Buns, that is exactly the perfect thing to do with a squirrely boy. Amen to you.

Ra - whenever I'm in a group forced to sit still for longer than 15 minutes, damn straight my friends and I are gonna whisper and definitely a giggle will escape as well!

It's funny, working with adults, I'm not convinced ADULTS can sit still for very long. But then some people expect kids to do it for extended periods of time. We, uh, try to point that out to perspective teachers:)

One of the kids I work with is getting homeschooled for exactly that reason. Because his parents didn't want him on Ritalin. He's one of the most physically capable little boys I've ever seen. He can build things, climb things, pick up frogs without hurting them, tie knots, he whittles for goodness sake. He just has some trouble sitting still. Its not insurmountable, I just send him out to run around the yard twice when he gets antsy.

I hear you, Lori...I've seen teachers act like they know medicine backwards and forwards...but clearly it's an issue with bad classroom management on the teacher's end. And then they'll blame the parents...

Um, re: the medication thing. It IS happening all over, outside of special ed. Jake's K1 teacher highly urged me to get him on meds for ADHD. She called a whole friggin SIT meet, with the nurse, Principal, counselor, etc. The nurse, who is there 1x a week and didn't even know Jake, was extremely hostile because I didn't walk into the meeting saying Glory Be yes I will put him on drugs, I grovel at your feet. She was actually yelling at me. Finally the psych counselor shut her up to give her evaluation of him from the written tests that both the teacher and I had to fill out. She especially listened to the part where I said he was not an auditory learner and was very kinesthetic, and told the teacher, who wanted these 5 and 6 yo to sit still for 45 minutes in a big group, that if was far too early to put Jake on meds, we should wait to see how he matures.

Fortunately his 2/3 teacher knew and loved boy energy. Yes he was a handful then, but she and his 4/5 teacher LOVED his exuberance and intellectual enthusiasm. He's doing great.

I know what you are saying Conrad. The safety of ALL students in your care is paramount, and in order to avoid exclusion, it is sometimes necessary to alert a parent to the possibility that medical intervention might help if they care to explore that avenue. I have also presided over countless IEP's in my years of teaching and you are failing if you don't lay all the options in front of a parent. As to those who forget to administer meds, or don't get them adjusted....have you had those who have sold their child's medication on the black market for financial gain? I have...twice!
It is a frustrating job and it's one of those 'you have to see it from the inside' ones. But the rewards are huge too.
And we do bark....sometimes (or so my mother tells me!!)

Isn't it awesome?

And the Science Club for Girls is exactly the sort of community effort Matt was saying we need more of.

Science Club for Girls was founded in 1994 as a grassroots organization by parents in Cambridge, Massachusetts who were concerned with issues of gender equity in math, science, and technology. We bring women scientists and girls together in free after-school science clubs that focus on scientific and technical skills and education. The clubs give young girls an opportunity to get involved in science and engineering activities in a fun, nurturing, interactive environment, an opportunity they might not otherwise receive.

Girls, especially girls from underrepresented groups, including those who will be the first in their family to attend college, have fun exploring science and technology through hands on experiments and activities. The instructors for the clubs are local scientists, graduate students and college students. We galvanize parents and the greater community to work with us.

Our leadership program for teenage girls gives them the opportunity to be role models, teach young children science, learn life skills, conduct outreach, and explore careers in science and technology.

Random, part of the problem with being a special ed. teacher specifically is that one is expected to be able to operate as a pseudomedical authority.

I don't know what "psudomedical authority" means, sir, but I think we're getting closer to the same page.

I would love to have one of those as a pinata, Bunny!

Here's the disco ball

<img src="http://www.bfi.org/images/content/geodesics/origami/discoball.png"height"200"/>

Bun, if you were indeed trying to address what I was saying, then it's OK to stick to just doing that instead of engaging in namecalling.

