apply.
How does school choice allow for increased teacher wages? Presumably they get the same per-student funding.
When the school gets more applicants than places, how does it decide who to let in?
> You can also audit the schools and shutdown poorly run ones, etc.
Shutting down schools is highly disruptive for students currently attending that school. Seems preferable to intervene and improve failing schools before it gets to the point of shutting them down.
I'm not convinced school choice improves results for students overall. The easiest way for a school to improve its results are by attracting parents who are highly invested in their child's education. Those whose parents don't have the knowledge to work the system or the time to transport their children across town for school every day are less likely to apply.
> How does school choice allow for increased teacher wages? Presumably they get the same per-student funding.
The raw number of dollars per pupil isn't the only variable here, if it were the US would already have the best schools pretty much everywhere (the US spends WAY more than the average in this category).
There's also what percentage is spent on administrators instead of teachers (frees up money for teacher salaries), various QoL improvements that could be made such as less paperwork, more latitude in how they teach, hiring a few full-time graders to take some of the load off teachers (generally a big time-sink and a source of a lot of overtime for teachers).
> When the school gets more applicants than places, how does it decide who to let in?
Presumably either entrance exam or lottery depending on the philosophy of the school.
> Seems preferable to intervene and improve failing schools before it gets to the point of shutting them down.
Do we know how to do this in practice? I haven't heard of any tactics that reliably improve a school that has started going downhill, but if you have some examples, I'd definitely be willing to consider them.
The raw number of dollars per pupil isn't the only variable here, if it were the US would already have the best schools pretty much everywhere (the US spends WAY more than the average in this category).
There's also what percentage is spent on administrators instead of teachers (frees up money for teacher salaries), various QoL improvements that could be made such as less paperwork, more latitude in how they teach, hiring a few full-time graders to take some of the load off teachers (generally a big time-sink and a source of a lot of overtime for teachers).
> When the school gets more applicants than places, how does it decide who to let in?
Presumably either entrance exam or lottery depending on the philosophy of the school.
> Seems preferable to intervene and improve failing schools before it gets to the point of shutting them down.
Do we know how to do this in practice? I haven't heard of any tactics that reliably improve a school that has started going downhill, but if you have some examples, I'd definitely be willing to consider them.
I don't even know what comfortable middle class in Vancouver is.
Comfortable Vancouver middle class is pre-2005. Middle class is now owning a condo in new westminster.
[deleted]
> The solution is this: Ban anyone without a minimum teaching experience of x years from participating on boards, bring all teacher salaries up to comfortable middle-class in every district and give them back their authority in the classroom. Otherwise this downward slide into illiteracy will continue until North America is dominated by an idiot majority.
The problem with this solution is that there is barely enough interest in most places to fill a board when almost everybody is eligible. I've been married to a school board-er. It's a thankless job, far more thankless than being a teacher, which is a job with an actual salary and very good job safety.
The problem with this solution is that there is barely enough interest in most places to fill a board when almost everybody is eligible. I've been married to a school board-er. It's a thankless job, far more thankless than being a teacher, which is a job with an actual salary and very good job safety.
[deleted]
> The problem is the administration: The board that sets the standards and the parents and politicians who sit on those boards.
Most typically administration != board. An elected or appointed board will be made up of politicians, who can also class members of parents, teachers, community members, all of the aforementioned, etc.
Expecting a board to be entirely made up of people who have served in the organization's service delivery doesn't make sense. Would you expect a police board to be entirely made up of cops? There is an inherent conflict of interest.
Most typically administration != board. An elected or appointed board will be made up of politicians, who can also class members of parents, teachers, community members, all of the aforementioned, etc.
Expecting a board to be entirely made up of people who have served in the organization's service delivery doesn't make sense. Would you expect a police board to be entirely made up of cops? There is an inherent conflict of interest.
I love the solution you propose. There are certainly other ways in which the whole school system can improve in this and other directions. The most-direct (and sensible!) reform I've come across is: distribute education funding equally, without tying school income to local taxes paid. You end up with richer schools receiving a lot of funding, while the poorer neighborhoods (already disadvantaged as it is) receiving unacceptably low funding - exacerbating the inequities currently engrained in the current system.
Canadian teachers are not underpaid though
Given that I'm reading pretty much the same articles about teaching experience for decades now, how sure we are it isn't dominated by an idiot majority yet? I mean, looking around and reading the news, I can't really name a lot of things that tell me it couldn't be the case...
FYI Vancouver is still keeping advance placement classes which is the typical way for smart students to excel. The program being cut was only at two schools in the super rich part of town and kinda seemed like a “free private school program in public school”
Why do school boards need to be elected at all?
Like electing judges and sheriffs, this seems to be a peculiarly American thing. Most other countries appoint professionals to manage their education systems, and for good reason.
Like electing judges and sheriffs, this seems to be a peculiarly American thing. Most other countries appoint professionals to manage their education systems, and for good reason.
Not so long time ago it was illegal to teach slaves. I guess the current social system is heading towards that stance again. History repeats itself.
That’s a solution without a buyer in a market that’s about control and indoctrination, or childcare at best. But not education.
IMO, this sort of thing is just as dangerous as any other type of radicalism. Take anything too far, and you cause immense damage to society.
The formative years age just that. Disrupt that significantly, and the individual is forever lacking. Society needs people in all roles, we'd die of plagues, and disease from vermin, without garbage pickup. Incredibly vital, that job is.
Yet who will create new vaccines, new tech to clean up the planet, get mining and resource production into space, and more? Only those with certain genetic gifts, but the "feel goods" want to believe everyone is identical.
Equality is not this. Equality comes from things like providing access ramps for those who cannot climb stairs, providing tools for those to make the best of what they have.
You don't "pull down" people to make equality, you lift up people. And this means that you see who needs help, and give it.
And you can't do that of you pretend everyone is the same.
As a side note, plumbers, electricians, those working in construction, arborists, on and on, there are many very comfortable, well paying jobs open to those without advanced science, math, language skills.
In my public school, both at grade and high school levels, we had shop class, and in high school, auto, electrical wiring, art, A/V, environmental science (farming), and more. There was something for everyone to excel in, and I took most of these, on top of advanced sciences/math, for fun, for the sheer sake of knowledge.
Don't remove potential, instead, seek how to enable every child's capabilities.
Lift up, don't pull down.
The formative years age just that. Disrupt that significantly, and the individual is forever lacking. Society needs people in all roles, we'd die of plagues, and disease from vermin, without garbage pickup. Incredibly vital, that job is.
Yet who will create new vaccines, new tech to clean up the planet, get mining and resource production into space, and more? Only those with certain genetic gifts, but the "feel goods" want to believe everyone is identical.
Equality is not this. Equality comes from things like providing access ramps for those who cannot climb stairs, providing tools for those to make the best of what they have.
You don't "pull down" people to make equality, you lift up people. And this means that you see who needs help, and give it.
And you can't do that of you pretend everyone is the same.
As a side note, plumbers, electricians, those working in construction, arborists, on and on, there are many very comfortable, well paying jobs open to those without advanced science, math, language skills.
In my public school, both at grade and high school levels, we had shop class, and in high school, auto, electrical wiring, art, A/V, environmental science (farming), and more. There was something for everyone to excel in, and I took most of these, on top of advanced sciences/math, for fun, for the sheer sake of knowledge.
Don't remove potential, instead, seek how to enable every child's capabilities.
Lift up, don't pull down.
The board in sf is mostly former teachers.
The problem is the existence of mandatory education, propped up by government.
Let me fix that for you - get rid of government schools, let anyone teach.
Let me fix that for you - get rid of government schools, let anyone teach.
> Another initiative headed for mandate status is a school policy that no assignment can receive a grade of less than 50%
> And my direct supervisor repeatedly demanded that I pace my classes for the benefit of the single student in each section who was struggling the most
I don't understand school. Why do they do things like this? Who actually thinks this is a good idea? I've never met anyone who does. How have we gotten to the point where standards are not allowed?
> And my direct supervisor repeatedly demanded that I pace my classes for the benefit of the single student in each section who was struggling the most
I don't understand school. Why do they do things like this? Who actually thinks this is a good idea? I've never met anyone who does. How have we gotten to the point where standards are not allowed?
Because standards would hinder "equity" in educational outcomes. The SF Board of Education recently voted to end selective admissions for Lowell High School in favour of a lottery, citing lack of diversity and "pervasive systemic racism".
The board positions are elected so these sorts of policies are presumably what the people of San Francisco want.
The board positions are elected so these sorts of policies are presumably what the people of San Francisco want.
There is an effort underway to recall members of the SFBOE:
https://www.recallsfschoolboard.org/
There is a father who has been out every weekend collection collecting petitions. On one occasion, someone tried to thwart the attempt by stealing some of the petitions.
Even though there is clear video evidence and the public has identified the man, the police haven't arrested him, and SF politicians have not even mentioned the act. (Folks informed his employer, and he was fired.)
I find this situation baffling.
https://www.recallsfschoolboard.org/
There is a father who has been out every weekend collection collecting petitions. On one occasion, someone tried to thwart the attempt by stealing some of the petitions.
Even though there is clear video evidence and the public has identified the man, the police haven't arrested him, and SF politicians have not even mentioned the act. (Folks informed his employer, and he was fired.)
I find this situation baffling.
>the public has identified the man
The father collecting petitions or the person attempting to steal petitions?
The father collecting petitions or the person attempting to steal petitions?
The person who successfully stole petitions:
https://twitter.com/SF_BoP/status/1405219022413590531
https://twitter.com/SF_BoP/status/1405219022413590531
Thanks for the info.
But I'm not sure I would consider it a complete success. It looks to me like he stole them then people surrounded him and forced him to give them back a minute later.
But I'm not sure I would consider it a complete success. It looks to me like he stole them then people surrounded him and forced him to give them back a minute later.
At the point when he was confronted, had he already stolen the petitions. The fact that he gave them back doesn't turn that successful theft into a mere 'attempt'. It doesn't matter whether he was confronted a minute later or an hour later.
I am baffled why they are doing a recall? According to the site, the main reason states because their kids have not gone back to school. To me, that's not a good enough reason for a recall (recalls cost money). Public schools are under state and county health guidance.
The board could have opened schools months ago, but chose not to.
The board opened some schools for a single day at the end of the school year, just to qualify for state funding to pay teachers.
The board spent time (whilst schools were closed) deciding how to rename schools, something which has zero impact on educational outcomes.
The board has a member who made racist remarks on Twitter and, despite not losing her position, is suing the school board: https://missionlocal.org/2021/03/alison-collins-school-board...
These are other reasons to be dissatisfied.
More concerning to some people is that becoming a member of the SFBOE is a common launching point for the SF Board of Supervisors.
The board opened some schools for a single day at the end of the school year, just to qualify for state funding to pay teachers.
The board spent time (whilst schools were closed) deciding how to rename schools, something which has zero impact on educational outcomes.
The board has a member who made racist remarks on Twitter and, despite not losing her position, is suing the school board: https://missionlocal.org/2021/03/alison-collins-school-board...
These are other reasons to be dissatisfied.
More concerning to some people is that becoming a member of the SFBOE is a common launching point for the SF Board of Supervisors.
> The board spent time (whilst schools were closed) deciding how to rename schools, something which has zero impact on educational outcomes.
I'd like to expand on this one, as it's been a particular frustrating one. It launched San Francisco's school system into the national spotlight as our Board of Education debated this publicly and initially planned to spend millions of dollars before the outrage and backlash canceled these plans.
Amongst other issues, they did short, haphazard research on the origins of the names of the schools, instead typing common Hispanic surnames into Google/Wikipedia, finding the first result, and deciding that the word colonizer being mentioned in the Wikipedia article was sufficient to rename the school. They problem? Wrong person, they didn't bother to look so far as the school's website to determine who it was named after. Here's a video of the full deliberation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1jj33NBAH8
Some articles summarizing other issues with this process: https://abc7news.com/sfusd-san-francisco-unified-schools-dis...
While here, I'd also like to throw in this article about Alison Collins, the school board member who is suing her colleagues and the city for $87 million dollars: https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/heatherknight/article/Alis...
I'd like to expand on this one, as it's been a particular frustrating one. It launched San Francisco's school system into the national spotlight as our Board of Education debated this publicly and initially planned to spend millions of dollars before the outrage and backlash canceled these plans.
Amongst other issues, they did short, haphazard research on the origins of the names of the schools, instead typing common Hispanic surnames into Google/Wikipedia, finding the first result, and deciding that the word colonizer being mentioned in the Wikipedia article was sufficient to rename the school. They problem? Wrong person, they didn't bother to look so far as the school's website to determine who it was named after. Here's a video of the full deliberation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1jj33NBAH8
Some articles summarizing other issues with this process: https://abc7news.com/sfusd-san-francisco-unified-schools-dis...
While here, I'd also like to throw in this article about Alison Collins, the school board member who is suing her colleagues and the city for $87 million dollars: https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/heatherknight/article/Alis...
[deleted]
[deleted]
The teachers were worried about Covid.
Kids weren't vaccinated.
Kids weren't vaccinated.
I think bunnypapr would have been perfect to protect teachers if safety were the primary concern https://bunnypapr.com
Kids don't need to be vaccinated. Adults who are concerned about it, including teachers, should be. Keeping schools closed because children aren't vaccinated is irrational.
5% of vaccinated people aren't immune. Teachers don't accept those odds.
> Kids don't need to be vaccinated.
A large unvaccinated reservoir population in constant contact with the vaccinated population is how you breed variants that are, e.g., more dangerous to young people (like Delta already is) and more likely to break through existing vaccines (which Delta also is, though not intensely so from the information I've seen.)
A large unvaccinated reservoir population in constant contact with the vaccinated population is how you breed variants that are, e.g., more dangerous to young people (like Delta already is) and more likely to break through existing vaccines (which Delta also is, though not intensely so from the information I've seen.)
What the heck are you talking about? Brazil variant for example is pretty brutal on kids, death is not so uncommon result. School is one of the worst places for spreading, since tons of kids lack will/discipline to behave consistently, and are cramped in various classes. Once 1 member of household is sick, the chance rest will get it is pretty high.
Remote teaching sucks for many reasons for kids and should be used only when really unavoidable, but to claim kids are a-OK and shouldn't be vaccinated ain't based on science I've read so far.
Remote teaching sucks for many reasons for kids and should be used only when really unavoidable, but to claim kids are a-OK and shouldn't be vaccinated ain't based on science I've read so far.
The CDC disagrees with you: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
> Although children can be infected with SARS-CoV-2, can get sick from COVID-19, and can spread the virus to others, less than 10% of COVID-19 cases in the United States have been among children and adolescents aged 5–17 years (COVID Data Tracker). Compared with adults, children and adolescents who have COVID-19 are more commonly asymptomatic (never develop symptoms) or have mild, non-specific symptoms.
> Some studies have found that it is possible for communities to reduce incidence of COVID-19 while keeping schools open for in-person instruction.
> Evidence suggests that staff-to-staff transmission is more common than transmission from students to staff, staff to student, or student to student.
> A study comparing county-level COVID-19 hospitalizations between counties with in-person learning and those without in-person learning found no effect of in-person school reopening on COVID-19 hospitalization rates when baseline hospitalization rates were low or moderate.
SF has some of the lowest infection rates in the country. So there is no scientific reason to keep schools closed when you see the harm it is causing disadvantaged families.
> Although children can be infected with SARS-CoV-2, can get sick from COVID-19, and can spread the virus to others, less than 10% of COVID-19 cases in the United States have been among children and adolescents aged 5–17 years (COVID Data Tracker). Compared with adults, children and adolescents who have COVID-19 are more commonly asymptomatic (never develop symptoms) or have mild, non-specific symptoms.
> Some studies have found that it is possible for communities to reduce incidence of COVID-19 while keeping schools open for in-person instruction.
> Evidence suggests that staff-to-staff transmission is more common than transmission from students to staff, staff to student, or student to student.
> A study comparing county-level COVID-19 hospitalizations between counties with in-person learning and those without in-person learning found no effect of in-person school reopening on COVID-19 hospitalization rates when baseline hospitalization rates were low or moderate.
SF has some of the lowest infection rates in the country. So there is no scientific reason to keep schools closed when you see the harm it is causing disadvantaged families.
Something that is often overlooked in these conversations is the elementary schools should perhaps be considered completely differently from high schools. There were zero transmissions between students at my kids elementary school this whole year, despite the school opening as quickly as possible and despite several kids with asymptomatic COVID showing up at school and only being detected belatedly. I don’t think the same outcome would necessarily be expected at a high school.
This is relevant because younger kids need more supervision and are less likely to spread COVID, while older kids need less supervision and are more likely to spread; therefor keeping older kids home and sending younger ones in might be totally rational. But it doesn’t seem like this gets brought up.
This is relevant because younger kids need more supervision and are less likely to spread COVID, while older kids need less supervision and are more likely to spread; therefor keeping older kids home and sending younger ones in might be totally rational. But it doesn’t seem like this gets brought up.
My four year old has far better mask discipline than the majority of adults, kids are adaptable
The San Francisco Board of Education have made many displays of incompetence and malice this past year which have been covered by both local and national media.
During the pandemic, the Board of Education announced that 44 schools were named after oppressors (many were justified, but the names committee also made numerous errors) and that principals and families needed to come up with new names for their schools over Zoom. Board member Gabriela Lopez defended even the egregious mistakes, demonstrating that she only cares about “uplifting” and “holding” people of color but not facts https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-san-francisco-ren... Unfortunately, Lopez is not up for recall yet, but her enablers are.
Alison Collins led the resolution to remove academic admissions to San Francisco’s magnet high school Lowell High. But instead of debating the pros and cons of having a magnet school, she caricatured the school as bed of “toxic racism” and dismissed the Asian parents who supported an admissions criteria as “a bunch of racists”. https://twitter.com/sfchronicle/status/1316582760954331136?l... Afterwards, people discovered her previous tweets stereotyping Asians and her pattern of abusing her power (https://twitter.com/hknightsf/status/1391039211747172352). When her colleagues selected a different Vice President, she lashed out with a lawsuit calling her opponents racists (https://missionlocal.org/2021/04/alison-collins-strange-and-...)
The other board members haven't done anything offensive but haven't shown any leadership either. They just enabled the radicals. We don't know exactly why SFUSD didn't open the schools this year (negotiations were behind closed doors), but I suspect it has to do with the board members' extreme deference to the teachers' union that endorsed them.
I encourage anyone who is a San Francisco citizen to print out the recall petitions and mail them in https://recallsfschoolboard.org/
See also this explainer The Case for Recalling the School Board https://www.engardio.com/blog/school-board-recall-case
During the pandemic, the Board of Education announced that 44 schools were named after oppressors (many were justified, but the names committee also made numerous errors) and that principals and families needed to come up with new names for their schools over Zoom. Board member Gabriela Lopez defended even the egregious mistakes, demonstrating that she only cares about “uplifting” and “holding” people of color but not facts https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-san-francisco-ren... Unfortunately, Lopez is not up for recall yet, but her enablers are.
Alison Collins led the resolution to remove academic admissions to San Francisco’s magnet high school Lowell High. But instead of debating the pros and cons of having a magnet school, she caricatured the school as bed of “toxic racism” and dismissed the Asian parents who supported an admissions criteria as “a bunch of racists”. https://twitter.com/sfchronicle/status/1316582760954331136?l... Afterwards, people discovered her previous tweets stereotyping Asians and her pattern of abusing her power (https://twitter.com/hknightsf/status/1391039211747172352). When her colleagues selected a different Vice President, she lashed out with a lawsuit calling her opponents racists (https://missionlocal.org/2021/04/alison-collins-strange-and-...)
The other board members haven't done anything offensive but haven't shown any leadership either. They just enabled the radicals. We don't know exactly why SFUSD didn't open the schools this year (negotiations were behind closed doors), but I suspect it has to do with the board members' extreme deference to the teachers' union that endorsed them.
I encourage anyone who is a San Francisco citizen to print out the recall petitions and mail them in https://recallsfschoolboard.org/
See also this explainer The Case for Recalling the School Board https://www.engardio.com/blog/school-board-recall-case
Lopez is up for recall, along with Collins and Moliga.
Thanks for the correction. Please print out and sign the petitions! https://www.recallsfschoolboard.org/
> kids have not gone back to school
> that's not a good enough reason
On the contrary, it's hard to think of more salient reason than that.
> that's not a good enough reason
On the contrary, it's hard to think of more salient reason than that.
There's a viral pandemic?
At the beginning of the pandemic, I wanted my child to go back to school ASAP, but then I reminded by a teacher friend that their health was important, too.
I believe no one should be forced to work if the health conditions are unsafe, why should teachers exempt form this? There are too many examples of teachers who did die from COVID-19.
https://www.whsv.com/2021/02/17/ny-teacher-dies-from-covid-1...
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/politics/nobody-knows-how-...
At the beginning of the pandemic, I wanted my child to go back to school ASAP, but then I reminded by a teacher friend that their health was important, too.
I believe no one should be forced to work if the health conditions are unsafe, why should teachers exempt form this? There are too many examples of teachers who did die from COVID-19.
https://www.whsv.com/2021/02/17/ny-teacher-dies-from-covid-1...
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/politics/nobody-knows-how-...
[deleted]
[deleted]
I don't know anything about this particular Lowell High School, but selective admissions at the high school level achieve excellency by filtering out "bad" students, which are usually students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
If a public school is of very high quality, selecting 10 year olds at random is not much less fair than choosing them based on their grades or extracurricular activities or an essay. Unless we assume that high grades, extracurricular activities or essay tutoring are not correlated with family wealth.
If certain demographics are heavily underrepresented (and I don't know if it's the case here), either we must assume that they are less smart (and so produce less "high school material") or we must acknowledge that there is some form of discrimination. The latter being almost certainly true, lotteries and quotas don't look like the dumbest ideas.
If certain demographics are heavily underrepresented (and I don't know if it's the case here), either we must assume that they are less smart (and so produce less "high school material") or we must acknowledge that there is some form of discrimination. The latter being almost certainly true, lotteries and quotas don't look like the dumbest ideas.
This kind of narrow thinking is what has caused schools in SF to suck for everyone. Because Lowell doesn't exist in a vacuum and the arguments that privileged people have a leg up doesn't really make a difference - it is similar logic to burning libraries because some folks can't read.
So what happens when you dumb down the only decent public high school for students to aim for? The parents have three options: send your kid to school where they learn nothing (maybe get a tutor and self-learn?), send them to a private high school which costs north of $50k/year in SF (some are more like $65k... and that is IF you can get in!), or you move somewhere else. But there has been a country-wide effort to dumb down public schools combined with softer discipline (thanks to lawsuit fears), so you might simply end up at a private school anyway.
Add this together and you can see how pushing equitable results by attacking merit-based options only widens class and economic divides.
So what happens when you dumb down the only decent public high school for students to aim for? The parents have three options: send your kid to school where they learn nothing (maybe get a tutor and self-learn?), send them to a private high school which costs north of $50k/year in SF (some are more like $65k... and that is IF you can get in!), or you move somewhere else. But there has been a country-wide effort to dumb down public schools combined with softer discipline (thanks to lawsuit fears), so you might simply end up at a private school anyway.
Add this together and you can see how pushing equitable results by attacking merit-based options only widens class and economic divides.
As a graduate of the high school in question, I support the idea of selectivity everywhere, not just as a "magnet school" or "honors track".
There is a major downside to selectivity as it's done right now, which is that you end up with a competitive pressure cooker in that program since the student body will mostly consist of kids with highly driven parents who demand top-of-class academic results, every assignment perfect. It makes kids anxious-to-suicidal depending on how much pressure they experience, but it doesn't make them uniformly better at the material; depending on the subject and the student, either they're way ahead or they are really struggling, and if they are already doing some work to think about the material, "study harder, do more homework" doesn't really increase that rate, it just makes them more performative and "grade-grubbing". And this doesn't change when you look at secondary education either; there are many "tough" and "competitive" colleges, but they don't turn out graduates that are of equivalently greater skill.
But that does not mean that dumbing down is a good idea! Selectivity within each school, and making greater use of online learning to offer advanced, fine-grained tracking, gets to the good part of selectivity, which is that learning becomes more focused on individual student needs. "Staying with the class" is in many ways the worst part of school and absolutely shouldn't be the thing to emphasize, whether we're talking about high-flying academics or troubled delinquents and special ed students.
There is a major downside to selectivity as it's done right now, which is that you end up with a competitive pressure cooker in that program since the student body will mostly consist of kids with highly driven parents who demand top-of-class academic results, every assignment perfect. It makes kids anxious-to-suicidal depending on how much pressure they experience, but it doesn't make them uniformly better at the material; depending on the subject and the student, either they're way ahead or they are really struggling, and if they are already doing some work to think about the material, "study harder, do more homework" doesn't really increase that rate, it just makes them more performative and "grade-grubbing". And this doesn't change when you look at secondary education either; there are many "tough" and "competitive" colleges, but they don't turn out graduates that are of equivalently greater skill.
But that does not mean that dumbing down is a good idea! Selectivity within each school, and making greater use of online learning to offer advanced, fine-grained tracking, gets to the good part of selectivity, which is that learning becomes more focused on individual student needs. "Staying with the class" is in many ways the worst part of school and absolutely shouldn't be the thing to emphasize, whether we're talking about high-flying academics or troubled delinquents and special ed students.
>So what happens when you dumb down the only decent public high school for students to aim for?
Vast swaths of the country get by without having any choices in high schools. The idea that need a selection of different schools with different levels of prestige and focuses is such an urban entitlement.
Vast swaths of the country get by without having any choices in high schools. The idea that need a selection of different schools with different levels of prestige and focuses is such an urban entitlement.
Not having better options doesn’t mean they don’t exist. For some parents, their children are their greatest investment, and they won’t accept a lesser educational environment even if superior options aren’t available in some geographies.
If I need heart surgery, I’d rather be in NYC (Mount Sinai specifically) then BFE fly over country, and if I have the means I’m on the next flight. Same with education. Hard to find fault imho with those who want more than the lowest common denominator for their children.
If I need heart surgery, I’d rather be in NYC (Mount Sinai specifically) then BFE fly over country, and if I have the means I’m on the next flight. Same with education. Hard to find fault imho with those who want more than the lowest common denominator for their children.
Good for those parents, but I don't think it's the job of society to optimize for the preferences of a small set of very involved parents. If anything we should optimize against them: bringing the gaps in school choice low enough that most parents won't prefer one over another anyway.
