The competition for Harry Reid

[Jenne]

If anything, funding should be based on the number of pupils.

This.

Here, the majority of funding is gained from property tax.  Poor neighborhoods therefore get shit for schools, and the posh kids get the equivalent of a small university.

They removed property tax from our ability to fund schools.  Prop 13 actually ended up causing Prop 98, which set up a mandate of 66% of every General Fund budget must go to education.  And then this has been set aside as unfundable by Schwarzenegger since the get-go.  98 had built into it failsafes galore like population and standards of living increases.  Those have been halted pretty much since 2005.  And we've been dealing with larger populations with smaller amounts of money every year.

We can pass parcel taxes, though, but we need supermajority vote to do that.

[Thurnez Isa]

If anything, funding should be based on the number of pupils.

This.

Here, the majority of funding is gained from property tax.  Poor neighborhoods therefore get shit for schools, and the posh kids get the equivalent of a small university.

I remember when I was still teaching music (what 3 years ago) the private school was basically a dream job. Classes where small, the kids well behaved and the teachers were given so much leeway in teaching. Like if the biology teacher wanted to go outside for a class they just did it. And did it without any board breathing down their neck.
Also had this brilliant way of keeping any government off their back (there's a cap on tuition in Canada). They kept tuition low but only excepted students from a specific neighborhood.
I was talking to one of the main administers one day and she was telling me in the long run smaller class sizes end up being cheaper. The larger the class size the more you pay per student. The main problem the public board faced was real estate and upkeep.

[Doktor Howl]

If anything, funding should be based on the number of pupils.

This.

Here, the majority of funding is gained from property tax.  Poor neighborhoods therefore get shit for schools, and the posh kids get the equivalent of a small university.

I remember when I was still teaching music (what 3 years ago) the private school was basically a dream job. Classes where small, the kids well behaved and the teachers were given so much leeway in teaching. Like if the biology teacher wanted to go outside for a class they just did it. And did it without any board breathing down their neck.
Also had this brilliant way of keeping any government off their back (there's a cap on tuition in Canada). They kept tuition low but only excepted students from a specific neighborhood.
I was talking to one of the main administers one day and she was telling me in the long run smaller class sizes end up being cheaper. The larger the class size the more you pay per student. The main problem the public board faced was real estate and upkeep.

I went to a working class public school in Hamilton, Ontario, and we had small classes, well behaved (God fucking help you if you stir up a ruckus) kids, and - for the most part - good facilities (old, but more than adequate).

I have precisely zero complaints.

Of course, that was in the 1970s.  Things have probably gone downhill since then. 

[Thurnez Isa]

For the record, I never intended to hijack this thread..  but I can't say I'm disappointed with the results..

Threads just evolve, or devolve, or just fall into complete nonsense around here. We don't care either way. It's not pretty at times and it sometimes becomes complete chaos, but it's how we like it.
The only thing if the OP wants, or if it's evolving completely into something else and someone wants the mods can split the threads into two separate threads.

[Jenne]

What determines what the performance is?  What keeps schools from inflating grades and shoving kids into grade levels they aren't prepared for, in order to get the funding?  (This is already happening where such things are required, and the audit system required for this becomes another sticky wicket, but I'm sure it could be done if it's tailored to a specific standard that's held across the board.)

Do away with "skipping grades" by creating effective "advanced" classes where students do not move ahead in the material, but rather go deeper and learn more background material, history, and theory. Measure performance as it relates to funding by national, universal standardized tests that are graded by humans and contain at least 50% essay questions as opposed to simple multiple choice (scoring for grammar throughout), but do not use these tests to determine students' grades. Determine grades with traditional classwork under a curriculum approved and standardized nationally.

The tests are rarely used, in my experience to assign grades, though they do assist teachers in analyzing, along with the schoolwork and performance on classroom tests, whether a student's ready to move forward.

The money it takes to score these tests you are talking about will need to come from somewhere--I get paid $18/hour to do the spoken TEOFL test.  That's without an office environment, I supply the internet and my own machine to do it on.  I have a Master's degree, and I taught at UCLA.  You get my point?  If you required this level of expertise on every child's test, it would cost--A LOT.  I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just take it into consideration.

I think, personally, teachers should grade them, in a pool, double-blinded.  At the school site or district where they were administered.  Or a round robin within districts, or something.  I have all sorts of best practices ideas on this shit, but I need to go take my lunch break, so I'll stop there.

