The competition for Harry Reid

[Doktor Howl]

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

That was our best decade for public education, for the most part.  How did we get by without NCLB back then?

I challenge you to look at black and latino achievment back in those times.

Sure, white middle class students did awesome.

Which means that the teaching methods used by the White system that did work are obviously on the level of the medical experiments at Auschwitz, and can't ever be studied or used elsewhere out of shame.

Righteo, let's keep writing standardized tests.  We're bound to get it right eventually.

[Jenne]

The problem is not as simple as "abolish the DOE" or "get rid of standardized testing."  The problem is pretty complex as the funding for this, that and the other is gummed up in bureaucracy.  I've been studying this and have been in the middle of this debate for YEARS.  Close to a decade.  I've talked with the Legislative Analysts Office, I've sat in Governor Schwarzee-poo's office and debated with HIS people.  Gone to seminars, written letters, visited leg offices in Sacramento.  Harrassed people on the phone in the San Diego local leg offices.

But here's the kicker:  this problem is big because the number of students we are now teaching is larger than ever before.  They keep saying "cut the fat, cut the fat" and when your budget is 80% teachers and classified employees (bus drivers, janitors, school librarians and office clerks), that means cutting teachers, etc., at least in my school district.

And cutting programs, like GATE.  Cutting stuff that might enhance and round out what your kid is experiencing in "how to be a drone 101" school, but isn't "necessary" and so isn't mandated by law.  And cutting school counselors and psychologists, who might be able to stave off the next school shooting, or keep that girl off the streets who's been offered a "sweet deal" by her "uncle" to make money.  What does she need school for, anyway?   (Anyone ever look at the child trafficking stats lately?)

So, as state budgets have hit the skids, so has education funding.  Now, the "don't throw money at it, run it better!" camp seems to think that we don't need to increase funding to offset standard of living adjustments, population increases, and other changes in what we call "life" and its costs.  No, just do better with less!

Ok, so you cut your administration in half, lay off a third, rollback the salary of EVERYONE to pre-2000 levels, and cut counselors, nurses, librarians, teachers' aides, ancillary after-school programs, teacher-training, and what do you have left?

Parents making up the difference.  And that's what's happening, Folks.  In the neighborhoods the parents can AFFORD to buy more supplies, volunteer in the classroom, make copies, fund all the art, music, PE and after-school programs, those kids are not feeling the pinches nearly as much.

Guess what's happening in the schools where the parents 1) can't 2) don't know they need to 3) haven't a clue what's going on because they don't care?

[Jenne]

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

That was our best decade for public education, for the most part.  How did we get by without NCLB back then?

I challenge you to look at black and latino achievment back in those times.

Sure, white middle class students did awesome.

Which means that the teaching methods used by the White system that did work are obviously on the level of the medical experiments at Auschwitz, and can't ever be studied or used elsewhere out of shame.

Righteo, let's keep writing standardized tests.  We're bound to get it right eventually.

I don't know what you mean, but I don't see the two as equal, Rog. 

[LMNO]

Polemics aside, Dok brings up a good point.  How could we ensure that every child receives and equal level of sufficient education without resorting to standardized testing?

I know that I was thinking soley in ways of making standardized testing non-regurgitable, not for other ways to go about it.

[Jenne]

Personally, I don't want to go back to 1962.  I'd rather move forward...the fact that urban and segregated (and then desegregated) schools suffered EGREGIOUSLY through inadequacies in funding is a great excuse.  Folks think we have disproportionate funding system NOW--back in '62, it was horrifically bad, the difference in resources between white and "urban" schools.  ONE projector for films in a school of 500+ students, for example. 

The reason we have federal and state mandates, by the way, is because of those funding discrepancies back in the day.  It's SUPPOSED to ensure more equalization in funding.

Saw that one coming.  Okay, so we had two systems.  One worked, and one didn't.  The fact that one didn't means that no good ideas can be garnered from the system that DID work.

Because it was all funding, there wasn't a single literate Black person in America until the end of that decade.

That's not what I said.  But are you going to say that what we have now is worse?  I don't think it is.

[Jenne]

Polemics aside, Dok brings up a good point.  How could we ensure that every child receives and equal level of sufficient education without resorting to standardized testing?

I personally don't see standardized testing, per se, as the root of all evil here.

But that could be because it pays my bills.

[LMNO]

Polemics aside, Dok brings up a good point.  How could we ensure that every child receives and equal level of sufficient education without resorting to standardized testing?

I personally don't see standardized testing, per se, as the root of all evil here.

But that could be because it pays my bills.

Well, some people were complaining about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you identify the main problem as one of funding?

To bring the two points together, is there a way to complare proportional percentages of funding in the successful schools in 1962 with the schools of today?

That is to say, were schools funded better back then, and by how much?