I also think there's a value to be had in having the over-acheivers and under-acheivers together in the same social setting of school, if not in the same classes.
I also think there's a value to be had in having the over-acheivers and under-acheivers together in the same social setting of school, if not in the same classes.
[deleted]
The school still exists, it's just that it's being forced to change how students are selected for entry. The same debate is happening in NYC with Stuyvesant. No one is talking about getting rid of the high-prestige schools. Only who is in them.
> So what happens when you dumb down the only decent public high school for students to aim for?
Changing the admission criteria of a highschool is not akin to burning libraries.
> So what happens when you dumb down the only decent public high school for students to aim for?
Changing the admission criteria of a highschool is not the same as dumbing it down (whatever that is supposed to mean). In Europe children are not required to write essay or complete extracurricular activities to enroll in highschools or middleschools, and they are not generally dumber than the Americans.
> Add this together and you can see how pushing equitable results by attacking merit-based options only widens class and economic divides.
The admission criteria of a highschool do not necessarily reward merit. They are more likely to reward having been tutored on how to write highschool admission essays.
Changing the admission criteria of a highschool is not akin to burning libraries.
> So what happens when you dumb down the only decent public high school for students to aim for?
Changing the admission criteria of a highschool is not the same as dumbing it down (whatever that is supposed to mean). In Europe children are not required to write essay or complete extracurricular activities to enroll in highschools or middleschools, and they are not generally dumber than the Americans.
> Add this together and you can see how pushing equitable results by attacking merit-based options only widens class and economic divides.
The admission criteria of a highschool do not necessarily reward merit. They are more likely to reward having been tutored on how to write highschool admission essays.
Many European countries have public high schools with admission tests that cover math, general knowledge and language. Some are more competitive than others.
In some countries, the differentiation starts even much earlier than that, with 8 year long "gymnasiums".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnasium_(school)
In some countries, the differentiation starts even much earlier than that, with 8 year long "gymnasiums".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnasium_(school)
In Germany, when you finish primary school, your teachers give an advice on which school you can attend: Gymnasium, Realschule or Hamptschule, depending on how good they think you are.
First of all you don’t have to attend the school your teachers advised, you can still attend a Gymnasium if your teachers said you should go to a Hamptschule. So it’s significantly different from the selection criteria of that American high school.
Then this selection process is known to be biased against children of foreigners. Somebody said that without strict competition in high school admissions we wouldn’t have playstations and covid vaccines, so it’s useful to know that the founder and CEO of BioNTech (who is a Turk-German) was advised to go to a Hamptschule by his primary school teachers. So he wouldn’t have been able to attend university.
Said that, having a brother that works as a teacher in a Gymnasium, I insist that these kids are not learning anything esoteric or peculiarly complicated. If the average kid in an upper middle class neighbourhood returns an assignment with less than one typo per row, he would be remembered for years.
First of all you don’t have to attend the school your teachers advised, you can still attend a Gymnasium if your teachers said you should go to a Hamptschule. So it’s significantly different from the selection criteria of that American high school.
Then this selection process is known to be biased against children of foreigners. Somebody said that without strict competition in high school admissions we wouldn’t have playstations and covid vaccines, so it’s useful to know that the founder and CEO of BioNTech (who is a Turk-German) was advised to go to a Hamptschule by his primary school teachers. So he wouldn’t have been able to attend university.
Said that, having a brother that works as a teacher in a Gymnasium, I insist that these kids are not learning anything esoteric or peculiarly complicated. If the average kid in an upper middle class neighbourhood returns an assignment with less than one typo per row, he would be remembered for years.
> In Europe children are not required to write essay or complete extracurricular activities to enroll in highschools or middleschools, and they are not generally dumber than the Americans.
I had to do an admissions test, plus average grade from primary school (50-50 scoring ratio, if I remember correctly).
They score everyone, and put them on a list. The top gets in. The rest, good luck, try somewhere else.
So it's not random.
I had to do an admissions test, plus average grade from primary school (50-50 scoring ratio, if I remember correctly).
They score everyone, and put them on a list. The top gets in. The rest, good luck, try somewhere else.
So it's not random.
[deleted]
Did you read the article? Yes, selective admissions filter out “bad” students including the type of students who don’t care about school who hold back students who do care; the problems of the article are virtually nonexistent at Lowell. I don’t think Lowell was particularly selective (I think something like 50% of applicants get in) and there were plenty of poor students (including myself) who benefited from an academic public school that does have both wealthy and non-wealthy students who care about learning (as opposed to private and suburban schools which definitely do discriminate on the basis of wealth/income).
> either we must assume that they are less smart … or we must acknowledge that there is some form of discrimination
The failure of schooling starts much earlier than the admissions test, and it is wrong to infer from disparities in test results that the test itself is racist (as the ringleaders of the SF Board of Education assumed).
> either we must assume that they are less smart … or we must acknowledge that there is some form of discrimination
The failure of schooling starts much earlier than the admissions test, and it is wrong to infer from disparities in test results that the test itself is racist (as the ringleaders of the SF Board of Education assumed).
> Did you read the article? Yes, selective admissions filter out “bad” students including the type of students who don’t care about school who hold back students who do care
What do we do about these 10 year olds? We assume they are not "high school" material and we put them in the school for dumb kids? Do these 10 year old not care about school because there is something intrinsically wrong about them and so the school system can't do anything about it?
> The failure of schooling starts much earlier than the admissions test, and it is wrong to infer from disparities in test results that the test itself is racist (as the ringleaders of the SF Board of Education assumed).
The admission test is not racist per se, but if it results in, say, blacks not being admitted to an institution, it exist in a framework that materially enables racism. We are talking about a high-school, which enrols 12 year olds to teach them basic trigonometry and some basic notions of history and literature (in the best case scenario) and not about Hydra hiring PhD candidates to build a death ray. When properly motivated, everybody with a 80+ IQ can succeed in high school, one may argue that you could pick them at random.
What do we do about these 10 year olds? We assume they are not "high school" material and we put them in the school for dumb kids? Do these 10 year old not care about school because there is something intrinsically wrong about them and so the school system can't do anything about it?
> The failure of schooling starts much earlier than the admissions test, and it is wrong to infer from disparities in test results that the test itself is racist (as the ringleaders of the SF Board of Education assumed).
The admission test is not racist per se, but if it results in, say, blacks not being admitted to an institution, it exist in a framework that materially enables racism. We are talking about a high-school, which enrols 12 year olds to teach them basic trigonometry and some basic notions of history and literature (in the best case scenario) and not about Hydra hiring PhD candidates to build a death ray. When properly motivated, everybody with a 80+ IQ can succeed in high school, one may argue that you could pick them at random.
> Do these 10 year old not care about school because there is something intrinsically wrong about them
Each child, like each adult, has different motivations in life. Not all children are equally motivated for schoolwork.
> The admission test is not racist per se, but if it results in, say, blacks not being admitted to an institution, it exist in a framework that materially enables racism
No. You need to look at confounding variables, not just race. It could be that a large percentage of black children in this area come from poor families and must therefore work part-time jobs after school instead of studying. That’s just one example of many possibilities. “Correcting” the problem by putting these children into this special school does nothing to change their poverty: they still must work after school and can’t study. And that means they can’t keep up with the other children in this privileged school. Your solution is probably to make the schoolwork easier and force everyone to suffer the same fate. My solution is to give that family money so their high school kid doesn’t have to work to help support his family.
In reality, your solution is the one that gets chosen because of the wokeness movement.
Each child, like each adult, has different motivations in life. Not all children are equally motivated for schoolwork.
> The admission test is not racist per se, but if it results in, say, blacks not being admitted to an institution, it exist in a framework that materially enables racism
No. You need to look at confounding variables, not just race. It could be that a large percentage of black children in this area come from poor families and must therefore work part-time jobs after school instead of studying. That’s just one example of many possibilities. “Correcting” the problem by putting these children into this special school does nothing to change their poverty: they still must work after school and can’t study. And that means they can’t keep up with the other children in this privileged school. Your solution is probably to make the schoolwork easier and force everyone to suffer the same fate. My solution is to give that family money so their high school kid doesn’t have to work to help support his family.
In reality, your solution is the one that gets chosen because of the wokeness movement.
What kind of 10 year old is in high school and works a part time job?
It’s an example for teens, not 10-year olds. If you can’t imagine an age-appropriate example for 10-year olds, allow me to suggest an alcoholic, drug addict, homeless, or abusive parent that gets in the way of a 10 year old studying and getting to school on time.
And you think the solution is to give these families cash?
Seems you are nitpicking for the sake of it…
> Each child, like each adult, has different motivations in life. Not all children are equally motivated for schoolwork.
Ok, but you haven't answered my question
> No. You need to look at confounding variables, not just race. It could be that a large percentage of black children in this area come from poor families and must therefore work part-time jobs after school instead of studying. That’s just one example of many possibilities. “Correcting” the problem by putting these children into this special school does nothing to change their poverty: they still must work after school and can’t study. And that means they can’t keep up with the other children in this privileged school. Your solution is probably to make the schoolwork easier and force everyone to suffer the same fate. My solution is to give that family money so their high school kid doesn’t have to work to help support his family.
Children not being able to write a good essay when they are 10 because they have to work, is quite a degenerate case and I hope it is not the norm for those who are not admitted at this special school. The majority of 10-year-old kids, who aren't employed in violation of child labour laws, are smart enough to attend highschool without the need to make schoolwork easier.
> In reality, your solution is the one that gets chosen because of the wokeness movement.
This wokeness movement is not something I'm familiar with or affiliated to.
Ok, but you haven't answered my question
> No. You need to look at confounding variables, not just race. It could be that a large percentage of black children in this area come from poor families and must therefore work part-time jobs after school instead of studying. That’s just one example of many possibilities. “Correcting” the problem by putting these children into this special school does nothing to change their poverty: they still must work after school and can’t study. And that means they can’t keep up with the other children in this privileged school. Your solution is probably to make the schoolwork easier and force everyone to suffer the same fate. My solution is to give that family money so their high school kid doesn’t have to work to help support his family.
Children not being able to write a good essay when they are 10 because they have to work, is quite a degenerate case and I hope it is not the norm for those who are not admitted at this special school. The majority of 10-year-old kids, who aren't employed in violation of child labour laws, are smart enough to attend highschool without the need to make schoolwork easier.
> In reality, your solution is the one that gets chosen because of the wokeness movement.
This wokeness movement is not something I'm familiar with or affiliated to.
> Ok, but you haven't answered my question
Your question was “Do these 10 year old not care about school because there is something intrinsically wrong about them”.
I did indirectly. To be more explicit, I suspect the common answer is no: They do not care about school because they have other, more pressing needs besides school.
> when they are 10 because they have to work
If you want to focus solely on 10 year olds and not teenagers, and ignore that I wrote working is “just one example of many possibilities” , then you are probably purposely missing my point.
I agree most 10 year olds are not working. Substitute “working” or “poverty” with some other problem at home and you’ll get the same result. Alcoholic parent, drug addicted parent, parent with major mental illness, homeless parent, absent parents, foster home life, etc.
Use your imagination.
Your question was “Do these 10 year old not care about school because there is something intrinsically wrong about them”.
I did indirectly. To be more explicit, I suspect the common answer is no: They do not care about school because they have other, more pressing needs besides school.
> when they are 10 because they have to work
If you want to focus solely on 10 year olds and not teenagers, and ignore that I wrote working is “just one example of many possibilities” , then you are probably purposely missing my point.
I agree most 10 year olds are not working. Substitute “working” or “poverty” with some other problem at home and you’ll get the same result. Alcoholic parent, drug addicted parent, parent with major mental illness, homeless parent, absent parents, foster home life, etc.
Use your imagination.
> Your question was “Do these 10 year old not care about school because there is something intrinsically wrong about them”.
> My indirect answer is not necessarily, although there may be some for whom the answer is yes. I suspect the more common answer is no: They do not care about school because they have other, more pressing needs besides school.
So, the answer is: no, these kids are not broken.
> If you want to focus solely on 10 year olds and not teenagers, and ignore that I wrote working is “just one example of many possibilities” , then you are probably purposely missing my point.
You said kids can't write essay because they have to work. It sounds rather absurd to me.
> I agree most 10 year olds are not working. Substitute “working” or “poverty” with some other problem at home and you’ll get the same result. Alcoholic parent, drug addicted parent, parent with major mental illness, homeless parent, absent parents, foster home life, etc.
Fine, so we are excluding them because they are poor or disadvantaged, which was my initial point. And we are calling it "merit" because we ask them to write an essay.
So, the answer is: no, these kids are not broken.
> If you want to focus solely on 10 year olds and not teenagers, and ignore that I wrote working is “just one example of many possibilities” , then you are probably purposely missing my point.
You said kids can't write essay because they have to work. It sounds rather absurd to me.
> I agree most 10 year olds are not working. Substitute “working” or “poverty” with some other problem at home and you’ll get the same result. Alcoholic parent, drug addicted parent, parent with major mental illness, homeless parent, absent parents, foster home life, etc.
Fine, so we are excluding them because they are poor or disadvantaged, which was my initial point. And we are calling it "merit" because we ask them to write an essay.
> these kids are not broken.
> we are calling it "merit"
It sounds like you’re arguing about who deserves the prestige of going to Lowell rather than who actually benefits and contributes to the experience of attending classes at Lowell, which is the most populous school in San Francisco and has fairly large class sizes and tough grading.
Instead of pretending that all students are equally prepared for class or that every teacher is prepared to serve every kind of student at the same time, reformers should try to figure out exactly what the students such as the ones in the article need for motivation. It doesn’t mean that they lack "merit" or that people who don’t want to go to a competitive college are bad people. It’s ok to acknowledge that different people have different needs.
> we are calling it "merit"
It sounds like you’re arguing about who deserves the prestige of going to Lowell rather than who actually benefits and contributes to the experience of attending classes at Lowell, which is the most populous school in San Francisco and has fairly large class sizes and tough grading.
Instead of pretending that all students are equally prepared for class or that every teacher is prepared to serve every kind of student at the same time, reformers should try to figure out exactly what the students such as the ones in the article need for motivation. It doesn’t mean that they lack "merit" or that people who don’t want to go to a competitive college are bad people. It’s ok to acknowledge that different people have different needs.
[deleted]
> It sounds like you’re arguing about who deserves the prestige of going to Lowell rather than who actually benefits and contributes to the experience of attending classes at Lowell, which is the most populous school in San Francisco and has fairly large class sizes and tough grading.
As we agreed that social economic background is a major predictor of admission, claiming that poor kids can’t benefit nor contribute to the experience of attending this school is a weirdly classist statement. It is also based on the assumption that to be able to read 3 novels in a year and to learn the cosine law, one must be a particularly gifted kid and not just a random 10, 13 or 16 year old.
Highschool prestige is a concept that I understand but I that I don't accept. Like I understand why some primitive tribes practiced human sacrifices, but I wouldn’t let them do such thing near me. So I’m not arguing for that. But if we accept that highschool prestige increases your chances in life, then state schools should distribute this privilege equally.
> Instead of pretending that all students are equally prepared for class or that every teacher is prepared to serve every kind of student at the same time, reformers should try to figure out exactly what the students such as the ones in the article need for motivation. It doesn’t mean that they lack "merit" or that people who don’t want to go to a competitive college are bad people. It’s ok to acknowledge that different people have different needs.
I insist that we should reason on why some minorities are significantly underrepresented. We may conclude that only gifted kids can attend this very important school and that kids from minorities are less likely to be gifted, but I wouldn’t be too sure of either.
If we find out that, say, blacks are significantly underrepresented because they come from disadvantaged backgrounds, then the admission process is at least classist, knowingly or otherwise. We may also argue that it perpetuates class and racial differences. Claiming that these kids have inherently different needs is like saying that my child should become an engineer because I’m well off, so he needs to learn advanced maths and whatever, and these children should serve food and clean toilets because they are poor, and they only need to learn who’s the boss. This is, like it or not, very very classist.
As we agreed that social economic background is a major predictor of admission, claiming that poor kids can’t benefit nor contribute to the experience of attending this school is a weirdly classist statement. It is also based on the assumption that to be able to read 3 novels in a year and to learn the cosine law, one must be a particularly gifted kid and not just a random 10, 13 or 16 year old.
Highschool prestige is a concept that I understand but I that I don't accept. Like I understand why some primitive tribes practiced human sacrifices, but I wouldn’t let them do such thing near me. So I’m not arguing for that. But if we accept that highschool prestige increases your chances in life, then state schools should distribute this privilege equally.
> Instead of pretending that all students are equally prepared for class or that every teacher is prepared to serve every kind of student at the same time, reformers should try to figure out exactly what the students such as the ones in the article need for motivation. It doesn’t mean that they lack "merit" or that people who don’t want to go to a competitive college are bad people. It’s ok to acknowledge that different people have different needs.
I insist that we should reason on why some minorities are significantly underrepresented. We may conclude that only gifted kids can attend this very important school and that kids from minorities are less likely to be gifted, but I wouldn’t be too sure of either.
If we find out that, say, blacks are significantly underrepresented because they come from disadvantaged backgrounds, then the admission process is at least classist, knowingly or otherwise. We may also argue that it perpetuates class and racial differences. Claiming that these kids have inherently different needs is like saying that my child should become an engineer because I’m well off, so he needs to learn advanced maths and whatever, and these children should serve food and clean toilets because they are poor, and they only need to learn who’s the boss. This is, like it or not, very very classist.
> then state schools should distribute this privilege equally.
No.
No.
> If certain demographics are heavily underrepresented (and I don't know if it's the case here), either we must assume that they are less smart (and so produce less "high school material") or we must acknowledge that there is some form of discrimination. The latter being almost certainly true
Is this what the evidence suggests or what you wish to be true?
Is this what the evidence suggests or what you wish to be true?
> Is this what the evidence suggests or what you wish to be true?
Yes, evidence suggests that blacks and Indians and whatnot are not dumber than whites and that foreigners are not dumber than the locals.
Yes, evidence suggests that blacks and Indians and whatnot are not dumber than whites and that foreigners are not dumber than the locals.
I would love to see this evidence if you could link it, particularly regarding people of sub saharan african origin. I've been trying to kick my racism ever since I learnt about the measured IQ (and other intelectual achievement) average differences.
If we do not take advantage of the more capable students because of equity, what will the future be without people who can do the sorts of things that require highly capable individuals?
No iphones, electric cars, or covid vaccines, for example.
Even the communists realized that when you've got smart students, take advantage and educate them as best you can.
The third reich idiotically drove out their best scientists, who wound up enthusiastically working for the Allies developing the technology that defeated the reich.
No iphones, electric cars, or covid vaccines, for example.
Even the communists realized that when you've got smart students, take advantage and educate them as best you can.
The third reich idiotically drove out their best scientists, who wound up enthusiastically working for the Allies developing the technology that defeated the reich.
What's "equity" in this context, btw? Equal outcome?
Is there any evidence at all that AP classes and high GPAs leads to success, when controlling for other variables?
Put some keywords into Google Scholar and you will find heaps of research on this topic. Here’s the first one I found. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/eej.2014.22
> We estimate several models with an extensive list of control variables and high school fixed effects. Results consistently show that high school GPA is a positive and statistically significant predictor of educational attainment and earnings in adulthood. Moreover, the coefficient estimates are large and economically important for each gender.
> We estimate several models with an extensive list of control variables and high school fixed effects. Results consistently show that high school GPA is a positive and statistically significant predictor of educational attainment and earnings in adulthood. Moreover, the coefficient estimates are large and economically important for each gender.
GPA should be a result of mastering the material. Assuming that is roughly the case, if you ever go on to use any of the skills you were supposed to learn in school (math, computing, etc) you are asking if having learned those skills would help you perform those skills?
I doubt there will ever be a way to satisfactorily control for other variables when it comes to these sorts of real-life studies (there is a reason the majority of social science isn't reproducible[1])
[1] https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/21/eabd1705
I doubt there will ever be a way to satisfactorily control for other variables when it comes to these sorts of real-life studies (there is a reason the majority of social science isn't reproducible[1])
[1] https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/21/eabd1705
>GPA should be a result of mastering the material.
I know that personally my grades don't tend to correlate with my actual knowledge at all. I've failed things because I've been bored with them, and I've gotten perfect grades on things I don't understand at all outside the tested material.
I know that personally my grades don't tend to correlate with my actual knowledge at all. I've failed things because I've been bored with them, and I've gotten perfect grades on things I don't understand at all outside the tested material.
Same, I think this is the assumption that doesn't always hold up. However, it often does, and how well it does depends on the teachers and school.
So the answer is no.
I would lean more towards this is one of those truths that can be taken as self-evident. But, at the same time I would be skeptical that any published evidence would account for the infinitude of confounding factors.
My guess is it is similar to IQ results - does a good job weeding out people who know nothing, but does worse differentiating between students who are satisfactory and those who are exceptional
My guess is it is similar to IQ results - does a good job weeding out people who know nothing, but does worse differentiating between students who are satisfactory and those who are exceptional
AFAIK there's more evidence supporting that ~B students are the most successful vs A students.
Who cares? You're dealing with millions of school kids every year, and need aggregatable data to make important policy decisions about how education is done. As long as it correlates well, it's easy to collect, and can be trusted not to be manipulated for bad incentives like this article implies is happening, we use it.
OK, where's the data?
[deleted]
> If we do not take advantage of the more capable students because of equity, what will the future of the country be without people who can do the sorts of things that require highly capable individuals?
> No iphones, electric cars, or covid vaccines, for example.
Do we have any data on the correlation between high-school admission criteria and inventing the Covid vaccine or whatever?
We are not talking about taking advantage of excellence, which starts to become visible after highschool. We are talking about 10-year-olds who go to school to be taught the fundamental theorem of arithmetics.
> Even the communists realized that when you've got smart students, take advantage and educate them as best you can. > The third reich idiotically drove out their best scientists, who wound up working for the Allies developing the technology that defeated the reich.
I don't know what the communists and the nazists have to do with changing the admission criteria of a high school. I suppose it's a way of expressing disagreement in American English?
> No iphones, electric cars, or covid vaccines, for example.
Do we have any data on the correlation between high-school admission criteria and inventing the Covid vaccine or whatever?
We are not talking about taking advantage of excellence, which starts to become visible after highschool. We are talking about 10-year-olds who go to school to be taught the fundamental theorem of arithmetics.
> Even the communists realized that when you've got smart students, take advantage and educate them as best you can. > The third reich idiotically drove out their best scientists, who wound up working for the Allies developing the technology that defeated the reich.
I don't know what the communists and the nazists have to do with changing the admission criteria of a high school. I suppose it's a way of expressing disagreement in American English?
> Do we have any data on the correlation between high-school admission criteria and inventing the Covid vaccine or whatever?
Caltech requires good grades as criteria for admission. Caltech graduates have a disproportionately high percentage of Nobel prizes.
https://www.caltech.edu/about/legacy/awards-and-honors/nobel...
BTW, I think the mRNA vaccine technology is worthy of a Nobel Prize. Don't you?
Caltech requires good grades as criteria for admission. Caltech graduates have a disproportionately high percentage of Nobel prizes.
https://www.caltech.edu/about/legacy/awards-and-honors/nobel...
BTW, I think the mRNA vaccine technology is worthy of a Nobel Prize. Don't you?
Wasn't the most successful mRNA vaccine developed by migrants working in Germany?
The CEO of BioNTech, when he was 10, wasn't considered good enough to attend a Gymnasium.
Coming from a family of turkish Gastarbeiters, I am not surprised. You still have that problem in Germany, and I think it only got worse during the pandemic.
Edit: The Biontech founder comes from a turkish family, I don't. But I see that happening a lot, first during my school days. And now at my children's schools.
Edit: The Biontech founder comes from a turkish family, I don't. But I see that happening a lot, first during my school days. And now at my children's schools.
Maybe it didn’t get worse, but it still demonstrate what’s the result and maybe the objective of these strict selection criteria: that discriminated minorities end up being excluded. Let it be children with foreign origin in Germany (which doesn’t stop after a generation) or whatever minority is being excluded from this very important American school.
And given that people leave high school barely capable of reading newspaper articles (otherwise Breitbart or the Daily Mail would even be a thing), I don’t see what this selection is for.
And given that people leave high school barely capable of reading newspaper articles (otherwise Breitbart or the Daily Mail would even be a thing), I don’t see what this selection is for.
> that discriminated minorities end up being excluded. Let it be children with foreign origin in Germany (which doesn’t stop after a generation)
Except of course for the founders of BoiNTech: Uğur Şahin, and Özlem Türeci.
Included to the point they got German government-funded PhDs and then other native Germans helped co-found their company.
Perhaps you hypothesis needs more data and less feelings?
Except of course for the founders of BoiNTech: Uğur Şahin, and Özlem Türeci.
Included to the point they got German government-funded PhDs and then other native Germans helped co-found their company.
Perhaps you hypothesis needs more data and less feelings?
Well, two people succeeding against all odds hardly qualify as data. Especially when every single PISA study tells you otherwise.
Unless, of course, you buy into all that dishwasher to millionaire you can achieve anything if you want but don't expect a helping hand BS.
Unless, of course, you buy into all that dishwasher to millionaire you can achieve anything if you want but don't expect a helping hand BS.
The CEO of BioNTech was told to attend a lower level school, which wouldn’t have allowed him to go to university. He claims that if it weren’t for a German neighbour he would not have gone to a gymnasium.
This is a form of discrimination.
> Caltech requires good grades as criteria for admission. Caltech graduates have a disproportionately high percentage of Nobel prizes.
Caltech requires 10-year-old kids to write essays?
Again, are we talking about enrolling 10-year-old kids in highschool or are we talking about hiring microbiologists?
Caltech requires 10-year-old kids to write essays?
Again, are we talking about enrolling 10-year-old kids in highschool or are we talking about hiring microbiologists?
First, high school starts with 14 year olds, not 10.
Second, people don't suddenly learn how to write a competent essay at the last minute. Writing a good one is a combination of many skills learned over many years.
BTW, I did not take any college prep courses prior to Caltech, and found myself way behind the other freshman who did. I found out many years later that the admissions committee had taken a chance on me, and they were very nearly wrong. I came that close to flunking out.
If public schools dump their gifted tracks, inequality will only increase as the top schools will wind up drawing only from private schools.
