LA TIMES series on high school drop outs

Parents Forum
1

<p>The Los Angeles Times is running a very depressing series on high school dropouts. They spent eight months working on the story, set at Birimingham High School, a middlin' high school in Los Angeles Unified that loses almost half its numbers via attrition from the beginning of 9th grade to the end of 12th.</p>

<p>I'll just try to hit some of the highlights, since these articles are lonnnnng.</p>

<p>One of the focuses is on students failing Algebra, even if taken repeatedly. Reading the article, it becomes clear that these kids failed far before Algebra, with many of them lacking basic math skills, such as division or fractions, going all the way back to elementary school. Also highlights the complete lack of attention that many students give in the classroom...it's said that there's a common expectation that "seat time" should earn a passing grade. Also that kids miss as many as 60 classes in a semester of 90.</p>

<p>There's also mention in passing of how the school system manipulates its official drop-out rate.</p>

<p>And then this from yesterday's article:</p>

<p>
[quote]
But teachers are among the first to admit that, for many students, the traditional American high school is borken. They can't handle its academic rigor[!!!? T.D.] and they chafe at its restrictions....</p>

<p>....But eventually, the tracking system went the way of boby sox and bomb shelters. </p>

<p>Today, the operating philosoophy is that every student should be prepared for college, and high schools have little room for courses that don't further that goal. [Of course, creating "vocational" tracks and the ilk just provides a convenient dumping place for low performing students, who will be disproportionately students of color.]</p>

<p>At the same time, especially in large cities, high schools have become huge, with student popul.ations that are often double the number for which the school was planned. It is not uncommon to see 40 students in a class. Counselors have case loads of 600 students. There is little glue holding it all together.</p>

<p>The result is a large segment of students who struggle anonymously until, dispirited, they give up.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Those of us on this board, are the fortunate ones.</p>

<p>Though the article doesn't explicitly state it, it's obvious to <em>me</em> that two parts of the triangle are missing in many students performance: parental involvement and student attitude. I've held this view for several years and various points of the articles merely underscore it.</p>

<p>It's also clear that the system has broken down far earlier, in elementary school, but that the problems have been masked by social promotion until the student hits high school. Feh.</p>

<p>But what a sad and dismal picture it paints.</p>

2

<p>The two missing corners of your triangle are both in that last sentence of TheDad's boxed quote: students who struggle anonymously become disheartened, give up, and display attitude -- the only mechanism to protect a flagging self-esteem. They in turn grow up to be disheartened adults whose children often receive little guidance to work within the educational system because they themselves feel victims of the system.</p>

<p>Yes a sad commentary.</p>

3

<p>TD, this is truly a disheartening article, and one that probably resonates in communities all around the country. I actually think that the problems for many kids start waaaayyyy earlier than high school -- infancy and preschool. All those articles in Parent type of magazines about the importance of 0-3 years for kids ring true to me. I find it frustrating, as I'm sure these teachers must, to know that there's just not enough that teachers can do to change the homelives of many kids. I'm sure it's not just the students who "...struggle anonymously until, dispirited, they give up."</p>

<p>I know this isn't politically correct, but I've long held the view that once you have children, your rights to personal fulfillment and happiness take a back seat. And I apply that sentiment to both moms and dads -- while I don't think that children should be the center of the family universe, their emotional and developmental needs should come first. I strongly believe that almost all kids are capable of succeeding in the average American curriculum, but you can't wait until junior or senior high to notice that they don't know their basic math facts. I understand that some parents are overwhelmed with life issues -- single parenthood, drug and alcohol abuse, unemployment -- all the bad things in life. I wish I know what the solution was, but I don't. I do think that if all the adults around kids tried just a little harder, our future would be better.</p>

4

<p>SJMom, at the risk of provoking me into going off into a rant...not that I <em>ever</em> rant, you understand, I fully agree with you about going back to infancy and pre-school. </p>

<p>We started saying "No" to D and enforcing it when she was just six months old...even though people clucked their tongues and said that children couldn't understand until they were four or five.</p>

<p>We read to her incessantly...and with her vision problem causing her to read "late," we were "reading machines" far longer than I care to remember...and TheMom still hasn't forgiven me for my emendations to some stories as a relief of boredom. </p>

<p>And while I almost fell over laughing at the PC-ness of it, when we were checking out pre-schools, I watched one three-year-old boy take a truck from another three-year-old boy...the victim responded by saying "I don't like your behavior" instead of hauling off and slugging the thief. The pre-school was big on "use your words."</p>

<p>Yes, it's a pain in the butt to make all the school meetings of every sort, go to all the class performances, meet with the teachers, etc. But it's part of the job of parenting and this is where single parents, in particular, have my profound sympathies...as do parents who are working 2-3 jobs just to make ends meet and are too tired to pay attention to homework or letters from school or anything else...but as sympathetic as I am, their kids are getting shafted.</p>

<p>While on the site governance council, I had a chat with one of the student reps, a URM. His position was that homework shouldn't be counted in a grade. I find this preposterous, but he explained that his aunt lived with his family and always had the TV on so that there wasn't any quiet place to study. Her attitude was, "If I pay part of the rent, I get to have the TV on any time I want." That's an appalling reality, imo; this was a bright kid, too, who was doing okay but could have done so much better with a more positive environment.</p>

