Minority participation in Algebra I and the development of an equity/equality policy are on the agenda for today's Wake County school board economically disadvantaged students committee meeting.
A majority of the meeting is scheduled for discussing developing a policy on equity and equality in schools. This comes after the December discussion on Fund 6 accounts for schools.
The board will then get an update on the participation rates in Algebra I and pre-algebra in middle school. Questions were raised in October about the accuracy of the data and whether gains were overstated for minority enrollment under the new EVAAS-based placement guidelines.
After the math questions were raised, some of the members of the ED task force met with staff to review how E&R compiled the data. Today could provide more clarity on the issue.
The meeting is scheduled to run from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. at Timber Drive Elementary School, 1601 Timber Drive in Garner.
UPDATE
The math numbers weren't finalized yet so the whole meeting was spent on reviewing a draft equity/equality policy. I'm honestly still recovering from this bug so I'll wait until Friday to do a recap.
Comments
Neither Fair Nor Accurate •
Sun, 01/09/2011 - 07:08 — AngelaWBy Wayne Au
A pitched battle raged in my hometown of Seattle this fall. Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson and the Seattle Public Schools district fought with the Seattle Education Association over their most recent teachers’ union contract. At the heart of the dispute: Should teacher evaluations be based in part on student scores on standardized tests
On the surface, the logic of VAM and using student scores to evaluate teachers seems like common sense: The more effective a teacher, the better his or her students should do on standardized tests.
However, although research tells us that teacher quality has an effect on test scores, this does not mean that a specific teacher is responsible for how a specific student performs on a standardized test. Nor does it mean we can equate effective teaching (or actual learning) with higher test scores.
Politics, Not Reality
The reality of standardized tests is that they are too imprecise and inaccurate to measure the effectiveness of individual teachers. The sad thing is that testing experts, researchers, and psychometricians have known this for quite some time. In 1999, for instance, the expert panel that made up the Committee on Appropriate Test Use of the National Research Council cautioned that “an educational decision that will have a major impact on a test-taker should not be made solely or automatically on the basis of a single test score.”
Yet two short years later, a bipartisan Congress and the presidential administration of George W. Bush passed No Child Left Behind and its test-and-punish approach to school reform into law.
Although the Bush administration seemed to ignore educational research as a matter of policy (as illustrated through NCLB’s Reading First program and the advocacy of using phonics-only teaching methods that had little basis in research), many hoped for something different with the election of President Obama.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has sent a clear message: When it comes to high-stakes standardized testing, the research doesn’t matter.
It hasn’t mattered that, according to the above cited U.S. Department of Education report, “More than 90 percent of the variation in student gain scores is due to the variation in student-level factors that are not under control of the teacher.”
It hasn’t mattered that the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences has stated that “VAM estimates of teacher effectiveness should not be used to make operational decisions because such estimates are far too unstable to be considered fair or reliable.”
It hasn’t mattered that even the researchers who completed the Los Angeles Times study acknowledged that VAM data were too unreliable to use as the sole measure of teacher performance (a point that the Times neglected to clearly articulate in their article).
Sadly, with Bush, now with Obama, politics and ideology trump educational research.
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/25_02/25_02_au.shtml
“More than 90 percent
Sun, 01/09/2011 - 15:11 — klanders65“More than 90 percent of the variation in student gain scores is due to the variation in student gain scores is due to the variation in student-level factors that are not under control of the teacher.”
Why do we even bother to teach them? Isn't education an incredible waste of money if this is true? Lets just train people for jobs on the job.
The Indian and Chinese people must be amazing because they are educating people who are poorer than most American's can even imagine and taking the engineering jobs. Or is it only American poor people who can't learn? Or maybe you are not talking about poverty as the factors out of our control. What are those factors?
Not how it works
Sun, 01/09/2011 - 12:21 — lferreri"....this does not mean that a specific teacher is responsible for how a specific student performs on a standardized test."
From what I understand about these evaluation systems, they do not rely on evaluating a teacher on one specific student's performance on one standardized test. Instead, they use multiple years' student growth as one measure of teacher performance. The use of growth rather than just performance takes into account the fact that a student can enter a class and already be behind. A teacher who can help to catch a student up during the year, whether the student reaches grade level at year end or not, has been effective. (Conversely, teachers whose students fail to advance much during the year, even if they still end up passing the end of year tests, are seen as not being effective.) The use of multiple years rather than just one year reduces the chance that random events in one particular year are distorting the analysis. The use of other measures recognizes the limitations of testing.
