You'd think there'd be pockets of "tutor-plus" arrangements out there along the lines of private day care centers, with 4 or 5 kids (or even 2 or 3) being taught by competent teachers in something resembling home schooling. And maybe there are

There sure are; lots of home-schoolers use co-op arrangements (I teach your kids math, you teach mine social studies).

I'm something of an agnostic on homeschooling; here in Texas it seems to attract mainly right-wing Protestants, but it can also attract left-wing pantheists; the common denominator seems to be a maverick disposition. But homeschooling is not an option for many, many people. I'm quite sure it's better than public schooling for lots of people, and I am also quite sure that good public schools are an absolute community imperative.

I agree with JC about as often as all eight planets align and sing "Ode to Joy", but if his quote is accurate it's utterly damning. It's simply a demonstrably false statement, and makes everything that follows easy to dismiss. In fact, necessary to dismiss.

Losing ark here is like LBJ losing Cronkite on Vietnam, so I'm worried now that I'm missing sometihng terribly obvious.

Doesn't "comprehensive educational experience" refer to interaction with other kids? IS the problem that empirically this isn't the case with home schooled kids, i.e. that they aren't schooled alone?

You'd think there'd be pockets of "tutor-plus" arrangements out there along the lines of private day care centers, with 4 or 5 kids (or even 2 or 3) being taught by competent teachers in something resembling home schooling. And maybe there are. Neither the state nore the teachers unions have any business interfering with arrangements like those.

I completely agree with this. In fact, I do hear about situations like it occasionally.

Re "sitting around w/your parents." HSers do the equivalent of a day's school work in about 3 hours, max. Usually as well the programs are designed to have the student do most of the teaching himself, so they're really becoming independent learners at a young age, not hanging onto mommy, and having time to do other things (go to museums, go to baseball games, do actual science out in nature, etc). I may be talking myself into HSing!

I'm not one to throw around accusations of racism, but I have to say this sounds a little offensive.

Lord knows Joey's never been one to offend others.

My main concern is the admittedly reflexive notion that kids of school age shouldn't sit around with their parents all day and I'm going to have a tough time shaking that one. And the suspicion that some kids are being pulled out of school for ideological reasons only to be subjected to the same thing only without classmates.

You'd think there'd be pockets of "tutor-plus" arrangements out there along the lines of private day care centers, with 4 or 5 kids (or even 2 or 3) being taught by competent teachers in something resembling home schooling. And maybe there are. Neither the state nore the teachers unions have any business interfering with arrangements like those.

There are indeed pockets of "tutor-plus" arrangements out there. I don't doubt there are parents who use home-schooling to dominate and indoctrinate their kids, but what I saw was small classes taught by parents who happened to know a given subject, private tutoring, and the occasional hire of a specialist to teach a subject none of the parents were familiar with (French, for instance).

The kids I got to know well in this arrangement had a healthy skepticism about authority. Something that will drive rightwingers nuts, of course, but that's just another bonus.

Why not just go all the way? I want my kid to take history and civics from me, English from Tech, Math from Prep, play football at High and basketball at South?

Again with the GD slippery slope. What is it with this site and these types of stupid, inane, and irrelevant hypotheticals? "Well, if you are in favor of the DH, you must be in favor of designated runners for the Molinas, and designated throwers for the Johnny Damons of the world." "Well, if you are in favor of someone having a glass of wine with dinner then driving home, you must be in favor of someone doing 10 Tequila shots at a bar and doing the same."

The answer is no, you can't do that, as that would be an unreasonable accommodation.

Doesn't "comprehensive educational experience" refer to interaction with other kids?

SBB: There are a few problems with the statement. First, it changes the goal of education to something weasly, a "comprehensive ... experience," whatever that is. Second, by every measure, HS kids succeed: they're ahead in testing metrics AND they don't suffer the purported socialization difficulties "comprehensive ... experience" suggests.

That said, I have no interest in defending HS as the only way to educate. There are many different needs and situations, as E-X described above. Why, however, the NEA - if concerned merely to see kids be educated - opposes HSing (and wants to punish HSers) is beyond me.

Losing ark here is like LBJ losing Cronkite on Vietnam, so I'm worried now that I'm missing sometihng terribly obvious.

Doesn't "comprehensive educational experience" refer to interaction with other kids? IS the problem that empirically this isn't the case with home schooled kids, i.e. that they aren't schooled alone?

Nice.

"Comprehensive", of course, can mean lots of things, especially in bureaucratese, but as I and a few others noted, there's nothing inherent in home schooling that isolates kids. Nothing inherent at all. Small sample size caveats apply to my experience, but the kids I saw were all getting a healthy dose of socialization, spending time with other kids, spending time with other kids of different ages (which happens very little in public schools), being taught by other kids, teaching other kids, going on far more field trips than I recall being common when I was in public school, and so on.

If the NEA is claiming "home schooling programs based on parental choice cannot provide the student with a comprehensive education experience", it's lying. It's simply a fraudulent statement.

Andy has explicitly made his prejudice clear: home schoolers are crazy religious people. You haven't, but I can't see any argument you've made to explain why you oppose it. Generally, the only reasons I've identified in the public debate over the years are (a) teachers protecting their jobs, and (b) prejudice against the "sort" of people who home school. Neither one seems worthy of you.

Is this wrong, Andy? I didn't post anything in b/w your comment I quoted and my quoting that. I was away. Since then, you've made the (good) argument that socially it's beneficial to let the kids participate, but have you at all nuanced your assertions that only Satan fearing folks send HS?

JC, when I want to get your take on steroids, I don't quote Nieporent's "interpretation" of them---I usually ask you or quote you directly. You might want to return the favor here.

And once again, I've already explained that one "Satanic " reference (and in a response to you, for that matter):

It was the sort of tongue in cheek line I often use, and all it was meant to express was that there are parents---and likely more than a few of them---who see home schooling as part and parcel of their overall worldview, which sees secular society as---well, Satanic. Surely you know this. I wasn't putting any percentage figures on this, nor would I.

But as you can see from my subsequent posts (and as you should know from my general history here), I'm not "anti-religion," I'm generally in favor of "personal choice" in most social matters no matter what the ideological implications, and more to the point, on most matters I generally side with the individual versus the institution, whether that insitution is public or private. I don't like bullies, and in this case my line about "spiteful" in #1222 was a shorthand way of expressing that sentiment.

I can only add that the rights of parents to home school their children should not (N-O-T) be subject to any religious or secular test. A "religious nut" parent has every bit as much of a moral right to home school his or her child as a parent who opens his child's lessons with a pledge to Madalyn Murray O'Hair, or with the singing of The Internationale. This is not something I want any government to determine, at least in the absence of any evidence that they're either doing direct harm to the child or driving him into a life of crime.

So there you have it. But again, a simple request: Argue with me and my own words all you want, but please remember: Nieporent is not my official spokesman, even though I've been "associating" with him for the entire 21st century on this website.

The parents are rejecting the community for most things, but demanding to be let into it for things of their choice. That's profoundly selfish.

Even assuming your characterization of their behavior ("rejecting the community") is accurate, I repeat: how is that selfish? Why is a cafeteria style approach to one's kids education "selfish," let alone "profoundly" so? I'm struggling to find a definition of "selfish" that applies there. (I'm assuming from context that you mean "selfish" in a negative sense, rather than a Randian one.)

If it was the other way, would that be selfish? By "the other way," I mean, what if a student goes to school full-time, but then takes piano lessons in his spare time, plays sports on a neighborhood team, studies a foreign language at home, and does volunteer work on his own? Isn't that also "rejecting the community for most things, but demanding to be let into it for things of their choice"? So is that selfish also?

Why not just go all the way? I want my kid to take history and civics from me, English from Tech, Math from Prep, play football at High and basketball at South?