Random, part of the problem with being a special ed. teacher specifically is that one is expected to be able to operate as a pseudomedical authority. You're called upon to write IEPs, legal documents that have some medical ramifications; you have to make recommendations as to how best to educate a child, and recommend courses of action to modify behaviors that will give the child severe problems in the outside world. And all without mentioning one avenue that may help? Very often, special needs teenagers have literally no other advocates, and I've had a lot of children ask me to urge their parents to take them to a doctor. If a child is exhibiting symptoms of an untreated illness, whether physical or of any other sort, screw being a bad teacher, I'd be an awful person not to mention it because I were concerned about not having a PhD. To be sure, there are right and wrong ways of going about it. There's a huge difference between saying "your child is showing symptoms of an illness that I have sometimes seen drugs treat effectively" and "your child needs Ritalin, and here's where you can go for a prescription."

Check this out,



its a geodesic origami crown designed by an MIT guy working with the Science Club for Girls at the Boston Museum teaching about geometry and geodesic domes. The club also made a geodesic disco ball, and taught origami to other kids visiting the museum.

Reading through all these posts, as someone not in the profession, it sounds like personal attention is the key missing ingredient. The one time I cut class in high school, the teacher noticed and spoke to me, and because he cared I never did it again.

Somehow, our schools need to give teachers the ability and time to work with each student. To notice if a student is cutting class, or showing up high, or sleeping through class, and to have the time and encouragement to address the issue by calling home, or talking directly to the student.

Smaller schools, and smaller class sizes are one answer. Better pay and respect for teachers is another. More time for student interaction, and less time required to fill out the paperwork that has become the bane of teachers is still another.

Sneep! I tell ya, the world would be a better place if we could all wear our crowns around.

If you need to be the winner, go ahead, make yourself a shiny crown and wear it.

That's it! I'm making a crown for my next avatar picture.

Conrad I what said was that it seemed likely I was not understanding your point because to me it seemed classist and untrue. Since you probably weren't saying something classist and untrue, I was seeking clarification of what it was you did intend to convey. Because at least in my case what you actually succeded in conveying did not seem reasonable. Again - I was giving you feedback that I did not believe you were effectively communicating your point. You didn't provide clarification, you barked at me. Can we just skip the posturing and the attempts to intimidate? I'm not jockeying with you for status here, I'm attempting to understand what the hell it is you are saying. If you need to be the winner, go ahead, make yourself a shiny crown and wear it. Lord man, you sound like a dog that's had its tail stepped on too many times.

bunny sums up my earlier ramble:

But I still say, the heart of education is relationships - with teachers, ideas, other students.

This has been one hell of a thread so far - thanks to you all for the serious thought. I really do believe in the "school as a commons" approach as put forth by John Holt:
http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/204...

As far as the super-structure question, I guess I see the main purpose of education as a transitional service towards active adult participation in the world (not just the world of work, but of society and democracy in general). As such, then you might say it's failed many.

I didn't really like High School, especially the parts where my teachers made me do things. But I was still a little bit happy to go to school each day. It was where my friends were.

I don't think the intensity of the situation and horrific stories suddenly inject medical knowledge into an individual, sir. I disagree and assert, once again, that only medical professionals should recommend medication.

You sound like you had a rough go as a teacher, sir, and I respect that...I hear you on parents who do not administer medication, etc...but once again, that does not mean you're an expert on medication. I think you might agree; on one hand you say that teachers can't recommend medication, but on the other you say you would.

Bun, "classist" is a big word, and you should read things twice before you fling insults around like that. No one said that only middle-class children learn for its own sake. Part of being a good teacher is being able to confront each student as they are and not as we expect them to be. But certainly, just as many richer people do not train their kids to do manual labor, because the expectation is that they won't have to, there are certain implicit values in education promoted by other groups, sometimes clustered around certain levels of income. Saying that either is so isn't classist. Nor was I saying that any broad approach to education on the part of any parent or community or class is necessarily always the right (or wrong) idea.

Randomanthony, I'm an ex-teacher. I taught special education in the second most dangerous school in New York for a number of years. Students had to be expelled from at least four other schools before we would admit them to mine.