Equity and gaps
Sat, 01/08/2011 - 13:07 — EDSTARI believe we can eliminate the racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps. We will always have achievement gaps but they need not be racial and socioeconomically based. I also think we can do a lot to raise achievement and close gaps right now without spending more money.
I've made a presentation explaining what I have learned from work I have done that may shed light on what can be done to raise achievement and close gaps. I posted it at http://www.edstaranalytics.biz/home/?presentations
I believe we can eliminate
Sun, 01/09/2011 - 13:40 — jenmanI believe we can eliminate the racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps. We will always have achievement gaps but they need not be racial and socioeconomically based. I also think we can do a lot to raise achievement and close gaps right now without spending more money.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree 100%. There will always be kids who don't achieve as well as others but it doesn't have to be racially and SES based.
I think it's important to
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 10:36 — jenmanI think it's important to remember that these equity dicussions aren't new. This is from Lori Millberg a few years ago in repsonse to an email of mine (bolding is mine):
As I assume you know, we recently received a report on a Curriculum Management Audit conducted at our request and the number one recommendation was:
“Implement district plans and goals to provide equal access to comparable programs, services, and opportunities to impact student success. Eliminate the achievement gap between ethnic and socioeconomic student groups. Take further steps to allocate resources on the basis of need.”
The report specifically noted that we needed to look at funding going to schools from all sources (public and private) in determining how the resources over which we have control are allotted. It is a problem if the schools with the least challenging students have the most money.
At this point, we are only just beginning to look at the issue and no decisions have been made.
As for Shila Nordone's comment, the idea of giving more resources to higher poverty schools has been discussed before. The above bolded sentence shows that it was a recommendation from the curriculum audit. A few years ago there was some discussion about the funds raised by PTA and how some schools raised much more than others. I think one BOE member tossed out the idea of a pooling of PTA money or a certain amount of wealthier schools' money going to poorer schools. The fact that Shila herself doesn't define or quantify it doesn't mean she's advocating doing this without careful study.
I agree that we need to discuss what is fair and how we measure that before we decide on a course of action, but looking at these different sources of money is part of that discussion.
Jenman, this is the crux of the problem
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 10:54 — Voice_of_Reason_If the goal is Eliminate the achievement gap between ethnic and socioeconomic student groups, then you have created an un-achievable goal. The main reason being the school system does not have complete control of the students. It has been proven that unlimited money and resources does not achieve this, or is it practible. It's a noble goal, a utopian goal, but it's void of reality. Reducing the gap is a much better goal. That goal violates S.M.A.R.T. goal setting principles. It's more of a utopian vision, not based in reality.
It has been proven that
Sat, 01/08/2011 - 14:59 — stan_norwalkIt has been proven that unlimited money and resources does not achieve this, or is it practible. It's a noble goal, a utopian goal, but it's void of reality.
Agree in part and disagree in others. Schools like KIPP charters and the Harlem Cildren's zone show that added resources, i.e. educational intensiveness (e.g. time on task and motivated teachers) CAN close the gap. But the reality is that the public will not financially support such schools. Individual schools can be supported by private donors, but school SYSTEMS are another story.
KIPP and HCV point the way and SOME of what they do ought to be considered - but adapting the entire package for a large system such as WCPSS is "void of reality".
How do we know?
Sat, 01/08/2011 - 16:29 — EDSTARConsider this: We know from research that students do not generally learn what they are not taught. When students receive primarily remedial instruction, they do not score as high on tests as control groups that receive rigorous instruction.
Low income and minority students who meet WCPSS's math placement criteria are less likely to be enrolled in the advanced math courses for which they are qualified. This, not their home lives, contributes to the achievement gap in math. Their parents can't advocate for them because they don't know the math placement criteria because it is not shared with them. And they don't know whether their kids meet the criteria because that is not shared with them, either. We are not helpless because we can't control their family lives.
Low income and minority students receive remedial instruction that is designed to bring them to grade level when they are already scoring above grade level.
How do we know what can be achieved until we start enrolling low income and minority students who meet the math placement criteria into the advanced courses? And until we stop providing remedial instruction to high scoring low income and minority students--especially in programs that cause them to miss core instruction?
How can we know anything about what is possible until we start providing equal opportunities for rigorous courses for equally qualified students, and aligning intervention services to the student needs using data?
I have seen amazing success and achievement raise and gaps close when data are used to provide opportunities and to align services (such as using reading scores to decide who needs a reading intervention, etc.). The problem is, this changes the entire culture of a school or school system, and that is why there is such resistance to using data.