As I said earlier, assuming that this doesn't impose too much of an administrative burden, I don't see why not. (If it does, then that would be a neutral reason for not allowing it.) I'm not quite sure why that's different than buying clothing at one store, school supplies at a second store, and groceries at a third.

Second, by every measure, HS kids succeed: they're ahead in testing metrics

There is selection bias inherent here because HS kids have one advantage: Their parents care very much about their education. They also generally care about it because the value of education has been instilled in them. Compare this to public schools, which has to take in all sorts of kids, even those who don't care about their education or have parents who don't care about their education.

... please remember: Nieporent is not my official spokesman, even though I've been "associating" with him for the entire 21st century on this website.

Since you're confessing to this relationship with Nieporent, we at BTF want to know, do you reject and denounce it?

There is selection bias inherent here because HS kids have one advantage: Their parents care very much about their education. They also generally care about it because the value of education has been instilled in them. Compare this to public schools, which has to take in all sorts of kids, even those who don't care about their education or have parents who don't care about their education.

Of course. I don't deny this. The parents care so much about their education they've made the hard decision to remove them from schools. And, despite the NEA's assertions to the contrary, the amateur parents educate these kids BETTER than the "professionals." (Did you see that article I linked?)

Americans care deeply about the education of their children.

Since you're confessing to this relationship with Nieporent, we at BTF want to know, do you reject and denounce it?

More importantly, is he wearing a flag pin on his lapel? If not, he must hate America.

There is selection bias inherent here because HS kids have one advantage: Their parents care very much about their education. They also generally care about it because the value of education has been instilled in them. Compare this to public schools, which has to take in all sorts of kids, even those who don't care about their education or have parents who don't care about their education.

Right. But that's not an argument against the the fact they they do do better. It's not meant as a knock on public schools, but merely to point out that they (the homeschoolers) are not being deprived.

Pretty succinct, but I might reduce it even further: The "larger problem" with our schools is that they reflect a society where a carcicature of the philosophically noble idea of individualism has run amok.

Of course, that's crazy; our society's problem is too little attachment to individualism, not too much.

As for our problem with schools, I would say that the big problem is that -- like most government programs -- they're a one-size-fits-all solution. We expect them to babysit those who have no interest in being there, educate the most and least gifted with the same rigid educational structure, teach discipline to those who need it (but without being allowed to dole it out), allow the creative to express themselves, teach all subjects at similar rates (set by chronological age rather than ability), "socialize" students, provide entertainment for the community, prepare people to be college students or workers, to be good citizens (except when they aren't citizens at all), etc.

Of course. I don't deny this. The parents care so much about their education they've made the hard decision to remove them from schools. And, despite the NEA's assertions to the contrary, the amateur parents educate these kids BETTER than the "professionals." (Did you see that article I linked?)

Americans care deeply about the education of their children

Part of why they are better is that they don't have to deal with kids who don't care causing distractions. I disagree with the NEA that it's going to be harmful all the time, but it will be harmful if they can't get someone who knows each subject well enough to teach them. A single parent home schooling their children by themselves can't possibly have the ability to cover every subject. A group of parents in which one knows enough history, and one knows math, etc. could probably do better than schools, but that isn't an option open to that many people.

I think most Americans care deeply about the education of their children, but enough don't care at all about the education of other people's children. And a large number of Americans see education as being worthless, and as that number grows, test scores will continue to fall, no matter what we do.

Meant to post this earlier:

I find it funny that you think teachers are given protection from firing, when they aren't. Just like anyone else, behavior and performance will get them fired, and just like anyone else, there should be known guidelines as to what is acceptable and what is not. If you hit a kid, you get fired. If you can't teach, you get fired. This has always been true, and the only people that don't think it's true are those that have some motivation for believing otherwise.

Or those of us -- for instance, lawyers -- who know how the system actually works. Until you have tenure, you can get fired very easily. Once you've gone through your first year/two years/three years (depending on the district contract) and have tenure, nothing short of criminal acts will get you fired. (That's not to say that there aren't ways to make teachers' lives miserable, such as giving them particularly lousy class schedules and such, to convince them to leave.) But otherwise, not worth the hassle and aggravation, particularly in our biggest school districts with the strongest unions. (If a teacher chooses to fight and appeal as much as he can, it takes several years to fire a teacher in NYC.)

Besides, saying "teachers can be fired for assault or not showing up for work" is not exactly a rebuttal to the claim that teachers are given extraordinary protection from firing. The vast majority of people in the U.S. are at will employees who can be fired at any time for any reason (with the exception of racial/ethnic/religious/etc discrimination). Few people suggest that restaurants would do a better job if waiters (or chefs) couldn't be fired except for assault/failure to wait tables. Few would suggest that Apple would make a better OS if programmers couldn't be fired except for assault/failure to program. Few would suggest that the legal system would be better off if lawyers couldn't be fired from their law firms. Etc. Why should teaching be so different?

And people don't give respect or sympathy to teachers because we don't really value education that much. If we did, we'd actually pay teachers something resembling the salary of a professional who went to college for 7 years.

Teachers aren't in the same universe as underpaid. They get the salaries of people who got a job straight out of undergrad, often with education degrees, and then punched their timecards taking part time classes to get masters degrees in education.

Homeschooling parents must have a stable, livable income; and they must have some college education (or at least a high-school / home-school education with substantial autodidact tendencies). But it is also very possible for poor and uneducated parents to "care" about their kids' education (it happens continuously, and has for centuries), even if they are completely unable to provide that education by themselves at home.

Or those of us -- for instance, lawyers -- who know how the system actually works.

I think David just summarized every post he's ever made in one sentence. Which is actually kind of impressive.

Teachers aren't in the same universe as underpaid. They get the salaries of people who got a job straight out of undergrad, often with education degrees, and then punched their timecards taking part time classes to get masters degrees in education.

Relative to job training, that's a fair point. But relative to the amount of work, it is not. Which jobs requiring a four year degree pay $40,000 to work 60+ hours per week? That pay scale and typical schedule.

Part of why they are better is that they don't have to deal with kids who don't care causing distractions. I disagree with the NEA that it's going to be harmful all the time, but it will be harmful if they can't get someone who knows each subject well enough to teach them. A single parent home schooling their children by themselves can't possibly have the ability to cover every subject. A group of parents in which one knows enough history, and one knows math, etc. could probably do better than schools, but that isn't an option open to that many people.

First, as for homeschoolers, the internet has really changed the system. Years ago, parents were acting in isolation, perhaps ordering some materials out of the back of some magazine or maybe passing around a few old mimeographs at a once-a-month meeting of homeschooling parents in the area. The internet has enabled cooperation and regular interaction among homeschooling parents and among homeschooled kids.

Second, I don't disagree that this is a concern for many -- though not all (*) -- homeschooling parents, but let's not idealize schools, either, okay? Let's not pretend that just because the goal is to have subject matter experts teaching kids in their area of expertise, that this actually happens all the time. There are plenty of teachers teaching outside their area of competence, plenty whose method of instruction is to repeat the textbook to the class, have them answer the questions at the end of the chapter, and then have them bubble in answers to a quiz from the teacher's edition every few weeks.


(*) I will put my knowledge in just about any subject area up against a public school teacher's, and there are some other people here who I'd also trust more than a teacher. There are plenty of smart teachers in the country, but with something like four or five million public school teachers in the U.S., there are lots of dumb ones too.

Part of why they are better is that they don't have to deal with kids who don't care causing distractions. I disagree with the NEA that it's going to be harmful all the time, but it will be harmful if they can't get someone who knows each subject well enough to teach them.

I agree w/the first part. Of course, again. The second part is conjecture and ignorance. HSers buy programs (computerized or otherwise) that teach students the material, indeed that teach students how to teach themselves the material. And, again, they excel and do better than their counterparts.