Teachers can't recommend meds to students; they can tell parents that it may be something they should look into, but the onus is (and should always be) on the parents. I had quite a few students who were schizophrenic or had really severe psychosocial issues which effectively barred them from learning; occasionally, there were parents who didn't want them to behave well enough to be able to learn because that might endanger their disability check, but most often the parents would be so defensive about having kids with anything wrong that they would refuse to consider taking their child to a doctor for a routine diagnosis. I had other students who were supposed to be on meds, but whose parents would refuse to take them to a pharmacy to get prescriptions refilled, or who frankly just couldn't peel their asses from their couch long enough to have meds adjusted when they weren't working.

These kinds of issues would occasionally result in students stabbing other students, throwing furniture around my classroom and others', etc. Would I recommend meds to a parent in cases like those? Yes, I would, and whether you or the parents would have flown off the handle wouldn't have really mattered to me. As I think you'd agree, my legal and ethical responsibility was to ensure the safety of my other students.

Here's a good paper on school size, with an excellent bibliography of research sources.

http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/10/c020.h...

Oh, sorry, my bad, Buns:) I agree with what you said about relationship building and the like. It's absolutely key.

While I am happy to discuss class size, what I was talking about was school size, which is a slightly different issue.

Conrad, sir, after teaching in Chicago for four years, in Wisconsin for four years, and training teachers in Milwaukee for seven, trust me...I know all kinds of students:)

I think I some frustration in your voice, Conrad, and well...welcome to teaching. I didn't say that no students need medication; I said that teachers should not be making that recommendation. I have met teachers who, unfortunately, think medication is the first and best answer or perceive themselves as medical experts without knowing anything about the drugs they recommend other than "medication is good." I'm not a fan of that approach.

On the size issue...this is a tough one. Here are three issues that emerge in the class size conversation:

1. Minor class size changes may not make a difference, e.g. going from 40 high school kids to 35 high school kids in a class may not make a significant difference in student learning. The changes need to be more pronounced and...well...expensive.

2. If a teacher teaches the same way with 15 students as he does with 25, learning might not get impacted. Teachers have to use the smaller class sizes as opportunities to teach in different ways. Lecturing for 15 is the same as lecturing for 15.

3. Students with intense needs may benefit more from smaller classes than students without them.

You'll hear wildly different interpretations of the class size issue in the field...here's a good one, along with some decent links at the bottom.

http://www.memory-key.com/Parents/class_...

Conrad, do you honestly mean to say that only the middle class has time or desire to learn stuff for any but utilitarian purposes? Or am I misunderstanding your point. Because as it stands that comment seems to me both untrue and classist.

Bunny: excellent point. Size does matter, and I agree that smaller is better.

Conrad: If #57 is aimed at me, I think you've misread me, or are misquoting. I never said "enjoying learning" should be the "only goal." In fact, I don't think I mentioned enjoyment at all. What I did say, was that in addition to the practical skills our children will need to survive in the work world (literacy, basic math, computer skills, etc.), I think they should be provided with the skills necessary to make them good citizens (receptivity to new information and ideas, the ability to think critically).

Whether they're going to become college professors or electricians, citizens in a democracy need to know how to analyze the information they're given by media and politicians, and to make decisions accordingly. Otherwise, they are vulnerable to manipulation and abuse.

Personally, while I really wasn't thinking in terms of "love of learning," I think that such a quality could facilitate both the practical and ideal goals stated above. Also, while I would agree that not all learning is practical, in an economic sense, I don't really acknowledge the concept of "learning for its own sake." If we're really learning, then we're benefiting, whether tangibly or no.

Finally, while I'm sure you're right that there are some children out there who need medication and aren't getting it, I fail to see how that is in any way a counter-argument to the destructive potential of putting healthy kids on medication they don't need. Both situations sound pretty "painful" to me.

Randomanthony, you obviously haven't run into the kind of students who need meds but are not getting them. They're out there, believe me, and they can be far more painful to watch than the ones who are on meds but don't need them.

It's an unrealistic expectation to expect schools to instill a love of learning. Learning for its own sake is a distinctly middle-class trait and defining a successful school according to how well it does that sounds a little narrow. Enjoying the accumulation of knowledge does not give one any particular skills, and while it may improve the odds that a child will teach him or herself something that enables the child to make a living when they graduate, and it might be nice in general, it can't be the sine qua non.

