How is this even possible: 88% of DC 8th graders can't read?

[JS80]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Vic
Schools could have the greatest teachers in the world, and the kids still won't learn unless they've been instilled with the proper attitude towards education at home.

America's education problem begins and ends with poor parenting in the home. Period. Teachers and unions are just scapegoats for indifferent absentee parents.

Sounds good and is most likely partially true.

But go read that NewsWeek article about Rhee and get back to me.
She disagrees with that stance.
NewsWeek
"Over the next two years, working with another teacher, she took a group of 70 kids who had been scoring "at almost rock bottom on standardized tests" to "absolutely at the top," she says. "
and
"It drives me nuts when people say that two thirds of a kid's academic achievement is based on their environment. That is B.S.," says Rhee. She points to her second graders in Baltimore whose scores rose from worst to best. "Those kids, where they lived didn't change. Their parents didn't change. Their diets didn't change. The violence in the community didn't change. The only thing that changed for those 70 kids was the adults who were in front of them every single day teaching them."

I agree with Rhee. First line of success is home. But if home fails, and home won't change, teachers CAN make a difference. Most are incompetent or just don't give a shit.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: Vic
Schools could have the greatest teachers in the world, and the kids still won't learn unless they've been instilled with the proper attitude towards education at home.

America's education problem begins and ends with poor parenting in the home. Period. Teachers and unions are just scapegoats for indifferent absentee parents.

I 100% agree.

Of course there are some bad teachers, most teachers unions are a pain in the ass and are not concerned with the education of our children but the main problem begins at home.

It is extremely hard to fix that part of the problem though. We are already forcing parents to put their kids in school by law. I really do not see what else we can do except try and refine the current school systems so that they influence the children to prioritize their studies as much as possible regardless of parental involvement. I realize that such a goal isn't what most would consider ideal, but I doubt there is much more we can do which will have an effective outcome. No matter how we slice it, we need to optimize what we have the most control over and much of that is the quality of the teachers we have teaching the kids. Quality costs money. If the states dedicated enough funding towards education to attract quality teachers then the unions would be far less important even in the eyes of the teachers.

 

[lupi]

For much the same reason there is such a large percentage of adult black males in lockup or so many minority families that don't have a father and mother, because the rich folk ain't giving them enough of their money.


Poorly run or corrupt teacher unions, schoolboards, operating programs (only children left behind), obtuse school funding methods, and a lack of desire by those in power to relenquish any (vouchers), compounded by a growing percenþage of apathetic parents (queue youtube of a teen girl beening group assaulted and a mother of one of the attackers blaming that girl).

 

[ProfJohn]

Not incompetent, just frustrated with a system that makes change impossible.

Go read the article.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: JS80

I agree with Rhee. First line of success is home. But if home fails, and home won't change, teachers CAN make a difference. Most are incompetent or just don't give a shit.

Absolutely, and I will bet that they would care a whole lot more if there were other quality teachers lining up and eager to take their place. That won't happen without an attractive salary and benefits though.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I don't know if any of you watch Charlie Rose on PBS but he interviewed Rhee recently and I watched the show.

I was impressed by her and I think she is on the right track in DC and hopefully the rest of the country can use this model for other schools. The reason she likes the No Child Left Behind act is that it puts metrics in to determine if a school is being successful. Her only criticism is that it doesn't go deep enough and she thinks that it should go into the classroom level not just the school wide level. Because a good teacher needs to be rewarded even if the school 'as a whole' may not be doing so well.

The #1 reason schools fail is because of a major lack of good teachers. Why is there a shortage of good teachers? Because teachers are paid what the union contract says. The only 2 ways a teacher gets more pay is through # of years of experience and type of degree they hold.

No. Although that may be true to some extent, the reason teachers are leaving the profession AND not going into it is simple: They have had their control over curriculum and classrom stripped away by parent outcries of strict standards. I was married to a teacher, whose mother is a teacher and whose father is an administrator for a large district in WA state. THAT is the reason

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Vic
Schools could have the greatest teachers in the world, and the kids still won't learn unless they've been instilled with the proper attitude towards education at home.