5

<p>I just finished reading my daughter's personal statement on her application to get a Masters/credential in elementary education. It starts with her description of tutoring in a juvenile detention facility in LA where in one month she raised a 14-year-old girl's math by one whole grade level just by making her flash cards and teaching her some basic tricks about the multiplication tables that my daughter remembered being taught in elementary school. You can't do algebra if you can't multiply. She also described her frustration at not knowing enough to have the same success teaching a 16-year-old to read.</p>

<p>It's not just about teachers. Clearly, it's also about families and neighborhoods. But I agree it starts with pre-school and then elementary school. And that the situation is urgent. What an economic cost we pay as a society if we can't educate more kids.</p>

6

<p>I remember one interesting piece of data from a class on early child development that I took a few years ago -- children have to be read to 1200+ times before they develop reading readiness. Pretend play is essential to this, too. They have to understand that stories have a beginning, middle and end. They can't possible understand phonics until they understand the big picture.</p>

<p>And I'm with you, TD, about the sympathy part. I have a sister who is a single mom, so I'm very familiar with the challenges that that entails. But it doesn't take away her responsibility to do the best she can for her daughter.</p>

7

<p>We can rail about parental responsbility, but I think we also have responsibility to the kids whose parents are not up to the task. Some of these parents were 16 when they had babies, some of them are drug addicts, some of them are not proficient in English, some of them have never interacted with a school since their own negative experiences in the classroom, some of them have never owned a book in their lives...</p>

<p>A study that was published in the last few days found that once you adjust for socioeconomic background and a few other things, 4th graders in public schools actually do better in math than kids in private and charter schools. Indicating, again, that it's not just the teaching, it's the homes the kids come from. I think we all have a stake in compensating for, providing opportunities for, some of these kids who do not have what our kids have. (Namely, us :) )</p>

8

<p>Sac, I agree with you that the problem is more about the homes these kids come from than whether or not they attend public or private school. I just don't know how we fix that problem -- money can help in some ways, but not completely. And hoping that schools will fix things is just too late. The only programs I'm aware of that make any kind of difference are early intervention programs. In an ideal world, all children would be wanted by loving mature parents -- not born to 16 year old kids who don't even know how to take care of themselves. One of my sisters is a labor and delivery nurse -- she tell about 13 years old having babies, and 15-16 year olds having 2nd babies. So sad!</p>

9

<p>I wish that we had more vocational programs for kids. I think that it would inspire and provide hope to disenchanted teens to know that if they complete the "electrical engineering" trade program at their highschool they can get a job earning $14 to start, or (substitute your favorite type of program here.) Real jobs, real possibilities and being taught a useful trade with value to society. Ain't gonna happen any time soon, because it is not cheap to run these type of programs, and it is politically incorrect to mention the possibility that not all kids want/need to go to college.</p>

10

<p>"Though the article doesn't explicitly state it, it's obvious to <em>me</em> that two parts of the triangle are missing in many students performance: parental involvement and student attitude."</p>

<p>I agree with TheDads statement except for the parental involvement; it's not needed. Only Student attitude, personal responsibility and student dedication are neccesary. Also the statistics might look bad, but it's really no big deal. The education system in America is perfect the way it is; it rewards those who want things more.</p>

11

<p>Parental involvement is important, but there are no guarantees. You can do it all right and with great love and enthusiasm, and it can still fall apart. Yeah, it can make a difference, but no guarantees.</p>

<p>Some with little parental involvement and poor upbringings succeed in spite of their circumstances. I know a woman who came from an abusive alcoholic home. Has a PhD from Johns Hopkins...brilliant well integrated woman with fantastic kids. No tellin'. So to point #3.</p>

<p>When it comes right down to it, I think it's all in the attitude. A strong attitude can overcome most adversities...can seek out positive role models, and offset less than perfect educational settings. Kids with great attitudes just sparkle...they're standouts.</p>

12

<p>A lot of the story they are telling especially pertains to the Hispanic population, to the rapid turnover and mobility of this population in general and in that section of L.A. I think this needs a cultural/historical context, not just one of "parental involvement" or of poverty.</p>

<p>The second L.A. times story has a sidebar that lets you enter in the name of any high school in the district and pull up the demographics and graduation rates (two estimates: one by the school district and one by UCLA).</p>

<p>When I look at my own high school (Reseda), which is the neighboring high school to Birmingham High (the one featured in the story), I see that the current enrollment has 68% Hispanic, 10% Asian, 7% Black, and 15% white. When I attended that school, it was 95%+ white; it had only a handful of African Americans and Asian (not one African American on the track team that I competed with, for example). So over the last several decades the population base has changed enormously, and in addition the white population has a much greater tendency to send their kids to private academies or to magnet schools in the district.</p>