Culture Change
Sat, 01/08/2011 - 21:51 — Solon77I am trying to understand the process and culture change required.
Through ES my kids came home with a weekly folder that included school work, test, quizzes, and other work. At the end of the period the report card matched the results of the work brought home. The end of grade tests reflected the work and report card. In 3rd grade the Iowa Basics provided another data point. At the end of 5th grade and entry into 6th grade we knew what math and other classes our kids should be enrolled in. We have 3 kids and all three were on slightly different tracks based on their achievement.
In MS and HS - we monitor our kids grades throughout the quarter and the report card. The report card reflects the work through the quarter. So by the time we get towards the end of the year we pretty much have a good idea on what to expect on the EOG/EOC and the course selection for the next year.
So where in the process is the breakdown ? If the student is performing well and this is reflected in their homework, test scores and report card - why is the student being held back ? What does the teacher have to say about it ? What are the parents saying about it ? My point is that there are many data points along the way, that if monitored provide a clear view of what can be expected by the time EOGs/EOCs and the next year's placement selection roll around. What you are suggesting above is that teachers are purposefully ignoring the data points and holding students back. To what advantage does this serve teachers, students, parents or the school ?
Simply adding another datapoint, EVAAS, will not correct the process / culture issue.
To what advantage does this
Sat, 01/08/2011 - 22:43 — EDSTARTo what advantage does this serve teachers, students, parents or the school ?
I do not know what the advantage is but I know it happens. I also know that when EDSTAR first reviewed the data to see how EOG scores corresponded with math placement, nearly 80% of the African American students who scored Level 4 were tracked low in math, and this included students in the top of Level 4. Things were better a few years later when SAS did their study. I think almost half of the minority students who were predicted to succeed had been tracked high in middle school math.
I don't know why this happens but my experience is that a culture change happens when students are tracked using data. I have seen teachers surprised by the data, when they see that most of the students in their remedial programs already scored level 3 or 4. When we inquire about how they got placed there, the answer is usually because they were thought to be academically at risk. When we ask why they think the students are academically at risk, they say because they are low income or minority. Many many educators have told us that they thought that even when low-income students score high, they are at risk of scoring low any moment now and will be helped by remedial services. When we conduct Data Academies, we address this misconception and teach them that the "at risk" subgroups have a higher percentage of students scoring low. The students who score high are not about to score low any minute now.
And why are they not tracked high even when they are earning As and scoring level 4? We are told by teachers and principals who seem genuinely well meaning that they do not want to set these students up for failure and they believe they are likely to fail later if challenged because they are "academically at risk." They tell us that even if they excelled in ES, they fear the rigorous math of middle and high school will be too hard for them because their parents did not attend college, or they don't have resources in their homes to help them. So, out of compassion, they track them low. We hear this in all school districts. We have heard it more in WCPSS because we have worked more in WCPSS than in other districts. But we see this in most of the education data we work with and hear this from educators in all districts. (And we work with a lot of education data.)
What we see is consistent with what the national literature reports. The national literature reports that math tracking begins in 6th grade and tracking decisions are more highly correlated with race and income than with achievement scores. And, when low income students of equal achievement histories are tracked the same as not-low income students, their outcomes are the same. This is true whether they are tracked high or low.
Walk into a school and look at the advanced classrooms. This is changing, but a few years ago you would see one kind of student in them. This is still true in some schools. When this changes, the culture changes. Change is always hard.
Interesting - thank you
Sat, 01/08/2011 - 23:01 — Solon77Interesting - thank you
Many many educators have told us that they thought that even when low-income students score high, they are at risk of scoring low any moment now and will be helped by remedial services
Curious - are these educators represented across all demographics ?
Actually, they are. Young,
Sat, 01/08/2011 - 23:26 — EDSTARActually, they are. Young, old, Black, White...
I was asked to review research reports to judge them for a national competition a couple years ago. I was on a team of about 5 people across the nation who were all reading the same reports and were to judge them. One of the reports, that was by far the best written, was from Louisiana and was about how now that Hurricane Katrina had left so many families in bad shape, the number of students on free and reduced lunch for this district had sky-rocketed. They were stressed because they didn't know where they would find enough remedial reading teachers now that so many more kids were suddenly low income. They compared pre-Katrina f/r numbers to post and gave pre-Katrina reading scores. They concluded that since the f/r was correlated with not knowing how to read well, they were going to suddenly have a huge increase in the number of kids who couldn't read because they had a huge increase in f/r kids. Their report was figuring the number of remedial teachers they would need to recruit.