I accept and lament your point: the social consequence of the rapid rise in HSing is disastrous. It's going to entrench classes even further. The interested, motivated parents are fleeing PSs, no doubt about it. Left behind are kids who can't get out and the teachers w/a greater burden to carry than before b/c they've lost interested parents and students who can model good learning. This is all unfortunate. But it's also, IMHO, a predictable consequence of PSing gone off the rails. We can argue about why or whether this has happened, but there's no question that 100000s of people taking education into their own hands indicates their sense that that is what's happened and that they won't sacrifice their children to it.

Or those of us -- for instance, lawyers -- who know how the system actually works.

I think David just summarized every post he's ever made in one sentence. Which is actually kind of impressive.

Unbidden, the entire film, Dr. Strangelove, flashed before my eyes.

Part of why they are better is that they don't have to deal with kids who don't care causing distractions. I disagree with the NEA that it's going to be harmful all the time, but it will be harmful if they can't get someone who knows each subject well enough to teach them. A single parent home schooling their children by themselves can't possibly have the ability to cover every subject.

Dan, I respectfully disagree with your last sentence. First, there's no reason an intelligent parent couldn't learn enough in a given subject to teach it to their HS high-school age child. We're not, literally, talking about rocket science or neurosurgery. Second, if public schools (which I imagine most of us attended) had indeed done their job, why wouldn't any parent with a public school education be able to pass along that education to their own child?

Few people suggest that restaurants would do a better job if waiters (or chefs) couldn't be fired except for assault/failure to wait tables. Few would suggest that Apple would make a better OS if programmers couldn't be fired except for assault/failure to program. Few would suggest that the legal system would be better off if lawyers couldn't be fired from their law firms. Etc. Why should teaching be so different?

These are excellent rhetorical questions, and they simply go back to the culture we want to instill in schools. Restaurants, computer companies, and law firms are intensely competitive industries. They exist to attract more customers, users, or clients, to serve them better, to be able to charge more for what they provide.

Schools and colleges could be run on that model, but I would argue that it's a positive value for the classroom to be a truly non-profit, "reproductive" workplace where teachers and students alike have the leisure to explore a world of learning. My ideal here is a pipe-dream, as CQI models are creeping into education at all levels now, and the academy is less and less a liberal institution all the time. But unions and tenure systems, in their broad-brush way, do help preserve the liberal-education ideal.

We can argue about why or whether this has happened, but there's no question that 100000s of people taking education into their own hands indicates their sense that that is what's happened and that they won't sacrifice their children to it.

This is a lot of what it comes down to, for me. I would not sacrifice my child's education, to wit, my child, on the altar of an abstraction such as a common education creates more political coherence. You would have to pry that algebra textbook from my cold, dead, hands.

There is selection bias inherent here because HS kids have one advantage: Their parents care very much about their education.

Indeed. There is no question that parental involvement and concern is a significant factor in a child's likelihood of educational achievement and success. A school can only do so much to make a kid pay attention, read, and do his homework. The parents are in a much better position to see to it that the kids are hitting the books at home like he should be.

If liberals were really sincere, they would be asking themselves why more and more parents who care so much about their kids' education don't think they can get the adequate education in the school itself, instead of just giving them the contemptuous, dismissive "gun in one hand, Bible in the other" Obama treatment.

Schools and colleges could be run on that model,...

They could, but since there's no remotely close equivalent to that irreplaceable gauge of success in private enterprise, namely $$$, it's a hopeless, misguided attempt.

The attempt to graft the business model onto schools, i.e. standardized testing, is a grotesque perversion of an untranslateable measure of success.

there's no reason an intelligent parent couldn't learn enough in a given subject to teach it to their HS high-school age child. We're not, literally, talking about rocket science or neurosurgery. Second, if public schools (which I imagine most of us attended) had indeed done their job, why wouldn't any parent with a public school education be able to pass along that education to their own child?

Aside from the economic point I made in #1319, there's the cultural point that an awful lot of American parents are immigrants without the English necessary to home-school their kids in this country, and who haven't attended public schools in this country themselves. In fact, I would imagine that a lot of people posting here passed that threshold somewhere back in their family's past. My great-grandmother cared an awful lot about my grandmother's education, but as a Slovak cook who spoke about a hundred words of English, she wasn't going to teach Grandma any U.S. history. That's what the public school system in Chicago was for (and I am dead certain that if you look up debates over school funding in Chicago a hundred years ago, you'd get people saying that "they" – our ancestors – just didn't "care" about education in the way that real Americans did).

The attempt to graft the business model onto schools, i.e. standardized testing, is a grotesque perversion of an untranslateable measure of success.

You hit the nail on the head. Working with data allows for a value-added model to isolate variables that cause changes, positive or negative, which works very well for corporate consultants. Working with students introduces an infinite number of unquantifiable variables, including peer pressure, parental (non?)involvement, non-school activities, and psychological states, all colored by environment and expectations.

I realize this is an unsatisfying conclusion because it does not offer a solution, but ruling out possibilities is still progress.

That said, I have no interest in defending HS as the only way to educate. There are many different needs and situations, as E-X described above. Why, however, the NEA - if concerned merely to see kids be educated - opposes HSing (and wants to punish HSers) is beyond me.

Because it is an antagonistic relationship between teachers and administrators that is primarily administrator driven.

As I said earlier in the thread, our district just laid off 12 teachers mid-year because we didn't hit enrollment numbers because they can't fricking protect our kids.

So the union just sees it as another issue which the district will use to leverage against the teachers. They are completely right, but in my opinion short sighted.

I'd just let the district say, "This shows that teachers aren't doing their jobs".

And I'd come back with, "Of course individualized instruction is good. However about funding instruction instead of your pet projects to allow trained, expert instructors to spend time individually teaching students instead of driving kids out of the system?"

But the average president of a giant teacher's union doesn't understand education that well. We don't follow them because we think they are awesome. We do it because our crappy unions feel like the only people in the society who even resemble some sort of support.

Remember, in most of our cases, we are people being thrown into an environment where we don't understand the cultural paradigms and evaluated on a standard that is nonsensical for the populations we are dealing with and given zero support. We ask for mentoring programs and we get more paperwork.

I'd love to see education treated like law or medicine. It's certainly more challenging than either and the rigor of the preparation is not up to standard.

But until you are ready to pay to the difficulty level of the profession, you aren't going to be able to sell that plan of action.

So rather than pouncing on the individual positions on certain issues of the NEA or the AFT, it might be worthwhile to work with rank and file teachers to develop strategic plans to improve the situation.

Good lord stomach flu sucks.

Carry on.

Since you're confessing to this relationship with Nieporent, we at BTF want to know, do you reject and denounce it?

More importantly, is he wearing a flag pin on his lapel? If not, he must hate America.

Well, here's the website I just launched two days ago, and you can see for yourself that the American flag is front and center. It's right there in the red, white and blue.

Although I do have to admit that my website does associate with a few Commie Colleges, like Harvard and
Princeton.

But speaking of American flags, where's Joey's? Where's Nieporent's? Where's GoodFace's? Where's JC's? How do we know that they aren't stepping out in their Nehru jackets and then making the excuse of "Sorry, I forgot my lapel"?

E-X, where do you teach?

This paragraph:

Remember, in most of our cases, we are people being thrown into an environment where we don't understand the cultural paradigms and evaluated on a standard that is nonsensical for the populations we are dealing with and given zero support. We ask for mentoring programs and we get more paperwork.

sounds painfully familiar.

I work as a union rep for my school, mainly because the school has so many teachers like me (young, many through alt. certifications) that I wanted to make sure someone understood the contract for its affirmative and negative burdens, as well as what we are entitled to in terms of support.

This statement also struck me:

I'd love to see education treated like law or medicine. It's certainly more challenging than either and the rigor of the preparation is not up to standard.

But until you are ready to pay to the difficulty level of the profession, you aren't going to be able to sell that plan of action.