America's education problem begins and ends with poor parenting in the home. Period. Teachers and unions are just scapegoats for indifferent absentee parents.

Sounds good and is most likely partially true.

But go read that NewsWeek article about Rhee and get back to me.
She disagrees with that stance.
NewsWeek
"Over the next two years, working with another teacher, she took a group of 70 kids who had been scoring "at almost rock bottom on standardized tests" to "absolutely at the top," she says. "
and
"It drives me nuts when people say that two thirds of a kid's academic achievement is based on their environment. That is B.S.," says Rhee. She points to her second graders in Baltimore whose scores rose from worst to best. "Those kids, where they lived didn't change. Their parents didn't change. Their diets didn't change. The violence in the community didn't change. The only thing that changed for those 70 kids was the adults who were in front of them every single day teaching them."

There's a reason why kids of parents with high income/education by and large succeed academically and the opposite is true with poor/ill educated families. It's not that they just get lucky and get good teachers. I think the home does a lot.

That being said, I really like Rhee's plan to start paying teachers well. I never understood for years why people complained about crappy teachers, but were unwilling to pay what is required to attract top tier candidates for the positions. Rhee seems to demand high quality, but is willing to pay for it. If this turns out to be true, my hat is off to her.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
The #1 reason schools fail is because of a major lack of good teachers. Why is there a shortage of good teachers? Because teachers are paid what the union contract says. The only 2 ways a teacher gets more pay is through # of years of experience and type of degree they hold.

I agree, but remember that if we want it all then we must be willing to pay for it which means taxes. I am personally willing to pay for it or at least revise how our taxes are being used in order to float that bill but that is just me.

We could pay teachers 100k a year and they would be just as ineffective. Why? The have zero control, and must spend 80% of their time managing 20% of the students.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: JS80

I agree with Rhee. First line of success is home. But if home fails, and home won't change, teachers CAN make a difference. Most are incompetent or just don't give a shit.

Absolutely, and I will bet that they would care a whole lot more if there were other quality teachers lining up and eager to take their place. That won't happen without an attractive salary and benefits though.

That's why she's offering $100-130k salary in exchange to get rid of tenure.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Vic
Schools could have the greatest teachers in the world, and the kids still won't learn unless they've been instilled with the proper attitude towards education at home.

America's education problem begins and ends with poor parenting in the home. Period. Teachers and unions are just scapegoats for indifferent absentee parents.

Sounds good and is most likely partially true.

But go read that NewsWeek article about Rhee and get back to me.
She disagrees with that stance.
NewsWeek
"Over the next two years, working with another teacher, she took a group of 70 kids who had been scoring "at almost rock bottom on standardized tests" to "absolutely at the top," she says. "
and
"It drives me nuts when people say that two thirds of a kid's academic achievement is based on their environment. That is B.S.," says Rhee. She points to her second graders in Baltimore whose scores rose from worst to best. "Those kids, where they lived didn't change. Their parents didn't change. Their diets didn't change. The violence in the community didn't change. The only thing that changed for those 70 kids was the adults who were in front of them every single day teaching them."

So you're saying that it's okay for parents to be bad parents? Sure sounds like it.

Passing a standardized test is only an education in passing a standardized test. Multiple-choice tests are garbage. There is a technique to passing them with even only a cursory understanding of the subject material.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: JS80

I agree with Rhee. First line of success is home. But if home fails, and home won't change, teachers CAN make a difference. Most are incompetent or just don't give a shit.

Absolutely, and I will bet that they would care a whole lot more if there were other quality teachers lining up and eager to take their place. That won't happen without an attractive salary and benefits though.

That's why she's offering $100-130k salary in exchange to get rid of tenure.

I support the idea of better teacher pay as well, but I have to laugh at the sudden reversal of positions coming from your party yet again.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
The #1 reason schools fail is because of a major lack of good teachers. Why is there a shortage of good teachers? Because teachers are paid what the union contract says. The only 2 ways a teacher gets more pay is through # of years of experience and type of degree they hold.