We had a phone conference to decide which research paper would win. The other judges all selected this one. They were professors and heads of E&Rs around the nation. When I pointed out that it didn't make sense that the kids who could read fine before the hurricane would still be able to read. The fact that they lost their home due to natural disaster did not make them forget how to read. So, although well written, the report study was nonsense. The other judges could hardly believe they hadn't caught that. They said they were so used to free lunch meaning "can't read" that they didn't even realize that the kids they were talking about already knew how to read.
One of the judges couldn't understand what I was talking about. She was a head of E&R from a large district in a different state. She insisted that in her district, f/r meant that you needed remedial reading services. The other judges tried to explain it to her. She couldn't see what we were saying. F/R meant that you need remedial services. She never did see it.
As bad as this may sound, things are getting much better now that we have easy to use data. We aren't really using it yet, but we are moving toward using it. Some WCPSS schools are using data just fine and putting kids where they will be challenged and prepared for rigorous courses, when the data tell them that they are prepared to succeed.
Reading assessment
Sat, 01/08/2011 - 16:50 — lferreriAt the ED Task Force meeting, someone said that there is a new program to assess elementary school students' reading skills for intervention. It sounded promising, but then they said that it is only being used in some elementary schools because of the cost. (I think they said that they use NetBooks to record the information.) There wasn't time to get much more information, but I wondered whether this could be used in all schools. Isn't there some lower cost way this could be done? I can see this being very helpful since it seemed to target any skills the students need to work on, rather than just saying a student is "below grade level". (Or worse, as you say, giving them remedial instruction when they don't even need it.)
Check out...
Sat, 01/08/2011 - 17:38 — Bob_Sconcewww.lexile.com. I'm fairly certain it's being used in Wake County.
VOR ... you say Eliminate
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 12:14 — user12345VOR ... you say Eliminate the achievement gap between ethnic and socioeconomic student groups, is unachievable ...
to end the discussion ... stop the investigation ... we know that poor minority kids were denied access to advanced math by the "system" ... that took a lot of people , a lot of time to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to skeptics who thought racism was abolished in 1960. Absolute elimination of the gap may not be possible but we have not even tried to even work on the gap ... you are saying give up now because we get there 100% ... I say lets try to close the gap and if we get 70% of the way that is success ...
AMAZING
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 12:42 — Voice_of_Reason_You might be corect. Let's see who ran the school system and the school board all these years. Hummmm. ..Oh yeah, those caring Liberals. Why, maybe there was a conspiracy, say it isn't soo. After all, don't the poor vote for them, time and time again...not those evil rich (and poor) conservatives. Maybe those evil racist conservatives were working behind the seams with the Democrats running the State. It's a plot because those rich guys manged to pay off enough Dems to go along with them. That must be it, I understand now.
All I can say is SUCKERS!!!!
VOR .. step up ... get out
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 13:15 — user12345VOR .. step up ... get out of political clothing .. stop blaming the past ... take responsibility and get to work ... sitting around not doing anything about faltering education of poor and minorities won't benefit you in the future ... you are not going hurt your financially or your children eventually if they are not employable ... stop hiding behind, I am rich and everyone hates me ... use the God given potential and leadership and solve this problem now if for no other selfish reason than for your kids future ..
But User
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 15:45 — Voice_of_Reason_If I am an rich, evil, racist, selfish conservative in your mind, how could I possobly run against the likes of Kevin Hill. I believe Bob Sconce or JenMan should run and I'll help them out. That said, my spouse is pushing me to. The problem is I hate politics. BTW-the past is not the problem, it only shows us where we went wrong or right. I was just pointing out who did it; and surprising they are the ones screaming the worse.
I agree that it is
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 11:15 — jenmanI agree that it is unachievable goal of the school system alone and that it should be reducing the gap. There are lot of things we can do to reduce it but we will never be able to eliminate it entirely. Same thing with setting the grad rate at 100%. That's just not going to happen no matter how much we care.
The system needs to focus on 'fixing' things that are under its control, like having objective math placement criteria.
Amen!
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 11:45 — Voice_of_Reason_Sometimes I find it amazing that we are on two sides of the political spectrum.
I know, it's funny
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 16:53 — jenmanI know, it's funny sometimes. :-)
"And, yes, student
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 09:44 — woodstock"And, yes, student assignment is also a big part of the discussion, especially with our puny per pupil spending in Wake County."
What do you think the "puny per pupil spending" is?