There are many similarities regarding "societal good" and a broad sense of utility. Maybe the devaluing has something to do with historical gender stereotypes? I don't really know. But I do like the project that Uncommon Schools is undertaking. Higher teacher pay, higher standards, more experience required on the front end, more organization, more structure. Not a corporate model precisely, but adopting the applicable parts of accountability and adapting them to an amorphous set of data.

Few people suggest that restaurants would do a better job if waiters (or chefs) couldn't be fired except for assault/failure to wait tables. Few would suggest that Apple would make a better OS if programmers couldn't be fired except for assault/failure to program. Few would suggest that the legal system would be better off if lawyers couldn't be fired from their law firms. Etc. Why should teaching be so different?

That's because except you, most people understand that if you switch waiters mid-meal, you are unlikely to be malnourished for the next six months*.

*the average academic setback a student suffers from a single massive transiency event.

In communities with no family support and where the only consistent life quality is inconsistency, it is absolutely vital to develop teachers who ARE the institution.

The fact that principals and administrators don't observe their instructors nearly enough, don't solicit student or parent input, and favor their friends and acquaintances is why that system fails miserably.

If a person sucks at teaching and is not putting the students first, that comes out very quickly--well before year 4 or 5 (the first years of tenure in CPS) if you are paying attention at all.

I really don't know a single teacher who was awesome, got tenure and started to mail it in. But I know a ton who burned out in year two and were never weeded out.

(*) I will put my knowledge in just about any subject area up against a public school teacher's, and there are some other people here who I'd also trust more than a teacher. There are plenty of smart teachers in the country, but with something like four or five million public school teachers in the U.S., there are lots of dumb ones too.

Well, you already have in this discussion, and all you've proven is the incompetency of a single lawyer. Thank goodness we don't use you to stereotype lawyers.

But speaking of American flags, where's Joey's? Where's Nieporent's? Where's GoodFace's? Where's JC's? How do we know that they aren't stepping out in their Nehru jackets and then making the excuse of "Sorry, I forgot my lapel"?

Same place it always is... draped around my shoulders like a cape, w/matching bandana around my head. Sure, it draws some looks around the office, but it's worth it in case George Stephanopolous comes by starting any ####.

Thanks for the link. I'm in Chicago.

Also, Eraser, the reason why any calls for improvement in conditions or pay for teachers hits a wall with a more conservative element seems to be that when we say "teachers" they hear "teacher's union", and they are indistinguishable from each other in those eyes. Unions are evil, teacher's unions are evil, and anything the teachers feel they want or need is simply discounted politically before the discussion even STARTS.

This may seem extra-cynical, but in watching the tone of these discussions, and as a former teacher and child of two public school teachers, that's what I've observed here in addition to the better part of a life-long discussion.

the reason why any calls for improvement in conditions or pay for teachers hits a wall with a more conservative element seems to be that when we say "teachers" they hear "teacher's union"

This is the same right wing that pitched a fit when it was proposed that airport security personnel be unionized, in the wake of people hijacking airplanes. Even a clear and present danger isn't worth addressing if it involves union labor.

Dan, I respectfully disagree with your last sentence. First, there's no reason an intelligent parent couldn't learn enough in a given subject to teach it to their HS high-school age child. We're not, literally, talking about rocket science or neurosurgery.

What if your kid excels at a few subjects well beyond what you would consider to be standard for a public school student? I was so good at both mathematics and science that I was in classes with 6-7 other students at the same level. Are you telling me any parent could learn calculus or learn enough chemistry to show their child how to run an experiment such as "how does cigarette smoke affect anti-oxidant levels?"? I consider myself to be intelligent, but I would never presume that if my child took an unnatural interest in literature that I could learn enough to cover all the bases. If, say, I new a parent that was that good at language and literature who couldn't do math or science, we could each make up for the deficiencies of the other, but neither one could do it ourselves.

A school is successful if it can enable anyone to learn as much as they want. That is what truly limits students, not that we can't get the apathetic students to a certain level.

A school is successful if it can enable anyone to learn as much as they want. That is what truly limits students, not that we can't get the apathetic students to a certain level.

Don't tell Ted Kennedy.

Or whoever wrote NCLB.

First, there's no reason an intelligent parent couldn't learn enough in a given subject to teach it to their HS high-school age child.

I missed this before, but seriously, Ark? Chemistry, world history, calculus, spanish? You could learn enough expertise at all these while working full-time and be happy with what you've taught your children? I don't think you could, despite your established intelligence, and if you COULD, it certain is NOT indicative of any "intelligent" parent. Yikes.

What if your kid excels at a few subjects well beyond what you would consider to be standard for a public school student? I was so good at both mathematics and science that I was in classes with 6-7 other students at the same level. Are you telling me any parent could learn calculus or learn enough chemistry to show their child how to run an experiment such as "how does cigarette smoke affect anti-oxidant levels?"? I consider myself to be intelligent, but I would never presume that if my child took an unnatural interest in literature that I could learn enough to cover all the bases. If, say, I new a parent that was that good at language and literature who couldn't do math or science, we could each make up for the deficiencies of the other, but neither one could do it ourselves.

Sounds like a perfect scenario for allowing the child to attend the local HS for some specialized courses.

Don't tell Ted Kennedy.

Nepotism helps brothers as well as sons.

Sounds like a perfect scenario for allowing the child to attend the local HS for some specialized courses.

It would be a good argument for it, though I must admit that I find peers to be at least as helpful as teachers,.

Sounds like a perfect scenario for allowing the child to attend the local HS for some specialized courses.

I'm usually not a fan of the slippery slope argument, but if this is allowed, then don't we have to allow students to pick the school at which they take every course? Maybe it would benefit some, but at the introduction of how much red tape?

I said 1200 posts on page 2--we are going to pass that. This is sort of my Perfect Storm thread--Obama, the NBA and education.

There are a few largely-overlooked macro-issues that inform discussions of edcuation, and create situations in which people on both sides make assertions that are based on assumptions that they have not thought through.

1. The traditional rhetoric of applying accountability and "pleasing the customer" and "choice" and "market incentives" to the schools often ignores the simple fact that the goals of commercial institutions and educational institutions are, in many respects, fundamentally different. Two main areas where this manifests are in merit pay proposals and teacher accountability, which are problematical. There are any number of other problems with it.
2. Although most people are aware of it on some level, they forget that the impact of family is far greater than the impact of teachers on which/how kids get educated. We can see this easily in many ways, one way being through pop culture, in that the movies about "miracle teachers" such as Erin Gruwell and Jaime Escalante, essentially portray teachers who BECOME the kids' families and then burn out. Having taught rich kids and poor kids, I can say without qualification that parental involvement, stability and oversight can trump 50 avaricious Teamster extortionist teachers who are too dumb and lazy to have a cool job like being a lawyer. Destroying the NEA tomorrow and making Rifkin Secretary of Education and The Good Face Czar of Accountability would change none of that. And that, of course, is a societal issue, that has nothing to do with the union.
3. Teaching is the ultimate soft skills job, in that anybody can stand up in front of a group and explain how to do something or what something means. This--not politics or evil capitalists--is why teachers don't make that much money. It is not a specialized hard-knowledge career, nor is it a product that one can sell to many people at the same time. In addition, everybody has been in school, and has formed opinions about what a good teacher is, what a bad teacher is, etc. That said, even the dumbest, laziest, Demo-voting extortionist Teamster tenure-protected Hillarista knows vastly more about how to run a class, set up an IEP, vary activities, etc than most of the people here do. Educating an individual starts from the inside and the ground up; improving the system works the same way.
4. We need to avoid talking in absolutes. If you walk around a public school--and lately I have been volunteering a bit at my buddy's middle school that he runs, even though I work 50 hours a week in adult developmental ed--and you will see some fine work being done by fine teachers. You will also see some kids in over their heads trying to manage tough teens,and burnout cases laboring through the day. Yet, the rhetoric is all-or-nothing--"No Child Left Behind" etc. Szymborski, in one post, referred to educational funding as a "Leviathan", a "black hole" and several other things, and then in his other post, compared teachers to crooked mechanics. This type of rhetoric, though common, is both irresponsible and ill-conceived. It is, in fact, much like hard-core Bush-hating liberals talking about all the wasted money in Iraq. Yes, there is pork. Yes, the war may be a big mistake. But SOME of that money goes to protect and equip our soliders. I have heard the counterargument to this a million times--get rid of the evil clowns in the NEA, get rid of the bureaucracy and let some sharp, tough, no-nonsense businesspeople get in there and spend the money right. What would be better, though, is working together--and asking the teachers, who actually know how to to do the job-decide about the money. Some schools do that, but--and this is an area where the union ##### up--they don't get enough outside input from parents and businesses. In addition, the mechanic analogy, while chosen for rhetorical effect rather then elucidation, like most such analogies, shows a basic lack of understanding of how education works, in additon to perhaps being condescending. Doctor/mechanic would be a far better analogy.
5. The demographics of America have changed and are changing. My mom and dad retired at the same time a few years ago, but my mom, who taught Elementary Special Ed for 30 years, missed the kids, so she has set up a volunteer literacy center on the school campus, targeting kids reading below grade level. They get donations/time from parents and buy the rest of the books/software out of pocket. My dad, a centrist independent who thinks Obama and McCain are both clowns, BTW, volunteers three times a week with her, and since he has started doing so, his rhetoric about schools and teachers has done a 180. One area that he has focused on is demographics, noting that so many of the kids, including African immigrants, and of course Mexicans, and others, have almost no language skills, etc. This complicates the issue in a number of ways, and his respect for teachers, watiching them and working with them, has risen considerably. One can argue that privatized models might provide more flexiblity to deal with such issues, but again, that starts by working WITH the teachers, not pissing on them, since, as E-X suggests, the kids who need the most help are not well-heeled "customers," nor are their parents.