Second, people don't suddenly learn how to write a competent essay at the last minute. Writing a good one is a combination of many skills learned over many years.
BTW, I did not take any college prep courses prior to Caltech, and found myself way behind the other freshman who did. I found out many years later that the admissions committee had taken a chance on me, and they were very nearly wrong. I came that close to flunking out.
If public schools dump their gifted tracks, inequality will only increase as the top schools will wind up drawing only from private schools.
Admission essays are a literary genre of their own, like the weird language used by some state bureaucracies. Knowing how to write these essays is a splinter skill.
Anyway, so you should not have been admitted but you succeeded anyway without being a gifted kid? It seems like you have proved my point.
Anyway, so you should not have been admitted but you succeeded anyway without being a gifted kid? It seems like you have proved my point.
8th graders are typically 12-13 years old, not 10 - 10 year olds are typically in the 6th and 7th grade.
Playing devils advocate for a moment, as grading works right now, a kid can quickly dig themselves into a hole that they have no realistic way to get out of, e.g., by utterly bombing on an exam or missing a few assignments early in the semester. The motivation for that kid to progress any further is zero, yet they are imprisoned in the classroom for the duration of the semester.
This hits very close to home for me, and I've read countless comments on HN from people who are successful in life yet angry and bitter about their K-12 experience.
I don't know the answer to this, but meanwhile, messing with the way school works is not exactly messing with success.
This hits very close to home for me, and I've read countless comments on HN from people who are successful in life yet angry and bitter about their K-12 experience.
I don't know the answer to this, but meanwhile, messing with the way school works is not exactly messing with success.
> a kid can quickly dig themselves into a hole that they have no
> realistic way to get out of, e.g., by utterly bombing on an exam
> or missing a few assignments early in the semester.
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. The authors of _Grading For Equity_ spoke at my school and the reasoning they gave for eliminating 0-grading (i.e., not using 0 as the lowest possible grade) was because it's basically impossible to recover from. Ideally, a student who masters the material by the end of class should get the same grade as one who masters it at the beginning; being fast or slow shouldn't factor into your grade, but with 0-grading, like you say, an early test or assignment can tank your final grade, even if your knowledge eventually catches up to what it should be.
> realistic way to get out of, e.g., by utterly bombing on an exam
> or missing a few assignments early in the semester.
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. The authors of _Grading For Equity_ spoke at my school and the reasoning they gave for eliminating 0-grading (i.e., not using 0 as the lowest possible grade) was because it's basically impossible to recover from. Ideally, a student who masters the material by the end of class should get the same grade as one who masters it at the beginning; being fast or slow shouldn't factor into your grade, but with 0-grading, like you say, an early test or assignment can tank your final grade, even if your knowledge eventually catches up to what it should be.
> . The authors of _Grading For Equity_ spoke at my school and the reasoning they gave for eliminating 0-grading (i.e., not using 0 as the lowest possible grade) was because it's basically impossible to recover from.
It’s easy to recover from if you don’t use a stupid method if aggregation, but that takes actually thinking about what it is you are trying to measure; for instance, if you grade by % in each of several competency areas throughout the year, and have a final grade catehory standards (cumulative, so you get the highest grade where you’ve met all the standards):
D: median of competency area medians meets minimum proficiency standard
C: median score within every competency area meets minimum passing standard
B: median of competency area medians meets high proficiency standard or median in at least one competency area meets excellence standard
A: median of competency area medians exceeds excellence standard
(standards might be something like passing 70%, high proficiency 80%, excellence 90%, but the exact numbers aren’t the point.)
That will give you a measure of overall competence that isn't particularly sensitive to outlier scores on a single assignment, even if the assignment has components across many competency areas.
It’s easy to recover from if you don’t use a stupid method if aggregation, but that takes actually thinking about what it is you are trying to measure; for instance, if you grade by % in each of several competency areas throughout the year, and have a final grade catehory standards (cumulative, so you get the highest grade where you’ve met all the standards):
D: median of competency area medians meets minimum proficiency standard
C: median score within every competency area meets minimum passing standard
B: median of competency area medians meets high proficiency standard or median in at least one competency area meets excellence standard
A: median of competency area medians exceeds excellence standard
(standards might be something like passing 70%, high proficiency 80%, excellence 90%, but the exact numbers aren’t the point.)
That will give you a measure of overall competence that isn't particularly sensitive to outlier scores on a single assignment, even if the assignment has components across many competency areas.
I support this. My kids have had a single zero on occasion for a missed assignment and it demolished their grade. No way to recover. This is not a good measurement of whether you grasp the concepts. It’s a good measurement of whether you made no mistakes in the process.
If 50% is a passing grade, and a student neither mastered the topic at the beginning or the end, they would still pass. A better solution is to weight the assignments and exams at the end much higher, to give a students a chance to prove their knowledge, while still failing those who learned nothing.
You weigh the grading such that you could still pass the course by doing well in the end assessments. Something like hand out 30% of the grade during the course and the rest at the end.
Grades traditionally measure mastery of material on an externally imposed timeline under some amount of externally imposed pressure. I support moving to simply measuring master of material in most cases, but it's important to recognize that you lose some signal from those other areas. In real life, sometimes it's better to maximize for mastery regardless of timeline (within reason) while other times it's better to maximize for the best job you can do within a certain fixed amount of time.
> a student who masters the material by the end of class should get the same grade as one who masters it at the beginning
The same lesson is not being given over and over again.
There are X tests/assignments/projects for X areas covered.
Each is assessed in its turn.
Of course, there is usually some overall assessment on the content as a whole, at the end of a quarter/semester/year. I think that aligns perfectly with your desire.
The same lesson is not being given over and over again.
There are X tests/assignments/projects for X areas covered.
Each is assessed in its turn.
Of course, there is usually some overall assessment on the content as a whole, at the end of a quarter/semester/year. I think that aligns perfectly with your desire.
One of my classes in high school used "competency quizzes":
* Several easy math problems
* Unlimited re-tests
* You had to get 100% to pass
* Several easy math problems
* Unlimited re-tests
* You had to get 100% to pass
Why do we have grades at all? Every year you progress to the next year. At the end of high school everyone takes a SAT test and they go to colleges.
If you school kept telling you you were doing okay when you weren't you will do poorly on the sat test or poorly in your first year and be forced to dropout.
I think these policies push the unpleasantness to the future where it is too late to fix it.
If you school kept telling you you were doing okay when you weren't you will do poorly on the sat test or poorly in your first year and be forced to dropout.
I think these policies push the unpleasantness to the future where it is too late to fix it.
Also in the name of equity the UCs are now ignoring the SAT
You can ban the sat and grades and still measure for academic rigor. For example those who placed in a state math competition are likely to have higher academic abilities. Or those who had an article published in the news…etc.
All this does is make grades no longer a measure used. And allow the wealthy to better position their kids at the detriment of the middle class.
California’s strive to force outcome hurts the middle class the most. I just don’t get it.
All this does is make grades no longer a measure used. And allow the wealthy to better position their kids at the detriment of the middle class.
California’s strive to force outcome hurts the middle class the most. I just don’t get it.
> You can ban the sat and grades and still measure for academic rigor
It's harder to normalize performance across schools without a standardized test.
> those who placed in a state math competition are likely to have higher academic abilities
That sounds like a state-run math SAT that would have the same problems.
> And allow the wealthy to better position their kids at the detriment of the middle class.
The upper middle class is where it's actually interesting. There aren't enough wealthy people for the SAT to be a driver of mass inequality. They're already sending their kids to elite private schools, so as long as the Ivies keep favoring those schools, the status quo remains. The most important thing you can to to prepare for the SAT is do lots of practice tests. Those aren't that expensive. Anyone working class or higher can afford them. SAT classes help somewhat, but less than being somewhat familiar with the test. They're moderately expensive. Tutors are where it's interesting, and that's in upper middle class territory.
It's harder to normalize performance across schools without a standardized test.
> those who placed in a state math competition are likely to have higher academic abilities
That sounds like a state-run math SAT that would have the same problems.
> And allow the wealthy to better position their kids at the detriment of the middle class.
The upper middle class is where it's actually interesting. There aren't enough wealthy people for the SAT to be a driver of mass inequality. They're already sending their kids to elite private schools, so as long as the Ivies keep favoring those schools, the status quo remains. The most important thing you can to to prepare for the SAT is do lots of practice tests. Those aren't that expensive. Anyone working class or higher can afford them. SAT classes help somewhat, but less than being somewhat familiar with the test. They're moderately expensive. Tutors are where it's interesting, and that's in upper middle class territory.
> The most important thing you can to to prepare for the SAT is do lots of practice tests.
Oh phooey. I never prepared for the SATs, and nobody I knew did, either. (Back in the 70s.)
Wanna know how to do well on the SATs? Pay attention in school to readin, ritin, and rithmetic.
As for SAT prep books, I see them all the time in the thrift store for a couple bucks. The notion that only the wealthy have access to them is nonsense.
Oh phooey. I never prepared for the SATs, and nobody I knew did, either. (Back in the 70s.)
Wanna know how to do well on the SATs? Pay attention in school to readin, ritin, and rithmetic.
As for SAT prep books, I see them all the time in the thrift store for a couple bucks. The notion that only the wealthy have access to them is nonsense.
A lot has changed since then, college acceptance rates are plummeting and competition is absolutely cutthroat. I graduated ~10 years ago in an affluent Bay Area neighborhood and basically everyone took at least one SAT class, multiple practice test and many had coaches to help them with the entire admissions process.
Caltech's freshman class size is also about 50% larger than in my day. These days I also hear that people shotgun out applications (much easier to do with a computer rather than a typewriter!) which increases the rejection rate even with the exact same number of students.
I have no idea if the relative quality of today's Caltech freshman body is better or the same as in my day.
I flipped through an SAT vocabulary builder book the other day. I knew nearly all the words in it already. Vocabulary is something that happens organically, by reading a lot and looking into complex things. I suspect that memorizing word lists builds a fake vocabulary. Some people have told me they recognize when someone sprinkles their language with the daily word they memorized. It comes off as pretension, not education.
I suspect that if SAT training involves learning fake knowledge and test taking tricks, anyone who gets into Caltech via that method is going to find they're in the wrong place. Students there like to sit in the halls and talk about ways to build a warp drive. Students who don't belong will be watching the game on TV.
One of my good friends there had an apartment off campus. He'd regularly make his special chicken wings and invite all comers (this was not to be missed). The apartment manager would come, too, and he'd just quietly sit off in a corner by himself, munching on chicken wings.
I asked him once why he was there - he didn't participate, and he was way way older. He replied, "oh, this is incredibly fun. I've never ever heard people talk like this before. I just like to listen."
I have no idea if the relative quality of today's Caltech freshman body is better or the same as in my day.
I flipped through an SAT vocabulary builder book the other day. I knew nearly all the words in it already. Vocabulary is something that happens organically, by reading a lot and looking into complex things. I suspect that memorizing word lists builds a fake vocabulary. Some people have told me they recognize when someone sprinkles their language with the daily word they memorized. It comes off as pretension, not education.
I suspect that if SAT training involves learning fake knowledge and test taking tricks, anyone who gets into Caltech via that method is going to find they're in the wrong place. Students there like to sit in the halls and talk about ways to build a warp drive. Students who don't belong will be watching the game on TV.
One of my good friends there had an apartment off campus. He'd regularly make his special chicken wings and invite all comers (this was not to be missed). The apartment manager would come, too, and he'd just quietly sit off in a corner by himself, munching on chicken wings.
I asked him once why he was there - he didn't participate, and he was way way older. He replied, "oh, this is incredibly fun. I've never ever heard people talk like this before. I just like to listen."
I’m 18 now and took the SAT two years ago - I scored well without the need to practice too much, but official practice is available completely for free on Khan Academy. You really don’t need to pay anything to improve on the SAT these days, and anyone arguing elsewise is misguided as to how the test actually works.
And also - I agree - I never really learned “grammar rules” or the details of writing. I just learned from listening, talking, and reading many many books in elementary and middle school. To prepare for a test by memorizing vocab seems inherently the wrong approach.
And also - I agree - I never really learned “grammar rules” or the details of writing. I just learned from listening, talking, and reading many many books in elementary and middle school. To prepare for a test by memorizing vocab seems inherently the wrong approach.
Yup. I was taught to diagram sentences in school, but it seemed a useless skill, and I no longer recall any of it. I know if a sentence is grammatically correct or not just by reading it. There's no conscious thought process to it at all.
I read a great deal as a kid, too. Mostly scifi :-)
I made the mistake of attempting to learn German by memorizing. But who can remember which nouns go with der, die, or das? Not me. I bet the right way is to simply read the newspaper every day, looking up the words one doesn't know, one by one.
I read a great deal as a kid, too. Mostly scifi :-)
I made the mistake of attempting to learn German by memorizing. But who can remember which nouns go with der, die, or das? Not me. I bet the right way is to simply read the newspaper every day, looking up the words one doesn't know, one by one.
> You really don’t need to pay anything to improve on the SAT these days
I heard something on This American Life, I think, about a "strong student" from a bad high school doing poorly on the SAT. I got the impression she hadn't prepared at all...which seems odd for a strong student when there are free resources.
> memorizing vocab
The College Board got called out for some of this after the "regatta" incident. It turns out rich kids were much more likely to know the term for a boat race. Oops.
I'm really curious to see the outcomes of the no-SAT cohort of college students, once the 2020-2021 year is ignored, data cleaned, etc. Even if GPA was enough in 2020, it seems like it would get harder and harder to compare schools over time without a standardized test.
I heard something on This American Life, I think, about a "strong student" from a bad high school doing poorly on the SAT. I got the impression she hadn't prepared at all...which seems odd for a strong student when there are free resources.
> memorizing vocab
The College Board got called out for some of this after the "regatta" incident. It turns out rich kids were much more likely to know the term for a boat race. Oops.
I'm really curious to see the outcomes of the no-SAT cohort of college students, once the 2020-2021 year is ignored, data cleaned, etc. Even if GPA was enough in 2020, it seems like it would get harder and harder to compare schools over time without a standardized test.
The only question I recall from the SAT was about analogies. It required a knowledge of the contents of various liquor drinks, like a martini.
I was just a kid. I didn't hang out in bars. I had no idea what the contents of a martini were.
I thought it was unfair, and was so annoyed I still recall it :-)
I was just a kid. I didn't hang out in bars. I had no idea what the contents of a martini were.
I thought it was unfair, and was so annoyed I still recall it :-)
> people shotgun out applications
Isn't there a common application, now?
Isn't there a common application, now?
Acceptance rates are meaningless because the denominator means nothing.
College Board worked with Khan Academy to put a free SAT prep course (with practice questions that it uses to figure out what you need to work on) together. Even if you don’t have internet at home, you could definitely get enough prep with an hour at a library or your lunch period a day. I boosted my score 100 points and only did 15-20 hours prior.
I think 15-20 hours of prep is reasonable, especially when it can be over months. I bet it would have taken more like 200 hours for another 100 points (which I why I don't think the test is as easily gamed as test detractors say).
The typical student aspiring to get into an elite college is aiming to get over 750 in reading and math. In my year getting one question wrong on math would reduce your score to 770.
Things are a bit less competitive on the subject tests. A couple questions wrong was still sufficient to get an 800 on Math level II my year.
Things are a bit less competitive on the subject tests. A couple questions wrong was still sufficient to get an 800 on Math level II my year.
In my view, we would do better with our educational resources and reform efforts to completely ignore the elite colleges and let them take care of themselves. I would much rather figure out how to support and strengthen the education system from the bottom up, starting with the community colleges, trade schools, and regional public universities.
Times have changed a lot. Your advice might have applied as late as the mid 1990’s, but not much past the turn of the century.
In hindsight, boomers had a really easy time of it, even some we rightly revere for their contributions. Work hard, or be brilliant, or some combination of the two. That’s not enough today. Ken Thompson told the story somewhere of being literally chased down the east coast after graduation by Bell Labs recruiters. That would never happen now.
In hindsight, boomers had a really easy time of it, even some we rightly revere for their contributions. Work hard, or be brilliant, or some combination of the two. That’s not enough today. Ken Thompson told the story somewhere of being literally chased down the east coast after graduation by Bell Labs recruiters. That would never happen now.
Even if that were true, on the other hand it's never been easier to access information for free, and it's never been easier to do a startup.
> That sounds like a state-run math SAT that would have the same problems.
Math competitions are nothing like the SAT. Not at all. You can grind your way to an 800 on the math SAT with a basic prep and an understanding of tenth-grade math; getting a perfect score on a math competition is something only a handful of people do each year. The hardest questions tend to be of the type "ok I am not even sure how to start this one" rather than "this one has a bunch of arithmetic and I'm not sure I have time to complete it".
Math competitions are nothing like the SAT. Not at all. You can grind your way to an 800 on the math SAT with a basic prep and an understanding of tenth-grade math; getting a perfect score on a math competition is something only a handful of people do each year. The hardest questions tend to be of the type "ok I am not even sure how to start this one" rather than "this one has a bunch of arithmetic and I'm not sure I have time to complete it".
This short story shows where we're headed with things like this: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
Doesn't that mean they fail first year instead?
They’ll ban failing next you watch (they’ve already basically done this with No Child Left Behind).
> They’ll ban failing next you watch (they’ve already basically done this with No Child Left Behind).
NCLB didn't do that, and expired in 2007.
NCLB didn't do that, and expired in 2007.
Are the UCs ignoring the SAT, or making it optional?
Well, now many are looking to ban the SAT as well.
> Every year you progress to the next year.
Is that a SF thing? Because normally that is not true.
> Why do we have grades at all?
Class rankings, scholarships. Even besides that, it lets parents know how well or not their child is learning.
Is that a SF thing? Because normally that is not true.
> Why do we have grades at all?
Class rankings, scholarships. Even besides that, it lets parents know how well or not their child is learning.
Nothing is going to work while everything is paced by year. In 7th grade, in the fall you are taught X, so if you miss it the only solution is to take it next time: next fall with the next year’s 7th graders.
In an ideal infinitely funded world, if you took 20% longer to learn X, you’d just go slower, not be left behind.
In an ideal infinitely funded world, if you took 20% longer to learn X, you’d just go slower, not be left behind.
> In 7th grade, in the fall you are taught X, so if you miss it the only solution is to take it next time
In my experience in elementary school, 3rd grade material is repeated ad nauseum in 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grade. Plenty of time to get it. (Being an Air Force brat, I attended 3 different elementary schools, even one in Germany run by the military. All the same.)
In my experience in elementary school, 3rd grade material is repeated ad nauseum in 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grade. Plenty of time to get it. (Being an Air Force brat, I attended 3 different elementary schools, even one in Germany run by the military. All the same.)
A great deal of research has gone into just this concept, often called "mastery-based learning." Sal Khan is one well-known proponent (look for the requisite TED talk).
You could just study using your textbook and workbook. A lot of material relies on what you previously studied in some way. You should be able to learn the things that you missed with your experience and textbook.
Nowadays you also have the internet that can fill those gaps. If a student wants to learn, then there are many opportunities. But students usually don't want to.
Nowadays you also have the internet that can fill those gaps. If a student wants to learn, then there are many opportunities. But students usually don't want to.
That doesn’t get to the student incentive though. If you feel like you’re already going to fail, you may as well give up until next time. But if you’d progress continually, giving up makes less sense.
How does a teacher instruct a class where every single student is learning something different at a given time, based on their progress up to that point?
I went to a tiny mixed age school and basically each kid worked on workbooks at their own pace.
The older kids helped out the younger ones and the teacher walked around the class and talked to each kid to help them along with thier work if they got stuck.
There wasn’t any lecture style teaching with the teacher explaining concepts to the whole class at once.
We all worked on one subject at a time, but we were all at different points in it.
When my family moved and I left that school I was multiple years ahead of where I was supposed to be in several subjects and normal school was very boring after that.
The older kids helped out the younger ones and the teacher walked around the class and talked to each kid to help them along with thier work if they got stuck.
There wasn’t any lecture style teaching with the teacher explaining concepts to the whole class at once.
We all worked on one subject at a time, but we were all at different points in it.
When my family moved and I left that school I was multiple years ahead of where I was supposed to be in several subjects and normal school was very boring after that.
This is a good point, but it highlights the fact that classroom education is a compromise -- economic and social -- and not a moral standard. Thus I think we should at least be conscious of its limitations, even if we can't immediately do anything about them.
Sorry, I tried to be clear that that scenario is an unrealistic ideal. Ideal in the sense of a spherical frictionless student in a vacuum with infinite funding as well as ideal in the sense of good. In that case one solution would be more teachers than students.
Unless/until we figure out a feasible way to make progress not the same pace for everyone, progress will have to be the same pace for everyone.
Colleges have a decent middle ground where if you fail this quarter, there are decent odds your class will be offered again before next year, especially for the earlier classes that really need stricter sequencing. But that’s only really feasible when you have that many students (not to mention tuition $$$).
Unless/until we figure out a feasible way to make progress not the same pace for everyone, progress will have to be the same pace for everyone.
Colleges have a decent middle ground where if you fail this quarter, there are decent odds your class will be offered again before next year, especially for the earlier classes that really need stricter sequencing. But that’s only really feasible when you have that many students (not to mention tuition $$$).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_education
I guess in Montessori every single student isn't learning something different, but each one is often in a unique state of learning and development. The guide gives lessons in small groups, less than 6. Each kid gets a new lesson every few days and spends the remainder of their time "doing their work" (practicing their lessons and turning the results into the guide, doing small group research projects, etc.). The kid is encouraged to ask others for help understanding the lesson and to mentor others who are working on a lesson the kid knows. Once the guide observes the kid succeeding at the lesson, the kid is invited to the next lesson.
I guess in Montessori every single student isn't learning something different, but each one is often in a unique state of learning and development. The guide gives lessons in small groups, less than 6. Each kid gets a new lesson every few days and spends the remainder of their time "doing their work" (practicing their lessons and turning the results into the guide, doing small group research projects, etc.). The kid is encouraged to ask others for help understanding the lesson and to mentor others who are working on a lesson the kid knows. Once the guide observes the kid succeeding at the lesson, the kid is invited to the next lesson.
It is hard!
But the folks making decisions about education in California (including the authors of the California Math Framework 2021) believe they'll achieve better outcomes that way, than they will by grouping students based on their progress in the subject.
I heard recently from a 6th grade math teacher who has students who are 1, 2, 3 and even 4 grades behind.
Imagine orchestrating a single class in which you're teaching some children about adding single-digit numbers, and others about long division.
But the folks making decisions about education in California (including the authors of the California Math Framework 2021) believe they'll achieve better outcomes that way, than they will by grouping students based on their progress in the subject.
I heard recently from a 6th grade math teacher who has students who are 1, 2, 3 and even 4 grades behind.
Imagine orchestrating a single class in which you're teaching some children about adding single-digit numbers, and others about long division.
If I could have skipped high school, and went straight to a community college, my life might have been different?
I remember learning everything I should have in high school in 1 semester at a CC.
Plus--I found high school painful, and their was so much wasted time.
I was expected to work while going to high school, and remember thinking there's got to be a better way. In school all day felt like baby sitting, rather than learning.
I went to three high schools. Two were public, and one private.
All a bit different. The private one had way too many kids on drugs.
If anyone has a responsible kid who is thinking about dropping out, certain schools allow kids to go to CC early.
I remember learning everything I should have in high school in 1 semester at a CC.
Plus--I found high school painful, and their was so much wasted time.
I was expected to work while going to high school, and remember thinking there's got to be a better way. In school all day felt like baby sitting, rather than learning.
I went to three high schools. Two were public, and one private.
All a bit different. The private one had way too many kids on drugs.
If anyone has a responsible kid who is thinking about dropping out, certain schools allow kids to go to CC early.
High school should completely be optional. Those who want to go will benefit from it and those who don’t won’t be there to simply make trouble.
Move the high school teachers to middle school and elementary for smaller classes.
Move the high school teachers to middle school and elementary for smaller classes.
>I remember learning everything I should have in high school in 1 semester at a CC.
But maybe the reason you could do that is because you had already studied this before. When I look back on school work, they look trivial. Even things that I've forgotten look trivial.
Subjects like mathematics (in high school and earlier) are about experience. Sure, explaining hope to calculate the area of a triangle is very easy, but if your only experience with it is having it explained to you and using it once, then you'll probably forget how to do it or the relation it has to the area of a rectangle. We do the trivial stuff so much in school that you get an instinctual feeling for it. I never felt as comfortable with any of the math I learned in college than I did with earlier topics. I suspect it's because I never got to build up that feel for it.
But maybe the reason you could do that is because you had already studied this before. When I look back on school work, they look trivial. Even things that I've forgotten look trivial.
Subjects like mathematics (in high school and earlier) are about experience. Sure, explaining hope to calculate the area of a triangle is very easy, but if your only experience with it is having it explained to you and using it once, then you'll probably forget how to do it or the relation it has to the area of a rectangle. We do the trivial stuff so much in school that you get an instinctual feeling for it. I never felt as comfortable with any of the math I learned in college than I did with earlier topics. I suspect it's because I never got to build up that feel for it.
> I've read countless comments on HN from people who are successful in life yet angry and bitter about their K-12 experience.
But most of those are angry and bitter because of the social aspects, and because it wasted their time. I don't recall ever reading here that someone was angry and bitter because the grading system burned them.
But most of those are angry and bitter because of the social aspects, and because it wasted their time. I don't recall ever reading here that someone was angry and bitter because the grading system burned them.
It's not unreasonable.
We don't want to fail kids consistently and put these huge marks in their psyche because they were not 'good at some thing'.
HS needs to teach the basics of course, beyond that it should be encouraged and supported.
My personal academic inclination didn't even start turning on seriously until I was very fortunate enough to get into a good Grad School and the fraternal competition sparked something I didn't know existed.
Kicking kids out of school permanently is the best way to make sure they end up on the streets, rugs, crimes gangs etc..
The funny part of 'On-Campus' suspension is that ... 'On-Campus' is the smartest thing in the article. Having to actually show up for school is much worse than not being in school! So that's a better 'punishment'. Maybe they should be required to read a book!
Guys like to focus on projects and applied things, I suggest 1/2 of high school past age 15 should be applied learning, projects. Literally anything that people engage with and learn from. And as a non-athlete, terrible at sports klutz, I would say 'gym class every day' would be ideal as well. 20% 'training' type stuff and the rest just fun sports.
