<p>"Given that being a single parent is a choice most of the time, how much should single parents bear responsibility for the result of their choices? Is it all of it, none of it, or somewhere in between? "</p>
<p>It is not the student’s choice.</p>
<p>I am not making a value judgment (not on this forum at this time) I am just pointing out that it does change the math.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with you on this. But it’s a difficult problem. We don’t want to penalize children for parents’ mistakes, but at the same time we want to reward parents that avoid these mistakes. </p>
<p>Quite often there is an inequality in school spending since that’s tied to the local tax base, and richer school systems often do better. I would be willing to have some reasonable minimum spending per student regardless of local tax base. </p>
<p>But I am skeptical that will fix the problem. First, many poorly performing school districts spend a great deal. Second, I think the deeper problem is cultural. Some communities value education far more than others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Half my teaching load is remedial writing. We actually use 10 on the English test as a cut-off point for mandatory placement into our most basic writing class. I can’t attest to the reasons why a student earns a 10. They may be half asleep. They may be making pretty patterns on the bubble sheet. They may genuinely lack the skill set to do better. I have seen students with a 16 or so do better than expected. But I have never seen a student with a score less than 10 do above-average work in a class that teaches 5th-grade skills.</p>
<p>About half my remedial students score less than 10 on the ACT English test. Their reading scores are usually within a point or two of that. A generation ago they would not have attended college at all, or if they did, they would have gone for a technical certificate. Today they want more.</p>
<p>As our former director of advising used to say, sometimes they come to college only to have a “collegiate experience”: dorm life, clubs, tailgate parties. Some are athletes. Others . . . I really don’t know.</p>
<p>As deviant from the subject as it may sound, I think the best way to prepare for college is to read, read, and read. Of course meaninglessly skimming through the words and not understanding a lot of it doesn’t help; I fell into this category when I tried to read some serious philosophical works in my sophomore years, when in fact I should be learning vocabularies first.
But over the years I’ve realized that despite all my wrongdoings and waste of time, (though it wasn’t really a waste of time-- that’s a topic for another discussion.) always having something to read with me has really helped me both become a better reader and be more intelligent. (I also learned to appreciate true-learning aspect of independent reading, but that’s also another topic for another discussion.)</p>
<p>I heard that the amount of assigned reading in college makes high school AP English class look like a joke. I have a tangible evidence that at least as long as you’re going to a rigorous college, you’ll have to read a lot, whether it’s science-or literature, and I’m sure by just getting yourself fond of reading, (not like me-- I’m a compulsive one) you will benefit much from it. </p>
<p>This sounds crazy-- but I’ve been reading several textbooks in independent preparation for AP tests, and I’ve become very used to the technical tone of textbook intended to convey as much information as possible in a limited space. Not to mention this made me do things I never thought I could: in terms of reading comprehension.</p>
<p>^ I definitely agree with you that reading is key.
As a high school student who has always done well in English (advanced and APs), I can say this has helped me tremendously. However, for the average to below-average English kids, class is failing them. Teachers are so desperate for results, they throw advanced works at students who don’t understand them and have to rely on the teacher to explain the book’s symbolism, metaphors, etc.</p>
<p>This failure hurts the average kid’s ACT score. A lot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, yes. And it’s not just preparing for college. It’s preparing for any sort of intellectual work or recreation. If you can’t read well, critically, and creatively, then you’re really just stuck.</p>
<p>And FWIW, reading begins in the crib, in homes where people read aloud to kids, keep books on shelves, encourage older kids to read and play with language, ask kids to read aloud as part of family time. Seriously, a kid who enters first grade with a love of reading and being read to has a leg up on life and a potential path to college laid out in front of her/him. Studies show this over and over. You can get kids interested as they grow older, but with every year, the neural circuits that handle this stuff atrophy more and more. Sadly, unless a person is willing to work HARD HARD HARD, once you’ve hit the teen years, if you don’t already read pretty well, education is over.</p>
<p>It starts with caregivers. School mostly reinforces what’s going on in the home.</p>
<p>It is so true. Reading is everything. At first you learn to read. Then you read to learn. </p>
<p>Those that do not like reading are at such a disadvantage.</p>
<p>WasatchWriter wrote: I’ve never been able to tell the difference between a student who scores, say, a 22 ACT and one who scores 27. </p>
<p>It sounds like you are stating that everything over a 22 is the same and everything between a 27 and a 36 are so close it’s splitting hairs. Maybe I am putting words into your mouth. Sorry. But why does the ACT scale stop at 27 for your “trend assessment”.</p>
<p>I don’t think our high school gets kids ready for college. Parents, private tutors, and online resources like Kahn Academy do. As Saraco points out in #65, rigorous material is being thrown at kids, but just like entering a garage doesn’t make you a car, being assigned tough coursework doesn’t magically make you capable of handling it. The middle schools and elementary schools keep getting worse, teacher quality is declining, and the high school staff can’t re-teach material. Thus, many kids flounder and fail to acquire a college-ready skill set.</p>
<p>Personally, I have had to spent hours upon hours teaching and re-teaching my children. Obviously, not every parent can or will do this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My interpretation is that in her remedial class, someone with a 22 and someone with a 27 can both get something out of it, and it comes down more to motivation than to what score they got. </p>
<p>I looked up the 10 on English on the ACT. Apparently about 4% of people score less than 10, so it is actually a score people get. I thought it was hardly anyone. Though below a 10 is certainly a score at a point where I would say, if they tried on the ACT, they have no business going to college.</p>
<p>I don’t think it comes down to the high school so much. Every year there were a few from my high school who got a 36, and it was not uncommon for people to get 34+. And there were plenty of kids who would get under a 20. It’s got more to do with the student than the school.</p>
<p>It seems to be more discouraging for a student not ready to do work at college to be admitted, and fail at a four year college, then take remedial work at community college before transfer.</p>
<p>I am not convinced that someone with a composite ACT score in the teens would perform well in college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In my experience, students with ACT scores in the high 20s often write papers that are as good as papers written by students whose scores are at or approaching 36. We’re discussing the range where effort and dedication can make a big a difference.</p>
<p>It’s also the range where scores may reflect good test-taking skills, or better test preparation, than innate intelligence.</p>
<p>If you look at an ACT test, you can pick out which questions predict success in reading comprehension, essay-writing, math, and so on. But I don’t think you will find questions that predict success on any of the following topics:</p>
<p>If the universe did not exist, would the Pythagorean theorem still be true?