Enjoying learning is probably the requisite quality to get into college, but college isn't for everyone - whether by inclination or talent - and making it the only goal betrays those who don't want to go, can't afford to, or lack the ability.

One simple thing I have noted in the various schools I, my sibs, friends, kids of friends have attended is that size makes a real difference. There were a lot of incidents of bureacratic ridiculousness that really boiled down to the school being so big that it wasn't possible for the staff to know most of the students by sight. In the smaller schools even if they weren't as well funded, even if I didn't like the assistant principal or the chemistry teacher, at least I knew who he was and he knew who I was. I wasn't having some ridiculous conversation with someone who kept sneaking peeks at a file as he said "we're very concerned about your (peek) attendance record (peek) David, you seem to be skipping (peek) Spanish class a lot. At some point of size and anonymity it becomes mostly about trying to manage the crowds and prevent vandalism and riot, you know? I'm not sure its a coincidence that elementary schools- which are generally smaller- seem to work slightly better than high schools. Of course there are other reasons too, the mandate of elementary schools still makes more sense in a lot of ways. Regardless of how much the world has changed since 1908 in 2008 kids still need to learn how to read, write, spell, do math. When you get into the high school level you do run into trouble with as RA says the problem of what skills are required in this century's workplaces. But I still say, the heart of education is relationships - with teachers, ideas, other students. If the school becomes the equivalent of the dmv, where you shuffle anonymously from one location to another to turn in your requisite slips of paper and get checked off the list...

Oh, sidebar...no teacher or counselor should ever recommend medication! Only medical doctors should do so...I would hit the fucking roof if a teacher/counselor recommended medication.

And thanks, Buns and Mindy...I don't want to pretend I'm an expert here...it's a huge field.

Thanks, Abigail...I agree with everything you said, I think:)

You know, I think a major part of the solution, honestly, is better teacher training and teacher evaluation. And that scares the hell out of me because that's my job. But if you look at Marzano's work, for instance, it's clear that the individual teacher can make a huge difference beyond the social and funding issues...and too many subpar teachers are, in my eyes, in the classroom. And schools don't have enough ways to get rid of bad teachers or even know how to evaluate them well in light of student learning. Or know how to provide effective professional development. But in the same way that the medical profession, from what I understand, follows protocols, I'd like to see more teachers modify their instruction based on what research says about student learning. I heard Marzano once say that teaching is the only profession in which many of the practioners willfully ignore research and do their own thing. That's highly disturbing...and he's right.

People way smarter than us haven't come up with answers despite billions of dollars of financial support. That's why I often go back to the "one teacher at a time, one teacher at a time" mantra...at least it's tangible to me:)

RA: yes, you're reading me correctly. And yes, they were generalizations. Like any generalizations, I'm sure that there are many exceptions. The generalizations themselves could very well be inaccurate. No, I don't have specific, national data - thank you for providing some in #50. I thought I made it clear with phrases such as "It sounds to me," and "I had always assumed," etc, that I was responding to the experiences detailed on this thread, as well as what has been related to me over the years by a diverse group of friends, coworkers, and teachers. Nothing scientific about it at all, just impressions gained from my own experiences, and many conversations about the "state" of education.

All that said, I don't think specific scores in Math and Reading (as heartening as that news may be), really address what I was trying to get at in my final two paragraphs above. Of course, I want kids to come out of our school system with the basic skills they need to earn a decent living - however we choose to define that. But I also want them to have the skills necessary to be good national and world citizens - whether that means receptivity to new ideas and information, or critical and independent thinking.

Education is just one piece of a large mosaic of inter-connected social issues, and I have no expectation that schools are going to "save" children. There are so many factors involved, from personal and familial issues to socioeconomic ones. I do think (based on anecdotal evidence, not data) that part of the problem is this impulse to make things more "efficient" by streamlining them. Call it "standardization," "homogenization," or the "cookie-cutter mentality," but individual children who don't fit the "norm" just seem to get lost.