We don't want to fail kids consistently and put these huge marks in their psyche because they were not 'good at some thing'.
HS needs to teach the basics of course, beyond that it should be encouraged and supported.
My personal academic inclination didn't even start turning on seriously until I was very fortunate enough to get into a good Grad School and the fraternal competition sparked something I didn't know existed.
Kicking kids out of school permanently is the best way to make sure they end up on the streets, rugs, crimes gangs etc..
The funny part of 'On-Campus' suspension is that ... 'On-Campus' is the smartest thing in the article. Having to actually show up for school is much worse than not being in school! So that's a better 'punishment'. Maybe they should be required to read a book!
Guys like to focus on projects and applied things, I suggest 1/2 of high school past age 15 should be applied learning, projects. Literally anything that people engage with and learn from. And as a non-athlete, terrible at sports klutz, I would say 'gym class every day' would be ideal as well. 20% 'training' type stuff and the rest just fun sports.
Seems like the simplest solution is to specify that the lowest _n_ assignment or quiz grades will be dropped from the overall grade calculation. I recall taking a few classes in high school and college with such a policy.
> I don't know the answer to this, but meanwhile, messing with the way school works is not exactly messing with success.
Just make the grading period 6 or 9 weeks instead of a "semester".
To be fair, I've never heard of a school that didn't do that. Is this a San Francisco thing?
And, to be 100% fair, if I were teaching this year, I would probably not want to fail anyone, even if I really felt they deserved it.
If you're in my class in person, I can control the environment (mostly). I'll take responsibility if you need to be failed.
However, I wouldn't have taken responsibility for anything this past year given the total chaos and complete lack of support from the school systems.
Just make the grading period 6 or 9 weeks instead of a "semester".
To be fair, I've never heard of a school that didn't do that. Is this a San Francisco thing?
And, to be 100% fair, if I were teaching this year, I would probably not want to fail anyone, even if I really felt they deserved it.
If you're in my class in person, I can control the environment (mostly). I'll take responsibility if you need to be failed.
However, I wouldn't have taken responsibility for anything this past year given the total chaos and complete lack of support from the school systems.
+1 I saw this a lot with friends who were less interested in school and would quickly bail on a class once they missed a test or assignment and I couldn't really blame them.
For me the point of a Math class is to learn and demonstrate you understand certain concepts - it isn't to demonstrate some proxy of 'work ethic' because you sat in a desk somewhere on a regular schedule. So there should always be an avenue left open for for the student to learn and demonstrate the knowledge.
For me the point of a Math class is to learn and demonstrate you understand certain concepts - it isn't to demonstrate some proxy of 'work ethic' because you sat in a desk somewhere on a regular schedule. So there should always be an avenue left open for for the student to learn and demonstrate the knowledge.
Caltech did it right. Professors were not allowed to grade based on attendance. If you could pass the final, you passed the class. If you could pass the final without even taking the class, you would get credit (although very, very few managed that feat!).
I recall one student who flunked thermo. He filed a complaint that the Prof had it in for him, hence the F. The Prof provided evidence that he never did any of the homework, and flunked the midterm and final. Case dismissed. The student dropped out.
I recall one student who flunked thermo. He filed a complaint that the Prof had it in for him, hence the F. The Prof provided evidence that he never did any of the homework, and flunked the midterm and final. Case dismissed. The student dropped out.
Totally. My freshmen year of high school, I was in the gifted math class for Algebra II. I had actually taken Algebra II the year before in middle school but switched districts (ironically to try to have a more rigorous academic environment), using the same text book, and I received over a 100% in the class. In my high school class, homework was like 20% of the grade. Now, I was fourteen and going through a weird phase and sort of like, didn’t want to do my math homework. It was a waste of my time. It was pointless. I already knew the material. I was bored. The teacher knew this. She knew I knew the material and would frequently ask me to tutor other students. But I still had to do my homework, as pointless and devoid of meaning as it was. Because I was obstinate and going through a number of challenges with various medications for my ADHD and anxiety/depression, I pushed back. Because I couldn’t see why it mattered, especially when it was abundantly clear I had already mastered the material (and this was the gifted class — the honors or regular ed class would have had me doing Algebra I, which I took in sixth or seventh grade) and that homework was strictly performative.
So despite getting nearly perfect scores on my tests and quizzes, being recruited for the math team (by this same teacher), and learning Calculus early (by way of a math tutor my mom got me when she was freaked out about my grade — he taught me FORTRAN and Calculus but my Algebra II grade was still subpar), I wound up with an 81% in the class, which at that time, was a C.
This immediately negatively impacted my GPA in a way that not only was difficult to recover from, but also basically soured me on the whole concept of grades and GPAs anyway. This was in an affluent suburban public school setting where everyone is competing against each other for the best test scores/grades to get into the best schools. But despite being an incredibly bright student, that school did everything it could to ruin my motivation. If my GPA was going to always be shitty, what was the point of trying? What was the point of taking the advanced math classes? I might as well just play dumb and coast. I could still use some math in other areas, but why challenge myself?
So I did. I dropped to honors math after freshmen year and ultimately was in a pilot test an online math class which was probably only general ed. I had a high aptitude for math that I utterly ignored/hid for years (in college, this presented a problem b/c I tested too high for the basic math classes and was put into advanced classes after several years of almost zero classroom instruction…this wasn’t great), and although I never would have been a math major, a different approach to grades may at least have prevented me from being utterly turned off by math for such a long time.
In contrast, I was much more successful convincing some of my English teachers to let me escape bullshit busywork/homework. Rather than doing vocabulary assignments, I just told my teacher what each word meant verbally. It saved us both time and he would assign me different types of essays and grade me at a higher level than my peers. Another English teacher was swayed by my argument that a book we were studying in class was trash (it was mandated by the county that she teach it), so she allowed me to write an essay arguing that T.H. White was a misogynist (using secondary sources and other scholarship to bolster my argument) and based her quizzes on the book on the Spark Notes version so I wouldn’t have to spend too much time with the text. Again, I was fifteen and opposed to studying the book on some immature grounds of principle, but those teachers recognized the performative and stupid nature of homework or required reading for what they were and worked with the gifted student rather than against her. In retrospect, it probably isn’t surprising that I spent the first decade of my career as a writer and journalist and only switched to engineering four years ago.
The ultimate kicker was that the following year after the Algebra II disaster, the state changed the grade scale so the grade I received would have been a B. But the old grades were not retroactively recalculated.
There is a good argument to be made that minimum grades are a joke and an affront to teaching, but I would argue that grades in general are bullshit and frequently are not indicative of whether a person has mastered anything. There is a reason many of the best private (not to mention Montessori schools) don’t emphasize grades or tests. Equally, there is a reason that the Montessori and related methods doesn’t scale in the way that US public school systems need to scale.
So despite getting nearly perfect scores on my tests and quizzes, being recruited for the math team (by this same teacher), and learning Calculus early (by way of a math tutor my mom got me when she was freaked out about my grade — he taught me FORTRAN and Calculus but my Algebra II grade was still subpar), I wound up with an 81% in the class, which at that time, was a C.
This immediately negatively impacted my GPA in a way that not only was difficult to recover from, but also basically soured me on the whole concept of grades and GPAs anyway. This was in an affluent suburban public school setting where everyone is competing against each other for the best test scores/grades to get into the best schools. But despite being an incredibly bright student, that school did everything it could to ruin my motivation. If my GPA was going to always be shitty, what was the point of trying? What was the point of taking the advanced math classes? I might as well just play dumb and coast. I could still use some math in other areas, but why challenge myself?
So I did. I dropped to honors math after freshmen year and ultimately was in a pilot test an online math class which was probably only general ed. I had a high aptitude for math that I utterly ignored/hid for years (in college, this presented a problem b/c I tested too high for the basic math classes and was put into advanced classes after several years of almost zero classroom instruction…this wasn’t great), and although I never would have been a math major, a different approach to grades may at least have prevented me from being utterly turned off by math for such a long time.
In contrast, I was much more successful convincing some of my English teachers to let me escape bullshit busywork/homework. Rather than doing vocabulary assignments, I just told my teacher what each word meant verbally. It saved us both time and he would assign me different types of essays and grade me at a higher level than my peers. Another English teacher was swayed by my argument that a book we were studying in class was trash (it was mandated by the county that she teach it), so she allowed me to write an essay arguing that T.H. White was a misogynist (using secondary sources and other scholarship to bolster my argument) and based her quizzes on the book on the Spark Notes version so I wouldn’t have to spend too much time with the text. Again, I was fifteen and opposed to studying the book on some immature grounds of principle, but those teachers recognized the performative and stupid nature of homework or required reading for what they were and worked with the gifted student rather than against her. In retrospect, it probably isn’t surprising that I spent the first decade of my career as a writer and journalist and only switched to engineering four years ago.
The ultimate kicker was that the following year after the Algebra II disaster, the state changed the grade scale so the grade I received would have been a B. But the old grades were not retroactively recalculated.
There is a good argument to be made that minimum grades are a joke and an affront to teaching, but I would argue that grades in general are bullshit and frequently are not indicative of whether a person has mastered anything. There is a reason many of the best private (not to mention Montessori schools) don’t emphasize grades or tests. Equally, there is a reason that the Montessori and related methods doesn’t scale in the way that US public school systems need to scale.
The problem is that parents make a stink when their special little snowflake is given a bad grade, or sent to the principal, or whatever. But parents don't make a stink when their kid doesn't learn, because the teacher is too busy dancing around the kids that s/he can't do anything about because their parents would make a stink.
One disruptive kid can prevent 20 kids from learning. Look, the kid may have reason. His parents abandoned him, he's hungry, whatever. And it's not fair to just drop him because his parents did. But it's also not fair to let him keep everyone else from learning.
One disruptive kid can prevent 20 kids from learning. Look, the kid may have reason. His parents abandoned him, he's hungry, whatever. And it's not fair to just drop him because his parents did. But it's also not fair to let him keep everyone else from learning.
In SF, the parents are absolutely not the cause here. The issue is a top-down mandate from the school board focus on equity to the detriment of all other objectives.
The parents voted in the board, no?
Barely anyone in SF (aka voters) is a parent. SF has the lowest % of households with children in the country.
This looks like a classic "what gets measured gets managed".
If they have objectives like "X% of kids have to graduate", then either you improve the kids' skills, or you lower the requirements for graduation.
For example, in France, the recent governments are extremely happy of the improvement in baccalaureate's success rate (the exam at the end of high-school).
They never talk about the level, but older folks, who sat these exams a few decades ago, always lament that the courses have been dumbed down. Of course the government doesn't agree, but why would it?
If they have objectives like "X% of kids have to graduate", then either you improve the kids' skills, or you lower the requirements for graduation.
For example, in France, the recent governments are extremely happy of the improvement in baccalaureate's success rate (the exam at the end of high-school).
They never talk about the level, but older folks, who sat these exams a few decades ago, always lament that the courses have been dumbed down. Of course the government doesn't agree, but why would it?
For context: "recent governments" == "every government since 1981", iirc.
The point of school is not to produce geniuses, but to take a mass of illiterates and turn them into semi-literate persons, also giving them time to mature as human beings before they are allowed into university or work. If an 18 year old person can read, write, use basic math operations, know a few facts about the country they live in and speak in a way that doesn't require their fellow countrymen to use subtitles, we can call it a success. If they can say what time is it in a foreign language, they will end up in the school hall of fame.
As a plus, school may introduce people to topics that may interest them and then allow them to find their way in life: from playing an instrument, to gymnastics, to computer programming.
Grades are a fixation of the school system and of all those involved, but they don't measure knowledge accurately. Some companies may not hire you if you have low marks or studied in a less than prestigious school/university, but that has not necessarily anything to do with knowledge and is likely to have something to do with class segregation. So there's a point in making them up.
Vandalism being tolerated is instead a very serious issue the school should address.
As a plus, school may introduce people to topics that may interest them and then allow them to find their way in life: from playing an instrument, to gymnastics, to computer programming.
Grades are a fixation of the school system and of all those involved, but they don't measure knowledge accurately. Some companies may not hire you if you have low marks or studied in a less than prestigious school/university, but that has not necessarily anything to do with knowledge and is likely to have something to do with class segregation. So there's a point in making them up.
Vandalism being tolerated is instead a very serious issue the school should address.
> can read, write, use basic math operations, know a few facts about the country they live in and speak in a way that doesn't require his fellow countrymen to use subtitles
This seems achievable by the 8th grade.
This seems achievable by the 8th grade.
It does depend on what we mean by read and write. I don't mean just recognizing letters and being able to reproduce them. An adult should be able to read and understand an article from a decent newspaper (say the Financial Times), and write a 5 line summary. Definitely not all 12 year olds can to do that and, I'd argue, a large fraction of adults can't either.
Most people never retain much of anything past that anyway, in my experience. I’d guesstimate that fewer than 20% of undergraduate school graduates are actually well educated in any meaningful sense of the term.
Yeah, by this metric, school should stop when kids are 12.
It raises the question, what are we getting for our money (in the US)?
> In 2017, the United States spent $14,100 per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student on elementary and secondary education, which was 37 percent higher than the average of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries... https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd
> In 2017, the United States spent $14,100 per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student on elementary and secondary education, which was 37 percent higher than the average of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries... https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd
Part of this is in having schools bearing the brunt of other failures in society or by having schools be the ones trying to solve those issues.
Schools are often the safety net for youths with a wide range of problems. While schools are the catch all for such problems, they're more expensive than fixing other issues like fair wages for the parents of the students (e.g. having hischoolers needing to get a job to support the family rather than study for school).
This high price tag is the result of shifting around other issues to the place where they're inefficiently handled.
---
The flip side of this is the "schools are often funded by property taxes and areas that are able to collect more taxes are able to spend significantly more per student even if it doesn't result in a better outcome." Many of these areas already have good student outcomes and the money is spent on on... whatever.
Palo Alto spends $24.5k/student ( https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?I... ).
Wyoming county schools spends $11.5k ( https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?S... ).
When looking at those, compare the breakdown of revenue sources.
---
So, I'll say "no, we're not - but it's not the fault of the schools."
Schools are often the safety net for youths with a wide range of problems. While schools are the catch all for such problems, they're more expensive than fixing other issues like fair wages for the parents of the students (e.g. having hischoolers needing to get a job to support the family rather than study for school).
This high price tag is the result of shifting around other issues to the place where they're inefficiently handled.
---
The flip side of this is the "schools are often funded by property taxes and areas that are able to collect more taxes are able to spend significantly more per student even if it doesn't result in a better outcome." Many of these areas already have good student outcomes and the money is spent on on... whatever.
Palo Alto spends $24.5k/student ( https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?I... ).
Wyoming county schools spends $11.5k ( https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?S... ).
When looking at those, compare the breakdown of revenue sources.
---
So, I'll say "no, we're not - but it's not the fault of the schools."
It used to.
I guess it depends what you classify as being able to read, write and use basic math operations because in my opinion a large majority of 13 year olds can't do these things well.
Most adults don't seem to be able to do these things well though, so I obviously have a skewed perspective.
Most adults don't seem to be able to do these things well though, so I obviously have a skewed perspective.
> mature as human beings
I really doubt high school helps with this.
I really doubt high school helps with this.
I don't get it either. People have learning and thinking differences, we know that and have known it for years. Accommodating those differences is important. Living out a real-life version of Harrison Bergeron is not the only way to do it.
> Harrison Bergeron
Wow, I had never read that before:
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
This really captures so much of the current thinking around "equity".
Wow, I had never read that before:
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
This really captures so much of the current thinking around "equity".
Written in 1961. And never more applicable than today.
Fortunately, my K-12 education included it as assigned reading :)
Fortunately, my K-12 education included it as assigned reading :)
Yeah but a real life version of Harrison Bergeron may be the cheapest lowest effort easiest to bureaucratize way to do it.
Actually understanding and then adjusting to differences in learning style, cultural background, etc. is really hard work and is really hard to scale. It’s an art form not something that can be mass produced or reduced to a simple set of rules.
Actually understanding and then adjusting to differences in learning style, cultural background, etc. is really hard work and is really hard to scale. It’s an art form not something that can be mass produced or reduced to a simple set of rules.
The problem is that "learning style" is not a thing. There are good students and bad students, and there are students who can understand the material but lack the ability to sit still. So it's not like if you change "teaching styles" you will be able to get the slower student the same information as the faster student. The only way to do that is to do a disservice to the faster student.
What you can do, is create tracks so that everyone is challenged but not put in a hopeless in a situation, and the disruptive students you need to either expel so their parents handle them or put them into some kind of separate environment where they don't prevent others from learning.
That's going to result in large inequalities in outcomes because there are large inequalities in how fast students mature and what their learning capabilities are. Neither of these things -- student intelligence or student maturity -- is something that the teachers can influence.
What you can do, is create tracks so that everyone is challenged but not put in a hopeless in a situation, and the disruptive students you need to either expel so their parents handle them or put them into some kind of separate environment where they don't prevent others from learning.
That's going to result in large inequalities in outcomes because there are large inequalities in how fast students mature and what their learning capabilities are. Neither of these things -- student intelligence or student maturity -- is something that the teachers can influence.
> there are students who can understand the material but lack the ability to sit still
These students would benefit from a different teaching style, no?
These students would benefit from a different teaching style, no?
If you define "teaching style" to mean things like being in the classroom, but that's not the usual definition. The usual definition is explaining things in different ways.
The students around them (who can sit still) would benefit from not being in the same classroom as students who are disruptive, obviously. The disruptive students might benefit from something like shorter classes and time spent outside doing sports or other physical activities that don't require sitting. But let's not pretend that they will learn the same material. They will learn less material, at least until they mature enough so that they have more self-control and are able to sit still, which might not happen before they leave high school, or it may only happen in their senior year, etc. Thus you put them into a different high school entirely or at least a different diploma track.
The students around them (who can sit still) would benefit from not being in the same classroom as students who are disruptive, obviously. The disruptive students might benefit from something like shorter classes and time spent outside doing sports or other physical activities that don't require sitting. But let's not pretend that they will learn the same material. They will learn less material, at least until they mature enough so that they have more self-control and are able to sit still, which might not happen before they leave high school, or it may only happen in their senior year, etc. Thus you put them into a different high school entirely or at least a different diploma track.
> The usual definition is explaining things in different ways.
By that definition, what you say is true, but I haven’t heard anyone keep the definition that narrow for decades.
Other styles for example, can include things like not changing subjects every hour, but rather continuing until the student is ready to change.
By that definition, what you say is true, but I haven’t heard anyone keep the definition that narrow for decades.
Other styles for example, can include things like not changing subjects every hour, but rather continuing until the student is ready to change.
> By that definition, what you say is true, but I haven’t heard anyone keep the definition that narrow for decades.
So the issue is that whenever anyone has come up with intervention based on "teaching styles", it has always failed. That is what I mean by "it's not a thing". Here's the APA, in the article "Belief in Learning Styles Myth May Be Detrimental".
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/05/learning-sty...
But if we extend the notion of learning styles to "some kids lack self-control" or "some kids have trouble keeping attention", then I think that's pretty obvious and is another symptom of some kids go through puberty at different times and to different levels of intensity, some people have different levels of self-control or time preference than others. That's just life. Then, the recommendation that kids who disrupt classrooms should be removed from the same classroom as kids who don't makes a lot of sense. Kids who can't sit still should be removed from the class in which they have to sit still, and maybe they can do some outdoor activity. Kids who struggle with a subject should be removed and put into a class where the subject is taught more slowly, etc. That allows kids to reach their potential rather than teaching just to the lowest common denominator. A world in which institutions are geared towards excellence rewards the society as a whole -- perhaps the student who struggles with math can do well in a vocational program and do really well in life. While allowing the kid who can do math really learn as much as they can, so we can have a society in which you can get your home renovated by a general contractor and you can have world class chip fabs, whereas right now, for both we need to import foreign labor since our domestic schools produce neither good vocational skills nor good math skills.
So the issue is that whenever anyone has come up with intervention based on "teaching styles", it has always failed. That is what I mean by "it's not a thing". Here's the APA, in the article "Belief in Learning Styles Myth May Be Detrimental".
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/05/learning-sty...
But if we extend the notion of learning styles to "some kids lack self-control" or "some kids have trouble keeping attention", then I think that's pretty obvious and is another symptom of some kids go through puberty at different times and to different levels of intensity, some people have different levels of self-control or time preference than others. That's just life. Then, the recommendation that kids who disrupt classrooms should be removed from the same classroom as kids who don't makes a lot of sense. Kids who can't sit still should be removed from the class in which they have to sit still, and maybe they can do some outdoor activity. Kids who struggle with a subject should be removed and put into a class where the subject is taught more slowly, etc. That allows kids to reach their potential rather than teaching just to the lowest common denominator. A world in which institutions are geared towards excellence rewards the society as a whole -- perhaps the student who struggles with math can do well in a vocational program and do really well in life. While allowing the kid who can do math really learn as much as they can, so we can have a society in which you can get your home renovated by a general contractor and you can have world class chip fabs, whereas right now, for both we need to import foreign labor since our domestic schools produce neither good vocational skills nor good math skills.
> But if we extend the notion of learning styles to "some kids lack self-control" or "some kids have trouble keeping attention"
That’s situating the problem in the wrong place. Everyone lacks self control, or has trouble keeping attention depending on the circumstances.
I agree with you that our schools are crap. I also agree that not all kids can be taught everything to the same level.
However that is orthogonal to the notion that kids can be taught to their potential if you allow them to be taught in an appropriate manner.
That ‘teaching styles’ link is accurate, but it deals with a straw man that results from not being willing to question the constraints of school.
That’s situating the problem in the wrong place. Everyone lacks self control, or has trouble keeping attention depending on the circumstances.
I agree with you that our schools are crap. I also agree that not all kids can be taught everything to the same level.
However that is orthogonal to the notion that kids can be taught to their potential if you allow them to be taught in an appropriate manner.
That ‘teaching styles’ link is accurate, but it deals with a straw man that results from not being willing to question the constraints of school.
It's not mandating everyone be equal. It's allocating resources to those that need them most. Which is how I think we all do our jobs. You spend your time on the systems that perform poorly, not the ones that are working fine.
Or do you invest the most resources on the products, customers, and markets giving you the greatest return?
Investing in the most talented can give society outsize returns in terms of innovation, skilled and talented public servants, captivating art, and scientific discoveries.
Investing in the most talented can give society outsize returns in terms of innovation, skilled and talented public servants, captivating art, and scientific discoveries.
Do you have examples?
Even for people who do have this goal ("helping those who need it most") in mind, this reasoning doesn't make any sense.
There's only so much resources you can invest into a single person. Their time is limited, so if their leaning rate is slow, there's really nothing else that can be done beyond some point to speed it up. Forrest Gump will never be Stephen Hawking.
The reality is that this equity movement is motivated specifically by pushing down high-performers. They're removing (or wasting) resources just so that they don't get to the top 10-30%.
There's only so much resources you can invest into a single person. Their time is limited, so if their leaning rate is slow, there's really nothing else that can be done beyond some point to speed it up. Forrest Gump will never be Stephen Hawking.
The reality is that this equity movement is motivated specifically by pushing down high-performers. They're removing (or wasting) resources just so that they don't get to the top 10-30%.
> You spend your time on the systems that perform poorly, not the ones that are working fine.
I beg to differ! If I have two products and one sells 100x more than the other, I don’t spend my time optimizing the unpopular one.
I beg to differ! If I have two products and one sells 100x more than the other, I don’t spend my time optimizing the unpopular one.
Well, people are funding schools through taxes. Then they send their kid to school. Then the school decides their kid is too stupid* to do much, so they get relegated to dumb class and their future career prospects get nullified.
This is how it works in many countries where schools are segregated by learning ability.
I make no judgement on how good or bad it is, but I get why people would be upset by this system.
*or has some mental issues like ADHD or whatever, which a lot of countries do not even recognize as a thing
I make no judgement on how good or bad it is, but I get why people would be upset by this system.
*or has some mental issues like ADHD or whatever, which a lot of countries do not even recognize as a thing
So rather than putting students that learn slowly into classes that move slowly, you keep them in normal classes where they drag along lost behind everyone else, and possibly drag the rest of the class down with them. I don't see how that is better for anyone involved, unless you think the credential is all that matters.
Because in practice concentrating the problem kids into one class tends not to help them. They get warehoused and fall further behind before being dumped onto society at 18.
So instead, let's put them with the high-achievers and force those high-achievers to do the teacher's job of tutoring them at the expense of their own educational opportunity.
I can see why schools likes it. But it's terrible policy and hurts the higher-achieving students, who will be the backbone of our increasingly winner-take-all knowledge- and services-based economy.
I can see why schools likes it. But it's terrible policy and hurts the higher-achieving students, who will be the backbone of our increasingly winner-take-all knowledge- and services-based economy.
That's quite the straw man you've built there.
Nobody is talking about forcing the high achievers to do the teacher's job. The question is how we allocate the fixed amount of educational resources we have. You want us to choose the high achievers so that these early winners can turn that lead into even greater success later. Unstated in your post is what happens to those low achieving students. But it's pretty easy to assume that they're going to be the losers in the winner take all economy.
The other option is to help the low achieving students so that more of them can participate in that winner take all economy. I'm not sure how to argue that this latter option is preferable since it seems so obvious to me that it's the right choice to make.
Nobody is talking about forcing the high achievers to do the teacher's job. The question is how we allocate the fixed amount of educational resources we have. You want us to choose the high achievers so that these early winners can turn that lead into even greater success later. Unstated in your post is what happens to those low achieving students. But it's pretty easy to assume that they're going to be the losers in the winner take all economy.
The other option is to help the low achieving students so that more of them can participate in that winner take all economy. I'm not sure how to argue that this latter option is preferable since it seems so obvious to me that it's the right choice to make.
> The other option is to help the low achieving students so that more of them can participate in that winner take all economy. I'm not sure how to argue that this latter option is preferable since it seems so obvious to me that it's the right choice to make.
That's precisely why low achieving students are separated out. To give them extra help.
High achieving students are easy. Just point them and they go. This is why the second they started standardized testing and separating the students they were able to achieve results with high achievers. But their primary goal with these top-down programs was to actually help the slower students, that were graduating without being literature and whatever. Turns out it's just a really hard problem. It isn't that everyone in education somehow lacks the desire or common sense.
That's precisely why low achieving students are separated out. To give them extra help.