***

One of my current gigs is teaching basic math to construction workers at night. My salary is paid by the state, but the site belongs to and the admin is done by a contractors' organization that would warm Rifkin's tortilla-chip-eating Republican heart: open shop, non-union and in your face about it. No BS here, pal, and no bureaucracy. I am the only professional teacher on staff--the other classes are all taught, as they should be, by guys in the business. I am the only guy with a BA, much less two Master's and the only Democrat among the ten teachers. These guys are mostly great guys--family men, decent men, self-starters, hardworkers, in many ways what America is all about--but they bag on the schools all the time, call HRC "It" and Obama "Osama" etc. But, at our site, my class has recently been singled out for how well its run, the great results I get, etc. I was asked to send my curriculum--which I somehow shook my dumb, whiny, liberal unionized ass into gear long enough to largely create myself--to other sites, etc. One reason for this is that I understand some things--comprehensible input, Bloom's taxonomy, the interaction between multiple intelligences and the three main learning modalities, the importance of balancing reinforcement to the cognitive and affective domains at the developmental level, the way cultural differences inform learning patterns at the meta-cognitive level, the importance of customized anticipatory sets, modeling, and scaffolding--that I mostly got from my "grossly overvalued", as Nieporent once put it, Masters Program. And, since these are adults, student evals are a big deal, and I get very good ones.

The other guys mostly do a good job, too, based on what I have seen, but the higher-ups were not happy with some things, so in the time-honored tradition of the hopelessly bureaucratized public schools, they brought in an outside consultant to create "accountability" and make sure "all the objectives of the program" were being met by "all the students." The guy was typical--a salesman--telling us that "I am here to help" etc. But, after the icebreaker and the pitch, he started telling us everything we were doing wrong, and how we needed to change this, fill out that, etc.
And, predictably, the older teachers--particularly the carpentry guy--the most conservative of the bunch, a rock-ribbed ex-Army dude in his 50s whose kids are in private school--reacted just like older public school teachers generally do: What about student accountability? We are the ones in the classroom; we know what these students need, etc. I am going to teach my class my way. I am the professional here. The consultant has been scarce since then, and told me upfront that I coudl keep doing what I was doing.


***

So, what to do?

1. Start by tempering the rhetoric. The union shoots itself in the foot by doing stuff like trashing home-schoolers and challenging John Stossel to get into a classroom. Like E-X, I always backed homeschool parents and have helped a few. But that goes both ways. I used to tell parents "I know about education, but YOU are the expert on your child. Let's put what we know together to get him/her the best education possible." That always seemed to help. But as long as the goal of righties to shitcan and #### on the union, that will mostly help Bill O'Reilly, not kids.
2. Continue charter experiments like Agassi's school and the 125K one in NYC (my principal friend is headed to Nevada to meet with Agassi's people next month to get some ideas) but realize that these ideas will not work in all settings, and the traditional models have much to offer.
3. Raise salaries at the start.
4. Create systems that allow older teachers to work with younger teachers, to help both, and give the principals more discretion about classroom time for burnouts and newbies without threatening people's jobs. My buddy pulled a newbie who was flailing and taught math and science to the at-rsik kids himself for a semester, so I got a little time off at the college to have his back and back him up as a volunteer. He didn't fire her, though, and she is doing better now.
5. Union: Recognize that the public is in some ways the customer. Recognize that businesspeople have ideas that can help. Union opponents: Recognize that teachers are a resource, not a problem, and that business models also have holes in them you could drive a truck through when applied to education.
6. Create a federally-funded tutoring program, administered on-site. At all my jobs--the college, math, etc--I have pushed for well-paid college kids, in the classroom, working as assistants and tutors. It never--ever--fails to help a lot. There is no substitute--not technology, not accountability, not discipline--for attention. This--not moronic teachers--is why homeschool works. There are tons of smart, compassionate college/post-college kids, who would love to go into the schools and help, and would be lining up if they could get paid $15-25 an hour to do it. I have a TA in the math class and in my ESL classes, and it works.
7. Create parental accountability and involvement models and implement them, and work with employers directly to let parents come in and see the school. When my buddy took over the at-risk kids, he set up a program where kids could get extra credit and a prize for parental visits. Got on the phone with employers when needed to help get parents a couple of hours to visit. We had them in every week and it helped.
8. De-emphasize test scores in determination of funding.

This is the same right wing that pitched a fit when it was proposed that airport security personnel be unionized, in the wake of people hijacking airplanes. Even a clear and present danger isn't worth addressing if it involves union labor.

You make it sound as if it's just an irrational opposition to unions. While there is certainly an ideological component to the issue -- plus a partisan one, since unions tend to work heavily to elect Democrats -- there's also a legitimate issue, which is (yet again) tenure. Unions make it very difficult to fire people. That may not matter so much if you're dealing with clerical workers, but when you're dealing with national security, it's pretty bad if you can't replace -- or even discipline -- people doing a bad job.

What if your kid excels at a few subjects well beyond what you would consider to be standard for a public school student? I was so good at both mathematics and science that I was in classes with 6-7 other students at the same level.

Me too; I happened to be in a great school district that had sufficient resources to run programs afterschool for a handful of students, gathering them from around the district. But most people aren't in that sort of situation, and if they've taken (e.g.) calculus then their school doesn't offer them anything more. (New Jersey, where I live but didn't grow up, is particularly bad because the school districts are all so tiny that they can't get a critical mass of students or teachers for such advanced study.)

Are you telling me any parent could learn calculus or learn enough chemistry to show their child how to run an experiment such as "how does cigarette smoke affect anti-oxidant levels?"?

Are you telling me that every teacher could?

I'm usually not a fan of the slippery slope argument, but if this is allowed, then don't we have to allow students to pick the school at which they take every course? Maybe it would benefit some, but at the introduction of how much red tape?

No. I think it is reasonable for the school district to restrict students to the school in their area. If that homeschooler decided to enroll tomorrow, they would have to accommodate him, and thus should be expected to have budgeted the space and staff. It is not reasonable to expect every school to budget for every possible student in the district or state.