One example: In college I knew a couple who were home-schooling their young son. His older sister had gone through the public school system with flying colors, but he had had some trouble. He was bright, but had some behavioral problems. Nothing extreme or violent, just your garden-variety petulance, talking back to the teacher, not participating fully in the class, etc. The school counselor recommended medication, his parents (one of them a professor of psychology) disagreed. It was clear to the parents that, for whatever reason, their son needed a lot of individual attention, attention the school was either unwilling or unable to provide. I worked as a reading tutor for America Reads at this primary school (1st and 2nd grade), and tend to think it was the latter.

Anyway, it was clear that medication was the "easy" answer for the school, because the real answer, the one that took the long-term welfare of the child into account, was beyond their power to effect. The counselor probably had guidelines, the teachers had rules - I don't condemn either of them. They were giving the answers that the system of which they were a part provided for this particular issue. Maybe they weren't able to step outside that system and see that drugging a healthy first-grader wasn't the best option - I honestly don't know.

I also don't really have any big "solutions" here - sorry folks! I'm just one concerned citizen, in this conversation to find some answers, not because I already have them. I can't say I know a whole lot about the educational system, when it comes right down to it, but I'm perfectly willing to learn more.

I second that woot!

RA, I'm so glad you stepped in! I was hoping you would. (And woot, another vote for Kozol!)

Allow me to jump into the fray a bit as a longtime teacher and teacher educator. One quick point:

1. NAEP data have long indicated that students are doing better at Math and Reading now than in the past, at least for ages 9 and 13 (I'm too lazy to dig further into the data right now). I think you can argue that the different sets of skills and expectations necessary to attain a middle class lifestyle these days are an issue. Again, in my eyes, this is an area where schools (and their parents) are struggling. For example, Wisconsin's manufacturing economy is through the floor; one can't expect to get out of high school and get a job that will allow one to buy a house and support children on one income.

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt...

More later...gotta work out. I do get frustrated with people making weird assertions like "Schools don't work these days" or "parents don't like what's happening in schools." Those are very difficult assertions to back up, outside of most urban districts and the school districts serving poor kids.

Our inability to educate poor children as effectively as we educate affluent children just a short distance away is a national tragedy. We deserve shame on that end. I think every American should read Kozol's work.

More later, maybe...teacher education has a long way to go...and please, please, please don't be afraid to slam teachers...and teacher unions...no sacred cows here.

Abigail, if I'm reading you correctly, you've made three broad generalizations. Could you please back them up with some data? If I'm inaccurate with the generalizations please help me out and clarify.

1. It sounds to me like very few demographic groups are doing OK, including those who are advantaged

2. . Kids who are really bright tend not to get what they need.

3. many parents don't feel that the individual needs of the child take precedence.

Are you talking about the secondary level or at the elementary level? Both?

"I don't think, honestly speaking, that we're talking about the failure of "the school(s)" so much, as we are about the failure of our educational model."

Yes!!

"[everything Bunny said:]"

Yes!!


Debbie--
I'll hit this tomorrow. I'm not just chicken little, I've got some suggestions too.

At a minimum, a reasonable expectation of physical safety and freedom from harassment. An adminstration able to provide basic order and organization; schedules, materials, assignments, grades, not too much trash on the floor, toilets that flush etc, etc, without too much barking in circles. Be nice if they could remember my name and refrain from calling someone else's parents to report on me. Or putting me in detention for failing to attend boy's PE and then refusing to release me from detention even after I point out the error because "its in the computer now." Or other such bureaucracy run amok delights. Academically some of the things I would expect would be; I should emerge with the ablity to read a text of the complexity of say, a weekly magazine article, the ability to write comprehensible coherent and grammatical prose, the ability to do sufficient math to be able to understand personal finances and calculate things like how many linear feet of counter top I need and what its going to cost, an understanding of how the scientific method works and why that matters, some passing familiarity with the basic principals of chemistry, physics and biology. An understanding of what political system I live under and what my rights are within that system, and preferably some understanding of how it differs from other political systems. The ability to operate a library and a computer and to do basic research. An understanding of logic sufficient that I am able to recognise the basic fallacies, construct an argument or analyze one. The ablity to read a map and to recognise countries and regions. Basic facility in one language other than English. And more, but that will do to be getting on with.