I agree, but remember that if we want it all then we must be willing to pay for it which means taxes. I am personally willing to pay for it or at least revise how our taxes are being used in order to float that bill but that is just me.

We could pay teachers 100k a year and they would be just as ineffective. Why? The have zero control, and must spend 80% of their time managing 20% of the students.

that.

also teh people who are really in control of the class room are nowhere near it so they have no idea WTF is going on.

Also teachers are told what to teach when to teach and how (depends on area). they can't change it to fit teh students needs.

Also the teachers union is a major problem.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
The #1 reason schools fail is because of a major lack of good teachers. Why is there a shortage of good teachers? Because teachers are paid what the union contract says. The only 2 ways a teacher gets more pay is through # of years of experience and type of degree they hold.

I agree, but remember that if we want it all then we must be willing to pay for it which means taxes. I am personally willing to pay for it or at least revise how our taxes are being used in order to float that bill but that is just me.

We could pay teachers 100k a year and they would be just as ineffective. Why? The have zero control, and must spend 80% of their time managing 20% of the students.

Read my previous posts. I have already explained why one is just as important as the other as well as why it is better to at least have one of them done right. In particular, we need to dedicate more of our time towards what we can actually control.

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Absolutely, and I will bet that they would care a whole lot more if there were other quality teachers lining up and eager to take their place. That won't happen without an attractive salary and benefits though.

That's why she's offering $100-130k salary in exchange to get rid of tenure.

As long as it increases the desire and competition to become a teacher then that should fix the problem. We may not need to pay that much money in order to make that happen.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
The #1 reason schools fail is because of a major lack of good teachers. Why is there a shortage of good teachers? Because teachers are paid what the union contract says. The only 2 ways a teacher gets more pay is through # of years of experience and type of degree they hold.

I agree, but remember that if we want it all then we must be willing to pay for it which means taxes. I am personally willing to pay for it or at least revise how our taxes are being used in order to float that bill but that is just me.

We could pay teachers 100k a year and they would be just as ineffective. Why? The have zero control, and must spend 80% of their time managing 20% of the students.

Read my previous posts. I have already explained why one is just as important as the other as well as why it is better to at least have one of them done right. In particular, we need to dedicate more of our time towards what we can actually control.

I disagree. pay is a SMALL thing compared to the passion in which teachers motivation comes from. I havent met a teacher yet (and I personally know approx 30 teachers and several administrators) who teach for money, and who arent passionate about teaching kids. Pay, in this instance, is irrelevant.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

I disagree. pay is a SMALL thing compared to the passion in which teachers motivation comes from. I havent met a teacher yet (and I personally know approx 30 teachers and several administrators) who teach for money, and who arent passionate about teaching kids. Pay, in this instance, is irrelevant.

Pay not bring passion, but even those with "the passion" are motivated by money and working conditions. If they can make more money, have a lower chance of being assaulted in the classroom, and actually do a better job teaching (as opposed to babysitting) why would they not go elsewhere?

Pay is only part of the equation, but enough pay can overcome a lot of other things.

Viper GTS

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I disagree. pay is a SMALL thing compared to the passion in which teachers motivation comes from. I havent met a teacher yet (and I personally know approx 30 teachers and several administrators) who teach for money, and who arent passionate about teaching kids. Pay, in this instance, is irrelevant.

I agree to an extent, but what you need to understand is that no amount of passion pays the bills. There are lots of people out there, including myself, who could be very passionate teachers that would truly love doing that job, but would never even consider pursuing that kind of career because it just doesn't pay enough.

If you increase the pay to a reasonable amount, you will attract the competition. From there, let the schools decide which teachers are high enough quality to keep the job. Let them figure out which ones are passionate enough. As it stands right now, they have to take whatever they can get because no one wants to be a teacher. The pay is garbage and the job is not easy.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Topic Title: How is this even possible: 88% of DC 8th graders can't read?

I first noticed this yesterday when it was a video story on CNN. I refuse to watch those damn things out of principle, but today there's a real article with the same info:

Link

Rhee said "radical" changes are needed because only 12 percent of the District's eighth graders are proficient in reading and just 8 percent are proficient in math, but was quick to add that they're already seeing improvement. She highlighted gains in elementary reading and secondary level math and reading in the past year that outstripped all of the four prior years put together.