As for skipping grades, I don't see that happening in my area.  Instead, kids are moved ahead in a subject area (by the way, I skipped from 2nd to 3rd, and it was fucking HARD to deal with as a kid), or put in heterogeneous GATE environments from jr. high-on so that the students are challenged by each other in their peer group.  But ymmv.

I have proposed in my newsletter articles that high schools invite jr. college course material and some sort of adjunct program so that kids can begin to get college ready earlier.  I like the idea that you can take your courses off campus and into a jr. college setting.  It makes the college freshman more prepared, it gives the college profs a chance to see what high schools are churning out and have a chance to put in some feedback before it's too late, and it just seems to benefit everyone.

Unfortunately, 3rd/4th grade is really where it's at.  That's where the challenge seems to be, and where you can predict 1) truancy rates and 2) how many prisons to build.

@Rog:  I was just talking to the United Way rep that was designated for San Diego PTAs.  In my capacity as VP of Education & Parent Involvement, it was incumbent upon me to sit in a 2-hour meeting with United Way with my president and community concerns VP.  The UW rep said that in the data she'd looked at, there wasn't ONE consistent factor amongst everything that showed what could make a difference for any given student's education.

I told her that's a fallacy, and that there is:  PARENT INVOLVEMENT.

You can have the crappiest schools, the lowest attendance, the shittiest teachers, but if the parents are involved and instill a sense of purpose and more-than-survival for a kid's education, then none of that will matter.

[Doktor Howl]

Yeah, I mentioned parental involvement earlier, but it got buried.

[Thurnez Isa]

If anything, funding should be based on the number of pupils.

This.

Here, the majority of funding is gained from property tax.  Poor neighborhoods therefore get shit for schools, and the posh kids get the equivalent of a small university.

I remember when I was still teaching music (what 3 years ago) the private school was basically a dream job. Classes where small, the kids well behaved and the teachers were given so much leeway in teaching. Like if the biology teacher wanted to go outside for a class they just did it. And did it without any board breathing down their neck.
Also had this brilliant way of keeping any government off their back (there's a cap on tuition in Canada). They kept tuition low but only excepted students from a specific neighborhood.
I was talking to one of the main administers one day and she was telling me in the long run smaller class sizes end up being cheaper. The larger the class size the more you pay per student. The main problem the public board faced was real estate and upkeep.

I went to a working class public school in Hamilton, Ontario, and we had small classes, well behaved (God fucking help you if you stir up a ruckus) kids, and - for the most part - good facilities (old, but more than adequate).

I have precisely zero complaints.

Of course, that was in the 1970s.  Things have probably gone downhill since then. 

Same problem I suspect you guys are having. A huge short term influx of money is needed into the system for long term savings. There's just not the money to do so.

Also needs a philosophical change in that we gotta stop treating children like their made of weak plaster and are going to break if they scrape their knees outside or have to endure the slightest bit of discipline.
This also applies to the material. If you treat the mind like it's weak it will turn out weak. For example if I'm teaching someone about Robert Schumann rather then setting an exploration of the subject, where the child can explore the music and be allowed (an almost expected) to get things wrong, it is expected by everyone involved that I need to baby them. I need to flat out lecture them in everything and then ask their uninformed opinion on the music, like their opinion mattered or something. If you treat the mind like it's weak it will turn out weak.


That and now we're letting parents have say in pretty much anything, and like any former teacher I have a very low opinion of most parents.

[Doktor Howl]

Same problem I suspect you guys are having. A huge short term influx of money is needed into the system for long term savings. There's just not the money to do so.

Yes, there fucking is.

We don't need to be "saving" Afghanistan, Iraq, or anyone else.

We don't need 12 fucking carrier groups.  We need about 4.

And so on.

There's plenty of fucking money...We just need to stop behaving like college kids with daddy's American Express.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Yeah, I mentioned parental involvement earlier, but it got buried.

I saw the comment but forgot to voice my support. Parent involvement is absolutely necessary. But how do we address that? For one thing, many parents are not only uninterested, but uneducated themselves. It's hard to help your kid with algebra when you barely survive long division. It's also hard to devote time to it when both parents work, often in alternating schedules, and that's something about American life that isn't going to change any time soon (besides the economics of it, there's the fact that few people are interested in being "homemakers").