It sounds to me like very few demographic groups are doing OK, including those who are advantaged. I had always assumed that this was one reason why home-schooling was on the rise. (Of course, religious fundamentalism is another reason, but that's a different conversation). I realize that the ability to home school is also an advantage, but the fact that so many white, advantaged folk feel that the schools are not serving their needs, is a pretty strong statement. It raises the issue (as does Isaiah) that there is a systemic problem.

I agree with your point about resource distribution Mindy, and how it effects education. I don't think anyone is arguing that those problems shouldn't be addressed. But I think we should resist the temptation to see one as the "real" problem, and the other as a "luxury" problem. This isn't a competition, and in my opinion, they're all part of the SAME problem.

Matt: one thing I would like schools to do, is help children become informed, inquisitive young citizens, with some basic knowledge of the world, and a desire to know more. Obviously, this is a goal shared by many, many dedicated teachers around the country, including my eldest sister - a special ed teacher in New Jersey.

I don't think, honestly speaking, that we're talking about the failure of "the school(s)" so much, as we are about the failure of our educational model. One way in which our "model" fails, in my opinion, is in its over-reliance on standardization. The "cookie-cutter" mentality. And I don't just meant with regard to testing. So many rules seem set in stone, and many parents don't feel that the individual needs of the child take precedence.

This is a sentiment that has been expressed to me a number of times by home-schooling parents I know (some of them professors at my college, some friends here on goodreads). Kids who are really bright tend not to get what they need. Kids who have learning difficulties tend not to get what they need (despite well-intentioned special ed departments the country over). Everything seems geared for the middle, with no ability (structurally speaking) to switch course, or make adjustments. Standardization...

From what I can tell to instill a love for learning. Because it was done by rote, not by giving the kids the resource to use their own minds and explore concepts. I hated history because the way I was taught it was all dates and wars and who won (ra ra US!) and not the passions of the people of the time.

Now I LOVE history, because I started reading historical novels. It prompted me to do alot of research on my own to understand what was moving people. And it was Neil Stephenson's Baroque cycle that helped me understand the base of America. Now I know a ton about European history from many novels of good quality, and I'm ready to finally get excited about studying American history. It's all intertwined, not separate countries and passions.

Let me ask: what do/did we want a school to do for us? All this talk about school failure begs the question: at what did the school fail, exactly?

Best school I ever attended was a British Comprehensive School. Worst school I ever attended was a US high school in a wealthy bedroom community. Even the inner city school where a guy showed me a gun in the library was better.

Yet, Mindy, most of the people here ARE saying high school completely failed them. And in the scope of class, most of the people here were white and advantaged.

That is the thing that is most shocking to me.

And I have heard from many that the smart kids are doing miserably because the system isn't geared towards them. It's a "hey they'll do fine no matter what we don't need to pay attention to them" attitude.

if the system can't even manage to do a good job teaching the advantaged how much worse are we failing the disadvantaged

Actually, most of the advantaged are doing just fine b/c even when they are in public schools they have more active parents (Without getting into all of the potential relationship/parenting dysfunctions exacerbated by poverty, poor parents rarely have even the time to be very active in their children's education.) and their schools receive a LOT more resources (including those excellent teachers that we all agree are essential) b/c the main source of funding in America's public schools is property taxes, which means sinfully unequal funding for schools in neighborhoods with a low tax base. Kozol's Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools is an excellent observation of this phenomenon and its social repercussions (and still shamefully relevant almost 20 years later). So, I'm speaking on the large scale here. I think that Goodreaders (well, at least not True Northers) are NOT representative of the high school population in this country, so we can't base our education policies just on the experiences of what are probably some serious outliers on the intelligence curve. (You damn brilliant bastards, you!) Teenagers who are overly bright and underserved in their schools will have to be addressed, but again, I think the more pressing issue is the MASSES of lower class children who are left WAY far behind by our current education policies. (And this does involve funding reform and curriculum reform, which inevitably involves funding reform, etc...)