High achieving students are easy. Just point them and they go. This is why the second they started standardized testing and separating the students they were able to achieve results with high achievers. But their primary goal with these top-down programs was to actually help the slower students, that were graduating without being literature and whatever. Turns out it's just a really hard problem. It isn't that everyone in education somehow lacks the desire or common sense.
> That's quite the straw man you've built there.
> Nobody is talking about forcing the high achievers to do the teacher's job.
On the contrary, people can be quite explicit about this.
> Nobody is talking about forcing the high achievers to do the teacher's job.
On the contrary, people can be quite explicit about this.
Indeed, it was only a couple days until an example popped up right here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27586576
> The question is how we allocate the fixed amount of educational resources we have
> The other option is to help the low achieving students so that more of them can participate in that winner take all economy. I'm not sure how to argue that this latter option is preferable since it seems so obvious to me that it's the right choice to make.
Why do you think society is becoming more "winner take all"? Even if there's truth to society trending in that direction, I'm skeptical it can be solved in the education system if the causes don't lie in the education system. It's easy for me to imagine a world where schools eliminate their advanced programs, then the same students go on to become low-wage workers and the same (or fewer) go on to become scientists.
> The other option is to help the low achieving students so that more of them can participate in that winner take all economy. I'm not sure how to argue that this latter option is preferable since it seems so obvious to me that it's the right choice to make.
Why do you think society is becoming more "winner take all"? Even if there's truth to society trending in that direction, I'm skeptical it can be solved in the education system if the causes don't lie in the education system. It's easy for me to imagine a world where schools eliminate their advanced programs, then the same students go on to become low-wage workers and the same (or fewer) go on to become scientists.
No child left behind.
It’s been ruled that it’s better that all students get to 20-80% knowledge then some get 100% and some get 0%.
Which is why many people choose to go to private schools if you want to not be limited by this.
It’s been ruled that it’s better that all students get to 20-80% knowledge then some get 100% and some get 0%.
Which is why many people choose to go to private schools if you want to not be limited by this.
Surely this can be solved by streaming? Here in the UK we had bottom sets for the kids that were struggling, and top sets for kids who excelled. This meant that the learning pace could be tailored for each group.
Still probably didn't stretch the top set kids as much as private schools could, which is why I am in favour of abolishing all private and grammar schools and making the resources available to those schools available to top set comprehensive school kids.
It is wrong that children get educations that don't really make the most of their brains because they have parents that couldn't afford it.
Also, I think the sociological benefits of having pupils from all backgrounds occupying the same space and learning from each other as opposed to being segregated is extremely important.
So many of the rich people in charge of the country have absolutely no understanding of poverty because they have not had the opportunity to grow up around it.
Still probably didn't stretch the top set kids as much as private schools could, which is why I am in favour of abolishing all private and grammar schools and making the resources available to those schools available to top set comprehensive school kids.
It is wrong that children get educations that don't really make the most of their brains because they have parents that couldn't afford it.
Also, I think the sociological benefits of having pupils from all backgrounds occupying the same space and learning from each other as opposed to being segregated is extremely important.
So many of the rich people in charge of the country have absolutely no understanding of poverty because they have not had the opportunity to grow up around it.
I chuckled at "pupils from all backgrounds benefitting from each other". I grew up in a dirt poor family. Some of my classmates in high school were criminal material and many did end up in prison (for murder, not weed) before their 25th birthday. Some classmates were quiet folks with ADHD, some were punctual learners who really valued good marks. All sorts of backgrounds. The only "cross background" learning was bulling lessons that the future criminals were giving to the quiet folks. Teachers were useless and powerless to straighten up the bad apples. Luckily, I correctly guessed what I need to learn on my own to get "segregated away" from that madness, so my college years were decent. My takeaway from that experience was that the cross-background learning happens only when the backgrounds differ only slightly and have something in common.
I grew up poor and have ADHD, so went to state comp. I will say that there were definitely unpleasant sides to it, but I feel like my compadriates and I have a much more rounded and grounded view of society and class than the friends I know that went to private schools. You simply can't expect someone who's never felt poverty, whether it's their own or the people they see day in day out, to be able to be able to truly understand it.
I can see how it would probably be a more difficult experience for introverts.
Funnily enough, I got bullied more by the rich kids - who knew how to push my buttons and wind me up to the point I'd lash out and get in trouble - than the poor ones.
I can see how it would probably be a more difficult experience for introverts.
Funnily enough, I got bullied more by the rich kids - who knew how to push my buttons and wind me up to the point I'd lash out and get in trouble - than the poor ones.
In former times, European countries could do this, because you've had a homogenous pool to sort out by ability.
Attempts to do this in the US produce results that appear racist.
Attempts to do this in the US produce results that appear racist.
It’s almost as if genetic similarity is a predictor of social stability.
Yes, that statement is the one that appears racist, because it is.
Try "it's almost as if being societally excluded for centuries is a predictor of social instability," which is both more accurate and descriptive of the problem we're trying to solve here.
Try "it's almost as if being societally excluded for centuries is a predictor of social instability," which is both more accurate and descriptive of the problem we're trying to solve here.
> and making the resources available to those schools available
How would you do this? It seems like it’s impossible to tax the group of people who would have sent their kids to private school had it been possible.
Equally it seems impossible to force the people who would have chosen teaching careers at private schools to work at comprehensive schools.
That, and the fact that one of the ‘resources’ that private schools have is flexibility to make decisions outside of the comprehensive school system.
How would you do this? It seems like it’s impossible to tax the group of people who would have sent their kids to private school had it been possible.
Equally it seems impossible to force the people who would have chosen teaching careers at private schools to work at comprehensive schools.
That, and the fact that one of the ‘resources’ that private schools have is flexibility to make decisions outside of the comprehensive school system.
> It seems like it’s impossible to tax the group of people who would have sent their kids to private school had it been possible.
Fortunately it is possible to do something very similar, though, which is to tax the group of people who have the level of income that would allow them to send their kids to private school had it been possible.
I suppose you're saying that some people currently are wealthy enough to send their kids to private school, but choose not to (or don't have kids at all). These people wouldn't have a choice about paying the extra taxes that enable these better-funded comprehensive schools. This isn't a new problem, though, as childless people already pay taxes that are spent on existing comprehensive schools.
As for "decisions outside the comprehensive school system", I think that needs to be considered in the context of the government's existing regulation of private schools and the trend of academisation:
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-13274090
Fortunately it is possible to do something very similar, though, which is to tax the group of people who have the level of income that would allow them to send their kids to private school had it been possible.
I suppose you're saying that some people currently are wealthy enough to send their kids to private school, but choose not to (or don't have kids at all). These people wouldn't have a choice about paying the extra taxes that enable these better-funded comprehensive schools. This isn't a new problem, though, as childless people already pay taxes that are spent on existing comprehensive schools.
As for "decisions outside the comprehensive school system", I think that needs to be considered in the context of the government's existing regulation of private schools and the trend of academisation:
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-13274090
> Fortunately it is possible to do something very similar, though, which is to tax the group of people who have the level of income that would allow them to send their kids to private school had it been possible.
Except it isn’t similar.
Saying ‘taxing the rich more and put more money into public schools’ may be a good proposal but it is a completely different proposition from ‘take the resources from private schools and give them to public schools’.
Money is not in fact educational resources.
Except it isn’t similar.
Saying ‘taxing the rich more and put more money into public schools’ may be a good proposal but it is a completely different proposition from ‘take the resources from private schools and give them to public schools’.
Money is not in fact educational resources.
[deleted]
The advantage of a private school is not the extra gym equipment or computer or any other resources, it is the social class that matter. If you don't pay for private school you will pay for location. There is no actual mixing, people just pay more to be around people similar to themselves and the cost of that will manifest in house prices instead of school prices.
I don‘t see the causal relationship between the 100%ers getting 80% and the 0%ers suddenly getting 20%
If you slow down the pace to help the "zero percenters" and only cover 80% of the material in the allotted time, the students who could have handled 100% of the material will be limited to 80%. And that slowdown still won't be enough to help the slowest learners much, so they'll still only learn, say, 20% of the material.
Right. In fact you can find studies to back this up.
In schools with blended ability levels, the worst students do better (pulled up by the higher students), but the best studends do worse.
Good if you are in the bottom, bad ify ou are in the top.
In schools with blended ability levels, the worst students do better (pulled up by the higher students), but the best studends do worse.
Good if you are in the bottom, bad ify ou are in the top.
also spend lots of class time repeating background material students should already know.
> Which is why many people choose to go to private schools if you want to not be limited by this.
Familiar with expensive Private schools Household names send their kids too in CA. It's generally harder to fail a student, sometimes explicitly impossible & against school policy.
Familiar with expensive Private schools Household names send their kids too in CA. It's generally harder to fail a student, sometimes explicitly impossible & against school policy.
I think the 50% rule is okay. I get that it's annoying for the students who tried and got a 55%. But I suspect that the kids who would get score much less than a 50 are probably the least engaged and most disruptive.
If a 50 can keep them statistically in the game, with a chance of turning it around and passing, that might be worth it. It's similar logic to not giving life sentences. People with no hope of a good outcome are harder to deal with. A kid with a 22% average that you have to deal with for 12 more weeks must be a nightmare. They have no incentive to try at all, or to let the class proceed in an orderly wat.
If a 50 can keep them statistically in the game, with a chance of turning it around and passing, that might be worth it. It's similar logic to not giving life sentences. People with no hope of a good outcome are harder to deal with. A kid with a 22% average that you have to deal with for 12 more weeks must be a nightmare. They have no incentive to try at all, or to let the class proceed in an orderly wat.
The 50% rule is just changing the meaning of the numbers, no? 50% is the new 0%.
Though I do agree that we should focus on the chance of turning it around. Students who score poorly early on and then score well later should be extra rewarded, not held down by their past performance.
Though I do agree that we should focus on the chance of turning it around. Students who score poorly early on and then score well later should be extra rewarded, not held down by their past performance.
You’re cheating that kid. They’re going to get pushed into the next grade and fall further behind until they graduate and can’t do basic math.
I don't think theres a school district in the country that will advance a kid with a 50% average to the next grade. Idk if there's some arcane No Child Left Behind provision about kids who have been stuck for 3 years, but in general a 50% is a no go.
And it's not like you can get 50s all year and get a few 80s and average it out. It takes a lot of really sustained effort to come back from that. Most kids won't. But at least it's mathematically possible for more of the year.
And it's not like you can get 50s all year and get a few 80s and average it out. It takes a lot of really sustained effort to come back from that. Most kids won't. But at least it's mathematically possible for more of the year.
> I don't think theres a school district in the country that will advance a kid with a 50% average to the next grade.
You’re half right.
Most school districts won’t let a student with a 50% average pass.
That said, teachers will be pressed to give extra points for participation or extra credit or just to change the scores to get said kid over a passing level. Some teachers will do this unprompted just to make sure they don’t have to see the kid next year.
Not to mention that there will undoubtedly be calls of some sort of discrimination if failing grades are common in any given teacher’s class.
You’re half right.
Most school districts won’t let a student with a 50% average pass.
That said, teachers will be pressed to give extra points for participation or extra credit or just to change the scores to get said kid over a passing level. Some teachers will do this unprompted just to make sure they don’t have to see the kid next year.
Not to mention that there will undoubtedly be calls of some sort of discrimination if failing grades are common in any given teacher’s class.
> I don't think theres a school district in the country that will advance a kid with a 50% average to the next grade.
You’d be wrong to assume that. Here’s a kid that made it to 12th grade having only ever passed 4 classes. 0.13 GPA, and that actually put him in the top 50% of his class. Things are much, much worse than you think.
https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/city-student...
You’d be wrong to assume that. Here’s a kid that made it to 12th grade having only ever passed 4 classes. 0.13 GPA, and that actually put him in the top 50% of his class. Things are much, much worse than you think.
https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/city-student...
So if you’ll just fail the student overall, won’t that hurt them as much as a failing test grade?
If they can’t do the work you need to let them know at some point. Not sure delaying the news is that helpful!!
If they can’t do the work you need to let them know at some point. Not sure delaying the news is that helpful!!
No one thinks it's a good idea for the students. They think it's a good idea for their career.
The system giving these rules is set up so the two are indistinguishable. Some people can't even tell the difference. Others can, but they keep quiet so their career isn't destroyed.
In college a similar phenomenon is grade inflation where professors mark up grades to look like better professors or get better student reviews.
Parents complain when their kid is "left behind" just because they refuse to keep up. Parents don't complain when their kid is bored but gets As because you're still teaching year 1 material.
I've never understood school either. Now that I'm 40 years old, I understand it less. I think there was a generation of adults who were 'in on the rhetoric' at one point. Telling people that these are places of education, instead of a kind of reformation facility, akin to jail.
Oh wow, so that effectively means C's are 50%.
> And my direct supervisor repeatedly demanded that I pace my classes for the benefit of the single student in each section who was struggling the most
All such effort in the name of equity will hurt the kids whose families can't afford proper education. Eventually there will be larger degree of inequity. The best students, namely the future elites, will be okay, as they will find ways to educate themselves one way or another. The worst students, those "single student who struggled most", will be okay too, as they got all the attention they need. It is unfortunately the students in the middle, the backbone of our society, who would get hurt, like the straight-A student reported by NYT who couldn't even pass city college's math placement tests. Or the intern who just got fired because he couldn't even understand that finding the values of two variables needs a system of two independent equations.
All such effort in the name of equity will hurt the kids whose families can't afford proper education. Eventually there will be larger degree of inequity. The best students, namely the future elites, will be okay, as they will find ways to educate themselves one way or another. The worst students, those "single student who struggled most", will be okay too, as they got all the attention they need. It is unfortunately the students in the middle, the backbone of our society, who would get hurt, like the straight-A student reported by NYT who couldn't even pass city college's math placement tests. Or the intern who just got fired because he couldn't even understand that finding the values of two variables needs a system of two independent equations.
>Another thing I’ve discovered is that many students— not just a couple here and there, but several in every class— consistently use umlauts in place of quotation marks and acute accent marks in place of apostrophes.
>I don’t know how this happens— I had to do some poking around on character code tables just to figure out how to replicate the effect.
Look at the Spanish Mexican keyboard layout: http://kbdlayout.info/KBDLA/
It has the umlaut (actually diaeresis in a Spanish context I think) and acute accent mark pretty prominently available.
Look at the Spanish Spain keyboard layout: http://kbdlayout.info/kbdsp
It has them even more prominently available, right on the same key that an English American keyboard would have the single and double quote.
I wonder whether the students' families are from Spain or Mexico, and whether they're using the Spain vs the Mexico keyboard. I wonder how many people from Mexico use the Spain keyboard due to software confusion.
>I don’t know how this happens— I had to do some poking around on character code tables just to figure out how to replicate the effect.
Look at the Spanish Mexican keyboard layout: http://kbdlayout.info/KBDLA/
It has the umlaut (actually diaeresis in a Spanish context I think) and acute accent mark pretty prominently available.
Look at the Spanish Spain keyboard layout: http://kbdlayout.info/kbdsp
It has them even more prominently available, right on the same key that an English American keyboard would have the single and double quote.
I wonder whether the students' families are from Spain or Mexico, and whether they're using the Spain vs the Mexico keyboard. I wonder how many people from Mexico use the Spain keyboard due to software confusion.
In my opinion, those wrong characters are probably coming from some OCR software used on badly scanned books. Those "several students" probably all used the same text database which has this particular issue.
I sometimes see an acute accent used instead of an apostrophe in reddit comments. People aren't scanning old books into reddit comments. It's the keyboard layout.
Also the article author seems to be pretty confident in his ability to detect plagiarized content, and didn't seem to think that stuff was plagiarized.
I personally sometimes type the acute accent instead of an apostrophe. I have the Spain Spanish keyboard installed in Windows in addition to the American English keyboard. I meant to install the Mexican Spanish keyboard but installed the Spain Spanish keyboard by mistake. It was many months until I realized my mistake, and by then I was more used to the Spain Spanish layout than the Mexican Spanish layout, so I kept it. When I'm practicing Spanish I switch to the Spanish keyboard, and often forget about it, so then type an acute accent when I want to type an apostrophe.
Also the article author seems to be pretty confident in his ability to detect plagiarized content, and didn't seem to think that stuff was plagiarized.
I personally sometimes type the acute accent instead of an apostrophe. I have the Spain Spanish keyboard installed in Windows in addition to the American English keyboard. I meant to install the Mexican Spanish keyboard but installed the Spain Spanish keyboard by mistake. It was many months until I realized my mistake, and by then I was more used to the Spain Spanish layout than the Mexican Spanish layout, so I kept it. When I'm practicing Spanish I switch to the Spanish keyboard, and often forget about it, so then type an acute accent when I want to type an apostrophe.
You have just given me flashbacks of using a keyboard in Italy to type in English.
I eventually gave up and just accepted the typos.
I eventually gave up and just accepted the typos.
One of the most radical beliefs I have is we should get rid of private schools, because it lets the people most capable of forcing change to opt out of an increasingly broken system, and so it doesn't get fixed.
Of course I say this as I seriously consider sending my kids to a private school because of articles like this.
Of course I say this as I seriously consider sending my kids to a private school because of articles like this.
You’re describing Finland. They outlawed private school funding for exactly the reason you’re proposing: to get the wealthiest and most engaged parents invested in fixing public schools for all.
It worked. They have one of the best public education systems in the world.
It worked. They have one of the best public education systems in the world.
This is a big oversimplification. There are many differences in education between Finland and the US. Pointing to a single one and declaiming it as the cause is unjustified.
As a counter example, the OECD PISA ranking for education puts Estonia as just barely ahead of Finland[1]. Estonia has public and private schools[2]. So, it is at least possible to have Finland quality schools while maintaining a public and private system.
Another thing to consider would be the population differences. The US has ~65 times more people than Finland. In this larger group of people there will be Finland sized subgroups that outperform and underperform Finland even though the US as a whole underperforms.
Massachusetts, for example, one of two states in the US to perform and report their own PISA numbers, is pretty comparable to Finland in 2015 (1 or 2 points above or below on scores of ~500 for science and reading and 11 points below on math)[3]. I couldn't find the official OECD results for 2018, but I believe Massachusetts is slightly ahead by then.
1 - https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/education/
2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Estonia
3 - https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-2015-United-States-MA.pdf
As a counter example, the OECD PISA ranking for education puts Estonia as just barely ahead of Finland[1]. Estonia has public and private schools[2]. So, it is at least possible to have Finland quality schools while maintaining a public and private system.
Another thing to consider would be the population differences. The US has ~65 times more people than Finland. In this larger group of people there will be Finland sized subgroups that outperform and underperform Finland even though the US as a whole underperforms.
Massachusetts, for example, one of two states in the US to perform and report their own PISA numbers, is pretty comparable to Finland in 2015 (1 or 2 points above or below on scores of ~500 for science and reading and 11 points below on math)[3]. I couldn't find the official OECD results for 2018, but I believe Massachusetts is slightly ahead by then.
1 - https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/education/
2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Estonia
3 - https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-2015-United-States-MA.pdf
It’s a Finland solution to a Finland problem. I don’t intend to suggest it as anything more. Only to show the parent commenter that his/her idea is not so radical; there’s precedent elsewhere in the world.
Any idea what Massachusetts is doing to achieve such results, and could it be replicated in other states?
It's cultural. A school system can only be effective up to a point, but depends mostly on the stock of students/parents involved in the system.
You'll see MA scores among the top states in most forms of human development, so it shouldn't be surprising that the schools reflect that trend. The MA school system is likely not doing anything particularly unique that will be the antidote to failing systems in other states. It's likely the best way to replicate their success in other states lies in policy not directly related to school systems.
You'll see MA scores among the top states in most forms of human development, so it shouldn't be surprising that the schools reflect that trend. The MA school system is likely not doing anything particularly unique that will be the antidote to failing systems in other states. It's likely the best way to replicate their success in other states lies in policy not directly related to school systems.
[deleted]
> get rid of private schools
What does that actually mean? It seems like you’d have to ban homeschooling and severely curtail private tutoring too.
The idea of the state providing basic schooling so that even the poorest people start with at least some intellectual capital and can participate in society seems like and a good one.
The idea of the state limiting what education is available to everyone and making it illegal to try to organize education outside of its direct authority seems maximally dystopian.
What does that actually mean? It seems like you’d have to ban homeschooling and severely curtail private tutoring too.
The idea of the state providing basic schooling so that even the poorest people start with at least some intellectual capital and can participate in society seems like and a good one.
The idea of the state limiting what education is available to everyone and making it illegal to try to organize education outside of its direct authority seems maximally dystopian.
You're tearing down a straw man friend, I didn't say anything about tutoring or homeschooling.
It'd mean the same thing it already means for 90%+ people - compulsory publicly funded education from 5-17 years old.
It'd mean the same thing it already means for 90%+ people - compulsory publicly funded education from 5-17 years old.
Or maybe you don't understand California law. Most homeschooling families stay legal by registering as a private school.
Source: I homeschooled my sons in California for several years and participated on various homeschooling lists at the time.
Source: I homeschooled my sons in California for several years and participated on various homeschooling lists at the time.
This was a loophole discovered by the homeschoolers - the state could ban homeschooling but the bar for registration as a private school was quite low.
My kids are in their thirties, so it's been a while, but my recollection is there were three legal means to homeschool and registering as a private school was one of them. Another was to hire a tutor for three hours a day.
I think the third was probably to go through an umbrella school, which my family did initially.
Homeschooling laws vary by state. Some are more stringent than California and others less.
I think the third was probably to go through an umbrella school, which my family did initially.
Homeschooling laws vary by state. Some are more stringent than California and others less.
> You're tearing down a straw man friend, I didn't say anything about tutoring or homeschooling.
No straw man involved. I don’t think you’ve thought through the implications of ‘getting rid of private school’.
The point is that to ban private schools you’d also have to ban homeschooling.
No straw man involved. I don’t think you’ve thought through the implications of ‘getting rid of private school’.
The point is that to ban private schools you’d also have to ban homeschooling.
I don't see how that follows.
If you're making a slippery slope argument - the answer is that there is a difference between a private school with administration, dedicated real estate and staff teaching 100s of kids, and people keeping their kids home to teach them themselves.
If it's a semantic argument, that homeschooling is a form of non-public and therefore private education, by private schools I specifically mean the large institutions. I doubt homeschooled people would say that they went to private school.
If it's a legal argument - a blanket ban on private schools would have impact on homeschooling in California - that's likely true, but I'm not suggesting how a law would be written, just the result of the law.
If you're making a slippery slope argument - the answer is that there is a difference between a private school with administration, dedicated real estate and staff teaching 100s of kids, and people keeping their kids home to teach them themselves.
If it's a semantic argument, that homeschooling is a form of non-public and therefore private education, by private schools I specifically mean the large institutions. I doubt homeschooled people would say that they went to private school.
If it's a legal argument - a blanket ban on private schools would have impact on homeschooling in California - that's likely true, but I'm not suggesting how a law would be written, just the result of the law.
at best you'd move the threshold to remove yourself from the system a little higher, from those paying top dollar private schools to those who can hire tutors and/or have one of the parents dedicated to tutoring
there's no effective way to ban private tutoring in the sense and effect of this thread that doesn't also involve banning homeschooling
edit: or simply send the kids abroad, the classic rich-person-in-failed-society way
there's no effective way to ban private tutoring in the sense and effect of this thread that doesn't also involve banning homeschooling
edit: or simply send the kids abroad, the classic rich-person-in-failed-society way
I'm not seeing this connection that you and others are making between private schools and tutoring or homeschooling. When I say private schools, I mean it in the sense most people think of private schools: large institutions requiring applications, charging tuition and hiring teachers not related to the students, not "any form of education not provided publicly". I don't think homeschooling fits this definition.
The point is to move the bar for removing yourself higher - systems are complicated, there are no perfect solutions. Of course, people will always find a way - at the very least, they can move to another country. Right now though a significant number of people opt out of the public system and I think that's a huge problem.
The point is to move the bar for removing yourself higher - systems are complicated, there are no perfect solutions. Of course, people will always find a way - at the very least, they can move to another country. Right now though a significant number of people opt out of the public system and I think that's a huge problem.
> The point is to move the bar for removing yourself higher
No, the point was to make the people with the power to do something about it be forced to use public schools.
Just moving the bar a bit higher would have no such effect.
> Right now though a significant number of people opt out of the public system and I think that's a huge problem.
Why? What’s wrong with thinking the public school system is bad (which it obviously is) and doing something better for you child?
No, the point was to make the people with the power to do something about it be forced to use public schools.
Just moving the bar a bit higher would have no such effect.
> Right now though a significant number of people opt out of the public system and I think that's a huge problem.
Why? What’s wrong with thinking the public school system is bad (which it obviously is) and doing something better for you child?
I don't think that bar shift is enough in America - in America, the super-rich control and fund politics, it's not Finland; you're just condemning the kids of the slightly better off to a terrible education and to have it worse than their parents, which is already happening in housing
> The point is that to ban private schools you’d also have to ban homeschooling.
Why?
You can homeschool your children if you want.
They just have to be at state school during state school hours like anyone else. So you'll have to homeschool in your own time, like everything else you have to do in your own time.
(I'm not in favour of banning private schools, but your argument doesn't make sense regardless.)
Why?
You can homeschool your children if you want.
They just have to be at state school during state school hours like anyone else. So you'll have to homeschool in your own time, like everything else you have to do in your own time.
(I'm not in favour of banning private schools, but your argument doesn't make sense regardless.)
Surely you recognize that you're being obtuse with this statement. Otherwise you're suggesting either a zero value for time, or that homeschooling students do their sleeping while at state schools (which is a good recommendation, if you're already stuck attending them.)
> Surely you recognize that you're being obtuse with this statement.
No?
Everyone has to go to school during normal school hours. That's a simple flat rule.
What you do otherwise in your own time to teach about your own values is up to you. That seems completely reasonable, and also practicable for people with particular religious or other social requirements for education, to me.
(If you were in favour of requiring attendance at state education, which I'm not.)
No?
Everyone has to go to school during normal school hours. That's a simple flat rule.
What you do otherwise in your own time to teach about your own values is up to you. That seems completely reasonable, and also practicable for people with particular religious or other social requirements for education, to me.
(If you were in favour of requiring attendance at state education, which I'm not.)
It’s my understanding that private schools play a minor role in other countries. Those same countries also have home schools.