I missed this before, but seriously, Ark? Chemistry, world history, calculus, spanish? You could learn enough expertise at all these while working full-time and be happy with what you've taught your children? I don't think you could, despite your established intelligence, and if you COULD, it certain is NOT indicative of any "intelligent" parent. Yikes.

Well, it's not like we have to learn it; just refresh our memories.

I missed this before, but seriously? Chemistry, world history, calculus, spanish? I'm not sure who you are, but YOU could learn enough expertise at all these while working full-time and be happy with what you've taught your children?

Working full-time? No way. I should have been explicit about it, but I made an automatic assumption that were I to home-school a child, there's no way I would be working full-time. The two seem entirely at odds. Fwiw, I wouldn't consider an evening in, reading up on the fine points of Donatello's sculpture and it's place in the Italian Renaissance, and figuring how to teach that, anything but good fun.

What if your kid excels at a few subjects well beyond what you would consider to be standard for a public school student? I was so good at both mathematics and science that I was in classes with 6-7 other students at the same level. Are you telling me any parent...

Hang on, Dan. I did specifically say an "intelligent" parent. Could "any parent"? Absolutely not. Some of what you mentioned does, imo, go well beyond a standard public school education. Since that exceeds what I specified, I'd cheerfully turn to someone who knows more than I know, or more than what I could learn, for help. Also, just because I know something, doesn't mean I'd have to or even want to be, my child's tutor in that subject. There's too much to be said for varying approaches, and different voices, for me to want to monopolize a child's education.

edit--here and there

Me too; I happened to be in a great school district that had sufficient resources to run programs afterschool for a handful of students, gathering them from around the district. But most people aren't in that sort of situation, and if they've taken (e.g.) calculus then their school doesn't offer them anything more. (New Jersey, where I live but didn't grow up, is particularly bad because the school districts are all so tiny that they can't get a critical mass of students or teachers for such advanced study.)

I was in a different situation: I was in a public school that had a teachers that cared enough to give up part of their planning period to take on the most advanced students. Now, these were veteran teachers that already had their curriculum set up so they didn't need it as much as newer teachers, but it's not as if they had no use for it. Schools would be better off if they could afford to have these classes available to everyone.

Are you telling me that every teacher could?

A math teacher damn well better be able to do linear algebra, and a chemistry teacher damn well better understand the principles as to how anti-oxidants work. Expecting an English teacher to do linear algebra or a Science teacher to break down works by Pynchon is a bit much.

Are you telling me that every teacher could?

Every chemistry teacher? Yes.

Granted, they couldn't as well as the lawyers. After all...

...for instance, lawyers -- who know how the system actually works.

Hang on, Dan. I did specifically say an "intelligent" parent. Could "any parent"? Absolutely not. Some of what you mentioned does, imo, go well beyond a standard public school education. Since that exceeds what I specified, I'd cheerfully turn to someone who knows more than I know, or more than what I could learn, for help. Also, just because I know something, doesn't mean I'd have to or even want to be, my child's tutor in that subject. There's too much to be said for varying approaches, and different voices, for me to want to monopolize a child's education

I was addressing home schooling by a single person. I don't think that any parent could honestly teach every subject well enough to get their child all the way up to high school, and that's especially true if your child is gifted in a certain area. I think we forget exactly how much we really need to know in order to educate a child just up to the age of 14, let alone prepare them for college.

These are excellent rhetorical questions, and they simply go back to the culture we want to instill in schools. Restaurants, computer companies, and law firms are intensely competitive industries. They exist to attract more customers, users, or clients, to serve them better, to be able to charge more for what they provide.

Schools and colleges could be run on that model, but I would argue that it's a positive value for the classroom to be a truly non-profit, "reproductive" workplace where teachers and students alike have the leisure to explore a world of learning. My ideal here is a pipe-dream, as CQI models are creeping into education at all levels now, and the academy is less and less a liberal institution all the time. But unions and tenure systems, in their broad-brush way, do help preserve the liberal-education ideal.

Keep in mind that (a) colleges do compete with each other -- not in precisely the same way that restaurants do, to be sure, but far more than public grammar/secondary schools do, and (b) the (vast?) majority of instructors at undergraduate institutions -- here I include community colleges -- are not on a tenure track at all, and their employers can refuse to renew their contracts virtually at will.

Well, it's not like we have to learn it; just refresh our memories.

You're not being serious here, right?

6. Create a federally-funded tutoring program, administered on-site. At all my jobs--the college, math, etc--I have pushed for well-paid college kids, in the classroom, working as assistants and tutors. It never--ever--fails to help a lot. There is no substitute--not technology, not accountability, not discipline--for attention. This--not moronic teachers--is why homeschool works. There are tons of smart, compassionate college/post-college kids, who would love to go into the schools and help, and would be lining up if they could get paid $15-25 an hour to do it. I have a TA in the math class and in my ESL classes, and it works.

This is a really creative idea that had not occurred to me before. Is there a location where it is put into practice? It seems like something that could be done even through donations. 1-2 college kids per class getting $15 per hour would be a pittance compared to some of the money wasted by schools, and would make a tremendous difference in some classes, especially for young teachers struggling with disciplinary issues.

By the way, robinred, I think I learned more from reading your post than from 3/4 of a masters in education at an ivy league university.

Are you telling me that every teacher could?

Every chemsitry teacher? Yes.

In theory. ("In theory, communism works. In theory...") But I encountered too many teachers over the years who knew less than I did to buy that.

Granted, they couldn't as well as the lawyers. After all...

...for instance, lawyers -- who know how the system actually works.

So you're going to be self-contradictorily snide. You tout expertise, but then you ignore it. (The "know how the system actually works" was a reference to the ability to fire schoolteachers with tenure, and that's a legal question.)

This is the same right wing that pitched a fit when it was proposed that airport security personnel be unionized, in the wake of people hijacking airplanes. Even a clear and present danger isn't worth addressing if it involves union labor.


You make it sound as if it's just an irrational opposition to unions. While there is certainly an ideological component to the issue -- plus a partisan one, since unions tend to work heavily to elect Democrats -- there's also a legitimate issue, which is (yet again) tenure. Unions make it very difficult to fire people. That may not matter so much if you're dealing with clerical workers, but when you're dealing with national security, it's pretty bad if you can't replace -- or even discipline -- people doing a bad job.

I personally enjoyed the insinuation that if only the airport security had been unionized, 9-11 would have been prevented.

Well, it's not like we have to learn it; just refresh our memories.

You're not being serious here, right?

Sure. I'm not saying that I could glance at a calc textbook for five minutes and then teach it; it's been a few years since I used that knowledge. But it's not as if I have to learn it from scratch, either. I just need my memory refreshed.

Although I attended public school, my parents -- two of them, not one; they had different areas of expertise -- essentially taught me these subjects on their own, sooner and better than the schools did. (Dad was the math/science, Mom was the humanities.) I think people either don't realize or have forgotten how slowly schools actually teach, both because they're aimed at the lowest common denominator (even when there's ability grouping) and because the rigid structure of the school day in most schools (50 minute periods? How silly.) makes it difficult to learn quickly.

I think we forget exactly how much we really need to know in order to educate a child just up to the age of 14, let alone prepare them for college.

What in particular are you thinking of that would be so difficult to learn or recall? I'm not being snarky here; rather, it's important to me to understand your objection. If we say through age 14, or 10th grade, aren't we talking trig, a foreign language, and so on? We're probably not talking advanced calculus, nanotechnology, human cadaver dissection, and the like--not at 14, anyway.

nevermind

So you're going to be self-contradictorily snide.

No, just snide. The ego exhibited in that one sentence you wrote was freakin' gold.

Sure. I'm not saying that I could glance at a calc textbook for five minutes and then teach it; it's been a few years since I used that knowledge. But it's not as if I have to learn it from scratch, either. I just need my memory refreshed.