Soooo....Isaiah....what would you put in place of the current/prevailing system? I am a teacher on the other side of the world and I understand what you are saying and sympathise. I really want to know what you would suggest that would fix the problems and still be workable and fair.

Matt, maybe I'm misinterpreting internet-tone, but you seem awfully defensive considering no one is attacking you. I appreciate that as a teacher, discussions of education touch not only your passion, perhaps, but your livelihood; but the fact is everyone has a vested interest in education. From some of the comments today ("i am more depressed by education than by any other force in this nation", "There is a LOT wrong with our educational system," etc.) it looks like many of us feel very strongly about the issue, and justifiably so.

Personally I feel this discussion has been very constructive. Mindy made a nice summary of the scope of the problem across the socioeconomic spectrum, and Bun's response highlighting the dangers of anomalizing the gifted, white, privileged contingent was an insightful counterpoint.

I think we need to make a distinction between the schools as community entities (and in that capacity the teachers which compose them), and the wider structural norms which characterize the educational system.

I'm confident that NO ONE here is doubting "the school" as a community institution, much less is anyone criticizing teachers. (Not to say there aren't shit teachers ought there, but I think most of us have a profound respect for teachers as a whole. I know I do.) No one here is second-guessing the imperative that parents and communities have to give back to the schools which give so much -- whether material, or in the form of tutoring and so forth.

What it appears that most of us resent is the organization and operation of public/private education on the level of a system. It's for this reason that the problem encompasses issues such as socioeconomic demographics, the availability and cultural reception of trade schools, wealth flows between districts, districting itself, etc.

It is in this sense that the issue is profoundly connected to governance. Bottoms-up involvement is great, and I doubt anyone is going to sit here and say things would go downhill if parents and communities were more involved with their schools. But that symbiosis only takes place within a rigid structure partially defined by history and partially by government at both the federal and state level.

My assertion is that the system itself is cancer. That despite the laudable, even heroic, efforts of individuals (teachers) and communities, without fundamental reformation of the STRUCTURE within which those entities operate, our educational system will continue to fail our children, as it failed me.

amen to lots this AND i don't think you can use class analysis to put the damage done on a continuum that gives the system a pass when it comes to kids who got to eat everyday, had parents who checked in, and slid through a stupid degrading period of time and made it to college - other wise known as mosly white, mosly middle class...you don't know what the world would have been if i had not been lobotomized by tedium and neither do i.

what i find most exciting about literacy theory is the emphasis on having students share information and experience: read write talk listen (to each other)- with who each is and what each knows recognized as the most powerful tool anyone brings to the classroom.
if this were really what teachers believed, and what they were allowed to use as the framework of their course work, imagine what school would be. it would NOT be defined by what money could or could not buy, for one thing.
there is a sequence in The Wire where a group of "corner" kids - kids who are already active in drug retail - are pulled out of the school's genpop and taught by a team of people who sort of learn as they go how to facilitate the kids getting in touch with their own skills and intelligence. there's no big happy ending, but it's a great rendering of what respecting a student's experience can do.

my real point being that no matter what the theory is or how well things are funded or what the mission statement is, if you do not have humble and passionate teachers who value the emancipation of their students minds and imaginations more than anything - anything- else, and if those teachers do not have the unwavering support of an administration ready to do the same kind of work with parents, no systemic change will take place.
critical thinking and making meaning by way of reading, writing, talking and listening does not take a lot of money. it takes a lot of patience, faith and skill on the part of the teacher and a lot of patience on the part of the system. schools today are all about results, but what they value has skewed the results they shoot for. i would love a results-driven program based on the skills that make children life-long learners.
and i am rambling really really and know i have said nothing new. i am more depressed by education than by any other force in this nation, and i have no idea how to begin to change it.

Great discussion. Reading these posts make me feel fortunate to have experienced an excellent high school education. I was never bored with my classes, and sought out learning. Again, I was in a gifted program, and that was very different than the regular classes, I'd say 11 and 12th AP classes were far more like college altho we didn't get credit.

I was miserable but I think that's more about my own personal background and also the age factor - as teens weren't most of us miserable?