Class warfare at it's best User
Thu, 01/06/2011 - 23:26 — Voice_of_Reason_Assumption 1 - All kids not F&R are rich and smart and will be successful
Assumption 2 - All poor kids will fail if not given more resources and end up in prison
Assumption 3 - Only given enough money all poor kids can do well in school
Assumption 4 - Rich folks pay lots of taxes and think they deserve their money's worth (( (
All of these are faulty(except 4) and based on your life experiences and beliefs, While number 4 should include all taxpayers, not just rich ones. Nobody pays enough taxes while their child is in school to cover the cost.
My View
- There is not an easy answer and nothing that is tried will be perceived as fair to all
- Equal opportunity does not equate to equal outcome. Equal outcome is impossible unless standards are lowered.
- All students do not have the same potential, schools should strive to help every student achieve their full potential.
- Parents and caregivers are as much a factor as schools in their student's outcome.
- All the money in the world will not change the outcome if the teachers cannot motivate the student
- There is a limited supply of public money, you should not rob from one group at the expense of another.
- Teaching to the lowest common denominator does not result in excellence.
- Rich people will want to contribute more if they feel their money is going to good use
- Most rich people don't send their kids to public schools if they are sub-standard or their child is not challenged.
As far as Algebra I in Middle school, I think all middle schools should objectively identify students that are ready for the next phase in Math early and teach to that level. Even if there are limited students ready to take a course, at a minimum a tele-conferenced class with a live teacher should be available. Under no circumstances should standards be reduced to achieve more "equitability." This should also be true for Geometry for some advanced students.
Oh BTW- "Richie-Rich" is a degoratory word suggesting it is some crime to be successful, sorta like a term like "white-trash" to descibe every poor white. Both are in poor taste and shows prejudice.
some comments
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 11:01 — user12345Equal opportunity does not equate to equal outcome.
User - not the way to start or end
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 11:26 — Voice_of_Reason_...based on discrimination...,...genocide.....,F@#k parents....,rich people are a pain in the butt...special...leveraged.; all these are great places to start a rational discussion and displays the thoughts of a reasoned individual...RIGHT???
I do agree with you on a couple of points,
#1 if students need math classes and can't get them because of the school, that's a problem needing fixing
#2 increasing class size, especially with struggling students, is also a problem worth fixing
As far as "Our goal should be to get EVERY student above the line where they can function in society, hold a job, vote, and defend us", I agree to a degree, but I would eliminate vote and defend. That also should be a minimum standard, not a goal. It is also too broad a statement, I believe what you should say is all children should be literate and be able to do basic math. You probably meant that because most people can at least find a job (even though it won't pay much), function in society, vote, and defend us (even though they might not be accepted if they try) with that ability. BTW- I don't know of any school system in America that doesn't provide that.
I believe what you should
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 11:46 — user12345I believe what you should say is all children should be literate and be able to do basic math. You probably meant that because most people can at least find a job (even though it won't pay much), function in society, vote, and defend us (even though they might not be accepted if they try) with that ability. BTW- I don't know of any school system in America that doesn't provide that.
I think we agree here ... the specific (basic math) are debatable ... but having a plan, goals is what is in dispute ... I agree every school provide those things but they don't always make them available ... so, WCPSS has Algebra ut does not sign poor minority kids up for the classes ... that is the difference between making thing available and getting results ... as I have said before ... what is going on with my wife's HS kids reading at a fifth grade level?? ... where did they fall through the cracks??? ES? MS? ... who is to blame?
But user
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 12:03 — Voice_of_Reason_Pre-Algebra is enough math for most people to function. I bet the majority of people don't use more than that in their daily lives. And 5th grade reading level is enough to get a low paying job. You are not making much sense if you espouse a basic education as enough for everyone and all we should expect from public education.[Your words, not mine]. I bet someone with a good attitude and possess those skills could get a job. They might even stay out of jail since you equate crime and poverty/illiteracy together.
Pre-Algebra
Sun, 01/09/2011 - 15:36 — klanders65You know that Pre-Algebra is arithmetic, right? There is no branch of mathematics called "Pre-Algebra." Pre-Algebra is arithmetic taught with higher expectations, and conceptual understanding. It follows the same NC Standard Course of Study as 7th grade math. It is the same topics.
I have always thought that Pre-Algebra is just a way to start the filtering process early. Like WCPSS is saying that if they were successful in keeping your kid out of Pre-Algebra even when they met the criteria for enrollment, then this is a compelling reason for them to keep your kid out of Algebra. It is a gate to the gate. They filter again after Pre-Algebra. But it is much easier to keep kids out if the process starts early and they've adjusted people's expectations and controlled access before most people even know what is happening to them.