Neither your children's college advisors nor the colleges they apply to are going to be too happy with the math SAT scores your kids show from your refreshed-memory tutoring. Especially as (it's my guess, anyhow) it's going to be a number of years since your kids get to the age where they would even start, placing your time AWAY from calculus at quite awhile.

But speaking of American flags, where's Joey's?

I enjoy keeping my flag on my desk on home. It sits between my Bible, my loaded gun, and my diary of bitterness.

What in particular are you thinking of that would be so difficult to learn or recall? I'm not being snarky here; rather, it's important to me to understand your objection.

I can't think of anything offhand, but the problem is more along the lines of forgetting things that didn't really interest us, and not remembering to go over them. I once went over what I did in 5th grade, and was amazed by how much stuff I forgot, or don't remember learning in the first place.

(a) colleges do compete with each other -- not in precisely the same way that restaurants do, to be sure, but far more than public grammar/secondary schools do, and (b) the (vast?) majority of instructors at undergraduate institutions -- here I include community colleges -- are not on a tenure track at all, and their employers can refuse to renew their contracts virtually at will

DMN, you identify two wings of my own profession that actually don't work very well: (a) the tiny slice where star research or creative faculty hop around from top school to top school, vying for more research leaves and more perks and fewer students, contributing little directly to education (though sometimes producing good research or good writing, as protegées of a patronage system and status symbols for their employers) and (b) the much, much larger world of adjunct instruction, which is a terrible situation for so many teachers. In fact, if you want a system where teachers burn out and/or have the opportunity to pursue almost no current scholarship or creative activity, look no further than the world of lower-division English lecturers in higher ed. If your models for education are restaurants and law firms, then schools with mostly-adjunct staffs are akin to Sonic or Lionel Hutz LLP.

Sort of akin to this, I didn't learn much in the way of social skills in high school. What I learned in high school was how to survive the wholly artificial arrangement of high school. I learned what social skills I might possess almost entirely outside of high school.

You must have gone to private school. ;-)

I kid, but I don't really agree. The social strata and community at a school is a perfectly regular place to learn these skills. Of COURSE it's not like being an adult or anything, but you really didn't learn about, like, getting along with others, what NOT to say to people ("You look fat"!) or anything like that?

I think you're misremembering, Mr. Pettite.

Neither your children's college advisors or the college they apply to aren't going to be too happy with the math SAT scores your kids show from your refreshed-memory tutoring. Especially as (it's my guess, anyhow) it's going to be a number of years since you kids get to the age where they would even start.

Well, the SAT doesn't even test calculus, and my colleges were pretty happy with my scores that I got as a result of my parents' refreshed-memory tutoring.

We're talking about calculus here, not trying to get people PhDs in mathematics. Most of what is taught in high schools could be taught in middle schools if schools were more about teaching and less about babysitting.

I once went over what I did in 5th grade, and was amazed by how much stuff I forgot, or don't remember learning in the first place.

So, Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?

Seriously, that's why I said memories needed to be refreshed; I wouldn't suggest picking up a textbook for the first time since high school and starting to lecture from it.

Seriously, that's why I said memories needed to be refreshed; I wouldn't suggest picking up a textbook for the first time since high school and starting to lecture from it.

I think it's more than that, we'd have to relearn all of it and maybe learn some more in case they become more inquisitive than we were.

Most of what is taught in high schools could be taught in middle schools if schools were more about teaching and less about babysitting.

As I stated earlier, my son is in second grade and is being introduced to basic algebra. Not everyone in the class is, just him and a few others. That's the beauty of the Montessori method, it encourages independent study and allows children to progress at their own pace. He thinks it's so cool that he can figure out the equation x + 5 = 9.

But speaking of American flags, where's Joey's?

I enjoy keeping my flag on my desk on home. It sits between my Bible, my loaded gun, and my diary of bitterness.

Yes, but how do we really know that? I notice that unlike me, you haven't produced any visual evidence of your flag allegiance. So far all I'm seeing is words.

Do we really know the real Joey? How can we be sure? Do you believe in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior? What church do you attend?

Your actual political beliefs are irrelevant. But what's your bowling average?

As I stated earlier, my son is in second grade and is being introduced to basic algebra. Not everyone in the class is, just him and a few others. That's the beauty of the Montessori method, it encourages independent study and allows children to progress at their own pace.

I think there are good points above on both sides of this issue. I think that NCLB's basic evil is in trying to teach every kid as if they're the same. Not everyone should be on a college track and a society needs good, well paid jobs for folks that don't have academic talents and skills. The idea taht everyone either can or is interested in an intellectual life is just plain, obviously wrong. Until we admit that, the system as a whole won't operate terribly well. I know that opens up a can of worms in how you select students for tracks (and with it economic, racial and gender issues and politics) and I really don't know how you solve it.

I would also add that if you have a HS kid who needs a more advanced course, most areas have a state college nearby that would gladly enroll your kid in such a course for payment of tuition. It need not be a high school.

Back to my porcelin god.

Not everyone should be on a college track and a society needs good, well paid jobs for folks that don't have academic talents and skills.

"The world needs ditchdiggers too."

Back to my porcelin god.

I told you man, lay off the DDT.

...but you really didn't learn about, like, getting along with others, what NOT to say to people ("You look fat"!) or anything like that?

Well, I did learn not to say, all that weightlifting and steroids make you look really effin ugly. Other than that, not so much. I certainly didn't learn to be genuine, or generous, or honest, for the most part, in high school. I learned, for the most part, to put on a face, to have polite, meaningless conversations with teachers and administrators, to study for the absurdity of paper tests and quizzes, how to sit in rows and pretend to pay attention, and how not to get beaten up.

I didn't, though, learn to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty,
clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, welcome the stranger, visit the sick, visit the imprisoned, or bury the dead. In other words, I didn't learn much of importance, and nothing at all of what sustains me today.

I learned, for the most part, to put on a face, to have polite, meaningless conversations with teachers and administrators, to study for the absurdity of paper tests and quizzes, how to sit in rows and pretend to pay attention, and how not to get beaten up.

So you learned how to work in Corporate America?

I would also add that if you have a HS kid who needs a more advanced course, most areas have a state college nearby that would gladly enroll your kid in such a course for payment of tuition. It need not be a high school.

Back to my porcelin god.

I meant to add something like this to Dan's bringing up what to do when the child gets to 14, and after, i.e. when a bright child gets into some very interesting stuff that may be beyond the aid of even an intelligent, able parent. In fact, a bright kid of 16 or 17 probably shouldn't be spending much time anywhere near a typical public high school, and should be taking college courses.

Sorry your suffering, bunyon. Truly. Feel better soon.

I learned, for the most part, to put on a face, to have polite, meaningless conversations with teachers and administrators, to study for the absurdity of paper tests and quizzes, how to sit in rows and pretend to pay attention, and how not to get beaten up.

I didn't, though, learn to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty,
clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, welcome the stranger, visit the sick, visit the imprisoned, or bury the dead. In other words, I didn't learn much of importance, and nothing at all of what sustains me today.

Hurm. Well, I know that I respected a few (er, very few) of my teachers enough to gain some moral teachings from them regarding respect and truth and kindness and such. Those teachers who did offer the "sit down and shut up" method of teaching, I learned the facts and discounted the rest. The things you mention I do believe you're supposed to TRULY learn at home, and then from interacting with the world (i.e. school) you can make adjustments, depending.

As far as what you learned "for the most part", that sounds a little hyperbolic. I had no idea you were so EMO, Ark. ;-) Was there a lot of black-wearing in the 10th grade for you?

Oh, and:

In fact, a bright kid of 16 or 17 probably shouldn't be spending much time anywhere near a typical public high school, and should be taking college courses.

HELL yes. From experience.

I didn't, though, learn to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty,
clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, welcome the stranger, visit the sick, visit the imprisoned, or bury the dead. In other words, I didn't learn much of importance, and nothing at all of what sustains me today.