If the numbers were reversed (only 88% proficient) it would still be a massive failure, but WTF is going in that city? 88% can't read?

This problem is obviously much deeper than the school system. I dunno about the rest of you but public schools had nothing whatsoever to do with me learning to read. I was reading Tom Sawyer before I ever set foot into a public school. Are their parents also illiterate? I'm not letting the schools off entirely but holy shit... 88%!

A few nice areas with better literacy rates:

Zimbabwe
Ethopia
Sudan

Simply unbelievable.

Viper GTS

110% the fault of George W Bush and his No Child Left Behind

It really means ECLB Every Child Left Behind

When you turn teaching into a robotic exercise to pass a test instead of instilling real knowledge this is what you get.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Topic Title: How is this even possible: 88% of DC 8th graders can't read?

I first noticed this yesterday when it was a video story on CNN. I refuse to watch those damn things out of principle, but today there's a real article with the same info:

Link

Rhee said "radical" changes are needed because only 12 percent of the District's eighth graders are proficient in reading and just 8 percent are proficient in math, but was quick to add that they're already seeing improvement. She highlighted gains in elementary reading and secondary level math and reading in the past year that outstripped all of the four prior years put together.

If the numbers were reversed (only 88% proficient) it would still be a massive failure, but WTF is going in that city? 88% can't read?

This problem is obviously much deeper than the school system. I dunno about the rest of you but public schools had nothing whatsoever to do with me learning to read. I was reading Tom Sawyer before I ever set foot into a public school. Are their parents also illiterate? I'm not letting the schools off entirely but holy shit... 88%!

A few nice areas with better literacy rates:

Zimbabwe
Ethopia
Sudan

Simply unbelievable.

Viper GTS

110% the fault of George W Bush and his No Child Left Behind

It really means ECLB Every Child Left Behind

When you turn teaching into a robotic exercise to pass a test instead of instilling real knowledge this is what you get.

Youre a tool. Learn up about National Assessment Governing Board.

You have zero knowledge in education apparently. This is common knowledge.

 

[andy04]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
and just 8 percent are proficient in math

Now who know who will be controlling the you know what on the streets!! :laugh: they will be the only ones who can count the money

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Vic
Schools could have the greatest teachers in the world, and the kids still won't learn unless they've been instilled with the proper attitude towards education at home.

America's education problem begins and ends with poor parenting in the home. Period. Teachers and unions are just scapegoats for indifferent absentee parents.

:thumbsup:

 

[AeroEngy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
We could pay teachers 100k a year and they would be just as ineffective. Why? The have zero control, and must spend 80% of their time managing 20% of the students.

You are exactly right.

My wife works in an elementary school (lots of special needs and English as a second language children). She says that most of her time is spent dealing with behavioral issues (no separate classes for Special needs) and there is nothing they can do about it. The teachers hands are completely tied to enforce any kind of discipline. She has stated all she can do is send them to the Principal. The Principal's hands are tied also and can't really do anything but call the Parents and if the Parents don't care (which most unfortunately do not in here district) then nothing happens except a reinforcement that bad behavior is OK.

One student in her school even hit another teacher and there was no repercussions. The child was sent to the Principal's office and was back in class less than one hour later.

Also, the biggest complaint I hear from the teachers that I know about No Child Left Behind is that special needs children and not factored out of the cumulative score for the school. If a school has a lot of special needs children then there is no way they can get a passing grade. That just seems wrong.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
The #1 reason schools fail is because of a major lack of good teachers. Why is there a shortage of good teachers? Because teachers are paid what the union contract says. The only 2 ways a teacher gets more pay is through # of years of experience and type of degree they hold.

I agree, but remember that if we want it all then we must be willing to pay for it which means taxes. I am personally willing to pay for it or at least revise how our taxes are being used in order to float that bill but that is just me.

We could pay teachers 100k a year and they would be just as ineffective. Why? The have zero control, and must spend 80% of their time managing 20% of the students.