You realize that kids not on the advanced track in middle school never take Pre-Algebra. 8th grade math is not Pre-Algebra. I think SAS found that there were 5 topics covered in Pre-Algebra that are not in 7th grade math. Wake Forest Rolesville moved kids to Algebra who had not had Pre-Algebra and gave them access to these topics in SAS's Curriculum Pathways (an online learning system that is free to educators and students). All these kids were successful without having had Pre-Algebra.
WCPSS says Pre-Algebra covers 7th and 8th grade math. That must mean that 8th grade math is a total repeat of 7th grade math with 5 more topics covered.
I have taught that low math track. It is nearly totally repeated topics year after year. It is arithmetic topics over and over again.
Algebra
Sun, 01/09/2011 - 21:08 — Dove314Funny thing -- we use Algebra all the time in everyday life. From handling money to cooking to shopping to so many little things. And, for the most part, we don't even realize we're using Algebra principles to do these things.
Fine without math
Sun, 01/09/2011 - 15:27 — klanders65I agree. Most people can earn pretty darn good livings working in the factories. The factories have good benefits and decent wages.
Oh wait. I forgot. The factories are gone.
Although most people don't need advanced math skills, they need to understand how to reason and think in ways that are only taught in the advanced math and science classes. Many people don't even know what can be known. They don't know what questions to ask or how to get information to reason with. The Wall Street Journal reported on a national survey done where more than 60% of the people with Adjustable Rate Mortgages did not understand what ARM meant or how rate increases would affect them. The other 40% probably had an advanced math and/or science class and learned how to think quantitatively and ask questions ahead of time.
We could teach these skills somewhere else, but we don't. You learn these quantitative reasoning skills only in advanced math and science. These are STEM skills. The fact that we restrict STEM to a small elite group puts us at the bottom of developed countries internationally. Not only can we not produce the workers needed for the 21st century, we are going to produce people who have trouble living in the 21st century. For example, our students may grow up and buy houses with hardly any money down, and adjustable rate mortgages, then say they couldn't have known this was a bad idea and it is someone else's fault their kids have to go on free lunch now and get remedial tutoring they don't need.
I think maybe some educators didn't take the classes where you learn rational thinking skills. Odds are they didn't because the small percentage of American adults who took advanced math and science classes have careers in STEM fields and make much more money than educators.
(STEM = Science Technology Engineering Mathematics)
You are correct that a basic
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 14:35 — user12345You are correct that a basic education is not good enough ... even though that is what we are gravitating to today ... a basic (what ever that means) education should be the minimum to try to get every kids to ... many will surpass that ... hopefully, few fall below that line ..
Wow...
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 11:15 — Bob_SconceWe can talk about full potential after we have the resources to deliver any potential.
Here's a hypothetical: we have $X to spend. We can use that either (a) to get one student to the point where they can barely scrape by to legitimately get a diploma, or (b) get 15 students to the point where they'll be admitted and able to succeed in college. What choice should we make?
Based on your post, I think you'd say (a). But, don't we get more benefit, as a society, from choice (b)?
many of are inept and should not have been allowed to have children ... we need to dissociate children from their inept parents
Thank you, Joseph Stalin.
Bob ... I don't know ... I
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 11:57 — user12345Bob ... I don't know ... I just know that I want that public discussion and get a consensus ... by making no decision, we are making a decision ... which is powerful folks will concentrate the resources to benefit themselves. ... we have made the decision to invest in handicap kids though they are unlikely to every pay society back for the investment ... we made the decision and codified the decision in law ... so, next year everyone will suffer with fewer teachers and bigger class size than special ed kids who are protected by law ... again, a public decision we all agreed to ...
On parents ... if you continue to wait for bad parents to become good parents before you will help their kids, you will have a very long, unproductive wait. The government should not take kids like Stalin but can not sit by and watch them crash and burn either.
But Bob
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 11:55 — Voice_of_Reason_He is directrly in line with Planned Parenthood and their original reason for forming. There are many liberals that feel this is the way we need to attack the problem. Why do you think abortion is such a big issue. Very much in-line with Margaret Sanger's Eugenics movement, She was the founder of Planned Parenthood after all. Only user thinks we need to do the same with wealthy people too, more like Mao. Very odd thinking for a self-proclaimed liberal Libertarian if you ask my opinion.
Blah ... Blah ... Blah Get
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 09:48 — user12345Blah ... Blah ... Blah
Get to the point ... we have X dollars ... where does it go ... AG?, SE?, LE?, AP?, VoTech??
By not making a decision, we are making a decision that the powerful will get the resources .... agree to a plan and execute it ...