<p>When I look at another nearby highschool, where my youngest sibs graduated (Taft), a school that was opened around 1960 on the "south side of Ventura Blvd." in Woodland hills, with a geographic catchment area that was (and still is) very white, upper-middle class from Tarzana and Woodland Hills, what I see in the stats is: 37% Hispanic, 37% white, 17% Black, 9% Asian, 1% other. This implies to me that many in the catchment area are seeking their schooling elsewhere, not at the corner of Winnetka and Ventura Blvd., which would be within a mile or two of where they live.</p>

<p>(I might note that both of these schools are huge, compared to the old days. Reseda has 2,900 and Taft has 3,500 students (when I attended, Reseda had only 1900 or so). I now live in a town with a high school of about 1200 students. It's much more difficult to get lost in this kind of situation, when you consider the competition for sports and other activities, than in much larger schools.)</p>

<p>What we don't learn in this story (so far) is the success stories and whether these may be related to the stability of population, to whether the children are themselves immigrants, children of immigrants, or grandchildren of immigrants. And we haven't yet seen what's happening to the white population in the area. I look forward to the rest of the series.</p>

13

<p>I also found the articles very sad. I cringed when I read about the new math. I remember bringing my math books home because I was convinced I could teach myself myself the "new" math in 3rd grade. I lucked out when our 4th grade teacher put the "new" aside and made us memorize our multiplication and division. It was a basically white school in a middle class neighborhood. My sister and I were the only students of color that I recall.</p>

14

<p>As I've probably mentioned elsewhere, my kids attended Catholic schools since preschool. This was primarily for religious reasons. Also, since I knew we'd be relocating, I wanted to present as seemless a transition as possible, and I knew that most Catholic schools follow a traditional curriculum that would accomodate incoming students from other Catholic schools. I bring this up in response to lamom's post -- Catholic schools are particularly supportive of low-income minority students, and provide a level of expectations and traditional verbal and math skills that are helpful in remediating what might not be available in the home. There is a book that I read years ago which discusses this:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674103114/104-4314516-6913525?v=glance&n=283155%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674103114/104-4314516-6913525?v=glance&n=283155&lt;/a>

[quote]
The authors examine a broad range of Catholic high schools to determine whether or not students are better educated in these schools than they are in public schools. They find that the Catholic schools do have an independent effect on achievement, especially in reducing disparities between disadvantaged and privileged students. The Catholic school of today, they show, is informed by a vision, similar to that of John Dewey, of the school as a community committed to democratic education and the common good of all students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not every student, of course, can or should attend a non-public school -- but I wish that the public schools in disadvantaged areas would look at what's working in Charter or Catholic schools and apply whatever is appropriate to their setting. In particular, I think that most children, especially those from low-income or disadvantaged backgrounds, need really strong foundations in reading comprehension, grammar and arithmetic. They may not get these skills at home so it's incumbent on the schools to address these basic skills.</p>

15

<p>I'm confused, what did I post that has to do with low-income minority students?</p>

<p>The new math I tried to teach myself was in CA in the early 60's. Actually if my mom hadn't been taught that the catholic nuns (her teachers) were always right, she probably would have sat down with me to figure out the stuff. But, I didn't mention that in my post. My parents are very bright but did not come from a time or family where higher education was expected of them. My mom taught at at private school (no credential) and still has students thanking her for their success. My dad decided to go to college to make himself more marketable when I was attending another community college. I was amazed that he was able to tackle calculus he took just because. He had to stop because family/job took priority.</p>

<p>ok-calmed down now, all is well with the world :)</p>

16

<p>This part of your post triggered a thought that led me to share an interesting book I read about Catholic education -- " I lucked out when our 4th grade teacher put the "new" aside and made us memorize our multiplication and division." It was not directed to you specifically, and I'm sorry if it seemed to.</p>

17

<p><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-me-dropout3feb03,0,6111121.story%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-me-dropout3feb03,0,6111121.story&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"Eleven boys thought they'd leave high school as they entered it -- together -- on graduation day. It wasn't that simple. . . . </p>

<p>They expected to graduate together.</p>

<p>By late spring of 2005, only four of the 11 were left."</p>

18

<p>Now that is just sad... this is one of those times when i'm reminded how lucky I am that i'm actually STILL in high school...</p>

19

<p>Some kids may do okay without parental involvement but it's a thermodynamic process: you greatly increase the odds of success with it. </p>

<p>Optimal results are based on a tripod of student, parent, teacher. Unaddressed deficits with anyone of the three greatly reduce the probability of success.</p>

<p>And having been so detached and clinical, today's article, the one with the link provided by mackinaw, literally made me want to cry.</p>

20

<p>If the article weren't so sad, it would almost seem like a comedy of errors. The kids don't seem to have any consequences for skipping class, the expectations of teachers seem so low, the few counselors who seem to connect with certain kids move on to other opportunities. All through the article, I felt like just one person could have made a difference for these kids -- a parent, a priest/rabbi/minister, a Guidance Counselor or a neighbor. And while I tend to think that just throwing money at a problem doesn't necessarily solve it, if there were some financial incentive on the part of teachers/counselors/administrators, then maybe these kids could at least get a HS diploma and move on to vocational training or higher education. In the end, the cost to society of a large cohort of HS dropouts will be much greater. If these kids end up in the penal system, father children they can't support or end up on welfare it's going to cost a whole lot more. What a waste.</p>