I don’t quite understand how restricting a private school of several hundred students affects a parent teaching their children at home.
Clearly rules could be in place to separate those concerns apart.
I don’t quite understand how restricting a private school of several hundred students affects a parent teaching their children at home.
Clearly rules could be in place to separate those concerns apart.
> It’s my understanding that private schools play a minor role in other countries.
Huh my understanding is the opposite!
Almost everyone in the US seems to go to public school. Nobody seems to talk about where they went to school - they just went to where was by their home. For example this list of privileged people at Beverly Hills High School is extraordinary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Hills_High_School#Nota...
The US public school system seems to be doing extraordinarily well here - in almost every other country these rich people would have been in a private school wouldn't they? The US system seems unusually egalitarian.
Huh my understanding is the opposite!
Almost everyone in the US seems to go to public school. Nobody seems to talk about where they went to school - they just went to where was by their home. For example this list of privileged people at Beverly Hills High School is extraordinary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Hills_High_School#Nota...
The US public school system seems to be doing extraordinarily well here - in almost every other country these rich people would have been in a private school wouldn't they? The US system seems unusually egalitarian.
> I don’t quite understand how restricting a private school of several hundred students affects a parent teaching their children at home.
Most homeschooling parents do a variety of things, including teaching in groups with other homeschoolers, and hiring tutors for specialized subjects etc.
If the goal of the ban on private schools as suggested is to force the rich and powerful to send their children to public schools so that they are incentivized to make them better, then you would need to also ban homeschooling because otherwise those people could still school their children privately in cooperation with other rich and powerful parents via the homeschooling model.
Most homeschooling parents do a variety of things, including teaching in groups with other homeschoolers, and hiring tutors for specialized subjects etc.
If the goal of the ban on private schools as suggested is to force the rich and powerful to send their children to public schools so that they are incentivized to make them better, then you would need to also ban homeschooling because otherwise those people could still school their children privately in cooperation with other rich and powerful parents via the homeschooling model.
Private schools are subsidized by the government. Charter schools receive virtually all of their funding from the government. The state could only fund public schools
people cannot opt out of the DMV and I hear it's still garbage
for some reason, the US never mastered publicly run institutions and they seem to attract the kind of people who run them into the ground
I do agree that the fact that lobbyists and major donors being able to remove themselves from the social consequences of the policies they help implement is a major problem in the American political system; cronyism is out of control and the political funding system is a scandal
for some reason, the US never mastered publicly run institutions and they seem to attract the kind of people who run them into the ground
I do agree that the fact that lobbyists and major donors being able to remove themselves from the social consequences of the policies they help implement is a major problem in the American political system; cronyism is out of control and the political funding system is a scandal
> for some reason, the US never mastered publicly run institutions
This is by design, sadly, because the "wrong people" might benefit from them. But hey we have MLK Day and Juneteenth now so we fixed racism :)))))
This is by design, sadly, because the "wrong people" might benefit from them. But hey we have MLK Day and Juneteenth now so we fixed racism :)))))
Yes, the California DMV is a shit hole because republicans want to keep black people down. Makes total sense.
Wouldn't be the first time: https://www.history.com/news/california-once-tried-to-ban-bl...
I'm not trying to pressure you or anybody else to agree with me, but personally it was really shocking for me when I realized how segregated the Bay Area actually is: http://radicalcartography.net/index.html?bayarea
There's no way I can look at a divide like the one at the Richmond–San Rafael Bridge and not think that ease of access to irl mobility is an issue. Once Upon A Time it was imagined that Phase 2 of BART would run alongside that bridge. There is a bus, but it's not of much use for anybody who needs to work later than 9PM, like many service jobs: https://www.goldengate.org/bus/route-schedule/del-norte-bart...
I'm not trying to pressure you or anybody else to agree with me, but personally it was really shocking for me when I realized how segregated the Bay Area actually is: http://radicalcartography.net/index.html?bayarea
There's no way I can look at a divide like the one at the Richmond–San Rafael Bridge and not think that ease of access to irl mobility is an issue. Once Upon A Time it was imagined that Phase 2 of BART would run alongside that bridge. There is a bus, but it's not of much use for anybody who needs to work later than 9PM, like many service jobs: https://www.goldengate.org/bus/route-schedule/del-norte-bart...
> Wouldn't be the first time: https://www.history.com/news/california-once-tried-to-ban-bl...
150 years ago...
I don't see what the rest of your comment has anything to do with the discussion at hand. DMVs are terrible everywhere. The DMV in a rich zipcode suffers from the same issues as a DMV in a poor zipcode. Both rich and poor have to use the DMV.
The problem is not that racist white people are trying to run the DMV into the ground to keep black people poor. The problem is that many of our government institutions are run like shit. In many cases, fixing these institutions would benefit the wealthy more than the poor. Yet it doesn't happen. Why? Well, like with any other question regarding complex systems, there are different reasons depending on the case. Trying to distill it down to "racism" does not get as any closer to identifying the cause, nor fixing it.
150 years ago...
I don't see what the rest of your comment has anything to do with the discussion at hand. DMVs are terrible everywhere. The DMV in a rich zipcode suffers from the same issues as a DMV in a poor zipcode. Both rich and poor have to use the DMV.
The problem is not that racist white people are trying to run the DMV into the ground to keep black people poor. The problem is that many of our government institutions are run like shit. In many cases, fixing these institutions would benefit the wealthy more than the poor. Yet it doesn't happen. Why? Well, like with any other question regarding complex systems, there are different reasons depending on the case. Trying to distill it down to "racism" does not get as any closer to identifying the cause, nor fixing it.
If only you knew how bad things really are.
"people cannot opt out of the DMV and I hear it's still garbage"
But is it, though? I get the impression these complaints run mostly on inertia. In the last 5 years I've been to DMVs in Missouri, New York, and Rhode Island and I've never waited long (they take appointments now at many branches), the people were friendly, their websites explained exactly what I needed to bring, and so on.
The experience was fine.
And yet I keep hearing about how awful the DMV is. I get it; nobody really wants to be at the DMV, but I didn't walk away from those experiences aghast at the dysfunction.
But is it, though? I get the impression these complaints run mostly on inertia. In the last 5 years I've been to DMVs in Missouri, New York, and Rhode Island and I've never waited long (they take appointments now at many branches), the people were friendly, their websites explained exactly what I needed to bring, and so on.
The experience was fine.
And yet I keep hearing about how awful the DMV is. I get it; nobody really wants to be at the DMV, but I didn't walk away from those experiences aghast at the dysfunction.
I think you are into something indeed.
When rich / powerful people have to send their kids to the same schools, it became important to have the best one.
In France folks send their kids to public school mostly. The best high school in the country are public. And usually it’s a sign of something weird if you do your high school in the private.
All that being said. Money always find a way. Some optional curriculum become the key to get assign to the « right » high school.
like learning Latin, Greek. Or picking less common language, outside of the Spanish/English classics. like Italian or German.
I really hope we move back home before my kids are old enough to go to school.
In France folks send their kids to public school mostly. The best high school in the country are public. And usually it’s a sign of something weird if you do your high school in the private.
All that being said. Money always find a way. Some optional curriculum become the key to get assign to the « right » high school.
like learning Latin, Greek. Or picking less common language, outside of the Spanish/English classics. like Italian or German.
I really hope we move back home before my kids are old enough to go to school.
In France there is a mandatory "map" where you can only send your kids to the nearest public schools.
So you've got "good" ones and "bad" ones depending on the neighborhood. So, yes, the best high schools are public, in areas with high rents and property prices.
Additionally, the best high schools select their students on academics, proof of residence, cover letter, letters from former teachers, etc. [1]
https://lycee-henri4.com/admission-2/
So you've got "good" ones and "bad" ones depending on the neighborhood. So, yes, the best high schools are public, in areas with high rents and property prices.
Additionally, the best high schools select their students on academics, proof of residence, cover letter, letters from former teachers, etc. [1]
https://lycee-henri4.com/admission-2/
Not that simple : back in the days the « carte scolaire » was design to avoid that.
It’s been jerrymandered in the meantime.
But for instance growing up, the big stink was that those poor projects kids we’re in the same middle school that middle class folks. The trick was to pick German to avoid that and be affected to another school.
But for instance growing up, the big stink was that those poor projects kids we’re in the same middle school that middle class folks. The trick was to pick German to avoid that and be affected to another school.
> lets the people most capable of forcing change to opt out of an increasingly broken system, and so it doesn't get fixed.
I don't think voting homeowner retirees sitting on fat Prop 13 tax cuts are going to change their tune because their grandkids can't go to private school.
I don't think voting homeowner retirees sitting on fat Prop 13 tax cuts are going to change their tune because their grandkids can't go to private school.
Majority of education budget goes to paying for pensions of retirees.
There’s no budget shortage. There’s a mis use of funds. If you throw more money into the system we’ll just see even crazier pension packages and administration staff overheads.
There’s no budget shortage. There’s a mis use of funds. If you throw more money into the system we’ll just see even crazier pension packages and administration staff overheads.
I doubt that these problems are from a lack of funding.
From a systems point of view though - why would businesses move to SF if it meant bad schools? The answer right now is because the leadership can opt out and go into the private system, but if that wasn't the case, I think there would be a lot of incentive on the city to fix these problems.
From a systems point of view though - why would businesses move to SF if it meant bad schools? The answer right now is because the leadership can opt out and go into the private system, but if that wasn't the case, I think there would be a lot of incentive on the city to fix these problems.
FYI private schools are not immune to these problems. The administration of some private schools choose to have similar policies (accept late work indefinitely, minimum grade of 50%, etc) at their school.
Of course, but it is very much up to the parents which product they want to buy (another problem of private schools to be sure). There are several that focus on rigorous academics, language immersion and even world travel.
They don't necessarily know what is marketing and what they are buying, and the few truly top schools are selective. Private school teachers are also paid less & have worse benefits. It would be great if the private system had it all figured out but they don't.
The low pay does somewhat select for teachers who want to teach - as those who don’t can get more money elsewhere.
The main advantage private schools have is they an expel problem students and let the public schools try to handle them.
The main advantage private schools have is they an expel problem students and let the public schools try to handle them.
> The low pay does somewhat select for teachers who want to teach - as those who don’t can get more money elsewhere.
It ends up selecting for people who are more transient and have less experience, who haven't gotten the better Public school job yet.
> The main advantage private schools have is they an expel problem students and let the public schools try to handle them.
They theoretically have more control over expulsions, but whether or not they use it really depends on the school.
It ends up selecting for people who are more transient and have less experience, who haven't gotten the better Public school job yet.
> The main advantage private schools have is they an expel problem students and let the public schools try to handle them.
They theoretically have more control over expulsions, but whether or not they use it really depends on the school.
Teacher at an elite SFBay private high school. Can confirm!
Alternatively we should ban public schools and force parents to send them to a private school, which if the money that would otherwise have gone to the public school gets sent along with them isn't very expensive (here in Denmark something like 80-90% of the money follows the student).
Then we would have a direct way for parents to improve the schools their kids attend.
Then we would have a direct way for parents to improve the schools their kids attend.
I think a better solution is funding students instead of systems. Give everyone the ability to opt out of broken systems, force all schools to compete for students.
The more likely result of your "solution" is that everyone simple gets a worse education.
Things are usually not solved by making things worse for everyone.
Instead, the solution, to most problems, is to try to help more people, instead of trying to stop others from being too good at educating their children.
Things are usually not solved by making things worse for everyone.
Instead, the solution, to most problems, is to try to help more people, instead of trying to stop others from being too good at educating their children.
The people most capable of changing schools are the boardmembers and well funded unions. Private schools are simply the best alternative right now.
If you ban private schools, people will “group homeschool”. If you ban homeschooling, parents can pack cigarettes in their kid’s lunch sack until they are sent to continuation school where attendance isn’t required. Then the child is free to attend a “group tutoring academy”.
The solution is to make public education easier to reform by the members of the community.
If you ban private schools, people will “group homeschool”. If you ban homeschooling, parents can pack cigarettes in their kid’s lunch sack until they are sent to continuation school where attendance isn’t required. Then the child is free to attend a “group tutoring academy”.
The solution is to make public education easier to reform by the members of the community.
I don't know where you are in the US, but this won't fix the problem instantly. Even across public schools, there are competitive ones, and there are non-competitive ones. There are high schools where 25% of the class goes to top colleges, and there are high schools where most don't go to college at all. The presence of the 'good' high school drives up property values too.
There are still huge discrepancies across public schools.
There are still huge discrepancies across public schools.
That describes a lot of the US. Rich people are creating their own country with nice schools and neighborhoods while they never have to interact with the country the rest of people are living in. That's why I am against things like congestion based pricing for toll roads or school funding based on property tax. They give rich people the impression that everyhting is wonderful and no change is needed.
And my belief is that we should have educational vouchers that cover the cost of public schools. So parents can choose to send children to public school and apply voucher there, or to spend it as private school. Public schools with low sign-up rate are closed. Trust me, all schools will be reasonably good in the few years.
And where do you send kids after schools are forced to close? Private schools will raise their rates past what vouchers cover, and the poor will be continually left behind while the rich talk about how great choice is.
You can't do that. Even in countries with hardcore marxist regimes, kids of the elite (the "party members") go to special schools.
I tend to agree. Money find a way.
But let’s me add some counter example for the sake of it.
here is public high school, with « famous »teacher and kids clearly coming from the wealthy élites.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyc%C3%A9e_Henri-IV
The trick is that the selection process is so stringent that you basically have to be :
- a genious in getting excellent grade according to the French system or … - have parents that coach you to get in there.
Here is another similar public high school.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyc%C3%A9e_Louis-le-Grand
Again, I mostly agree with you point. But dépending of the country, a private education can be seen of « bad taste »
But let’s me add some counter example for the sake of it.
here is public high school, with « famous »teacher and kids clearly coming from the wealthy élites.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyc%C3%A9e_Henri-IV
The trick is that the selection process is so stringent that you basically have to be :
- a genious in getting excellent grade according to the French system or … - have parents that coach you to get in there.
Here is another similar public high school.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyc%C3%A9e_Louis-le-Grand
Again, I mostly agree with you point. But dépending of the country, a private education can be seen of « bad taste »
Public school is broken and we all know it - in general.
We need competent administrators, more teachers and smaller classes. Parents need more time to teach their children what is not and should not be taught at school.
Kudos to parents who can afford and decide to be more hands on with children’s education. It is heartbreaking when all a child has is public school.
We need competent administrators, more teachers and smaller classes. Parents need more time to teach their children what is not and should not be taught at school.
Kudos to parents who can afford and decide to be more hands on with children’s education. It is heartbreaking when all a child has is public school.
> It is heartbreaking when all a child has is public school.
All I had was public school in a small town and I was a National Merit Scholar. I don’t understand this line of reasoning that you need more teaching from parents or for profit tutoring etc. I got a great education at my public school.
Now are some schools not great? Yes. But a blanket statement that all public schools aren’t enough seems incorrect, in my experience.
All I had was public school in a small town and I was a National Merit Scholar. I don’t understand this line of reasoning that you need more teaching from parents or for profit tutoring etc. I got a great education at my public school.
Now are some schools not great? Yes. But a blanket statement that all public schools aren’t enough seems incorrect, in my experience.
>National Merit Scholar
Given how rare this is, this is much more of a function of IQ than school quality. If you fill a school, regardless of quality, with smart kids, grades, ratings, other other benchmarks of quality will probably all go up.
Given how rare this is, this is much more of a function of IQ than school quality. If you fill a school, regardless of quality, with smart kids, grades, ratings, other other benchmarks of quality will probably all go up.
I went to a school where National Merit Scholars were a dime a dozen: student performance there was almost independent of the teaching that they got.
“In a small town” basically covers it right there.
That's not particularly descriptive, because the high school in my small town of 25,000 was in the middle of the LA metro area. It is most often referred to as a small town by LA locals but it's high school class alone is easily the size of a "small town" in rural areas, where you might need a car just to get to your nearest neighbor.
“ in general.” Implies it’s not a blanket statement for all. Of course there is the exception.
If you have a learning disability and your only choice is public school, your pretty screwed.
"It worked for me, so it must be working for most others."
We should increase teacher pay / benefits to attract better talent.
At the same time, we should decrease how many hours parents have to work each week (40 to 30?) so that they can actually engage with their kids.
At the same time, we should decrease how many hours parents have to work each week (40 to 30?) so that they can actually engage with their kids.
I think you’ll find those parents who don’t don’t have the time to engage with their kids are working far more than 40 hours. The lucky ones are probably working 60-70 for a tech company and making bank, the unlucky ones are working multiple minimum wage jobs to just live with the basics.
Definitely agree with you, going over 30 hrs a week or whatever the new full time definition would be should always cause overtime pay. There are so many loopholes to avoid overtime these days (classify employee as X, etc etc).
"We need more teachers and smaller classes."
That would cost more, and reading the blog makes me want to send less money to the public schools.
That would cost more, and reading the blog makes me want to send less money to the public schools.
Another approach could be:
High school should be completely optional. Those who want to go will benefit from it and those who don’t won’t be there to make trouble.
Move the high school teachers to middle school and elementary for smaller classes.
High school should be completely optional. Those who want to go will benefit from it and those who don’t won’t be there to make trouble.
Move the high school teachers to middle school and elementary for smaller classes.
I'm not an expert on education, or on public policy.
I see people on twitter and reddit bitch about having to learn calculus and never using it.
But you know? I don't remember how to use calculus at this moment either, but I remember concepts of it measuring infinitesimal increments of change, and how derivatives and integrations relate to rates of change.
I don't remember the mechanisms of all my teachings in school, but it made me appreciate bridges, combustion engines, biology and literature.
The honest question is: How do we determine when a child/teenager has no capacity or will to understand the beauty or utility of advanced learning, and what do we do with them?
Especially as automation takes over in the next 30 years and we have millions more out of work because we don't need taxis, truck drivers, farmers, or 60% of food service?
I see people on twitter and reddit bitch about having to learn calculus and never using it.
But you know? I don't remember how to use calculus at this moment either, but I remember concepts of it measuring infinitesimal increments of change, and how derivatives and integrations relate to rates of change.
I don't remember the mechanisms of all my teachings in school, but it made me appreciate bridges, combustion engines, biology and literature.
The honest question is: How do we determine when a child/teenager has no capacity or will to understand the beauty or utility of advanced learning, and what do we do with them?
Especially as automation takes over in the next 30 years and we have millions more out of work because we don't need taxis, truck drivers, farmers, or 60% of food service?
You need some kind of VoTech and continuing Ed for people without degrees and white collar portable skills. Otherwise you get legions of disaffected populist voters when the economic tides shift against the only industry they know how to work in.
I think this is already happening. High school is not helping…
A lack of education is one of the most pressing issues in western democracies. Reducing that doesn't look like a good idea to me.
I agree with you but we need to re-think education. The current education system is not working in general. Class rooms are over crowded and not enough teachers.
A pre-recorded video you can pause and rewind would be more beneficial than being corralled into an overcrowded stale box and expected to learn.
A pre-recorded video you can pause and rewind would be more beneficial than being corralled into an overcrowded stale box and expected to learn.
Looking at the US from central Europe, I see so much weird stuff. Like elected boards of education, at county level, that have actual power. Just why? There is so much broken with the German system (early selection of school types in 4th grade, social unfairness, lack of digitalisation), and still it is giving everyone a rather solid basic education of 9 years, one you can only opt out by leaving Germany.
IMHO, this is a good thing. Same for France, Austria and most other EU countries I know of. Like healthcare, a public system is working in most developed countries. Except the US.
IMHO, this is a good thing. Same for France, Austria and most other EU countries I know of. Like healthcare, a public system is working in most developed countries. Except the US.
For some reason my comment was downvoted. Does the system portrayed sound like one that is using resources efficiently to do important things? In some respects the school may doing harm, teaching students that they can be late and miss assignments without consequences. In the private sector they would be fired.
If you think that giving less money to struggling public services is a way to improve those services, then you are part of the problem. Political opportunists rely on that line of thinking to put public services into a death spiral, and their failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Its probably because obviously not all districts are like this, and its likely that the author's entire school isnt even like this. The blog points out small parts of a single school district in the entire country.
Giving struggling schools less money when they require larger and more diverse funding almost definitely isnt the answer. The average public school teacher still spends a huge amount of money every year to buy stuff for their class to use, and we expect them to continually do that throughout their career.
Giving struggling schools less money when they require larger and more diverse funding almost definitely isnt the answer. The average public school teacher still spends a huge amount of money every year to buy stuff for their class to use, and we expect them to continually do that throughout their career.
Public schools work well throughout the majority of the developed world - the US seems to be a notable exception.
Anand Giridharadas addresses this in his infamous google-talk quite nicely I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM&t=623s (I'm linking this talk on HN way too often, but it just seems perfectly fitting so very often)
Anand Giridharadas addresses this in his infamous google-talk quite nicely I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM&t=623s (I'm linking this talk on HN way too often, but it just seems perfectly fitting so very often)
That depends what you mean by "well".
"critical thinking" is what I think parents should teach to their kids. By that I mean giving cases of deception, gaslighting, etc. and asking the kid to discern the lie and the intent of the lie. I don't think schools teach this skill these days.
They punish this skill. I was literally expelled from my high school during senior year for arguing with a teacher over her misinterpretation of something stated pretty plainly in the textbook. The teacher got furious when I stated confidently that she was wrong, and within about 15 minutes I had been taken to the principal’s office and told to never tell a teacher that they are wrong, to which I said “even if they are wrong?” and she expelled me on the spot. The expulsion was overturned about a week later but it was a terrible week for me and my parents, and I got pretty behind in my schoolwork because of it. And to be clear the problem was that the teacher was saying something different from the textbook, so this was not a subjective matter, or a question of knowledge exactly. If she had just said “ignore the textbook” it would have been fine.
I had something similar happen to me
in retrospect it was a valuable lesson
in retrospect it was a valuable lesson
I think you are working in the right direction, but you have to include lies that are believed by the teller, semi-lies that were honestly conceived but lose their earnestness through determined avoidance of self-questioning, and even honest but harmful mistakes.
No, public school in the United States is broken. They're quite functional in the majority of the OECD.
If you are a parent and are in SF this should be a wake up call. The city is rapidly failing, it's in your best interest to get out now.
If you are a parent and are in SF this should be a wake up call. The city is rapidly failing, it's in your best interest to get out now.
Public schools where I live in Texas are great. Much better than the $33k per year school we had in Silicon Valley. The places were they seem broken are in big city districts where certain political factions, specifically teacher unions, get outsized influence on policy. I saw this up close when I lived in Jersey City and was considering a run for school board on Mayor Fulup’s slate of candidates. After being warned about “crossing the unions” and getting into tiffs with the NAACP representative, I discovered that many of these groups don’t care a lick about education, only money and power. And it isn’t about funding: look at the per pupil expenditures in DC or New York, and compare them to Austin suburbs like Leander, or Houston suburbs like the Woodlands. Those suburban districts spend less than the districts that perpetually fail. There are policy problems, not financial ones.
>And it isn’t about funding: look at the per pupil expenditures in DC or New York, and compare them to Austin suburbs like Leander, or Houston suburbs like the Woodlands
Spending per pupil can be a deceiving statistic due to the vastly different needs between poor/middle-class/wealthy students
Spending per pupil can be a deceiving statistic due to the vastly different needs between poor/middle-class/wealthy students
For people not aware of the geography referenced here: Leander and The Woodlands are both affluent areas outside of the major cities referenced.
I would suggest that the students here are doing well due to a combo of the following factors:
Smart parents live here, and they have smart kids
Rich parents spend less time fretting about paying bills and more time helping kids with homework
One (rich) parent works, one stay-at-home parent takes care of the home -> more time with the kids
One parent is involved with the PTA, which correlates well with student success
And to he clear, I'm not casting judgment. I live in Frisco, Tx. We are enjoying ALL of the above benefits
I would suggest that the students here are doing well due to a combo of the following factors:
Smart parents live here, and they have smart kids
Rich parents spend less time fretting about paying bills and more time helping kids with homework
One (rich) parent works, one stay-at-home parent takes care of the home -> more time with the kids
One parent is involved with the PTA, which correlates well with student success
And to he clear, I'm not casting judgment. I live in Frisco, Tx. We are enjoying ALL of the above benefits
As someone who lives in Leander, I would say Westlake is the affluent area of Austin and Leander is the up and coming suburban middle to upper middle class area. Leander ISD has some great schools and some bad schools and historically wasn't great.
Adding on:
Well educated parents are more likely to have the skills themselves to help with homework and are more likely to put more emphasis on academic performance.
Well educated parents are more likely to have the skills themselves to help with homework and are more likely to put more emphasis on academic performance.
> They're quite functional in the majority of the OECD.
Functional isn't what should be aimed for: excellent should be the mark. Right now, the majority still forces their students into thought boxes (e.g if you fail maths at school, you're supposedly balls at engineering for the rest of your life), pretends that spending 12 years memorizing facts is the pinnacle of education, employs unmotivated teachers with below-average salaries, and teaches topics from the last century.
My university experience was simply a continuation of highschool and being treated like a child. Exams we still about memorizing with no focus on understanding, attendance was obligatory, tech was sometimes >20 years old, and so on and so forth.
Even the systems and curriculums within states (!= country) can vary pretty heavily. The bologna reform supposedly made comparing degrees between countries better, but a bachelor in mechanical engineering may mean something entirely different in Poland and Spain.
Better doesn't automatically mean good.
Functional isn't what should be aimed for: excellent should be the mark. Right now, the majority still forces their students into thought boxes (e.g if you fail maths at school, you're supposedly balls at engineering for the rest of your life), pretends that spending 12 years memorizing facts is the pinnacle of education, employs unmotivated teachers with below-average salaries, and teaches topics from the last century.
My university experience was simply a continuation of highschool and being treated like a child. Exams we still about memorizing with no focus on understanding, attendance was obligatory, tech was sometimes >20 years old, and so on and so forth.
Even the systems and curriculums within states (!= country) can vary pretty heavily. The bologna reform supposedly made comparing degrees between countries better, but a bachelor in mechanical engineering may mean something entirely different in Poland and Spain.
Better doesn't automatically mean good.
Wow I studied in France and live in Hong Kong. What you describe is so very close to HK where I have a daughter to raise.
In France, school is relaxed. It's more about making you an aware citizen than a calculator. The parents always feel the schools are mediocre because they fail all sort of international grading competitions.