User, let's be...
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 10:44 — Voice_of_Reason_Let's be serious, if you try to make everyone happy it usually ends up nobody happy. If you distribute county money on a per-student basis, you call it not equitable. If some parents in a local school provide additional money to their local schools, you call it unfair. If we have more poor people living in a certain geographic area, you call it unfair. If one student excells and another drops out, it's unfair. If one child is born into poverty, and another isn't; it's unfair. All of which is government's and society's fault , right? If we distribute more money in addition to federal money to a lower income based school, it's not enough. Yes, it is blah, blah, blah. But the blah must be out in the open before a plan can be developed. I frankly am tired of all the class warfare and guilt trips being imposed to influence all the resource allocation. Even if all the above programs were fully funded, there would be complaints...because enough is never enough. You say agree to a plan, how is that possible when logic is over-ruled by emotion? We try to agree, and the emotional scream. there is no magic bullet to fix the problem, and if there was, it's not a government solution alone. I think our goal should be equitable public resources and equal opportunity for all students. Our vision should be helping every child excel to there highest educational capability. Class warfare is counterproductive to formulating and executimg a plan. Socio-economic differences should be a consideration, not a driving force in the formulating process.
If you distribute county
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 11:38 — user12345If you distribute county money on a per-student basis, you call it not equitable.
To a degree
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 12:34 — Voice_of_Reason_I never said I agree totally with any of these but
If you distribute county money on a per-student basis, you call it not equitable.
Oy....
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 12:08 — Bob_Sconceforget about emotion ... just say you think blacks are inferior and should not get much education ... say SE and handicap kids are not worth the money we invest .. say that AG kids are our future ... just honestly say it and not allow the "system" to do it for you ... if you truly believe something else, put it on paper and execute it ... I am saying the system of doing nothing has lead to school disparity that you secretly benefit from and are reluctant to change ...
Oy. Who believes that?
(What's an SE kid?)
If you want to play pure economist, it may be that it's not "worth it" to invest money in disabled kids. But, we do it anyway because we value more than just straight economics. Luckily, there are relatively few kids who are seriously disabled, so we can afford to do so. Eventually, though, the economic concerns have to win.
A system of education is primarily important because it directly impact future economic prosperity -- look at the recent stories about NC workers not having the skills for the new jobs being created here. Those jobs will eventually leave unless NC schools train people able to take them. And that's never going to happen if we focus solely on getting the poor-performers to perform at an average level.
Further, if those jobs aren't here, then neither will the affluent people whose tax revenue supports the school system. Focusing today on poor performers to the exclusion of the more capable students would effectively torpedoes tomorrows' poor performers.
Again Bob ... let's have the
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 12:22 — user12345Again Bob ... let's have the discussion ... what is the goal ... future productive citizens ... soldiers ... oligarch ... strong middle class ???
SE = Special Ed
With less and less resources, we need a priority system. Who gets food rations?
Well....
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 13:09 — Bob_SconceHere's a thought: If you have less resources, then you want to make choices that enables you to have more resources in the future.
To me, the goal has to be future productive citizens, and we want to maximize that future productivity.
It's interesting, though, that the answer to "what do we do when there are less resources?" depends a lot on how long you think there will be a shortage. If there's only a year hit, you can rely on the community and parent volunteers to make up for a lot of that hit. If it's indefinite into the future, then you have to do some longer-term planning. (If one neighbor's house burns down, then the community rallies behind them. If houses are burning every week, then everybody's on his own.)
Personally, I am a big
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 13:21 — user12345Personally, I am a big believer in a strong middle class as providing an enduring democracy. So, throwing our lot on a few to create the next Google to save us or the ones who don't care both seem fruitless. I agree on the benefit of future productive citizens but I don't think that producing those citizens should be hindered by inept parents who don't care or want to participate. When parents to want to be part of the solution, work directly with the child.
Ok...
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 14:16 — Bob_SconceI assume you meant "when parents don't want to be part of the solution. . ." I should note that there's a fairly short limit to what schools can legally do without parental involvement. The much easier case is when parents want to be part of the solution, but don't know how, or don't have the resources.
Recognize that Larry Page and Sergey Brin were middle-class before they started Google. Heck, most innovation comes from middle class people, sometimes working by themselves, and sometimes working for somebody else. If you look around in the local entrepreneurial community, you'll discover a bunch of bright, young, middle class people.
I understand that we can not
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 14:21 — user12345I understand that we can not do much with parents who do not want to participate but we should not penalize kids who end up with a defective parent .....