If we genetically engineered a group of chimpanzees so that their offspring were capable of speech, would they deserve the same rights as humans?
What is time?</p>
<p>My experience is that you’re going to get pretty shallow discussions of this kind of stuff from anyone scoring in the low 20’s on down. But in a room full of really bright kids, the most thoughtful discussion could easily come from a student who earned a 26-27-28, and a student who scored 36 could easily be sitting there stumped. Or the other way around.</p>
<p>Tests like the ACT just don’t go there.</p>
<p>From the CPS site, as noted above:
Student/teacher ratio
20.0 pupils per teacher in elementary schools
24.6 pupils per teacher in high school
Salaries (annual average)
Teachers: $74,839
Administrators: $120,659</p>
<p>We live in a close-in Chicago suburb known for its excellent public schools. Our student/teacher ratios are almost identical to this. From the numbers published in the local paper, the teachers’ pay number seems comparable, even a bit higher in CPS. The administrators’ average though - excuse me? I’ve done a great deal of work over the years with CPS (non-educational professional services) and that number astounds me, based upon the individuals all up and down the spectrum that I’ve dealt with. The average is $120k? Excuse me? Having spent quality time at CPS HQ and having seen just how many administrators we’re talking about, that’s a huge issue right there. So much for economies of scale. Good already, even a $10k shift, more from the admin to the teachers’ average - and some way for good teachers who don’t want to have to put in 20 years just to be considered mid-range - would make a huge difference in the classrooms.</p>
<p>Plus, Mayor Emanuel made a(nother) huge blunder with his school closings. He could have taken the challenge to the voters and to Chicago’s well-known philanthropic community. Instead of closing 50 “low enrollment, underperforming” schools, he could have gone on TV and said, “OK, so we have 50 schools with low enrollments, where the student/teacher ratios now average 12:1? Guess what? I’m going to keep those schools in place, we’re going to spend the extra money, over the next 10 years, to keep those classrooms small, because the only factor that has tracked directly to student performance is classrooms size. We’re all going to need to pay a bit more - and the higher incomes a greater share - but in 10 years we will see a dramatic increase in the educational level that the average CPS graduate brings to Chicago’s workforce. Employers will see productivity gains and quality gains across the board - a rising tide will float all boats and that’s what we’re gonna do.”</p>
<p>Well, OK, he would have used a lot more curse words, but you get the idea.</p>
<p>The point is, it’s not about it takes a village. It takes a vision, the ability to see the big picture, and leadership, the ability to seize opportunities.</p>
<p>"Quite often there is an inequality in school spending since that’s tied to the local tax base, and richer school systems often do better. "</p>
<p>In California, urban-minority schools are getting at least twice more money than suburban schools. </p>
<p>My D’s school has less than 50% funding in comparison to a typical school in Chicago.</p>
<p>Richer schools are often do WORTH than poorer. </p>
<p>Recently, Los Angeles school district (LASD) distributed iPads to every student. This school administration obviously have money, but no brains.</p>
<p>"“OK, so we have 50 schools with low enrollments, where the student/teacher ratios now average 12:1? Guess what? I’m going to keep those schools in place, we’re going to spend the extra money, over the next 10 years, to keep those classrooms small, because the only factor that has tracked directly to student performance is classrooms size.”</p>
<p>OK, you have schools with 12:1 ratio, huge teachers salaries … and pathetic performance! Why do you want to keep these schools? Why? Do they produce good students? No.</p>
<p>I’ll side with Mayor Emanuel on this issue. Close these schools, they are hopeless.</p>
<p>Californiaa, </p>
<p>The ipad distribution in LAUSD was a fiasco.
Bet all those that voted for school bonds did not realize they were going into tablets that would be out of date technology in 2-3 years.</p>
<p>SamuraiLandshark,</p>
<p>I can’t believe, but other school districts still want to distribute iPads to students. The most poor, underperforming school districts in Central Valley, for example. It’s a madness.</p>
<p>The Chicago Public Schools do know how to educate kids! They have consistently held the spot for the top 3 ranked schools in the state of Illinois over New Trier, Stevenson, and all other suburban schools. So it’s not that CPS isn’t smart enough to do it - but they aren’t motivated to properly educate more than the top few schools.</p>
<p>That is what makes the bottom CPS schools hopeless. Close the schools - you are still left with the same students, teachers, administrators. How does that help?</p>
<p>The really sad thing is that this is far from just a Chicago problem. The scores are consistent predictors of college readiness. A determined individual may defy the odds but but a 110 or a 1000 or 10,000 won’t defy the odds. That’s why they are the odds.</p>
<p>I know lots of kids that flunked out of college and believe college is too hard, they had the wrong major or were pushed over the edge. They scored well below average on standardized exams, I know they weren’t prepared and they never wake up to how poorly their secondary school prepared them and how let down by the system and themselves they are.</p>