So far I'm extremely pleased with Jake's education as well, but again he was lucky to get into alternative schools which are Expedition based and have small group as well as independent projects. Very much hands on learning style.

In addition, these schools have an extremely strong community of parent involvement. I think it's safe to say that this community is a major part of the success of both the schools he has attended. Plus, because of the nature of the program, the teachers are pretty progressive and very committed. They love what they are doing.

I'm a bit concerned about high school. The one high school that continues this approach is far from my house and therefore I'm not sure Jake will get in. And he is smart but not at all super academic so won't get into the one for the top 1% - or I should say I wouldn't even want him there because it is not suited for him. He's not one to rush home and crack open the books for homework! He was bored in elementary but in middle school he says he likes his classes - "they are really teaching us good stuff." He even gets excited! This is a kid who would already be hating school if he was in the usual type of academic structure.

But I know what Jake has experienced so far is very very rare, and not offered except perhaps in some major cities, plus Seattle is a progressive town. In addition, there have been many attempts to get rid of the alternative schools by the bureacracy and mainstream - the only reason they do still exist is because of the huge parental support and outcry.

So yes, there are education systems in America already in place and it is possible to change. What's ironic is that they may not have the best standardized test results, and the reason is that the teachers refuse to teach to the test. They believe it's a waste of time! The test results are still above average so the schools continue to get their federal funds. Most of the other schools I know spend about 4 months solely teaching to the test, taking practice ones, etc. I hope Obama takes a look at these alternative schools.

Its possible I'm just not understanding the point but I'm really resistant to letting the idea pass that because I happen to be smart and relatively priviledged it doesn't really matter if my high school(s) didn't manage to do even a reasonable job of educating me. Sure I could overcome the deficiencies, so yeah in my case it was nothing worse than having several years of my time wasted. But how is that okay? Besides, if the system can't even manage to do a good job teaching the advantaged how much worse are we failing the disadvantaged?

I also recommend any of Jonathan Kozol's books about inequalities in public education. The truth is almost of all of us posting here are as Matt said "well-educated, literate white people," and even within your own school systems (assuming they were public, but even if they were private, unless they were very, very wealthy private schools) you were probably exceptionally gifted and probably would not have been captivated by any but the most exceptional curriculum.

There is a LOT wrong with our educational system, and there are always changes to be made by looking at "best practices" as determined by evidence not by think-tanks. NCLB and the "teaching to the test" (in the name of that nauseating ideal of "accountability") is a HORRIBLE way to educate children. So, let's get rid of that insanity first of all. Then, look at what does work and for whom. If there are some exceptionally gifted and inevitably bored children such as us True Northers were, then by all means there need to be special programs for them and many ditricts have implemented IB curriculums, Montesorri-style practices, etc. Unfortunately, these all are usually the privilege of wealthier school districts b/c they demand better teachers and a greater investment of time and materials per student. What poor and underperforming school districts need is not a decrease in their student population by ending their education in 10th grade, it's an increase in attention paid to them and and an increase in their funding. In fact, more effort needs to be made to keep those kids in school all the way through graduation and to ensuring that their education is not substandard b/c the facts are that getting that high school diploma greatly improves their life chances.

For most of us not finishing in our boring middle-class high schools wouldn't have much affected our material existence b/c our class privilege and our exceptionally big brains would've probably still made us successful (providing we didn't become addicted to all that exciting stuff we were doing to offset our boring bourgeois secondary educations). I trust that our new President will, as he said, determine "what works" before implementing any changes in our education system. NCLB does not work, and it's gotta go. The privatization of public education via magnet and charter schools and school-choice vouchers is devastating for all but the smartest lower-class students (with the most involved parents) and their school districts. Bureaucracy will surely always be with us, but there are individuals at the helm of these things, making decisions that determine the direction they take and how much of the population they serve and how well they do that. I think now we have a leader who recognizes that potential for serving the greater good (for all students not just the exceptionally gifted and bored ones) and who will use his administration to try to acheive that based on social research & evidence (as opposed to individual anecdotes) and not ideology.