"Nobody pays enough taxes
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 07:58 — wireless200"Nobody pays enough taxes while their child is in school to cover the cost. "
Not sure what you mean by this. Isn't average student cost per year around $1800 or less? I'm sure a lot of taxpayers fork over much more than that both in property taxes and state taxes.
Agree with your other points except "Most rich people don't send their kids to public schools if they are sub-standard or their child is not challenged." Not sure what you mean by rich. Private schools are expensive and I'm sure a lot of well-off parents who don't send their kids to private school will tell you that, at least in the lower grades, kids aren't challenged for the most part, yet the parents don't fork over the big money private requires. Property taxes are already pretty taxing as it is.
Yet, for advanced students, there's a hour or two AG classes a couple of times a week, and "differentiated" work for sharp students but for the most part teaching to the average leaves many of the smart kids fairly bored in certain subjects. Math is a good example of that where unlike the humanities which is mostly horizontal knowledge, that is, students can go on without having learned the material, math requires vertical knowledge and a lot of kids are ahead and are left, for example, doing long division when they learned it two grades ago.
follow-up wireless200
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 09:26 — Voice_of_Reason_Bob commented on your underestimation of cost, so I won't.
As far as what is rich, that is a relative term, and defined by many people in far different points of view. I think this is what aggravates a lot of people in the middle class. I don't call middle class people rich, a lot of people do. I you can't afford to send your child to private school, you are not rich. Some people that aren't rich even send their children to private school because that is where their priority is and make sacrifices accordingly. There are very good private schools in this count where the tuition is only $5K/yr, affordable to many middle class people.
As far as your comment on AG students, I don't know where you go, but the AG program in most Middle Schools is abysmal. I know first hand since I have an AG student very advanced in Math. If a parent (note I say parent) pushes the school system you might get somewhere though. I learned through a tutoring program (that I was using because my child was not being challenged at all in Math) that you can get your child advanced beyond the normal "advanced 6/7/8th grade math" if you are able to make your case. My child is making an A in a honor Math program in high school, 2-3 years above grade level. We were lucky, and it required a lot of pushing the system to get there. There are a lot of capable students that don't get the opportunity because the parents aren't engaged or ignorant of the opportunities. On the flip side, I don't think the school is staffed to take care of many students in this category. High school courses are very full and can barely accommodate extra students if at all and transportation is a factor. The bigger picture is identification of capable students and planning to meet there needs, that's where WCPSS really falls down. The same is true for Science, but that is a harder nut to crack. The whole AG program in WCPSS is really a joke and IMHO a waste of money since it is a facade. Don't get me wrong, it is important...very important...but if you are going to spend money on it, do something productive with that money. IMHO math should be taught differentely than other subjects because it is a building block subject that requires a good understanding of each objective before you can progress. Children that get behind, usually will stay behind unless intervention occurs at an early stage. Also, IMHO, ability grouping is a must in this subject otherwise the weak hold back the strong; and sometimes the strong make the weak get weaker.
VOR ... I have found many
Sat, 01/08/2011 - 15:49 — user12345VOR ... I have found many who are disappointed with $5000 private schools too.
I agree on the math and science ...personally, I think we pander too much to parents who vary their complaint from too much to too little homework or complain about how short summer vacation is and have little concept or concern for achievement and how Wake, NC and the US fare. I think that is what frustrates me most is that folks here argue so much about assignments, nodes, lawyers, bell schedules, saving summer and the core requirement for the future of the US of improving math and science education just languish ... some seem to think if they can get kids moved from one mediocre school to another that life will be on the right track.
Huh?
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 08:40 — Bob_SconceIsn't average student cost per year around $1800 or less?
No. In Wake County, it's around $8k (someone else will have the exact numbers) which is well below the national average. $1800 per student isn't even enough to pay the teacher.
See http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/07f33pub.pdf for state-by-state numbers in 2007.
Yes, average is one thing,
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 20:53 — wireless200Yes, average is one thing, but the cost per student type is another. For example I've seen it broken out in Wake by special education, and disability and if IIRC an average student (doesn't fall into the aforementioned categories) is much lower than $8k per student.
Those "average" kids' parents are the ones I would think would be considering sending their kids to private schools. In any case if you consider federal, the under challenged kids' parents for the most part are paying much, much more than that in federal, state, and local taxes. I purposely left out federal angle in my prior post because 47% don't pay federal taxes.
I think what the OP meant to say was the average tax paid per person doesn't cover all education costs but I don't agree the average taxes paid per family of under challenged students doesn't cover the cost.