[Jenne]

Federal school funding for public schools started in the late nineteenth century (anyone listen to "Backstory"? It's on NPR sometimes, I download the podcasts...).  Basically, the states tried to wrest the power from the feds in how to run the schools because they wanted to keep them segregated (remember "separate but equal"?).  But once the desegregation laws and lawsuits made Federal public school funding a state compliance issue, the Department of Education was then thought to be a good way to more or less nationalize the standards across the board.

However, the DoE still relied upon the states' abilities to regulate themselves, and as you can imagine, there were plenty of smaller public schools that just didn't make a difference in the communities they were in to the point that they helped the public to rise above their problems.  This started to change in the 70's and 80's, though, and standardization (with the help of public funding changes and standardized tests that allowed a more calculable way of gathering data across many planes of factors) of public education became more realizable.

I don't know where Roger's getting "1962."  Again, I'd posit the data (which in large part would be missing, because the sort of things going on in 1962 in urban and minority school populations was something to be hidden under a rug, not put on a plate and advertised or shared) would not show favorability for a number of reasons.

As for better or adequate funding back then, again, I think the tax base in certain areas required that the schools there would be better than where the tax base wasn't so high.

The problem is complicated.  Getting funding of any kind is too damned complicated.  Unfunded federal mandates (where schools and districts MUST, BY LAW, spend their money a certain way, even if it doesn't benefit the school or takes more away from the school than it gives), lack of equalization in funding, teacher contract issues, teacher training issues, lack of best practices being shared, etc. are all little things that can add up to a lot.  I've written a lot on these subjects and lectured a lot on these topics for PTA and our school district.

Sigh.  I'm not denying the problem is huge and not helped by reliance on testing rather than training.  But throwing out testing is throwing out baby with the bathwater, to me.  I like quantifiable results.  Why?  They hold people accountable, they're accessible, and they make sense for a place like the US that has few communities that are across the board terribly similar.  You have a large area with a wide distribution of population characteristics.  It makes sense to use standards-based curricular assessments.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

How about this: keep one standardized test as a basic check on educational quality, but make funding for schools dependent on how well the students in those schools do at the next level of education. Elementary schools' funding is tied to their students' performance in middle school; middle schools' funding is tied to their students' performance in high school; and high schools' funding is linked to the percentage of their students that go on to receive degrees or meaningful certifications in college or vocational schools.

[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.)

[Cain]

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

[tyrannosaurus vex]

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.

[Doktor Howl]

Personally, I don't want to go back to 1962.  I'd rather move forward...the fact that urban and segregated (and then desegregated) schools suffered EGREGIOUSLY through inadequacies in funding is a great excuse.  Folks think we have disproportionate funding system NOW--back in '62, it was horrifically bad, the difference in resources between white and "urban" schools.  ONE projector for films in a school of 500+ students, for example. 

The reason we have federal and state mandates, by the way, is because of those funding discrepancies back in the day.  It's SUPPOSED to ensure more equalization in funding.

Saw that one coming.  Okay, so we had two systems.  One worked, and one didn't.  The fact that one didn't means that no good ideas can be garnered from the system that DID work.

Because it was all funding, there wasn't a single literate Black person in America until the end of that decade.

That's not what I said.  But are you going to say that what we have now is worse?  I don't think it is.

Dunno.  What I DO know is that I had to memorize the multiplication tables in grade school, and I can still do fairly complex problems in my head.  My kids were taught using coins (presumably to teach them how to be good little WalMart clerks), and only the fact that *I* made them memorize the tables has given them that basic skill (My son is in AP Calc.  His friends are in "math studies", which used to mean that you were ahead of everyone, but now means that they're trying desperately to ensure that you can pass college algebra).  If you did a word problem when I was a kid, and the math was right, but there was a problem with the English in your response, the problem was marked incorrect (if you can't communicate your ideas, your skills are meaningless).  Of course, I had the benefit of a Canadian education.

When I was in grade school, lo those many decades ago, if you couldn't pass a class, you were held back a year.  The school was not penalized for this occurring.

Lastly, and this is outside of the purview of the schools, my parents and grandparents were involved in my education, just as my folks and myself are involved in my kid's education.  Many parents work 2 jobs just to make ends meet, and others either don't care, or view school as a "turn key" operation in which their support isn't required.  And some just don't give a shit.  Little Billy doesn't understand his homework?  Well, dig the shit out of your eyes and try harder, mom and dad are watching NCIS.

[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.

[Disco Pickle]

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.

I like this idea..  it's the first new approach I've heard in some time that sounds workable.

off subject:

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

who knew there was a place on the internets to have reasoned discourse?  Admittedly I've usually been too busy to look for one and BBS don't usually keep my interest for very long, but I'm seeing more and more said here that makes me really like this place.

I think I'll stick around for awhile.