That said, probably more than half of the time when you have parents who don't care about their kids' education, every reason they give for being uninvolved is an indefensible cop-out to defend their selfishness and lack of responsibility. But that is also something you can't legislate or enforce. The fundamental culture of this country is one in which it is not only possible but expected of you to get by with doing as little work as possible, and be as irresponsible and short-sighted as you can manage without killing yourself.

Education is the key to changing that about America, but given that we can't rely on the government to do anything right, and we can't rely on parents to give a shit about it, I don't see any way out. Looks like we're all stuck riding the short bus to the Remedial School of Third World Experience.

[Jenne]

Yeah, I mentioned parental involvement earlier, but it got buried.

It took me awhile to get to it, my bad.

[Jenne]

Yeah, I mentioned parental involvement earlier, but it got buried.

I saw the comment but forgot to voice my support. Parent involvement is absolutely necessary. But how do we address that? For one thing, many parents are not only uninterested, but uneducated themselves. It's hard to help your kid with algebra when you barely survive long division. It's also hard to devote time to it when both parents work, often in alternating schedules, and that's something about American life that isn't going to change any time soon (besides the economics of it, there's the fact that few people are interested in being "homemakers").

That said, probably more than half of the time when you have parents who don't care about their kids' education, every reason they give for being uninvolved is an indefensible cop-out to defend their selfishness and lack of responsibility. But that is also something you can't legislate or enforce. The fundamental culture of this country is one in which it is not only possible but expected of you to get by with doing as little work as possible, and be as irresponsible and short-sighted as you can manage without killing yourself.

Education is the key to changing that about America, but given that we can't rely on the government to do anything right, and we can't rely on parents to give a shit about it, I don't see any way out. Looks like we're all stuck riding the short bus to the Remedial School of Third World Experience.

Actually, the Harvard School of Education recently did a parent involvement survey, and most parents of low-achieving sectors DO care, they just don't know how to make that caring WORK.  The parents from a lot of minority populations are unaware of how they can make a difference.  They think sending their kids to school is enough.  Or that they'd be disrespecting the teacher if they gave opinions contrary to what their child is coming home with.  It's a socialization issue, and it's up to 1) the school districts to identify them 2) the home schools to seek them out and rectify this, stating plainly what the common goals should be and open themselves up to suggestions on how to work together to reach them and 3) the parent organizations (da da ta daaah!) like PTA's to give parent education on how to accomplish this.

Parents can BOTH work and BOTH give a shit about their kids' education.  The fallacy that two working parents can't, won't or are otherwise unable to give a shit is marked by more data than anyone cares to know.  There are plenty of variables that work out there other than a one-income family.

Strangely enough, there is ONE entity in the US that DOES legislate and enforce Parent Involvement:  the military.  They lose income, prestige and advancement if they do not actively participate in their kids' classrooms.  There was a spot done on this that can be found on YouTube back in the early 2000's or the late 90's.  I'll do a quick check to find it.  But these were all undereducated parents, minorities, poor families, and their children were among the cream of the crop in their age group.  This was attributed to the (albeit enforced) parent involvement in these schools.

By the way, we can change fundamental culture.  We no longer have slavery or segregation in schools.  That was fundamental not that long ago.  But we have to make the difference ourselves, talk it up, and actively urge others to be like us in order to affect that change.

[the last yatto]

HEY, HOW THE FUCK DID WE DO THIS SHIT IN THE 60s?  

Fear of the draft?
As didn't only college students get to stay home?


Also Is it cheaper to send seniors to take classes there? Vs say highschool

what about Japan's model were at junior high a test decides if you move on or goto vocational school

[Doktor Howl]

HEY, HOW THE FUCK DID WE DO THIS SHIT IN THE 60s?  

Fear of the draft? As didn't only college students get to stay home?


Is it cheaper to send seniors to take classes at there? Vs say highschool
Also what about Japan's model were at junior high a test decides if you move on or goto vocational school

Not sure how that pertains to grade schools.

[Jenne]

That and now we're letting parents have say in pretty much anything, and like any former teacher I have a very low opinion of most parents.

  Though I know what you mean, I think your mind may change on that variably when you're a parent as well.

[Jenne]

HEY, HOW THE FUCK DID WE DO THIS SHIT IN THE 60s? 

Fear of the draft?
As didn't only college students get to stay home?


Also Is it cheaper to send seniors to take classes there? Vs say highschool

what about Japan's model were at junior high a test decides if you move on or goto vocational school

That's actually Europe's model, borrowed by Japan.