Read my previous posts. I have already explained why one is just as important as the other as well as why it is better to at least have one of them done right. In particular, we need to dedicate more of our time towards what we can actually control.

I disagree. pay is a SMALL thing compared to the passion in which teachers motivation comes from. I havent met a teacher yet (and I personally know approx 30 teachers and several administrators) who teach for money, and who arent passionate about teaching kids. Pay, in this instance, is irrelevant.

wat. Of course they aren't in it for the money. Jesus christ dude, they don't make much. Who in their right mind would go into education for the money?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: AeroEngy

Originally posted by: blackangst1
We could pay teachers 100k a year and they would be just as ineffective. Why? The have zero control, and must spend 80% of their time managing 20% of the students.

You are exactly right.

My wife works in an elementary school (lots of special needs and English as a second language children). She says that most of her time is spent dealing with behavioral issues (no separate classes for Special needs) and there is nothing they can do about it. The teachers hands are completely tied to enforce any kind of discipline. She has stated all she can do is send them to the Principal. The Principal's hands are tied also and can't really do anything but call the Parents and if the Parents don't care (which most unfortunately do not in here district) then nothing happens except a reinforcement that bad behavior is OK.

One student in her school even hit another teacher and there was no repercussions. The child was sent to the Principal's office and was back in class less than one hour later.

Also, the biggest complaint I hear from the teachers that I know about No Child Left Behind is that special needs children and not factored out of the cumulative score for the school. If a school has a lot of special needs children then there is no way they can get a passing grade. That just seems wrong.

No, he is not exactly right. He is not exactly wrong either. The same can be said about your pov.

What we are dealing with here is a multi tiered problem that no single answer will solve. If that didn't suck enough, some of those tiers are not controllable by the government or the teachers such as what you are describing. However, there are also some tiers which are very much controlled by the government and solving them will improve quality by a lot. It just won't solve everything. One of those problems is the quality of the teachers as a result of no competition thanks to terrible pay.

I don't expect the government to solve the entire problem on its own by throwing money at it, but I do expect them to adequately fund the areas where the juice is worth the squeeze. That is not happening right now and it needs to change.

 

[Druidx]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

110% the fault of George W Bush and his No Child Left Behind

It really means ECLB Every Child Left Behind

When you turn teaching into a robotic exercise to pass a test instead of instilling real knowledge this is what you get.

Let's see....
Written by Two Democrats.
87% of the senate passed it.
equals
110% Bush's fault.

BTW, I agree Bush is an idiot, I even agree NCLB is a piece of shit law. I just think it's about time the government as a whole own up to their failures in stead of laying the blame from a to z at Bush's feet.
I want the federal government completely out of education, it's should be a state an local issue.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can we leave the idiotic attempts to blame this on Republicans out of the discussion.

Washington DC is one of the most liberal cities in the country. As are Detroit, New York, Oakland and just about every other major city with horrifying graduation rates.

DC has been having education problems for years. NewsWeek did a very good article on Rhee (head of the DC schools) recently. link
Highlights:
*The school bureaucracy had a reputation for bloat and incompetence, and an almost Stalinist resistance to reform. (When she arrived, no one could tell her how many textbooks the schools owned.)

*The former president of the teachers union, Barbara Bullock, is now serving a six-and-a-half-year prison sentence for embezzling $4.6 million. She admitted using union funds to buy 13 furs, 37 designer handbags and a 288-piece antique Tiffany silver set

*Rhee is the seventh person to run the D.C. schools in the past 10 years.

Finally, a great quote from Rhee herself. (and she is a Democrat)
It's embarrassing to be a Democrat when you hear Democrats talk about education," she says. "The Democratic Party is supposed to be the party that looks out for poor black kids, yet the kind of rhetoric they spew about ? [how the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind law is] 'sucking the life out of our teachers'?come on. Get real. I believe that until the Democratic Party breaks ties with the teachers unions, we are not going to see the true reform in this country that we need."

The world must be coming to an end, because I find myself agreeing with ProfJohn on something. (mostly anyways - I think No Child Left Behind is crap, but it is clearly not the main problem here).