Universities are inexistant on the Shanghai Index. You go to class if you want, exams can be compensated by good personal projects (I hated theorical geometry but loved OpenGL so much, that I passed the 3D geometry class with a 10% mark at the exam and a 95% mark at the OpenGL 3D engine semester project that implemented the concept I could not find pleasure in memorizing formally).
Now I have a choice to put my kid in the HK/Chinese system, the French system or the UK/American one, and ... frankly Im so shocked by the lack of focus on kind citizenship, political duty, critical thinking and no alternative to the ever-parent-scaring french "school is not to give you a job, but to give you knowledge" that I still put her in the French system which I used to think was shit.
But well it's not public and some of the things you said on public school apply to France too (unmotivated teachers, often manipulated by unions to think they're so underpaid they have no choice but to interrupt and sacrifice their kids education to fight for their stolen basic rights)
In France, school is relaxed. It's more about making you an aware citizen than a calculator. The parents always feel the schools are mediocre because they fail all sort of international grading competitions.
Universities are inexistant on the Shanghai Index. You go to class if you want, exams can be compensated by good personal projects (I hated theorical geometry but loved OpenGL so much, that I passed the 3D geometry class with a 10% mark at the exam and a 95% mark at the OpenGL 3D engine semester project that implemented the concept I could not find pleasure in memorizing formally).
Now I have a choice to put my kid in the HK/Chinese system, the French system or the UK/American one, and ... frankly Im so shocked by the lack of focus on kind citizenship, political duty, critical thinking and no alternative to the ever-parent-scaring french "school is not to give you a job, but to give you knowledge" that I still put her in the French system which I used to think was shit.
But well it's not public and some of the things you said on public school apply to France too (unmotivated teachers, often manipulated by unions to think they're so underpaid they have no choice but to interrupt and sacrifice their kids education to fight for their stolen basic rights)
> Exams we still about memorizing with no focus on understanding
This was the biggest part that got me. I thought university was a place to actually learn things.
It turned out that it's a place for you to rote learn all the required material without any understanding. I saw it firsthand with my friends, who only knew how to follow the steps they'd been taught to solve problems.
This was the biggest part that got me. I thought university was a place to actually learn things.
It turned out that it's a place for you to rote learn all the required material without any understanding. I saw it firsthand with my friends, who only knew how to follow the steps they'd been taught to solve problems.
"Excellent" is a relative term. The average school is going to be average by definition. If you focus on excellence, you are focusing on the best-performing schools and ignoring the rest. If you are interested in the quality of the education the majority of kids are receiving, you should pay more attention to the average unexceptional schools, where most kids meet the expectations but do not excel in anything. If the expectations are too low, there is probably something wrong with the administration or the level of funding, or with the status of teaching as a profession.
Are you aware that most of the San Francisco Bay Area is not actually in the city of San Francisco?
The fundamental problem is that formal schooling is basically a waste of time for a reasonable fraction of the population.
Do you need any more than basic literacy and numeracy to be a retail worker, cook, laborer, driver?
These students would be much better off learning a hands-on trade, or in the workforce.
The school leaving and employment age should be moved to 14. Expulsions should also be properly enforced, including for non-White children.
Do you need any more than basic literacy and numeracy to be a retail worker, cook, laborer, driver?
These students would be much better off learning a hands-on trade, or in the workforce.
The school leaving and employment age should be moved to 14. Expulsions should also be properly enforced, including for non-White children.
This is kind of the approach that Switzerland is taking (disclaimer; I'm Swiss), although I would not formulate it as drastically. It depends a bit on the region but school is required until 14-ish, after that there's a split for "gymnasium", which is continued full-time-school, around 20% of the students do this (again, varies by region). The remaining 80% start an "apprenticeship", where they work 40-60% on a job, and spend the rest of the time in school (where there's about a 50-50 split between general education and job-specific education). Whenever someone doing an apprenticeship figures out that he wants to go back towards higher education, there are plenty of routes to do so.
In my opinion it works quite nicely. The 80-20-split for gymnasium (which requires an entry-exam, but again, region-dependant) ensures a certain level for students in gymnasium, and the "job schools" for the apprenticeships allow for job-specific education. All in all, I consider it a pretty decent system.
In my opinion it works quite nicely. The 80-20-split for gymnasium (which requires an entry-exam, but again, region-dependant) ensures a certain level for students in gymnasium, and the "job schools" for the apprenticeships allow for job-specific education. All in all, I consider it a pretty decent system.
The USA is actively ending those programs because all of the people in the 'gymnasiums' are Jewish/White/Asian, and this is seen as politically/socially unacceptable.
What’s the cut-off though? Kindergarten is clearly too little and 12th grade Calculus is used by so few.
Furthermore, there are intangible social outcomes of having kids in school for 12-13 years that can’t simply be ignored.
Furthermore, there are intangible social outcomes of having kids in school for 12-13 years that can’t simply be ignored.
> We need competent administrators, more teachers and smaller classes.
NAEP scores have been more or less flat among 17 year olds since 1970. During that period inflation adjusted spending per pupil almost tripled.
https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa746.pdf
> The 0.075 figure reported here suggests that there is essentially no link between state education spending (which has exploded) and the performance of students at the end of high school (which has generally stagnated or declined).
NAEP scores have been more or less flat among 17 year olds since 1970. During that period inflation adjusted spending per pupil almost tripled.
https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa746.pdf
> The 0.075 figure reported here suggests that there is essentially no link between state education spending (which has exploded) and the performance of students at the end of high school (which has generally stagnated or declined).
> Colleagues from programs where these moves happened earlier have pointed out what the results have been: kids wind up with stellar grade point averages and glowing recommendations, get into top colleges, and… drop out after about three weeks, saying that they feel like they’re years behind everyone else and don’t know what’s going on, because they are and they don’t.
There must a good way to describe this "school to life in debt" pipeline. Doing everything to get young people to go to college where they'll have to get a loan which the state will gladly guarantee, the college will take the money and debt collectors will be happy to setup decades long plans to get some interest back.
There must a good way to describe this "school to life in debt" pipeline. Doing everything to get young people to go to college where they'll have to get a loan which the state will gladly guarantee, the college will take the money and debt collectors will be happy to setup decades long plans to get some interest back.
Usurious student debt should be mandated at 0% interest and only paid back via a percentage of income. And such this would require it be issued by the state (as no company would want to) and you could tune it so that it would have to be paid back in 15 years (say) or be forgiven - and so offering it to people likely to end up in middling income jobs wouldn’t be worth while.
And make it so that if it doesn’t get paid back the college is the one out the money, too. And suddenly the problem solves itself quite quickly.
And make it so that if it doesn’t get paid back the college is the one out the money, too. And suddenly the problem solves itself quite quickly.
the more you extend debt financing for a given thing the more expensive something gets... mortgages or student debt. debt is where new money comes from in our financial system...
now the second part of your proposal, would be interesting. but in practice if you combine both parts probably they would extremely aggressively filter students
now the second part of your proposal, would be interesting. but in practice if you combine both parts probably they would extremely aggressively filter students
During high school we had had an exchange program with a German college track high school. My family hosted a student for a month and then they hosted me in Germany. I was shocked at the difference in expectations and quality of education compared to an average American high school. I really wish we offered something equivalent of their combination Vocational Tech/High school with industry partnership as a viable career path compared to the 4 year high school only option I had.
This is sad. It reads more as though teachers and school employees are doing whatever they can to keep/justify their jobs, but not to improve learning. It is almost as if a teachers first job is self-preservation. If students can’t pass the test, then the test must be made easier, that way more students can pass and the teacher doesn’t look bad.
I would say most teachers pass students so hell doesn't rain down upon them in the form of administrators, parents, and the school district/city itself.
I think this is the defining distinction - if the child is disciplined or fails, who do the parents blame? If they blame the teacher or the system, you’re going to get bad outcomes on average as you’re removing the tools the teachers need.
That's an incentive alignment problem. It is the responsibility of management (state and district admin) to ensure that what is best for the teacher's career is also what is best for student education.
Who's responsibility is it to ensure that what is best for the management (state and district admin) is also what is best for student education?
I'm not too familiar with the details of management here, but is it even possible for public schools (and other government operations) to have proper incentives given voters don't care about results? I suppose "school-choice", which happens to be vehemently opposed by Democrats, would be the only way.
I'm not too familiar with the details of management here, but is it even possible for public schools (and other government operations) to have proper incentives given voters don't care about results? I suppose "school-choice", which happens to be vehemently opposed by Democrats, would be the only way.
Parents who have money and care enough already pick the schools by simply buying a house in a slightly different place. Cupertino used to be the hot place for tiger parents in the bay area to go but I'm not sure if it still is. The issue is that then the rest of the schools get even worse which eventually results in bad social issues in 20 years. The kids from those schools grow up and everyone has to deal with them.
I don't think Cupertino's character has changed much. If anything, housing prices continued to skyrocket…
"School-choice" is great for optimizing local maximums at the expense of just about everyone else. Public education should focus on the lowest common denominators to maximize education per tax dollar. It's not the smart people with lack of opportunity that drag down society, it's the massive amount of undereducated adults that become dangerously suceptable to manipulation.
Not clear what your argument against school choice is.
Not sure what you mean by “optimizing local maximums at the expense of everything else”. It almost sounds like an argument but there’s no substance.
You claim that public education should focus on the lowest common denominator so we can avoid an underclass susceptible to manipulation. That’s both a weak justification to purposely damage public education and condescension shown by elites when poor people don’t vote the way “they should”.
Not sure what you mean by “optimizing local maximums at the expense of everything else”. It almost sounds like an argument but there’s no substance.
You claim that public education should focus on the lowest common denominator so we can avoid an underclass susceptible to manipulation. That’s both a weak justification to purposely damage public education and condescension shown by elites when poor people don’t vote the way “they should”.
If you want to maximize education per tax dollar then you need to separate out the smart kids into their own schools. Benefits of education are not evenly distributed. It is heavily weighted towards the right tail.
Pretending that the outcome for everyone should be college and a degree is part of the problem - admitting that outcomes may be different allows you to create different paths adjusted for abilities (think trade school instead of high school, etc). Forcing everyone into the same mold results in a broken mold.
That may be true—the system may be better served by raising the floor on education. But voters are individuals, and the most passionate are likely the type of people who prioritize maximizing their own (smart) kids’ opportunities over raising the floor for everyone.
School choice is still universal public education. It is just the government providers of education have to compete with private providers.
School vouchers aren't really about aligning incentives. They're a backdoor to having the public fund the religious schools comprising a large majority of private schools.
What evidence do you have that management cares about student education?
But which comes first, the teachers career, or the students education? I would contend that in the available evidence it is the former.
Teacher's choice of curriculum and how, and when, subjects are taught are ever more regimented and regulated.
Let's rephrase this.
If you had a choice between:
a. doing your job as well as you can, then losing it (and being unemployable forever, quite likely);
b. doing it somewhat worse, but keeping it (and hopefully having a chance to help more students).
What would you do?
Please blame whoever forced this conundrum on teachers. Nonsensical bureaucratic decisions like this are the reason for which I left the profession.
If you had a choice between:
a. doing your job as well as you can, then losing it (and being unemployable forever, quite likely);
b. doing it somewhat worse, but keeping it (and hopefully having a chance to help more students).
What would you do?
Please blame whoever forced this conundrum on teachers. Nonsensical bureaucratic decisions like this are the reason for which I left the profession.
The teachers who choose A mostly have already left for private schools where they have a bit for flexibility at the cost of lower pay.
> Most teachers seem to take it as a given that of course half the class is going to wander in half an hour late during first period— it’s so early, you know!— and during fourth period
I don't know. What does this have to do with keeping teacher's jobs and not improving learning? Late start is, as far as "clinical outcomes" can be measured in education, like, the cheapest win there is.
I don't know. What does this have to do with keeping teacher's jobs and not improving learning? Late start is, as far as "clinical outcomes" can be measured in education, like, the cheapest win there is.
Moving to late start may help with the chronically late - but it doesn’t solve the intentionally tardy and the scofflaws.
> It is almost as if a teachers first job is self-preservation.
That is simply the top priority of most employees.
That is simply the top priority of most employees.
It’s probably a bit more complicated than that… if failure rates went way up because of COVID, it would probably be an honest representation of how little students learned, but it would also screw over a lot of kids and affect their futures. It’s not really their fault that society didn’t adapt well.
I’m not saying they’re right to just pass everyone, but it might not be purely selfish on the part of administrators.
I’m not saying they’re right to just pass everyone, but it might not be purely selfish on the part of administrators.
[deleted]
Stuff like this is why I roll my eyes every time I hear that schools are underfunded and how we need to give them just a little more funding, and surely things will get better. If they're just going to pass students anyways, what's the point of increasing the funding?
That trope needs to die. California's schools are not underfunded. California spends a record amount on education[0], over $18k per child.
"Reflecting the changes to Proposition 98 funding levels noted above, total K-12 per-pupil expenditures from all sources are projected to be $18,837 in 2020-21 and $18,000 in 2021-22—the highest levels ever (K-12 Education Spending Per Pupil). The decrease between 2020-21 and 2021-22 reflects the significant allocation of one-time federal funds in 2020-21."
[0]: www.ebudget.ca.gov/2021-22/pdf/BudgetSummary/K-12Education.pdf
"Reflecting the changes to Proposition 98 funding levels noted above, total K-12 per-pupil expenditures from all sources are projected to be $18,837 in 2020-21 and $18,000 in 2021-22—the highest levels ever (K-12 Education Spending Per Pupil). The decrease between 2020-21 and 2021-22 reflects the significant allocation of one-time federal funds in 2020-21."
[0]: www.ebudget.ca.gov/2021-22/pdf/BudgetSummary/K-12Education.pdf
Part of the issue is how unevenly distributed the money is. Look at slide 7/8 in https://www.cusdk8.org/cms/lib/CA02218495/Centricity/Domain/...
$8,200 per pupil in Cupertino, $24,700 in Woodside
CUSD is considering closure of three schools and eliminating librarians and art and music due to the failure of passing a parcel tax, and low per-pupil funding. Lots of folks on the street argue “it’s the administrator salaries!” but when you actually look at the budgets there’s just not enough money to keep the schools running. Teachers commute from over the mountains. Administrators are paid reasonably, but that’s the cost when their skill sets would easily apply to project management at a local tech company. Money’s not always the solution but sometimes it is.
$8,200 per pupil in Cupertino, $24,700 in Woodside
CUSD is considering closure of three schools and eliminating librarians and art and music due to the failure of passing a parcel tax, and low per-pupil funding. Lots of folks on the street argue “it’s the administrator salaries!” but when you actually look at the budgets there’s just not enough money to keep the schools running. Teachers commute from over the mountains. Administrators are paid reasonably, but that’s the cost when their skill sets would easily apply to project management at a local tech company. Money’s not always the solution but sometimes it is.
> over $18k per child
Lol what?
What on earth do they do with that money? You could hire a private tutor per four children for that money and have them do it in the children's homes.
Would end up as a private tutor half-time for two-child families, with them doing homework the other half-time. If you had four children it'd be full-time!
Lol what?
What on earth do they do with that money? You could hire a private tutor per four children for that money and have them do it in the children's homes.
Would end up as a private tutor half-time for two-child families, with them doing homework the other half-time. If you had four children it'd be full-time!
Pensions, administration, and buildings eat a lot of the budget. And they continue to grow.
As a nation, US inflation adjusted, per-student K-12 spending has tripled since the 1960s.
Makes private school look like a good deal. I seriously didn't know it was that high.
The money isnt evenly distributed at all. Plus, private schools in areas that actually spend 18k/student will cost you more than 18k on their own. Most in the Bay are over 20k now
New York City spends more per student than anywhere else in the US (<https://www.silive.com/news/2019/06/how-much-does-new-york-c...>). Baltimore, an incredibly poor and run-down city, spends the third most. #4-6 and #8 are all wealthy suburbs of Washington DC, but their schools are all far better than those of Baltimore or NYC on average, despite Baltimore spending slightly more per student and NYC spending 60-70% more.
I mean, my school where I went could only afford four days a week. We had so many budget cuts that the school decided the only way to go forward was to cut the fifth day. This lasted for years and I don’t know if they’ve ever returned to a normal schedule.
maybe because this isn't the only problem schools have and some of them absolutely will be fixed by money.
I am close to two families with children in the SF public school system. One family has a 5-year-old boy and 7-year-old girl. The other family has an 11-year-old boy.
SF schools went to all-remote education starting in March 2020 and by the end of the 2020-2021 school year, did not yet return for in-person instruction. The effect on children's education has been devastating. [0]
The teacher's union refused to entertain in-person teaching even though SF has reportedly reached herd immunity as of May 2021. Negotiations have yielded almost no progress and well-meaning high-earning parents dedicated to the public school system have been stymied despite organizing as a group. [1]
As a former college professor, I understand low wages are a problem for most teachers. Even as a tenure-track professor, my salary in 2009 was less than 50% of what I was (and am) able to command as a front-end developer in the Bay Area.
Teaching K-12 in public schools in the US is difficult. There are nigh insurmountable problems which, in my opinion, are the product of so few financial resources dedicated to the project of educating children in the US.
The behavioral problems less-endowed schools encounter among their students is an outgrowth of poor funding and poverty economics.
Public school education in wealthy communities (famously Stuyvesant High School [2]) is a different story altogether.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/16/opinion/remote-learning-f...
[1] https://decreasingthedistance.org
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_High_School
SF schools went to all-remote education starting in March 2020 and by the end of the 2020-2021 school year, did not yet return for in-person instruction. The effect on children's education has been devastating. [0]
The teacher's union refused to entertain in-person teaching even though SF has reportedly reached herd immunity as of May 2021. Negotiations have yielded almost no progress and well-meaning high-earning parents dedicated to the public school system have been stymied despite organizing as a group. [1]
As a former college professor, I understand low wages are a problem for most teachers. Even as a tenure-track professor, my salary in 2009 was less than 50% of what I was (and am) able to command as a front-end developer in the Bay Area.
Teaching K-12 in public schools in the US is difficult. There are nigh insurmountable problems which, in my opinion, are the product of so few financial resources dedicated to the project of educating children in the US.
The behavioral problems less-endowed schools encounter among their students is an outgrowth of poor funding and poverty economics.
Public school education in wealthy communities (famously Stuyvesant High School [2]) is a different story altogether.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/16/opinion/remote-learning-f...
[1] https://decreasingthedistance.org
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_High_School
I thought AP classes and a level of general competitiveness stopped stuff like this?
Even if the in person classes are easy to pass, the AP scores should be consistent with the rest of the country and should make identifying the relative difficulty between schools pretty easy? ACT and SAT should also make grade inflated school very easily to spot.
I think California has a rule requiring that at least X% of their students are from California right? Has that shifted the balance at CA to accepting lower quality students from their own state?
Even if the in person classes are easy to pass, the AP scores should be consistent with the rest of the country and should make identifying the relative difficulty between schools pretty easy? ACT and SAT should also make grade inflated school very easily to spot.
I think California has a rule requiring that at least X% of their students are from California right? Has that shifted the balance at CA to accepting lower quality students from their own state?
UC schools no longer consider SAT or ACT for admissions or scholarships.
https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/admission-requi...
https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/admission-requi...
We all know this is because they didn't like it that "too many" Asians were getting in.
Remove the objective measures, and it becomes harder to prove that you're racist - even if everybody knows it.
Remove the objective measures, and it becomes harder to prove that you're racist - even if everybody knows it.
Standardized and objective are not the same thing.
Wait, what? Does that mean they don't use any exam results for admissions?
This school sounds like some sort of weird Kafkaesque punishment for kids. Everyone is trying to game it: kids who don't want to write essays, administrators who don't want kids to fail. Teachers who want kids to both learn stuff and pass.
Motivate the kids. Show them stuff about the world, and show them how to find out things for themselves. If you're going to test them, do it in a way that doesn't destroy all enjoyment of the subject. Try to get the kids to want to keep learning after they leave you.
Motivate the kids. Show them stuff about the world, and show them how to find out things for themselves. If you're going to test them, do it in a way that doesn't destroy all enjoyment of the subject. Try to get the kids to want to keep learning after they leave you.
No one's gaming anything; it's education theater.
In my experience anyone can be conditioned to love anything, and inspiring a love for learning something is the only stable long-term solution.
School's so stupid. If you give people a grade and tell them to maximize it, with no meaningful rewards that they can understand, they're going to cheat. Duh. I regret not cheating in school, what a waste of time all of that shit was.
The teacher is basically like "haha dumb kids, we know you're cheating" and "if only we could punish students more!". There's a lot of "the smart kids are suffering because of the dumb kids" attitude here that I find disgusting.
> That too was in keeping with a theme. The teacher email I mentioned above was from one of the conference threads, but the emails sent to me personally from counselors and administrators have overwhelmingly broken down along these lines: such-and-such a student is feeling stressed, so please excuse her from this set of assignments. This other student gets nervous about taking tests or giving presentations or working in groups, so please excuse him from work of those types.
Oh god, how awful that these students won't get to suffer through some idiot's assignment that I'm sure would greatly better their life.
There's a lot wrong with school but I feel like this teacher doesn't realize that they're a part of that.
> Wow, a 100% pass rate! What a successful school!
Yes, it's cheating. They have an incentive, as your students do, to 'pass', and so they cheat.
Give students a place to be during the day while their parents work. Give them real, meaningful incentives that matter to young people - money, freedom, social structure, a feeling of productivity - and align those with learning real, practical skills, like how to read, write, analyze context, etc.
Hire non-idiots, pay them more, reduce class sizes. Yeah it'll cost more, but the obvious economic benefits will offset that. I can count on one hand how many teachers I had that I respected - the rest were obvious failures.
The teacher is basically like "haha dumb kids, we know you're cheating" and "if only we could punish students more!". There's a lot of "the smart kids are suffering because of the dumb kids" attitude here that I find disgusting.
> That too was in keeping with a theme. The teacher email I mentioned above was from one of the conference threads, but the emails sent to me personally from counselors and administrators have overwhelmingly broken down along these lines: such-and-such a student is feeling stressed, so please excuse her from this set of assignments. This other student gets nervous about taking tests or giving presentations or working in groups, so please excuse him from work of those types.
Oh god, how awful that these students won't get to suffer through some idiot's assignment that I'm sure would greatly better their life.
There's a lot wrong with school but I feel like this teacher doesn't realize that they're a part of that.
> Wow, a 100% pass rate! What a successful school!
Yes, it's cheating. They have an incentive, as your students do, to 'pass', and so they cheat.
Give students a place to be during the day while their parents work. Give them real, meaningful incentives that matter to young people - money, freedom, social structure, a feeling of productivity - and align those with learning real, practical skills, like how to read, write, analyze context, etc.
Hire non-idiots, pay them more, reduce class sizes. Yeah it'll cost more, but the obvious economic benefits will offset that. I can count on one hand how many teachers I had that I respected - the rest were obvious failures.
I like the school voucher idea a lot.
Give parents a voucher, as good as cash, for their child and let them choose the school.
Private companies will compete for those vouchers, aligning focus on satisfying the parents and the children, rather than the government.
Give parents a voucher, as good as cash, for their child and let them choose the school.
Private companies will compete for those vouchers, aligning focus on satisfying the parents and the children, rather than the government.
> Private companies will compete for those vouchers
"Send your kid to our school, and we promise they'll always score 100% on their tests!"
"Send your kid to our school, and we promise they'll always score 100% on their tests!"
The parents choose where to spend the voucher.
Unless you think parents value "100% on their tests" more than receiving a quality education.
I trust a parent's judgment more than administrators looking to prop up their numbers.
Unless you think parents value "100% on their tests" more than receiving a quality education.
I trust a parent's judgment more than administrators looking to prop up their numbers.
Yeah, some parents do value “100% on their tests” more than receiving a quality education.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/22/colleg...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/22/colleg...
That's fine, let them care about that. Let the rest of us that care about the education quality find that where we may.
The assumption that accreditation and education must be done by the same organization is absurd, really. Public schools evidently have the exact same incentives. The answer is that third parties should be evaluating education, not administration making up numbers and giving themselves a pat on the back for doing so well.
Of course, teaching to the test isn't ideal. But it looks like the alternative isn't a well-rounded education, but not teaching at all.
Of course, teaching to the test isn't ideal. But it looks like the alternative isn't a well-rounded education, but not teaching at all.
That sounds like a great way to indirectly punish parents who can't afford commutes for their children, since they get stuck with whichever schools the wealthier parents pull their children from.
The idea is that schools would compete for as many vouchers as they could, meaning they'd be willing to send buses out to your area, or find other ways to accommodate the parents with before school programs, ect.
> And the plagiarism detection software was indeed fooled! What the student didn’t realize is that teachers don’t need software to be able to tell the difference between honestly composed sentences and computer-generated gibberish.
Hilarious.
Hilarious.
I once had a cheating scare.
I was in college, working on a take-home excel sheet for an accounting class. I was struggling with some of it, so I did my best and filled in the parts I knew and some I could guess at. I wasn't too worried about it because the rest of my grades in that class were good. The professor called me in for a meeting and accused me of cheating because the total column happened to be correct but only some of the inputs were incorrect. I was actually scared I might get expelled for cheating, when I was just following my prior teachers' advice (and basic logic) to guess when not sure.
I was in college, working on a take-home excel sheet for an accounting class. I was struggling with some of it, so I did my best and filled in the parts I knew and some I could guess at. I wasn't too worried about it because the rest of my grades in that class were good. The professor called me in for a meeting and accused me of cheating because the total column happened to be correct but only some of the inputs were incorrect. I was actually scared I might get expelled for cheating, when I was just following my prior teachers' advice (and basic logic) to guess when not sure.
So, this seems ludicrous and sad. What I am wondering is whether or not this is an accurate representation of the real situation in SFBay area schools? If we have any parents from the SF Bay area on HN who are sending their kids to public schools, I'd be interested in hearing their take on this.