Noble sentiments, arkitekton, but I would venture to say that you learned at least something in high school that was useful in getting you gainful employment. I dare say that the paycheck feeding, clothing, and sheltering you (and allowing you to help others) depends at least in part on things you learned in school as a teenager.

"One of my current gigs is teaching basic math to construction workers at night. My salary is paid by the state, but the site belongs to and the admin is done by a contractors' organization that would warm Rifkin's tortilla-chip-eating Republican heart: open shop, non-union and in your face about it."

I'll drink a Dos Equis to your non-union construction workers.*

* I would have no problem with unionized construction workers if they worked in the free market. However, my experience has been (as a former real estate developer**) that most, or maybe even all, of the unionized jobs are either building government buildings (schools on up), where Democratic legislators force the government to hire them, or building very large projects (such as skyscrapers, shopping malls, major hotels, etc.), where the unions use governmental interference (i.e., the permitting process) to ensure that the construction won't go forward lest it is unionized.

** I was a principal for a half dozen years in a real estate investment company in San Francisco and the East Bay which bought older warehouses and small industrial buildings and converted them into live-work lofts. We then managed those properties. If you see Rifkin Realty Company For Lease signs in SOMA or Oakland or Emeryville or South City, those are my cousin's current projects.

I would have no problem with unionized construction workers if they worked in the free market. However, my experience has been (as a former real estate developer**) that most, or maybe even all, of the unionized jobs are either building government buildings (schools on up), where Democratic legislators force the government to hire them, or building very large projects (such as skyscrapers, shopping malls, major hotels, etc.), where the unions use governmental interference (i.e., the permitting process) to ensure that the construction won't go forward lest it is unionized.

And the corporate bureaucracies waste money hand over fist, too -- on both the competent and incompetent.

Or haven't you seen the news about severance packages for failed corporate bureaucrats?

So you learned how to work in Corporate America?

Dear god. It really is the same mindset, isn't it.

As far as what you learned "for the most part", that sounds a little hyperbolic. I had no idea you were so EMO, Ark. ;-) Was there a lot of black-wearing in the 10th grade for you?

This is going to date me, but I don't even know what EMO is, though a quick search tells me it has something to do with "emotionally charged punk". Having invented the wearing of black shredded clothing to high school (hey, I was just trying to show off a few new muscles to the girls), perhaps I can lay claim to having invented the genre? ;)

...but I would venture to say that you learned at least something in high school that was useful in getting you gainful employment.

No argument there, cheng, though the signal to noise ratio made the whole enterprise largely a waste. A brief, illustrative story: At the beginning of tenth grade I refused to continue to go to my public high school. I felt that 90% of my time was being wasted, so I went on strike, if you will. My parents threatened me, there was a general uproar, but eventually the compromise was that I would have to pass equivalencies or the NYS Regents exam in each subject. I'm no math wiz, but I got a terrific tutor for trigonometry, we did the whole year in 15 one-hour sessions, and I passed the Regents trig exam with something repectable like an 88. So, 15 hours of tutoring versus 180 hours of public high school class time. I'm not claiming this would work for everyone, but there's just no way high school wasn't a very real waste of time, for me.

there are parents---and likely more than a few of them---who see home schooling as part and parcel of their overall worldview, which sees secular society as---well, Satanic.

And what's odd is that I know parents that home-school because they self-identify as Satanists and consider secular society to be dangerously Christian.

So, now that we've settled this, how does every stand on the subject of Polygamy and the Pentagon?

What might taxpayers think of it all?

"They're just going to shake their head and say here's another example of our tax money going down the drain to support this polygamist in Texas who abuses children and women," Maginnis said. "They'll be appalled and rightly so."

Words fail me.

By the way, robinred, I think I learned more from reading your post than from 3/4 of a masters in education at an ivy league university.

That is a high compliment. Thank you. Also, I am always glad when guys who are 6'5"/205 seem to like me.

(*) I will put my knowledge in just about any subject area up against a public school teacher's, and there are some other people here who I'd also trust more than a teacher. There are plenty of smart teachers in the country, but with something like four or five million public school teachers in the U.S., there are lots of dumb ones too

.

This, like the vast majority of what you post on this subject, is kind of like holding up a sign that says, "I don't have any functional or useful knowledge about this topic, but I am going to talk about it a lot anyway because I like pissing on Democrats and hanging out at BTF." First, depth of subject knowledge, while useful,is not the #1 skill needed to teach most adolescents or children, in any setting--public or private. This is yet another reason homeschooling works so well for so many, particularly with younger kids. Second, like a lot of people, you are confused among the terms "smart" "dumb" and "educated." "Intelligence", as Howard Gardner most famously wrote about years ago and others have explored, is a multifaceted, slippery concept. I am 100% sure that some of E-X's kids are "smarter" than you and I put together, but many of them may not get the same kinds of chances to show it that you and I have.

As for our problem with schools, I would say that the big problem is that -- like most government programs -- they're a one-size-fits-all solution. We expect them to babysit those who have no interest in being there, educate the most and least gifted with the same rigid educational structure, teach discipline to those who need it (but without being allowed to dole it out), allow the creative to express themselves, teach all subjects at similar rates (set by chronological age rather than ability), "socialize" students, provide entertainment for the community, prepare people to be college students or workers, to be good citizens (except when they aren't citizens at all), etc.

This is better, and this encapsulates some of the best arguments about schools made by people with ideologies such as yours. But, again the approach you take is wrong, and the implicit assumption that private entities would step in and take up the slack--and do it better--is dubious at best for a number of interrelated reasons, some of which I hit on 1352 as well as some other reasons. Government programs do have huge flaws in theory and in practice--so do private capitalist enterprises, and successful education, which is in some ways a business and in some ways a public service, must examine, apply, adjust, deploy and utilize aspects of both. Neither side in this polarized debate is able to get past the divisiveness and confront that and the two political parties are generally not helping.

So, 15 hours of tutoring versus 180 hours of public high school class time. I'm not claiming this would work for everyone, but there's just no way high school wasn't a very real waste of time, for me.

Look at point 6 of 1352 and what andrewberg, an actual teacher, said about it in 1358.

"I don't have any functional or useful knowledge about this topic, but I am going to talk about it a lot anyway because I like pissing on Democrats and hanging out at BTF."

Oooh, I'd like that as my signature.

Oooh, I'd like that as my signature.

As long as I can put "Joey B" in place of "Democrats" and use it too, it is all yours.

What's the record for longest BTF thread?

What's the record for longest BTF thread.

The Katrina thread was over 4000, I believe. Obama wanted to post on it, but he was at church. I myself did not post on it, which raised the quality.

I wasn't around these parts back then. That must have been a fun one.

Look at point 6 of 1352 and what andrewberg, an actual teacher, said about it.

Considering that I wrote 1352, mister...

I do take your meaning robin, and agree that andrew's post on your earlier point gives a sound idea even greater credibility. I'd love to see it happen more and more.

Crap--I meant 1347.

The public schools strike again.

Here we go again:

The Democrats' Wimp Factor

The Kerryization of Barack Obama.

At the beginning of tenth grade I refused to continue to go to my public high school. I felt that 90% of my time was being wasted, so I went on strike, if you will.

Well, this little mini autobiography certainly explains a lot.

I wasn't around these parts back then. That must have been a fun one.

Except for a period a few hundred posts in where Retardo was calling everyone racist, it was actually a pretty polite thread.

Katrina Thread

It made it to 5801.

Here we go again:

The Democrats' Wimp Factor

The Kerryization of Barack Obama.

Yes, but from the same website, the latest poll: Obama Pulling Away.

The survey of 1,209 registered voters found that Obama now leads Clinton by nearly 20 points, or 54 percent to 35 percent, among registered Democrats and those who lean Democratic nationwide. The previous Newsweek poll, conducted in March after Clinton's big primary wins in Ohio an