I teach at an elite private school in the Bay. We're a much better place than the school described here, with kids who like learning, and administrators who are well-intentioned. But many of the author's frustrations are, directionally, exactly the same as what I experience, namely:
> .. The emails sent to me personally from counselors and administrators have overwhelmingly broken down along these lines: such-and-such a student is feeling stressed, so please excuse her from this set of assignments. This other student gets nervous about taking tests or giving presentations or working in groups, so please excuse him from work of those types. ... my direct supervisor repeatedly demanded that I pace my classes for the benefit of the single student in each section who was struggling the most, which quite literally would have meant putting students who had signed up for Advanced Placement into a remedial course
> .. The emails sent to me personally from counselors and administrators have overwhelmingly broken down along these lines: such-and-such a student is feeling stressed, so please excuse her from this set of assignments. This other student gets nervous about taking tests or giving presentations or working in groups, so please excuse him from work of those types. ... my direct supervisor repeatedly demanded that I pace my classes for the benefit of the single student in each section who was struggling the most, which quite literally would have meant putting students who had signed up for Advanced Placement into a remedial course
You might as well have an option to pay the $x and be given the degree and not require anything. At least then those who do want to put in the work have the option.
I have 2 close family members working public education in Texas - one is a principal and another a teacher. Stories like this are brought up all the time. Something really shitty is going on with how we are raising a lot of our kids and managing public school systems. It's not specific to one state/county/region from what I can tell.
My brother in particular is desperately trying to get out of public education. He loves teaching, but they are making it impossible for anyone to do their jobs effectively. Pay is shit, especially since work practically doubled overnight, and you get virtually zero control over the curriculum or policies in your classroom.
Then, at the end of the day, some entitled shithead of a parent thinks their little snowflake was dealt a bad hand and parent-teacher conferences ensue which further sap whatever life force remains.
After hearing about all of this stuff over the years, I cant help but feel incredibly grateful that I have the kind of career that I do. Public education has been turned into a protracted daycare experience with the sole objective of piping the students into a college debt lifestyle.
My brother in particular is desperately trying to get out of public education. He loves teaching, but they are making it impossible for anyone to do their jobs effectively. Pay is shit, especially since work practically doubled overnight, and you get virtually zero control over the curriculum or policies in your classroom.
Then, at the end of the day, some entitled shithead of a parent thinks their little snowflake was dealt a bad hand and parent-teacher conferences ensue which further sap whatever life force remains.
After hearing about all of this stuff over the years, I cant help but feel incredibly grateful that I have the kind of career that I do. Public education has been turned into a protracted daycare experience with the sole objective of piping the students into a college debt lifestyle.
It's sad but it's only going to get worse. UK universities are already worse.
Yeah I remember being very surprised at the undergraduate level of math/phys at Bristol (I was there for one year on a student exchange). My classmates (2nd year and 3rd year) had trouble with basic calculus, because they didn't learn it in high school, and then their first year courses had to go easy (superficial) so that not everybody fails. The fact that you choose which questions to answer on the finals is also weird (answer any 3 out of 4 questions).
It doesn't make sense to me that a whole nation skips math (unless you take math A-levels).
I talked to a professor and he explained UGRADs are below level, but then when starting grad school they force everyone up to international level. He showed me a huge room with grad student desks and was like "look, we don't let them get out of here until they learn math properly."
It doesn't make sense to me that a whole nation skips math (unless you take math A-levels).
I talked to a professor and he explained UGRADs are below level, but then when starting grad school they force everyone up to international level. He showed me a huge room with grad student desks and was like "look, we don't let them get out of here until they learn math properly."
I learned more in two months of USAF Basic Training than any year of school, maybe any two years.
As they told us repeatedly, it's a privilege to be here. Although they had the option to boot us out, no one was, and only one guy bailed out of 50.
As they told us repeatedly, it's a privilege to be here. Although they had the option to boot us out, no one was, and only one guy bailed out of 50.
This sounds like something out of a surrealist novel.
> consistently use umlauts in place of quotation marks and acute accent marks in place of apostrophes
US-International keyboard layout, maybe. Maybe the student doesn't know what umlauts and acute accents are, so maybe they think they're valid equivalents to " and '.
> consistently use umlauts in place of quotation marks and acute accent marks in place of apostrophes
US-International keyboard layout, maybe. Maybe the student doesn't know what umlauts and acute accents are, so maybe they think they're valid equivalents to " and '.
Is that down to the pupil ?
Sounds like another MacOS "why not use random unicode characters that look similar to the one you really want" feature to me.
Sounds like another MacOS "why not use random unicode characters that look similar to the one you really want" feature to me.
Perhaps copying from another source, creating a wacky encoding error?
I was confused when I read this because reader mode on Safari converted the umlauts and acutes into quotation marks and apostrophes.
or the text went through latex at some point, which can easily lead to a"->ä.
letter+quotation mark is a common way to write umlauts...
letter+quotation mark is a common way to write umlauts...
Education and education leadership heavily skew leftist. Part of the leftist creed is destroying the West from within. What better way to do that than destroying the institution that's sole purpose is creating the next generation of citizens?
The only aspect that is not distressing is that there is at least one public school teacher who can recognize the futility of trying to simultaneously accommodate students, parents and administration.
What educational outcome do these groups expect?
What educational outcome do these groups expect?
I find this report very funny because it ultimately places responsability upon administration. As if the curriculum and pedagogy weren't flawed to the bones, and as if the body of teachers knew any better. Your students are trying to burn the school, literally. Your classes and your method of evaluation suck. They contain the genesis of both the idiocracy and also the cleptocracy. Your debates are repetetive, meaningless and repetetively meaningless. I hope you never even get even one more inch of power. Eventually the rebellion of the slaves will succeed.
This is terrifying. How representative is this actually?
Im afraid it is widespread. My highschool in Alaska implemented a graduation competency exam around 2000. Less than half my class passed what I thought was an easy test. So... they made next years test easier to meet the desired pass target.
In public school systems of coastal liberal cities? Very representative.
> “you’re legally required to assign this much homework, so make sure you do that, only don’t, because the kids are overwhelmed”. That too was in keeping with a theme.
I think the underlying theme is that the parents themselves are overwhelmed and the schools that were ill-equipped to handle education before COVID-19 are crumbling.
If I take this report at face value (which, frankly, I'm tempted to), it paints an even more broken image of the American school system than the dumpster fire I had on my wall already.
I think the underlying theme is that the parents themselves are overwhelmed and the schools that were ill-equipped to handle education before COVID-19 are crumbling.
If I take this report at face value (which, frankly, I'm tempted to), it paints an even more broken image of the American school system than the dumpster fire I had on my wall already.
> With half the term remaining, teachers of seniors received a notification that they would not be allowed to fail students unless they filled out a form right then and there declaring that the student was certain to receive an F.
I think that OP is misconstruing the reasons behind this notification requirement. This notification has to do more with a "cover your ass" policy than lowering expectations for seniors.
The California Education code [1] requires school districts to develop procedures to notify parents of a failing grade. All the CA districts that I worked for had some procedures in place for when and how notify families of failing grades in response to this law. From a quick search, it seems that SFUSD policies 4.2.5 [2] and 4.2.6 apply in this case. The policy clearly states that teachers have to notify parents of grades either 1 or 2 times during the semester (i.e., mid-semester report cards-if you went to school in CA you will remember receiving those).
It seems that OP's school was on a 9-week reporting period, requiring teachers to notify parents of grades mid-semester and that their school added a requirement of filling out an additional form outlining that the student was in danger of failing the class specifically for seniors (probably because most families stopped looking at report cards for seniors). This form is required to be in compliance with the CA ed code as parents have the right to appeal failing grades and not being notified is probably an enough reason for the district to change a failing grade to a passing one in case of a lawsuit/complaint.
I would imagine that failing a class is more "high stakes" for seniors than other students, so they have more paperwork involved for seniors if you want to fail them. Families might be more "litigious" if a student ends up failing a class required for graduation. It is simpler to complain to the board/suing that having to repeat a school year.
The bottom line is that the CA ed code gives teachers final say in grades and even the superintendent cannot change a grade without the teacher's consent. On the other hand, the CA ed code gives some rights to parents to appeal grades and has some notifications guidelines so they shouldn't be surprised of failing grades. OP will be able to fail as many seniors as they want, but they just have to notify their families that they are in danger of failing the class at some point before the end of the semester. At the end of the day, if they have enough evidence for failing a student (that would stand up during a public board meeting/lawsuit), notifying the student's family 9 weeks before the end of the semester shouldn't be too much of a burden.
Links:
[1]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio.... [2]: ]https://www.sfusd.edu/services/know-your-rights/student-fami...
I think that OP is misconstruing the reasons behind this notification requirement. This notification has to do more with a "cover your ass" policy than lowering expectations for seniors.
The California Education code [1] requires school districts to develop procedures to notify parents of a failing grade. All the CA districts that I worked for had some procedures in place for when and how notify families of failing grades in response to this law. From a quick search, it seems that SFUSD policies 4.2.5 [2] and 4.2.6 apply in this case. The policy clearly states that teachers have to notify parents of grades either 1 or 2 times during the semester (i.e., mid-semester report cards-if you went to school in CA you will remember receiving those).
It seems that OP's school was on a 9-week reporting period, requiring teachers to notify parents of grades mid-semester and that their school added a requirement of filling out an additional form outlining that the student was in danger of failing the class specifically for seniors (probably because most families stopped looking at report cards for seniors). This form is required to be in compliance with the CA ed code as parents have the right to appeal failing grades and not being notified is probably an enough reason for the district to change a failing grade to a passing one in case of a lawsuit/complaint.
I would imagine that failing a class is more "high stakes" for seniors than other students, so they have more paperwork involved for seniors if you want to fail them. Families might be more "litigious" if a student ends up failing a class required for graduation. It is simpler to complain to the board/suing that having to repeat a school year.
The bottom line is that the CA ed code gives teachers final say in grades and even the superintendent cannot change a grade without the teacher's consent. On the other hand, the CA ed code gives some rights to parents to appeal grades and has some notifications guidelines so they shouldn't be surprised of failing grades. OP will be able to fail as many seniors as they want, but they just have to notify their families that they are in danger of failing the class at some point before the end of the semester. At the end of the day, if they have enough evidence for failing a student (that would stand up during a public board meeting/lawsuit), notifying the student's family 9 weeks before the end of the semester shouldn't be too much of a burden.
Links:
[1]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio.... [2]: ]https://www.sfusd.edu/services/know-your-rights/student-fami...
> This form is required to be in compliance with the CA ed code as parents have the right to appeal failing grades and not being notified is probably an enough reason for the district to change a failing grade to a passing one in case of a lawsuit/complaint.
If this were the reason for the new forms, why would the school only have teachers fill out the form if the student were guaranteed to fail? I'd think the schools would go the opposite direction and make sure to notify all parents whose kids might fail.
If this were the reason for the new forms, why would the school only have teachers fill out the form if the student were guaranteed to fail? I'd think the schools would go the opposite direction and make sure to notify all parents whose kids might fail.
I dug up SFUSD board policy [1] around failing notifications. The policy reads:
"Whenever it becomes evident to a teacher that a student is in danger of failing a course, the teacher shall arrange a conference with the student's parent/guardian or send the parent/guardian a written report. The refusal of the parent to attend the conference, or to respond to the written report, shall not preclude failing the pupil at the end of the grading period. (Education Code 49067)"
The policy clearly states that the student has to be "in danger of failing a course" and not "guaranteed to fail a course". But, if a teacher knows that they might fail a student, they must notify parents by some reasonable deadline (again, it seems that OP's school sets it by week 9 of the semester or by the mid-semester mark). Without this notification, they might not be able to fail a student because they weren't in compliance with the CA ed code and district policy. This becomes even more of an issue when HS graduation is concerned.
I don't know if the forms are new or not. The policy was last updated in 2017 so they are at least 4 years old. What what is worth, I filled out similar forms when I was a teacher 10 years ago in another part of CA, so I suspect that they have been around for longer than that (and the forms were mass produced on carbon paper slips that seemed printed in the 70s). I am also wondering if the word "guaranteed" came up in response to COVID-related changes to grading policies and the district having implemented a credit/no credit grading system.
Links:
[1] Board policy 5121 cf. 6154 para. 4: https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/sfusd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AKG...
"Whenever it becomes evident to a teacher that a student is in danger of failing a course, the teacher shall arrange a conference with the student's parent/guardian or send the parent/guardian a written report. The refusal of the parent to attend the conference, or to respond to the written report, shall not preclude failing the pupil at the end of the grading period. (Education Code 49067)"
The policy clearly states that the student has to be "in danger of failing a course" and not "guaranteed to fail a course". But, if a teacher knows that they might fail a student, they must notify parents by some reasonable deadline (again, it seems that OP's school sets it by week 9 of the semester or by the mid-semester mark). Without this notification, they might not be able to fail a student because they weren't in compliance with the CA ed code and district policy. This becomes even more of an issue when HS graduation is concerned.
I don't know if the forms are new or not. The policy was last updated in 2017 so they are at least 4 years old. What what is worth, I filled out similar forms when I was a teacher 10 years ago in another part of CA, so I suspect that they have been around for longer than that (and the forms were mass produced on carbon paper slips that seemed printed in the 70s). I am also wondering if the word "guaranteed" came up in response to COVID-related changes to grading policies and the district having implemented a credit/no credit grading system.
Links:
[1] Board policy 5121 cf. 6154 para. 4: https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/sfusd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AKG...
The policy doesn't surprise me, but it does sadden me. Why should the failure be contingent on trying to have a meeting with the parents? I always get the feeling there's more paperwork in CA than any of the other states.
> Meanwhile, here’s what it’s like in the teacher email threads. This is a verbatim, non-ironic quote:
“I didn’t really hear you at first, steeped as I am in a culture of assumed patriarchal white privilege, rank privilege, and inequitable hierarchy"
It's my perception that adults involved with schools, especially younger grades, have been penetrated so intensely by woke ideology[1], much more so than the broader subcultures (urban, educated, etc) they belong to that already skew woke. Is this just down to how skewed female this group is?
[1] I mean this neutrally, not as a particular criticism of wokeness or the manner in which it penetrates communities. When thinking about large groups of people, modeling ideologies as memetic viruses moving through a population is a lot more sensible than as emergent entities from the rational decisions of large numbers of intelligent, thoughtful people capable of critical thinking.
It's my perception that adults involved with schools, especially younger grades, have been penetrated so intensely by woke ideology[1], much more so than the broader subcultures (urban, educated, etc) they belong to that already skew woke. Is this just down to how skewed female this group is?
[1] I mean this neutrally, not as a particular criticism of wokeness or the manner in which it penetrates communities. When thinking about large groups of people, modeling ideologies as memetic viruses moving through a population is a lot more sensible than as emergent entities from the rational decisions of large numbers of intelligent, thoughtful people capable of critical thinking.
> adults involved with schools
I don't know what group you're trying to capture by saying this. You mean the parents as well as the school employees?
>Is this just down to how skewed female this group is?
No I think it has to do with how young both the parents and the teachers are. Someone who is 40 years old today is right on the cusp of being a millennial.
I don't know what group you're trying to capture by saying this. You mean the parents as well as the school employees?
>Is this just down to how skewed female this group is?
No I think it has to do with how young both the parents and the teachers are. Someone who is 40 years old today is right on the cusp of being a millennial.
Yea: School boards, teachers, administrators to some degree. Sorry, it was a little awkwardly phrased.
> Someone who is 40 years old today is right on the cusp of being a millennial.
This doesn't fit the data. The median age of a teacher in the US is 41[1], which means that less than half of all teachers are millennials. By contrast, 72% of teachers are women.
I'm having more trouble pulling up the sources I've seen with crosstabs on approval of wokeness[2] by gender and age, but I know it's quite gender-skewed (as well as age-skewed).
[1] https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass1112_2013314_t1s...
[2] The definition I'm using here is leftism with an identitarian focus, that opposes Enlightenment liberalism's aspiration towards transcending ethnic tribalism. I again mean this neutrally, with no comment on whether this worldview is more legitimate than the alternative.
> Someone who is 40 years old today is right on the cusp of being a millennial.
This doesn't fit the data. The median age of a teacher in the US is 41[1], which means that less than half of all teachers are millennials. By contrast, 72% of teachers are women.
I'm having more trouble pulling up the sources I've seen with crosstabs on approval of wokeness[2] by gender and age, but I know it's quite gender-skewed (as well as age-skewed).
[1] https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass1112_2013314_t1s...
[2] The definition I'm using here is leftism with an identitarian focus, that opposes Enlightenment liberalism's aspiration towards transcending ethnic tribalism. I again mean this neutrally, with no comment on whether this worldview is more legitimate than the alternative.
In the balance, from talking to teachers a lot of students are really struggling this year with COVID lockdowns, and so I wonder to what extent this is to dampen that. I suspect most will be a little bit behind next year, and it feels like we will have to lean into that.
The umlauts for quotes thing is really interesting. I don’t know why the author went for “these kids haven’t seen enough ‘proper’ text” rather than, say “these kids weren’t taught typing and discovered a creative solution that communicates their intent well.”
That one left me scratching my head. A physical keyboard has a key specifically for a quote, and entering an umlaut isn’t straightforward on iOS. International keyboard maybe?
I would give this 10 votes if I could. Great read!
You can create 10 accounts if you think you deserve more votes than others.
[deleted]
Institutions, like public schools, usually start out with the best of intentions. As the institution ages though, corruption sets in.
Administrators multiply like rabbits and obtain higher salaries, teachers unions prevent the firing of bad teachers, and politicians just go along with whatever items powerful special interests demand.
We should dissolve all public schools in their current form at a specific predetermined time, and have new educational institutions built. Then we should set up a recurring mechanism to dissolve completely the existing institution to allow for new innovations.
Administrators multiply like rabbits and obtain higher salaries, teachers unions prevent the firing of bad teachers, and politicians just go along with whatever items powerful special interests demand.
We should dissolve all public schools in their current form at a specific predetermined time, and have new educational institutions built. Then we should set up a recurring mechanism to dissolve completely the existing institution to allow for new innovations.
I've read somewhere that the affluent don't send their kids to public school in SanFran or anywhere in the Bay Area, is that true? I assume there are a lot of locals browsing this.
Anecdotally, I don't have kids of my own, but none of my friends with kids send theirs to public schools in SF or Oakland. I also live on the same block as two private schools in Oakland and apparently the wait lists to get in are years long.
Cupertino and Palo Alto have some of the best public schools in the entire state. Of course, some still choose to send their children to private schools, but the public schools in the suburban south Bay Area are good enough to drive up housing prices by their own right.
The soft bigotry of different standards is talked about but rarely is the premise carefully examined. Can there be a single standard? Maybe the problem is expecting a good essay, composed in earnest, by a kid that can “barely string a sentence together.” We ought not be surprised when humans act human.
Maybe we should redefine public education to be a bit more exclusive, and not shame those that aren’t on a college track into pursuing mentally challenging work for which we are unfit. Give kids the money that would be spent on their education (loosely defined) and let them invest it, or spend on vocational training or seed money to start their own small business. Too much focus on producing som eidetic notion of the educated individual. People don’t wind up homeless because they weren’t exposed to Shakespeare. Some people will be lucky to attain enough basic skill to stay afloat. If such a person is able to fool plagiarism software, maybe that’s something to celebrate.
Maybe we should redefine public education to be a bit more exclusive, and not shame those that aren’t on a college track into pursuing mentally challenging work for which we are unfit. Give kids the money that would be spent on their education (loosely defined) and let them invest it, or spend on vocational training or seed money to start their own small business. Too much focus on producing som eidetic notion of the educated individual. People don’t wind up homeless because they weren’t exposed to Shakespeare. Some people will be lucky to attain enough basic skill to stay afloat. If such a person is able to fool plagiarism software, maybe that’s something to celebrate.
[deleted]
I cant help but think this is tied to the way government funding for schools is handled. Schools dont want to lose funding by having poor performance so the make the performance measures look better.
Ask HN: given that school education in USA is so complicated is there a guide that the good folks here can suggest for kids and parents on how to successfully navigate the education system in USA?
There are a lot of complaints about public school in this thread, but much of the data on achievement says that in the US, private schools don’t do a better job.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X1878563...
Hell, voucher programs have been shown to lower academic attainment. https://www.nber.org/papers/w21839
If people really wanted to improve educational outcomes, UBI might actually do the most good. The situation at home matters a lot, and it shows up in the data.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X1878563...
Hell, voucher programs have been shown to lower academic attainment. https://www.nber.org/papers/w21839
If people really wanted to improve educational outcomes, UBI might actually do the most good. The situation at home matters a lot, and it shows up in the data.
Forbidding single-parent homes and demanding only one parent work would also improve outcomes but I doubt the political will for those can be found.
Here is a modest proposal: copy the best educational system in the world (Finland). Stop thinking you know better.
> Even before the advent of the internets, catching students cheating was generally not particularly hard. ... Catching this sort of malfeasance has gotten even easier with the development of plagiarism detection software.
> ...students use umlauts in place of quotation marks and acute accent marks in place of apostrophes
Those students figured out a way around the plagiarism detection.
> ...students use umlauts in place of quotation marks and acute accent marks in place of apostrophes
Those students figured out a way around the plagiarism detection.
This "zoomers are so dumb" argument bothers me as much as the PC culture.
It's like generational differences are a new thing, do people really think your teacher back in the day thought progressive educational practices were effective. I mean capital punishment really worked wonders.
It's like generational differences are a new thing, do people really think your teacher back in the day thought progressive educational practices were effective. I mean capital punishment really worked wonders.
[deleted]
Just say no to this garbage. Your kids will only learn how to be like them.
Is this real?
Thought yes but after the nobody can get below 50% part I’m less sure
Thought yes but after the nobody can get below 50% part I’m less sure
imagine posting a day in a life of San Fran Public School Teacher on YouTube and seeing a student deliberately setting the school on fire
I wonder how many of the commentators in here that mention any level of surprise have children. I suspect none.
Depressing read honestly.
Meanwhile, China is pushing its children to learn so much more, and is developing one of the most educated populations on earth[1]. They'll win by our own implosion.
[1] https://wenr.wes.org/2019/12/education-in-china-3
[1] https://wenr.wes.org/2019/12/education-in-china-3
> while the country’s tertiary gross enrollment rate (GER) spiked from 7.6 percent to 50 percent (compared with a current average GER of 75 percent in high income countries, per UNESCO).
It appears that they still haven't caught up.
It appears that they still haven't caught up.
very frequent topic here on HN. i remember a comment about a persons experience with the public schools in the soviet union when it collapsed. all the smart people pulled their kids out and did something else. its the same as everything else because if you want it to be done right then you have to do it yourself. there is no fixing public schools... they are run by the majority and they always will be. the problem isnt the schools, its the majority. after WW2 all the dumbest people fucked like rabbits with no financial or existential limitations to stop them, medicine increasingly spared idiots from the consequences of their actions. this initial seed of stupidity brought the next tooth of the ratchet into place: the popularization and normalization of eliminating all consequences from ones own actions. we just keep getting dumber. we were supposed to be re-galvanized by a major depression and a pandemic in the past 20 years but we postponed it all with technology and massive economic manipulation. eventually the chickens are going to come home to roost... in the meantime dont let the public schools rot out the inside of your kids head.
What has happened to this site? We have a topic on the front page of the site for 15 hours now, with almost 400 comments, and the top comment is a nakedly eugenicist screed about "the dumbest people" having too many babies.
I mean, even skipping the moral horror here, it's not even true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
But HN... wants it to be true? What the actual fuck, people?
I mean, even skipping the moral horror here, it's not even true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
But HN... wants it to be true? What the actual fuck, people?
ive been here since 2014. i didnt bring up eugenics, but if you want to broach that topic then fine. intelligence, as well as all other traits or characteristics, of not just humans but all organisms, is subject to natural selection. if you deny this, you deny natural selection and this would make you a science denier. whether we should act on this fact, or the morality of doing so, is completely up to you. but you will not deny science on hackernews.
oh and you saw my comment at the top because the ranking algorithm takes the youthfulness of the comment into account. its rather embarrassing that you dont know this.
oh and you saw my comment at the top because the ranking algorithm takes the youthfulness of the comment into account. its rather embarrassing that you dont know this.
The established science is that at least half of our intelligence is a product of the environment.
Otherwise we wouldn't have so-called feral children - people who never acquired language and thus their intellectual growth was hindered.
Otherwise we wouldn't have so-called feral children - people who never acquired language and thus their intellectual growth was hindered.
I went to a public school in a post-communist country in the second half of the 90s.
Back then private schools were generally regarded as lower quality because of the incentive to keep the parents happy with their "educational product".
Back then private schools were generally regarded as lower quality because of the incentive to keep the parents happy with their "educational product".
if I was a teacher I would give an extra five points on any handwritten assignment, and an extra ten points if it is cursive.
Too easy to game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvIvPARVRUQ
Wow, lot's to unravel in this one. First, the kids are trying to skip out on mindless work like book reports. Most of the students aren't bright enough to fool the teacher in the anecdotes, but probably there are some that do.
Next, there's the discipline issue. Yes, they stopped suspending kids in a lot of places because they realized those kids would just be left alone at home all day, and the only reason those kids were at school at all was because it was in some way convenient for their parents.
Finally, there's the homework issue. Yes, homeless is pointless busy work. If something is worth learning, make sure you block off enough time during classroom hours to teach it, otherwise most kids aren't going to learn it at all. Yes, the students are overwhelmed.
We have millions of kids that are from completely broken homes, basic needs like food and housing aren't met, and this person is complaining about book reports? Society is broken.
Next, there's the discipline issue. Yes, they stopped suspending kids in a lot of places because they realized those kids would just be left alone at home all day, and the only reason those kids were at school at all was because it was in some way convenient for their parents.
Finally, there's the homework issue. Yes, homeless is pointless busy work. If something is worth learning, make sure you block off enough time during classroom hours to teach it, otherwise most kids aren't going to learn it at all. Yes, the students are overwhelmed.
We have millions of kids that are from completely broken homes, basic needs like food and housing aren't met, and this person is complaining about book reports? Society is broken.
You think homework is useless? That’s the main way to learn…
I don’t particularly agree with GP’s comment, but homework is not the main way everyone learns. Maybe some individuals do learn that way, but others absolutely do not. I personally did not do a single homework assignment other than a senior term paper throughout all of high school and still learned the material presented. I think it’s too broad to just assert that homework == ‘way to learn’.
Actually doing the material (as opposed to sitting in a lecture) is the way to learn, but that could be done in class.
Now in my kids school I see way too much focus on this segment, which is by its nature low ROI — the number of teacher years it takes to turn one of those kids into someone worthwhile is like 10x the amount it takes to turn an average bright kid into a future surgeon or researcher.